Knowledge talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 34

1878:

aspect of this on my talk page. I am unable top establish the allegations, in part because the threads involved are convoluted and end up pointing to endless other threads. I cannot be neutral on issues of pornography, which is why I avoid such articles - I am fundamentally opposed to any form of sexual exploitation, whether that be sex work, sex trafficking, strip clubs, lap dancing, and pornography (whether straight or gay). My NPOV views on gay porn are subsidiary to views developed on straight porn. So, when I find threads leading me into that area, I have to call it a day, as it is simply not something I can contribute to. So, I have declared my position. Now, when allegations that some editor has done something bad, and that includes some initimation that they have harrassed an individual off-list, my response is - fine, if there is off-site harrassment, outside wiki-world, the general proecedure is to report this to the police. If harrassment has taken place here, that can be dealt with here. If is outside of this place, it needs dealing with outside. Whatever I might think of a particular editor, I don't see that making assertions about what has gone on off-site, unless there is some way of verifying this, will benefit anybody - that needs to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. I appreciate that states in the USA may have a different approach to this than where I live - here cyberstalking and harrassment, especially where they intersect with the 'real world' are taken very seriously. If that is not the case where you live, that is unfortunate - but I don't see how without some form of proof (even a filed incident report), you can expect us to assess the veracity of that.

183:, rather than alienating more people, and read what I wrote for what it says. This is why I located this in a subsection, so that my comments would not be associated with any about you. I clearly stated that the details need to be on record, but not in a way that can be associated with any particular person. That was a piece of advice to Banjiboi. I see nothing problematic about this. If an editor within this project feels that they have been harrassed to the extent they decide to quit the encyclopedia, then people need to be aware of this. Given he has quit, I am not sure there is any further action on the encyclopedia to be taken - I have encouraged him through Banjiboi to take this up with the proper authorities, as it would appear to be beyond the jurisdiction of this ensyclopedia. I am unclear why you feel you have to start accusing me of anything untoward when I seek to ensure that nobody is specifically mentioned in this context. I would prefer it of you keep your comments directed at sections that concern you - rather than those that do not - otherwise it might give an impression that comments made here are in some way connected with you. 977:

I say that if you think you can tell me what I can and cannot do, you need to think about that quite carefully. I do not appreciate people telling me what I can or cannot do, well, not if they are men anyway. Denying there is a problem and removing any attempt at discussing this is not co-operative editing - that runs completely contrary to the principles of the encyclopedia. I have to see that as disruptive, rather than constructive, because it makes the controversy harder to follow, rather than allowing independent editors the opportunity to understand what has been happening. This is the context I wanted Benjiboi to explain - so that I could see what exactly all the fuss is about. Now I can see it, it is clearly a disturbing development (reagardless of whether you were involved or not), and I am concerned that you should seek to suppress information like this. Personally, I think you need to back off, and let people discuss this situation, rather than persistently trying to close down any discussion about what has been happening here.

2226:

balance I am talking about: 'gay' vs 'straight', it is the balance, integrity and coherence of this project, which is LGBT studies, I am talking about. Given that whole stream of awareness that developed within lesbian feminism: concerns about the way people, groups, communities, societies become sexualised, people become objectified, fetishised, sexually exploited, sexually abused, sexually addicted, I would expect to see content about that. I would also expect to content that relates to the enjoyment of our sexuality, of the diverse range of sexual reseponses that can be achieved within the LGBT community, the diverse array of potentialities that can give rise to many sexual possibilities. I don't 'get' where 39 articles on gay porn films fits? To me, that seems a lot. I'd expect something on the phenomenon, but I don't understand why we need so many articles about gay films; there being 350 articles on straight porn films, disturbing enough a statistic as it is, is not the answer to this question. So, please answer the question.

2534:

children with the contribution of greek and italian authorities. The sources of those facts are families photos, historical events and my personnal knowledge of the baroness as she was my grandmother. She died on 1973-74 in Athens. There is a photo intitled Baron and baroness de Meyer dated sinc 2/11/55 and an other photo of the Countess Valentina with Olga de Meyer, her daughters Eugenia and Irina,(my godmother and aunt, sister of my father Anthony), my mother and all my other aunts in law as part of Olga's personnal. The photo is found in the flat of Alvise di Robilant murdered in 1997 in Florence and now this photo belongs to Società Dante Alighieri. Olga has three grandchildren:

1827:

enough to know the difference. Much of the drama in this one subject area stems to Delicious carbuncle who has had repeated uncivil interactions with a stunningly high percentage of LGBT, or LGBT-identified editors (those that I'm aware include myself, Ash, AllStarEcho and David Shankbone) there certainly may be more but as their poor interactions at least half that I'm aware are with LGBT content editors. Meanwhile they have asked for LGBT admins to correct and resolve these disputes again an alarming bad judgement as we really don't segregate which editors work on which subject areas or issues and none of this required LGBT expertise that wasn't already presented.

861:

seems that they are not objective enough to know the difference. Much of the drama in this one subject area stems from repeated uncivil interactions experienced by a several LGBT, or LGBT-identified, editors from one editor. There may be editors from other areas, but at least half of these styles of interaction appear to be with LGBT content editors, which suggests a pattern. LGBT admins have been asked to resolve these disputes, which was probably a bad judgement call as we don't usually demarcate which editors work on which subject areas or issues, and no LGBT expertise was required beyond the information presented.

134:@Banjiboi. I see that your latest edited commentary has once more been removed. Could you do me a favour here. Could you edit and replace what you said in a way that it does not mention one specific individual, linking him to actions that we cannot possibly know he was involved with. I feel it is important that we know what has transpired, why one person has decided to leave, and the details of others affected this way, so we can understand and monitor this situation into the future. Please do that here. Only state what can be demonstrated about an individual in the section discussing that individual. 865:

disputes, it happened just as an MfD discussion on an evidence page started to be worked on in preparation for an RFC/U to get more eyes and possible consensus on the best way to address what was seen by those who experienced it as uncivil and tendentious behaviour. This happened in the context of discussions on Knowledge Review about the conflict in process here, and despite conflicts leading to warnings given about outing people here. To be clear this was offsite outing of someone for their on-Knowledge work. The relevant things to note are the timing, and previous attempts to out two other editors.

2095:

a swathe of articles that gives an impression that a lot of gay people are in some way obsessed about gay porn, that seems to be presenting gay people as in some way unusual, doesn't it? It is off-topic for the project, in other than the most general terms, and I am unclear that it is particularly notable/significant enough to anybody (apart from a minority of LGBT people) to warrant a series of articles on the subject. In some ways, I find it as offensive as the effort some people put in to introduce paedophilia into a number of articles about homosexuality (and vice-versa).

114:

post online, in case somebody wants to fill in the dots. I apologise to Ash if I appeared a bit heartless - I was not aware of this. Tell him that I think he should discuss this with the police, becuse from meetings with LGBT liaison officers I have been involved in, the Met are quite keen to address these types of issues, and they may be better able to ascertain the true identities of those behind this so that they can be given a formal warning - and may take this more seriously than might be assumed.

909:, I certainly do not intend to put anyone's safety at risk nor do I think I have done so, but since the allegations are vague and non-specific, it is impossible for me to answer them. If you want to have a serious discussion of the issue, I suggest you remove this entire thread and start again with a more general statement. This project should be wary of becoming too closely associated with a small group of editors who are heavily involved in disputes that have little or nothing to do with LGBT issues. 363:

some hints on ways to present this information but I think delinking across the board would be a mistake just as you see the formulaic linking as also problematic. As this content area is often vandalized we have to take that this remains a sensitive area for many people who may simply be poorly expressing their sexuality angst onto Knowledge. This is not group therapy but we do need to be reality-based that in the US this remains a major cultural battle and is heightened during election periods.

1830:

way to address perceived uncivil and tendentious behaviours of Delicious carbuncle. There may be no connection but logically as Delicious carbuncle has had problems and been warned against outing people these would seem to follow that these were related in some manner if for nothing else the timing. It's a complicated case but this latest round of harassment leads to more likely including the connections between Delicious carbuncle and Knowledge Review rather than excluding those connections.

876:

feel when experiencing this style of editing. The most obvious comment I have to make is that unless we have clear evidence of wrongdoing on the part of an editor, we should not be accusing them of things we are unable to verify - only things we can verify. That applies on-site as well as off-site. That approach appears to be counter-productive, and can itself become used against the editor who feels that they are being victimised - and in the process victimising them further.

275:

outing other editors on Knowledge Review (David Shankbone is a prime example), so I doubt that your interest is to altruistically ensure this does not happen to other editors in the future. As you are in the middle of drafting an RFC/U against me, I suggest you concentrate on that and achieve your objective of getting me banned or blocked rather than reposting selective quotes out of context from my talk page and stirring up a matter that you have stated does not concern you.

2364:? Given that Gay porn films (presumably) include sex acts between men, lacking an articles that deals with sex between men seems to be an omission. If somebody reads an article on Gay Porn Films, and wants to find out more about what tends to be involved in these films, how are they supposed to find out what forms that sex takes? I appreciate that most of us have experienced most forms of gay sex, but it would be naive to think our readers will know what is involved. 31: 227:"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Knowledge. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." 3067:"I really do think we need someone to take an active role in this project" Take one! You don't need a title to help out here, and you never have. Only three of us have ever had titles, as opposed to the dozens of editors who have kept this project going and expanded our coverage to over 12,000 articles. WP:LGBT wouldn't exist without numerous editors taking active roles. If you want to review all our articles, go for it! 1926:

but it would be difficult for me to have one set of views on heterosexual sexual exploitation and pornography, and deviate from those in a gay context - that would be hypocritical. That is why I don't think the homophobia card will necessarily wash in those situations, because I do not think any uncritical articles about pornography belong in this project, they belong in the pornography project.

880:

those who feel vulnerable being overly concerned about interference. Clearly this does not feel like a safe place to some of those editors, and the silencing they seem to be experiencing is not helpful. How do we raise concerns like this safely, in a way that is not perceived as a personal attack, and allow us to approach some sort of resolution, rather than perpetuate conflict?

2210:

streets with minimal clothing on, having sex in public, and so on, but this tends to be taken for granted in a heterosexual culture. We know that the majority of LGBT folks live quite ordinary lives, in committed and stable relationships, but it is rarely that reality that gets publicised. Instead, what we often get, is some manifestation of a minority aspect of gay culture.

2481:

misunderstandings there can be about gay sex, it might be good to do this for people. I am not claiming any aithority for my first draft, so if people want to suggest changes, especially in furnishing any sources, they have, I'd appreciate it. Although I have some knowledge of this, most of my resources are connected with intersex, transgender and lesbianism.

1941:

homophobia of some sort is really not the concern for us to judge. If editor x comes in civility conflicts in a pattern with eight other editors and half are LGBT-focused editors I feel it's worth noting even if it's not used in the RFCU. When we do research for any subject you gather evidence and see where it leads. This was simply part of that process.

260:

is in anyone's interest to focus on this particular case instead of objectively discussing the general issue. Your privacy concerns and Knowledge's rules about posting personal information make it virtually impossible to have an open and honest discussion, and speculation will only lead to more mistaken assumptions being made.

1896:

who 'crosses' us of being homophobic (for example), then when we do find we have to deal with the real thing, people might be so tired of this, they will ignore it. I am quick to defend people's rights in most situations, but when it comes to obsessive detail on wanking material, I really do have much better things to do.

1620:, do we? I'd expect LGBT studies articles on gay saunas and bath houses to be more analytical, looking at the role they play in the LGBT community, the dynamics, rather than their etiquette in handing out towels and condoms, and various scandals associated with them. How do you see this as relating to LGBT studies? 734:

there used to be a feeling that linking it would attract more readers to it, or generate more interest in this WikiProject. If that is the case, I think it needs to be questioned. The text of each article, and the unavoidable meaning attached to linking such terms, is more important. Same for "African American".

2896:

maintenance); our internal audit will also include importance assessments. We need to take some time to clean up our own house, and then we should be able to operate more efficiently and effectively. One of the biggest benefits this project has is the LGBT Watchlist, and I would like to see that publicized more.

1376:, and I reduced the articles in the scope of the project by something like 20%. Many of them just didn't meet our standards, and they were eliminated. I am not, and never have been, a member of that project. It is just an area that I felt had a significant number of inadequate articles, where I could help out. 3114:

Yes, you do have a point. However, if we can find the important articles that need serious work, i'm sure someone will be interested in fixing many of them. It may be that something falls within my interests that I don't know exists/needs work. If I can see a list of the high-priority articles, maybe

2887:

around every corner are really tarnishing our reputation around the wiki, which hinders our ability to maintain articles that are within our scope. There are several brilliant editors to LGBT topics who won't even come near this project, because they feel that the atmosphere here is toxic. I'm also a

2480:

As I wrote this, I realised we take all this stuff as read, but it could be useful for a reader to know what we are actually taling about when we refer to some of these things. I have yet to go round finding sources, and it reads quite explicitly (got me going in one or two places...), but given the

2209:

Thanks, I wanted feedback. The Gay sub-culture has tended to be presented in a more sexualised way than the heterosexual community generally, even though there is widespread sexualisation in our society, including heterosexual culture. Straight clubbing is punctuated by people staggering around the

2178:

Enh, one thing about Knowledge is no one is compelled to work on articles that don't interest them. If, for instance, gay porn articles don't interest you (as they don't too much me), go work on some other articles. If they do, go then by all means work on them. Sure, different topics areas will grow

2048:

Sure. Certain allegations (which I won't repeat) about DC were inappropriate, particularly the ones in your second paragraph. The penultimate and final sentences of your comment were the bad ones, and comments like that are not tolerated on Knowledge. The first paragraph seems to be a defense of your

1910:

For whatever it's worth, Mish, I didn't find your now-struck comment offensive and I didn't assume that you were in any way directing it to me. I do not know what incident so wounded Ash nor where it occurred, since they would not go into any specifics, but I take very seriously any allegation that I

1877:

On the revert/edit war currently going on on this page. Firstly, much of the response was to something I have already struck out, but retained 'for the record', as there was a delay of several hours between when I made the comment and when I decided to retract it. It would be better to discuss that

1691:

I am responding to what is written here rather than there - if I wanted to respond there I would, but it is long, complex and torturous, and forks off into different areas, and TBH, life is much too short. Please try to keep these things short and succinct, otherwise it puts uninvolved editors off.

976:

If you actually read my edit, you will see that it is substantially different from the contribution I drew on to form it, mostly rewritten in order to make it more concise, remove accusations as well as references to specific individuals. I do hear what you are saying, but I need you to hear me when

752:

On reflection, I am swayed by your argument. If there is some reason to identify the article as LGBT-relevant, then that can be done using the appropriate navbox and/or possibly a category. In which case, the tools necessary are in place to enable people to follow anything further, and will only be

113:

Hi Banjiboi. I think I found the WP Review post - very unpleasant - definitely looks like somebody seeking to silence somebody for some reason. Not sure there is any way of connecting that to this, though, whatever one's suspicions might be. Just goes to confirm that you have to be careful what you

2301:

The bottom line is, any article that can be reasonably well-sourced should be included. If we can have an article on something that meets Knowledge's inclusion criteria, then we should do so. Concerns about balancing the Wikiproject are completely irrelevant, ,and not tagging some of them as ours is

2159:

self-censorship or sexual repression: it is balance and cultural maturity. The (male) gay world in some places is highly sexualised; that does not mean that this whole topic area needs to sexualise itself. The street parades, the promotional material that exhibit a fixation with naked bodies and sex

2094:

I have been contemplating Tony's comments about wikilinking commonly understood terms like gay and lesbian, and signifying gay or lesbian as exotic, bizarre, etc. This is my concern about a proliferation of articles about issues that are really peripheral to this project. My concern about creating

1895:

I agree with Cameron, there are far more important articles in this area that really could do with a lot of work - and yet when people try to get them improved, even then they can find themselves tarred with a certain brush. Remember the story of the boy who cried 'wolf'. If we accuse every editor

1744:

is actively fishing though my 3½ year long edit history, as well as watching my contributions on talk pages, I have no wish to comment with regard to his/her motivations here. It is a matter of record that I have contributed on a wide range of topics, only LGBT related articles have been highlighted

1649:

But, on the other hand, I'm not sure why anybody would get so pedantic and hot under the collar about the article. Are you saying this guy is stalking you through the encyclopedia, or is it just that he has an interest in articles you just happen to edit? If you suspect the former, then you have a

875:

This is being deposited here so that other LGBT-interested editors can refer to this in case they experience similar issues. The next step may be that we need to establish what our strategy might be for managing situations like this in the future, given the obvious vulnerability some people seem to

798:

might be a problem for many who don't have reasonably recent experience with an English-speaking culture. I am sure I never learned that term at school because at the time it didn't exist or was too recent, and I am sure a lot of readers from outside the Anglosphere would assume that the term refers

733:

In an article on "Sexuality" or an aspect of sociology, "Homosexual" should probably be linked; or at least a section or daughter article might be linked ... it depends on the context. I have observed the word linked at least once in many articles in which it occurs, as some kind of formula. Perhaps

274:

I see no benefit in sharing speculative information apart from satisfying your curiosity. It has always been my assumption that you were not involved in an off-wiki attack based on your word which I have been prepared to accept in good faith. Unfortunately it is a fact that you have been involved in

259:

posting of information, not emails sent between editors. Perhaps you could send me the link yourself? Personally, I do not believe that you have any connection to gay pornography marketing, nor have I ever intended to imply that you do. As I have stated elsewhere on this talk page, I do not think it

3150:

Well, quite. If someone wants to create the system, I won't get het up about it, but unless there's a concerted effort to use it, we'll just look a bit pants really. And if people get upset about their favourite articles being touched by another editor now, just wait til someone ranks it "of little

3005:

On a slightly different note, I would like to state my opposition to the creation of an Importance category in our sorting - most WikiProjects may have them, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they are silly, subjective, and unless something remarkable has happened on Knowledge in the last

2453:

I said about not liking something - the guidelines are pretty clear, having an interest is fine, disliking something makes it harder to achieve NPOV (as would liking something I presume); it would be nice if some of the editors we often have to contend with would bear that in mind. I would find it

2423:

Oh, and regarding your question above with the comparisons to, e.g., fascism, being interested in a topic is not the same thing as liking a topic. One can find the history of fascism an intriguing and important topic while either loving it or hating it as an ideology. Similarly, one could find, for

2225:

My concern is not whether there is a balance between gay porn and straight porn - but whether a project like this needs 39 articles on gay films (assuming they are all part of this project); if the pornography project needs them, that's a different issue, but do we need them? That ratio is not the

1925:

I will also be keeping an eye on one particular editor, who I have had a good working relationship with in the past, because if I found a similar pattern of events being replicated with him, then I would start to feel a bit concerned about that. I hope my views about pornography aren't offensive -

1829:

Ash was targeted offsite on Knowledge Review , also a stunningly poor behaviour for anyone, to out someone's real world identity and generally smear their character. This was during an MfD discussion on on evidence page being worked on for an RFCU to get more eyes and possible concensus on the best

1676:

of what I strongly believe to be the fraudulent use of sources. These articles were chosen not because they have anything to do with LGBT issues, but because they were almost solely created and edited by Ash, so they are responsible all of the text and citations. Perhaps it would be wise to look at

1165:

as alternatives such as discussing improvement, flagging for rescue or further references have not been attempted. My question for this forum is that is his/her behavior sufficient grounds for RFC/U, should we continue to ignore this behavior or are there other potentially more constructive ways of

864:

One editor was recently targeted offsite on Knowledge Review, and in the process outed by having details of his real world identity posted, alongside sarcastic smears about his character. Although there is no evidence to suggest that this was connected with an editor involved in the ongoing set of

729:

Well, links are supposed to be made where they significantly add to a reader's understanding of a topic, and this is a hard call, usually, in a BLP article. English-speakers are supposed to know what "homosexual" and "gay" and "lesbian" mean. Just as they're supposed to know what "adult" and "city"

658:

I cannot comprehend how hyperlinking "gay", "homosexual", "lesbian" etc. implies any negativity of any kind. You're acting like it's some kind of horrible black mark branded to your forehead to be identified as gay, homosexual or lesbian, which is a viewpoint that I frankly find a little offensive.

576:

Removing the word and subject of it being "offensive", do you see any truth to Tony's point? Personally, I would like to have more people linked to an LGBT category, but only when appropriate. For example The Westboro Baptists. I think they should be categorized in an Anti LGBT rights category, (if

469:

Tony has an excellent point. I think that if the person in question is self identified as LGBTQ and has made statements regarding or have been affected, persecuted, etc.for being LGTBQ, they should be identified as such. If someone who for example, is known for being a chef, is LGTBQ and has never

229:

Please do not use this talk page to circumvent the OUTING requirements by asking for such speculative information to be emailed between Knowledge contributors. Note that I have previously attempted to correct use of the word "safety" for "security". If I ever used the word "safety" my intent was to

197:

Mish, I made no accusations nor should any be inferred in what I wrote. I'm sorry if you read it that way. I was simply trying to make it clear that I'm not going to stand for statements similar to those that have previously been posted here by Benjiboi. Frankly, I do not even know what it was that

3094:

I see your point about the Importance rating being a good indicator of what urgently needs attention, but like the Lady of Shallot said earlier, "one thing about Knowledge is no one is compelled to work on articles that don't interest them": there are exceptions, but I tend to find people focus on

3055:

Thank you for commenting here, Dev920. I have a deep respect for the work you have done for the project and for Knowledge. without you, we would have gone inactive years ago. Regarding the voting, I don't think anybody will really object to an election so I wanted to get it done quickly (to get to

2925:

article. That was mostly down to some very clear partisan-perspective-pushing about the correct way of viewing LGBT issues. If that can be eliminated, then I would be all in favour of that. Anything that ensures this continues as an LGBT studies project, rather than a gay-gene project, would be

2895:

On the content side, we need to conduct a review of every article in this project, to see what is a valid article and what isn't. I do plan to add an "importance" field to our project tag, to bring us in line with nearly every other project and Knowledge 1.0 assessments (as well as helping us with

2213:

OK, if we don't like pornography (for example) we can avoid it. Is that good enough? If I don't like something, I should ignore it and leave it to those who do. How do we ensure that a balanced representation of that subject is made if only those who like it, or have some investment in it, edit

1559:

and used it to continued a similar campaign for LGBT articles that I have created or added citations to. Rather than discussing improvement to these articles on article talk pages, Delicious carbuncle has chosen to use the ANI forum in an attempt to get some sort of ban against me based on his/her

1341:

I feel your pain, Ash :) As you mentioned above, there *are* avenues to take if you feel this user is being disruptive. RFC/U isn't specifically an Admin intervention issue, it's a community issue. Whether or not you choose to go through the sometimes overwhelming community process to use those

400:

in all biographies that I work on. I believe it highlights the fact that there are more gay people than the mainstream might lead you to believe. Why hide it? I suspect this is part of that post-gay discussion that happens a lot - "why highlight a small part of who a person is" versus "we still

362:

does need to be linked and it's better to do so in context. Does that always happen, hardly. Frankly this project has to spend much of its time just keeping LGBT content from being deleted and otherwise rolling back wildly POV content of all manner. At some point we could add onto our general page

2912:

That sounds pretty good, I agree that we should not simply assume that because somebody wants to approach these articles in certain ways that they are homophobes (even if they do seem to want to push an association of homosexuality with paedophilia, or whatever their angle happens to be). On the

2074:

May be a slight problem going on here, could be POV pushing from a Christian perspective. Certainly appears to lack any sense of respect for how people self-identify, insisting they are men, insisting on words like 'pseudohermaphrodite', insisting on referring to people who are usually identified

1181:

Make sure that there is no reason they can be deleted. It is frustrating when whole articles not connected with this project are unchallenged despite having hardly any sources. But, that is the nature of the beast. By ensuring articles are properly sourced and accurate, they will become better

860:

The issue is not that we are losing a few articles, it's more akin to all content in one area, which is being targeted regardless of notability. No one disputes that non-notable stuff should likely be removed but it appears there are those who have an agenda to remove everything they can, and it

853:

I am starting this thread here, because this clearly appears to be a concern for some people, and I do not want it to be associated with one specific individual. I am presenting this as a case study, opening up the question of how best we can deal with this sort of behaviour. I have developed a

627:

helped an English-speaking reader in some way (unlikely). But you miss my point: there is no history of marginalising or oppressing professors, or hiding their existence in the subconscious. "Gay", "homosexual", "lesbian" etc have come from that state to a context where it is counterproductive to

879:

I understand why it might be that discussion like this leads to a desire for closure, but it is important we get this right - for the whole project. A safe zone would be a start, and I am sure it is not only this project that could benefit from that, where such concerns can be discussed without

3080:

is being used at a battleground at the moment, but this isn't really anything to do with LGBT, it's about inter-personal conflict between several editors that will either die down or be added to the ever-growing roll of ongoing wikidrama deathmatches. The notability of gay porn actors and their

3059:

As far as the Importance rating, one of the best arguments for it that I know of is the categorization scheme that goes with it. We can sort pages by, say, High-importance and Stub-quality, so we know what urgently needs attention. As a side-effect, it is, as far as I know, the only way for the

1826:

The issue is not that we are losing a few, it's more akin to all content in this one area being targeted regardless of notability. No one disputes that non-notable stuff should likely be removed but folks who seemingly have an agenda to simply remove everything they can are likely not objective

886:

One of the best approaches I have found is to try and listen to what the other person is saying. This worked particularly well in my interaction with one editor I thought was acting in a bullying way. It turned out he was not, he actually had a point, but his style of communication (which was

326:

by linking as a matter of unvarying formula in biographies. It says to me: "homosexuality is exotic, marginalised, relatively unknown to mainstream thought, and therefore we've linked it so you can discover for youself what these terms mean". That is the inescapable spin-off from the formula of

2533:

lived in Greece, Athens, since 1937 as refugee because she had jewish origins. She had had six children born since 1904-5, so I dont believe she was bisexual. Their father was Lord John Lambton 5th Earl of the Durham. Maybe they were married in secret. She changed her name and the name of her

1940:

I think you'll find my concern with deleting content in this area matches like concerns on all articles. Likewise I find personal attacks and incivility particularly unwelcome and unhelpful especially when editors are attacked simply because of the content area they work in. If it actually is

673:

Because it marks it as in some way abnormal; on the contrary, let's grow up and accept words related to homosexuality as normal; i.e., not in need of a link to be defined or described. For the same reason, I find the linking of "African American" offensive. It assumes, first, that readers are

1749:

LGBT articles. You may feel that DC is policing these articles to the benefit of the project, or not. My perception is that this is a campaign against my contributions to gay-sexuality related articles based on doubtful and thin evidence considering my good history of contributions. Possible

991:

While I think it is irresponsible and misguided to encourage people to speculate here on a situation that is at best unclear, I'm not trying to stop you from doing that, if that's what you want to do. Just please leave me out of it. Find a neutral wording that describes the real issue, not a

904:

Mish, why have you reposted Benjiboi's comments which I have removed from this talk page several times because I take them as a rather nasty personal attack? Do you think that replacing my user name with "one editor" makes it much better? Once again, for the record, I take very seriously the

730:

and "author" mean. Modern linking practice is tighter about such linking than it used to be, in view of an increased awareness of the pluses and minuses of adding a link. One of the minuses is the dilutionary effect each increase in link density has on the high-value links in the vicinity.

854:

synopsis based on the inappropriate comments made previously, but in a way that they do not identify any of the individuals involved. I would prefer nobody identifies themselves as if they are being referred to specifically, although obviously I cannot prevent that. To summarise then:

2920:

I have never had issues with any editors within this project, apart from BornGay (now gone having been revealed to be sock or something) and Destinero, and some recent disagreements over including lesbian perspectives in the Hite report on how some people arrive at homosexuality in the

2995:. I continue to reply to all who post on my talkpage asking for advice and support (and they do continue to come). When we created the position, it was very much a caretaking role that consisted of updating pages, and what we discovered was that plenty of folks can do that themselves. 1038:

Carbuncle, I think the best thing for you to do now is to ignore this page entirely for a bit. Keep doing whatever it is that you do around the wiki, because from what i've seen you're a good editor. As long as you keep commenting here, drama queens will continue to drag out the

2049:

actions (which belongs at the RFCU), but I removed that as well because it looks like opinionated canvassing (though I acknowledge that it may not have been your intent to canvass). If you have any more questions, please bring them up on my talk page rather than continue here.

1439:

on a "deletion campaign against gay pornography articles" or gay content in general. I have taken pains to explain as clearly as I can to Ash and his assertion that this is "admitted" by me can best be characterised as deceptive. Anyone who cares to do so should read the AN

714:

I see your point, and agree with the sentiment. I need to think about this a bit deeper, as I am not sure there is an easy solution. How do we 'flag' relevance, without making why we are flagging it because it is in some way unusual, not normal? I can identify with that.

289:

Ash, I deliberately linked the phrase "hate crime" so anyone who cares to do so can read your full statement in context. I am not trying to upset you further, I would just like to understand what got you so upset in the first place. Please don't start on another round of

1487:

Just keep doing what you're doing, Carbuncle. Many of the articles in question were not up to scratch, and deletion was appropriate. I would ask that you try be a bit more selective with the borderline BLPs, but removing the worst of them is benefiting the LGBT project.

2132:

would mark us as different. Personally, I rarely touch the porno articles - but I feel like they're a fairly big part of "gay" culture (whether I agree with that culture or not), and I feel like trying to downplay it doesn't serve us (or the encyclopedia) at all. --

2241:

Sorry, Tony - I didn't mean to attack you with my statements above. But (not questioning your particular motivations), if the project were to somehow decide that there were too many gay porn articles, that *would* seem (at least to me) to be sexual repression and

152:

refers to me? If so, be aware that I'm going to continue to remove any comments made here that I feel even implies that I put anyone's safety at in jeopardy. I've already given Benjiboi a final warning on this, their next such comment garners them a block request.

230:

express a potential security concern involving personal and professional information. There is no COI issue that needs to be addressed by such speculative information despite a non-redacted accusation posted on ANI that I have a job in marketing gay pornography.

608:

that warranted the term's inclusion in the text. In which case, it would be the insertion of the word that would have to be challenged, not the sort of Wiki-linking which we try to do with many words of this type when they are first introduced into an article.

1501:

Thanks, The Wordsmith. I will try to be a bit more selective since the borderline BLPs seem to cause more drama than they are worth (even though they are usually the ones that end up being most easily improved to the point of meeting the guidelines).

3099:

they're connected to LGBT in some way. That's why I generally view things like Importance ratings as ultimately not that useful, because people will work on what they will work on and there's nowt much we can do to encourage them to focus elsewhere.

2917:, and feeling that they can ignore challenges to their insertions by project members, on the basis that such challenges are POV, while their insertions are NPOV - and as such gives them the right to be uncivil, while demanding civility themselves... 1745:

by Delicious carbuncle on ANI. Note I clearly used the phrasing "campaign for LGBT articles that I have created or added citations to", I highlighted this of interest to the LGBT Project, this is quite distinct from an allegation of a campaign

2160:

do no service to the cause of better positioning homosexuality in the broader human psyche; and by drumming out a highly commodified version of the self, they discriminate against the older and the less sexually "marketable" in the community.

2540:

Dionyssios Lambrinidis born in Athens on 1952 (6 September), son of Anthony Lambrinidis and Ekaterini Lambrinidis (Catherine Lambre living in France, in Hérouville-Saint Clair) born in Athens on 1957 (9 juin) daughter of Anthony Lambrinidis.

2990:

I am indeed, as Wordsmith says, something of an absentee Co-ordinator. Despite this, however, the WikiProject has continued to grow and expand well beyond that of us few who started it three years ago, through our ups, our downs, and sadly,

1371:

The fact of the matter is that many gay porn bios are not up to our standards, especially the BLP ones. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with what he's doing. A few months ago, I went through low-importance and stub-class articles in

1560:

fishing through edits of mine dating from 3 or 4 months ago. You may feel I deserve a ban, or not, I am adding a link here as the discussion itself is of LGBT project interest rather than to garner support for or against these accusations.

1343: 3056:

work as soon as possible), but of course i'll suspend the dates until we decide we need one. I really do think we need someone to take an active role in this project, though, since we're currently going through something of a rough time.

2694:

Exactly my point, Dev920 has a very low level of activity and thus is something of an absentee coordinator. This project is one that can't just be left alone, as can be seen by the huge mess we have on our hands that I want to clean up.

2570:) state Olga's sexuality. Being married and having kids is no indication of a person's sexuality, especially so early in the 20th century. If you have other sources that state otherwise, we'll be glad to include them in the article. -- 1342:

avenues is up to you. Personally, I tend to stay away from PORNBIOs specifically because they're such a hassle, and because other editors can be so difficult. And I'm very tired of this project getting singled out, too. I'm hoping the

887:

brusque) gave that impression. However, it only worked out because he was also prepared to listen and respond to the concerns I raised. If there is no effort to communicate, then it is not unreasonable to assume a lack of good-will.

2245:

And to answer your question, Mish, I (personally) don't think 39 gay porn film articles is that many, considering we cover almost 12,000 articles. That's barely .3% - less than one percent of our articles. I would venture to guess

628:

send signals to readers that they are still marginalised, unusual, unknown, abnormal, something children might want to look up like dirty words in a dictionary. To link is to keep homosexuality and related topics/items in a state of

2944:

act like one. That's part of the reason why I said we need to clean our own house first. If we clean ourselves up and then show them some good faith, I believe that they'll also be more inclined to give us the benefit of the doubt.

2598:

Since we are supposed to have a review every three months to see if anyone is interested in running for coordinator, and we have not done so, I am formally announcing my candidacy. Our current Coordinator has done a great job, but

2380:- but from what you say, we do have a responsibility to create them. OK? Unless I've I missed something? When you construct this article (as you say, 'we should', 'it should be'), then I will be happy to help out with it. 2603:

her activity level has been minimal for a long time and I feel that the Project needs somebody that can be more involved. If anybody wishes to run opposite me or for Deputy Coordinator, feel free to announce your candidacy

3115:

i'll find something I want to work on. If we don't do the work to sort them, how can we know what happens? The way I see it, it may help the project and it may not, but it certainly can't hurt our coverage of LGBT topics.

1235:). Some other articles have been raised for deletion (mostly gay related) but the pattern appears obvious and is supported by clear statements of intent by the editor in the discussions and on the ANI thread linked above. 3021:

I have nothing against Wordsmith (haven't worked with him much), but I agree with Dev that we need to discuss if we should have an election or not. Also, I agree with her saying the importance is really pretty trivial.

1809:

I have a big two-handed axe myself, which covers chopping wood and personal safety requirements. I don't think the encyclopedia will be diminished if it loses a few articles on gay porn stars, this is peripheral to LGBT

1634:

In fact, I'd find the article much more interesting if it went into the dynamics of how sexual interactions there are played out, the proportion of customers engaging in bareback riding and in protected sex, and so on.

388:

when you see it in an article? By your reasoning above, "being a professor is exotic, marginalised, relatively unknown to mainstream though, and therefore we've linked it so you can discover for yourself what the term

2428:. (On the other hand, you may not like the porn or find the sociology of the industry intersting either. In that case, I still maintain that it is perfectly fine for you to go find some other topic to write about.) 1152:

The issue is that these deletions constitute disruptive editing as the campaign has been deliberately applied (by the editor's own statement) in cases where the BLP is about a known awards winner (therefore meeting

1306:

Somehow I think Knowledge has defaulted to LGBT always being a "special case" in comparison to any other genre. As appears to be the case with most members of this project, I'm weary of these endless debates too.

2567: 1806:

I found what I think you are referring to - but you would need to spell out any threats against your personal safety, as all I see here is an allegation of such, without any sign of what those threats were.

353:

which is used wholly in an umbrella-like fashion, often pejoratively, are not always well-understood or even universally understood even within LGBT communities. Many time they are used without context like

1575:

I would be wary of confusing somebody who focuses on LGBT porn articles as having a campaign against LGBT articles. Perhaps such articles would be more appropriate alongside non-LGBT pornography, say in

992:

rewording of Benjiboi's fiction about derailing MfDs, etc. You seem to be looking for reasons to argue with me, Mish, rather than looking for a way to advance the discussion you say to want to have.

2462:, but when there others with contradictory views who seem to find it hard to be detached and NPOV on the subject, it makes it harder to maintain NPOV if one also has strong feelings on something. 2958:

Completely agree. We need to get our house in order - not because of what others might think about us, but so that the articles we cover are unassailable, and are simply the best they can be.

2376:, but the mechanics is not detailed. My point here is that we do not always include an article that can be reasonably well-sourced and meets the inclusion criteria - we have no article called 869:

It is a complicated situation, but this latest perception of harassment has led some to make certain connections between at least one Knowledge editor and what took place on Knowledge Review.

439:

In that case, why suggest it is offensive? De-linking things that don't need linking in BLPs would be a more general discussion than LGBT-specific linkages. That would be more appropriate as

322:

This is a matter I have been meaning to raise for a long time. I fine it offensive that common, everyday items such as "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" and the like should be

1770: 1529: 148:

I suggest that encouraging people to speculate about "bullying and off-site harassment" here is really not a smart or productive way to address what may be a valid issue. I presume that

535: 1851:

I don't see any threat either - I'm more puzzled why so much time is tied up with peripheral articles on gay porn stars when so many important articles are in such a sorry mess? --

1232: 3002:, but I would suggest there should be a wee bit more support for an election than just The Wordsmith wishing to run in it. There's needs to be voters as well as a candidate. :) 1047:

around every corner, you should just stop responding. Note that i'm not trying to ban you from the page or anything as silly as that, its just a (hopefully) helpful suggestion.

3081:

worthiness for inclusion in the encyclopaedia is a separate issue that has been burning since before you and I came onwiki and will probably continue until capitalism falls.

249:. I don't see how revealing your personal information, while undoubtedly unsettling for you, could be called either of those, so I assume there must be more to it. Note that 2316:

I cannot take that comment seriously, sorry. I cannot find an article that deals with gay sex (i.e., the types and mechanics of sex acts engaged in between men). The term

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2999: 1145: 2544:

I saw many photos of my granparents and we inherited from the countess Valentina di Robilant, who was an Olga's friend, a venitian mirror with Mocenigo's family arms.

2179:

unevenly as different editors' interests are piqued by different topics, but then over time more editors whose interests are piqued by other topic areas will edit, and

1750:

motivation for treating another contributor in this way rather than collaborating and discussing improvement in a non-threatening way is incomprehensible to me anyway.

1552: 2608:. The voting period will begin on 12 April and will run for two weeks. I will also be leaving messages for the current coordinators to invite them to run. Thank you, 1135: 781:

Section break: relocate yet another comment inserted mid-sequence to end of the sequence, avoiding the disruption of temporal flow, & making it easier to follow

2708: 2128:

I'm curious why you think this proportional representation presents us as unusual? I would think that, given the place that sex has in most modern cultures, an

2324:, which deals with female sexuality in some detail, but seems to lack information about gay sex, only mentioning that there is something called homosexuality. 1532:- I shall not be making any more comments on this thread. I was obviously mistaken in thinking this would be a safe forum for open discussion on these matters. 678:

African American, and are either unfamiliar with the term or so ignorant of it that they need to consult a very broadly conceived article about them. Puhleasse.

2394:

No one would claim that we have coverage of all topics upon which we should have coverage. It sounds like you've found one of holes in our coverage. Why don't

3006:

two years, pretty useless in the general scheme of things. Just because other folks do it doesn't mean we should go with the flow; otherwise I'd be straight!

443:

discussion (without reference to LGBT links specifically), and would not rely on POV terms like it being wrong because it is offensive (offensive to whom?).

2913:

other hand, it would be nice to see a similar standard applied to those editors who come to these articles believing that they are all about supporting the

1200:

a lot more lately. Is the user only submitting gay porn actors, and no straight porn actors? If that is the case, we may have a problem that needs fixing.

2281:

It did make me think though - 56 items in the category for US LGBT magazines, and with UK LGBT magazines, that takes it over 60. Not sure what that means.

1131:(DC) is on an admitted deletion campaign against gay pornography articles (as well as some gay articles) which has been running for a few months. Sources: 2783: 427:

then you simply don't know him well enough. I think he is more of an unlinker than I am, but even I would unlink that in a biography, as pure silliness.

1231:

The majority of DC's deletion requests in the last couple of months have been specifically targeted at actors credited with gay pornography (using this

1467:

in his recent history related to gay pornography star articles. And after pointing this out in the Admin Noticeboard AfD lead to a quick violation of

1991: 1727: 1138:

Most recent AfD where DC justifies the campaign on the basis of improving articles and uses a 'put up or shut up' argument that anyone is free to use

1114: 2113:

Did you know that there are 39 articles about gay pornographic films versus over 350 straight pornographic films? Or that there are 216 articles in

557:

Many of these words don't really need wikilinks. We all know what the United States of America is, and a clergyman, and a martyr. Is this offensive?

2183:

subject areas will increase in coverage. That's true over the entire encyclopedia, and it is true within subareas such as our own wikiproject here.

2118: 1441: 1273:), then the articles probably won't be deleted. Look at it as an opportunity to better the encyclopedia, even if it's a backwards way to do it. -- 753:

in place if there is clear relevance to the article. I see no point linking 'gay', 'lesbian', etc. in an article that falls within this project.

47: 17: 849:

New section, how do we manage what we perceive to be unreasonable behaviour on and off encyclopedia because of our connections with this project?

1182:

articles. The problem is that people create articles without proper sourcing, etc., and leave it to others to do the work of sorting them out.

358:

This is all well and good with the presumption that the majority of readers actually knows what a Shriner is and I think explains why generally

2122: 1594:

Understandable. However my edits (the subject of the ANI's being raised) do focus on LGBT articles rather than general pornography as a topic.

3095:

what interests them about LGBT issues, be that marriage, Uranian poets, or yes, porn actors; few seem to want to commit to improving articles

2499:? What is that? Can we find a better term for "not-specifically-LGBT-culture which may or may not be inclusive of LGBT people as a whole." 2551: 330:

I believe such linking should be used very cautiously. I unlink every one I can find. You all should too, if there's any self-respect left.

3060:

Knowledge 1.0 process to know which of our articles we need included. I believe its all Bot-driven and automatic according to assessments.

1302:

and raise anything I didn't fancy up for deletion and that would not be considered disruptive or a matter for administrator intervention?

659:

I'm not sure what having a word hyperlinked or not has anything to do with anything to begin with, it's not hyperlinked to 'warn' people.

2348:, which has a section on sexual activity, with links to articles that deal with such acts generically - but which is not linked to from 1472: 883:

Perhaps we could go through the ways we have tried in the past, which have tended to work, which have not, and which we have not tried.

2839:

Erm, yes, i've had that userbox for a long time and I thought membership was just handled by the cat that was attached to the userbox.

1664:

If I might offer a little context, the ANI thread (which was initiated by another editor) concerns Ash's use of citations. Ash invited

1043:. Outing, "campaigns" against gay porn, homophobia, etc. seems to be the norm around here, and until some people decide to stop seeing 245:

Ash, I would genuinely like to know what it is that you described in an email to me as a "homophobic attack" and on-wiki as a possible

2472: 1995: 2899:

I'll give a less hastily-written statement on the Coordinator page, but this is more or less a summary of my intent for the project.

1788:

This link (or any of the previous versions) yeilds me nothing related what you describe. So, give us a clue what you are on about?

923:

Is RFC/U an option? From the bits and pieces I've gathered, they aren't doing much about the problem. Mish, I'm assuming you meant

2114: 2424:

instance, the sociology of the gay porn industry, an interesting field of study while not actually being interested in the films

1444:

linked above. I don't intend to engage in yet another argument about this here, but I've had quite enough of these accusations.

1733: 1120: 1911:

was jeopardizing Ash's safety and I am not prepared to let anyone imply that here. My apologies for the series of reverts.

1081: 3139: 2797: 2755: 2677: 2581: 2261: 2144: 2110:

Ouch. That smacks of a) self-censorship, b) sexual repression, and c) trying to put on our best face "for the straights".

1985: 1916: 1721: 1682: 1507: 1449: 1360: 1284: 1108: 1089: 997: 914: 412: 303: 265: 203: 158: 2663: 2458:, and some articles like the LDS & homosexuality, but it is not easy; I did manage to achieve personal balance with 1349:

I am, I have to say, proud and happy that this project keeps soldiering on even in the midst of constant debates :) --

1077: 1070: 2998:

I am happy to step down as Coordinator if people feel that they longer want the position to be honorary, as it became

2471:

Anyway, here you are then, I have set up a sandbox here to work on this article, which I think could be quite useful.

1530:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive601#Request for admin assistance with repeated personal attacks

539: 38: 2940:

You are completely correct that some other editors do view us as a cabal. Unfortunately, its because sometimes we

2605: 681:

Apart from this, WP's guidelines specify that linking should be rationed to items for which the target-article is

3156: 3105: 3011: 2454:

hard being neutral about something I don't approve of, or have very negative views about. I have tried it, e.g.

2345: 696:

abnormal: it's like bread and butter. So let's stop this immature marking of it as relatively unknown or exotic.

3160: 3145: 3123: 3109: 3048: 3015: 2967: 2953: 2935: 2907: 2878: 2860: 2847: 2834: 2803: 2761: 2737: 2703: 2683: 2648: 2616: 2587: 2559: 2517: 2503: 2490: 2444: 2414: 2389: 2310: 2293: 2267: 2235: 2199: 2173: 2150: 2104: 2084: 2057: 2043: 2025: 2007: 1957: 1935: 1920: 1905: 1860: 1846: 1821: 1797: 1782: 1759: 1701: 1686: 1659: 1644: 1629: 1607: 1589: 1569: 1541: 1511: 1496: 1480: 1453: 1415: 1384: 1366: 1316: 1290: 1244: 1226: 1191: 1175: 1093: 1055: 1015: 1001: 986: 971: 957: 918: 898: 832: 806: 762: 747: 724: 709: 668: 653: 618: 586: 566: 512: 498: 479: 470:

had issue with it need not be linked. My opinion is not inflexible though. Both sides raise excellent points.--

452: 434: 418: 379: 343: 307: 284: 269: 239: 207: 192: 162: 143: 123: 2555: 2357: 2337: 2333: 1981: 1912: 1716: 1678: 1673: 1669: 1525: 1503: 1460: 1445: 1103: 1085: 993: 910: 299: 261: 199: 154: 2013:

I have refactored inappropriate personal attacks and what appears to be non-objective canvassing in a manner

198:

made Ash fear for his safety. (If anyone wants to send me a link or diff via email it would be appreciated.)

2438: 2408: 2193: 1856: 1476: 1298:

Cool, so if I wanted to take a similar back-ass-wards approach, I could step through all the articles under

1692:

Thank you for confirming that your interest is on Ash and what he edits, and not LGBT articles in general.

327:

blanket linking in every article. Why not (announce and) link "heterosexual" for every BLP who is not gay?

2321: 692:

I'm tired of being branded as some freak in a zoo that needs a link to define my identity. Homosexual is

298:

ago. I will, however, take your advice and complete it so that you may have a chance to respond. Thanks.

1577: 1299: 1162: 2344:

should more information be necessary. The only article that does touch on the sex acts between men is

3128:

The only "hurt" I can see is that it's a lot of work. 12,000 articles to rank in importance? Ech. --

2547: 2377: 803: 800: 431: 428: 1773:

has caused me a great deal of concern. I have halted all contributions to LGBT topics as a result.

582: 475: 2883:

One of the biggest problems that we have (on this talk page) is civility. Certain editors who see

640:

contexts, since it is not as well known as a sociopsychological process as homosexuality itself.)

3117: 2963: 2947: 2931: 2901: 2874: 2854: 2841: 2697: 2610: 2513: 2486: 2430: 2400: 2385: 2304: 2289: 2231: 2185: 2100: 2080: 2051: 2019: 1942: 1931: 1901: 1852: 1831: 1817: 1793: 1697: 1668:

and I obliged with an example of some very dubious sourcing on a BLP. You can see all of that in

1655: 1640: 1625: 1585: 1490: 1471:

of my editing. And given our brief encounter, that's all I'm comfortable saying on this issue.

1378: 1187: 1049: 1011: 982: 967: 894: 758: 720: 614: 562: 494: 448: 364: 188: 139: 119: 2340:

gives some detail on the procedures involved in transsexuality, and give links to articles like

623:

Yes, of course I would unlink "professor", unless there were some particular reason the article

3135: 3082: 2914: 2793: 2751: 2673: 2577: 2257: 2140: 2014: 1356: 1280: 1266: 1154: 1146:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive205#AfDs of unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers

664: 508: 408: 3044: 2830: 2733: 2657: 2644: 1411: 1222: 1158: 953: 795: 597: 532: 250: 222: 2852:

Actually, I was up there (number 249) - I just never updated it when I renamed my account.

2537:

Helen Lambrinidis spouse Kertsos born in Athens on 1947, daughter of Nikolaos Lambrinidis,

2030:

Hi Wordsmith, thanks for your help here. Could you explain what it was about my statement (

2889: 2459: 2168: 1373: 1139: 1040: 924: 827: 742: 704: 648: 338: 604:

or whatever, why would this be different? The issue with a BLP would be if there was no

2892:, so dealing with content/conduct disputes is something that I think i'm rather good at. 1677:

the ANI thread before making any more assumptions about what is really being discussed.

906: 3077: 928: 578: 471: 2711:

for those curious....SatyrTN, since you're a deputy, are you going to run for coord?

2959: 2927: 2922: 2870: 2530: 2509: 2500: 2482: 2381: 2361: 2353: 2329: 2325: 2285: 2227: 2215: 2096: 2076: 2039: 2003: 1927: 1897: 1813: 1789: 1778: 1755: 1693: 1651: 1636: 1621: 1603: 1598:

is not actually a pornography article and yet that is an example being raised by DC.

1595: 1581: 1565: 1537: 1468: 1312: 1240: 1197: 1183: 1171: 1007: 978: 963: 890: 754: 716: 610: 601: 558: 543: 490: 444: 440: 280: 235: 184: 180: 135: 115: 2869:

On that point, Smith of words, what is your vision regarding cleansing the project?

1616:, I see. I can see why he might think this was promotion. We don't have a similar 489:

What an odd idea. I don't agree at all. I think the suggestion is itself offensive.

3130: 2788: 2746: 2668: 2572: 2455: 2373: 2341: 2252: 2247: 2135: 1464: 1351: 1275: 1262: 660: 605: 547: 504: 403: 401:

need to be visible". I don't have an answer here - just some observations :) --

3152: 3101: 3024: 3007: 2992: 2884: 2810: 2713: 2653: 2624: 2034:) that would constitute a personal attack? I thought I had worded it carefully. 1556: 1391: 1270: 1202: 1044: 933: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1528:

has seen fit to raise an ANI complaint about this discussion in LGBT studies -

2398:

start the article instead of attacking others for not having done so already?

2161: 820: 735: 697: 641: 393: 331: 2125:? I'd say we're just about represented accurately in the pornography arena. 624: 424: 385: 2332:, which does not include any detail about sex between men. If you look at 2508:

Sure, I meant "straight culture", but I guess "the world" would cover it.

1650:

responsibility to act on that to ensure this is safe place for all of us.

291: 2365: 2035: 1999: 1774: 1751: 1599: 1561: 1533: 1389:

What does the user say about it in the AN thread (way too much to read)

1308: 1236: 1167: 528: 276: 231: 1080:, which has a definite LGBT connection? It needs some attention, but my 2369: 2349: 2317: 2219: 1771:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741#Userpage_issue

465:

Breaking section because somebody has inserted a comment mid-discussion

1553:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent referencing

503:

I agree. I don't see how it's offensive unless you try to make it so.

593: 551: 524: 2368:

mentions anal sex, without giving much detail, and seems to ignore

1672:

of the ANI thread. I used two articles on gay bathhouses to supply

1084:

on ANI didn't get it as much help as it probably deserves. Thanks.

799:

only to first or perhaps second generation immigrants from Africa.

2278:

39 articles on gay porn movies? Do you have a source for that? =D

2068: 2336:, this gives clear information on sex between women. Similarly, 1269:

and/or have multiple third-party references (and therefore pass

577:

one existed)...maybe I'm going on a separate tangent though...--

1148:

an ANI thread raised by DC to get backing for his/her campaign.

905:

assertion that I have endangered an editor's safety. As I said

397: 25: 1980:

To hopefully complete this very sad and very tiresome story,

384:

Hm. I'm not sure I agree with you here, Tony. Do you unlink

294:

accusations. I informed you that I would be filing the RFC/U

2284:

I have raised the issue, just wanted you to think about it.

1006:

You will notice me not arguing. I have left you out of it.

1099:

Deletion campaign of Delicious carbuncle - advice requested

2744:

No, I don't have the desire to be project coordinator. --

592:

No. I can see no problem linking somebody in the case of

1261:

I have to agree with Mish. If the articles clearly have

2566:

Hi! The refs included in that article ( see especially

1618:

Category:Straight Massage Parlours in the United Kingdom

2031: 1739: 1665: 1126: 815:

out of touch with the English-speaking world, they can

632:

having come out. We need to grow up. (And "coming out"

349:

That's an interesting point but these terms except for

295: 246: 2277:

39 articles on the Advocate, or the Advocate has : -->

2075:

under transgenderism as 'male homosexual', and so on.

1555:

Delicious carbuncle has taken an issue on referencing

962:@Kristen, I take your point, and I have replaced this. 2360:- or at least link to the one article that does from 2356:. How is it we do not have a comparable article to 2017:. Defend yourself on the RFC/U talk page, not here. 3000:

the last time we conducted a review of the position

1459:Although I have only had limited experiences with 683:useful to the readers' understanding of the topic 1157:) and the AfD is raised against the guidance of 1136:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio 106:Allegations of bullying and off-site harassment 2709:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies/Coordinator 1346:will help some, but I don't know that it will. 8: 2115:Category:People appearing in gay pornography 538:. His main legacy was to secure progress on 318:Linking of gay and lesbian terms offensive 3085:had to be developed for that very reason. 1614:Category:Gay Saunas in the United Kingdom 2119:Category:Female pornographic film actors 1433:Contrary to what Ash states above, I am 2622:Coordinator?! Who is the current one? 423:If you think that Tony wouldn't unlink 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject LGBT studies 2328:, on the other hand, is a redirect to 2123:Category:Male pornographic film actors 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2782:BTW, TheWordsmith, you might want to 1166:handling the actions of this editor? 7: 2214:it? Do we do that with articles on 1463:, I can easily see some pattern of 2473:User:MishMich/Gay sexual practices 1996:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Ash 24: 2808:He does have the project UBX.... 1078:Russell Smith (prisoner activist) 1071:Russell Smith (prisoner activist) 392:Personally, I *add* wikilinks to 2117:compared to 1,213 combined from 29: 1265:for awards (and therefore pass 2250:has a higher percentage =D -- 550:icon: King is recognized as a 1: 931:(which is an odd redirect). 531:and prominent leader in the 2890:Mediation Cabal coordinator 554:by two Christian churches." 3185: 2786:of the WikiProject? :) -- 2390:23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2311:20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2294:19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2268:17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2236:08:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2200:03:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2174:01:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2151:22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 2105:19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 1958:15:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 1936:15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 1921:14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 1906:14:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 1861:12:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 1847:11:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 1822:04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC) 1798:03:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC) 1783:01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC) 1769:The information posted at 1760:13:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1702:12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1687:11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1660:10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1645:10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1630:10:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1608:09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1590:08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1570:07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 1094:22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 1056:22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 1016:21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 1002:19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 987:19:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 972:19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 958:18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 919:17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 899:17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 833:01:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 807:13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 763:18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 748:13:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 725:10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 710:02:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 669:02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 654:00:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 619:23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 587:22:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 567:18:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 513:18:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 499:18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 480:17:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 453:00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 435:23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 419:17:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 380:11:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 356:Marge Snarge is a Shriner. 344:08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 308:22:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 285:20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 270:20:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 240:18:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 208:17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 193:16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 163:15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 144:15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 124:16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 3161:10:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC) 3146:18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 3124:16:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 3110:04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 3049:02:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 3016:02:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 2968:02:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 2954:23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2936:23:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2908:22:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2879:21:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2861:16:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 2848:22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2835:21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2804:21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2762:22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2738:21:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2704:21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2684:21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2649:20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2617:19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2588:18:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 2560:16:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 2518:22:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 2504:19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2491:09:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC) 2445:02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) 2415:01:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC) 2346:Men who have sex with men 2085:12:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) 2058:19:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2044:18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2026:18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2008:18:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 1542:08:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 1512:17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 1497:03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 1481:03:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 1454:01:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 1416:19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1385:18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1367:18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1317:18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1291:18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1245:11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1227:09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1192:09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1176:09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1076:Can someone please adopt 2784:actually become a member 2372:; we have an article on 2358:Lesbian sexual practices 2338:Sex reassignment surgery 2334:Lesbian sexual practices 1233:articles created search 521:Martin Luther King, Jr. 221:A quick reminder about 2322:Human sexual behaviour 1041:same old, tired issues 546:, and he has become a 2090:Relevance of articles 1300:Category:Christianity 794:Actually not linking 536:civil rights movement 42:of past discussions. 2497:heterosexual culture 2378:Gay sexual practices 2276:Sorry, we have : --> 2130:under-representation 1344:RFC about our banner 1196:I've been trying to 636:be worth linking in 523:... was an American 2015:forbidden by policy 1982:Delicious carbuncle 1913:Delicious carbuncle 1717:Delicious carbuncle 1679:Delicious carbuncle 1526:Delicious carbuncle 1504:Delicious carbuncle 1461:Delicious carbuncle 1446:Delicious carbuncle 1104:Delicious carbuncle 1086:Delicious carbuncle 994:Delicious carbuncle 911:Delicious carbuncle 300:Delicious carbuncle 262:Delicious carbuncle 200:Delicious carbuncle 179:I suggest that you 155:Delicious carbuncle 3151:importance"... :P 3076:I appreciate that 3143: 2915:homosexual agenda 2801: 2759: 2681: 2585: 2550:comment added by 2320:is a redirect to 2265: 2148: 1364: 1304:</sarcasm: --> 1288: 416: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3176: 3144: 3133: 3122: 3047: 3042: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3030: 3027: 2952: 2906: 2859: 2846: 2833: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2816: 2813: 2802: 2791: 2760: 2749: 2736: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2702: 2682: 2671: 2647: 2642: 2639: 2636: 2633: 2630: 2627: 2615: 2586: 2575: 2562: 2443: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2413: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2309: 2266: 2255: 2242:self-censorship. 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2171: 2166: 2155:It is certainly 2149: 2138: 2056: 2024: 1954: 1948: 1843: 1837: 1743: 1674:further evidence 1495: 1414: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1383: 1365: 1354: 1305: 1297: 1296:<sarcasm: --> 1289: 1278: 1225: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1130: 1054: 956: 951: 948: 945: 942: 939: 936: 830: 825: 796:African American 745: 740: 707: 702: 651: 646: 598:African American 533:African-American 417: 406: 376: 370: 341: 336: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3184: 3183: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3129: 3116: 3040: 3037: 3034: 3031: 3028: 3025: 3023: 2946: 2900: 2853: 2840: 2826: 2823: 2820: 2817: 2814: 2811: 2809: 2787: 2745: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2696: 2667: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2609: 2596: 2571: 2552:212.198.108.229 2545: 2528: 2460:Mary Whitehouse 2439: 2435: 2431: 2429: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2399: 2303: 2251: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2184: 2169: 2162: 2134: 2092: 2072: 2050: 2018: 1978: 1952: 1946: 1841: 1835: 1767: 1719: 1549: 1522: 1489: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1377: 1350: 1303: 1295: 1274: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1201: 1106: 1101: 1074: 1048: 949: 946: 943: 940: 937: 934: 932: 851: 828: 821: 811:If a reader is 783: 743: 736: 705: 698: 649: 642: 467: 402: 374: 368: 339: 332: 320: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3182: 3180: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3052: 3051: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2918: 2897: 2893: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2837: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2595: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2527: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2448: 2447: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2282: 2279: 2271: 2270: 2243: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2126: 2111: 2091: 2088: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1849: 1828: 1801: 1800: 1766: 1763: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1647: 1632: 1578:WP:Pornography 1548: 1545: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1484: 1483: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1369: 1347: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1150: 1149: 1143: 1100: 1097: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 974: 866: 850: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 782: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 731: 690: 679: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 555: 517: 516: 515: 466: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 390: 319: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 170: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 129: 128: 127: 126: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3181: 3162: 3158: 3155:, who misses 3154: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3141: 3137: 3132: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3119:The Wordsmith 3113: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3104:, who misses 3103: 3098: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3084: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3058: 3054: 3053: 3050: 3046: 3043: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3013: 3010:, who misses 3009: 3003: 3001: 2996: 2994: 2988: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2951: 2950: 2949:The Wordsmith 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2924: 2923:Homosexuality 2919: 2916: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2905: 2904: 2903:The Wordsmith 2898: 2894: 2891: 2886: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2862: 2858: 2857: 2856:The Wordsmith 2851: 2850: 2849: 2845: 2844: 2843:The Wordsmith 2838: 2836: 2832: 2829: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2785: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2763: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2735: 2732: 2710: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699:The Wordsmith 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2685: 2679: 2675: 2670: 2665: 2662: 2659: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2646: 2643: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2612:The Wordsmith 2607: 2602: 2593: 2589: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2569: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2531:Olga de Meyer 2526:Olga De Meyer 2525: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2446: 2442: 2434: 2427: 2422: 2421: 2416: 2412: 2404: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362:Homosexuality 2359: 2355: 2354:Homosexuality 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330:Homosexuality 2327: 2326:Gay sexuality 2323: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2307: 2306:The Wordsmith 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2280: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2263: 2259: 2254: 2249: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2223: 2221: 2217: 2216:Anti-semitism 2211: 2201: 2197: 2189: 2182: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2172: 2167: 2165: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2131: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2089: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2070: 2067: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053:The Wordsmith 2047: 2046: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021:The Wordsmith 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1994:) has raised 1993: 1990: 1987: 1983: 1975: 1959: 1956: 1955: 1949: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853:Cameron Scott 1850: 1848: 1845: 1844: 1838: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1764: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1748: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1718: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1648: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1633: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1596:Pleasuredrome 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1554: 1546: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1519: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492:The Wordsmith 1486: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473:38.109.88.196 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1437: 1417: 1413: 1410: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1380:The Wordsmith 1375: 1370: 1368: 1362: 1358: 1353: 1348: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1301: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1105: 1098: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1072: 1069: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051:The Wordsmith 1046: 1042: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1004: 1003: 999: 995: 990: 989: 988: 984: 980: 975: 973: 969: 965: 961: 960: 959: 955: 952: 930: 926: 922: 921: 920: 916: 912: 908: 903: 902: 901: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 881: 877: 873: 870: 867: 862: 858: 855: 848: 834: 831: 826: 824: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 805: 802: 797: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 780: 764: 760: 756: 751: 750: 749: 746: 741: 739: 732: 728: 727: 726: 722: 718: 713: 712: 711: 708: 703: 701: 695: 691: 688: 684: 680: 677: 672: 671: 670: 666: 662: 657: 656: 655: 652: 647: 645: 639: 635: 631: 626: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 607: 603: 602:schizophrenia 599: 595: 591: 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 568: 564: 560: 556: 553: 549: 545: 544:United States 541: 537: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 496: 492: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 477: 473: 464: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 437: 436: 433: 430: 426: 422: 421: 420: 414: 410: 405: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 382: 381: 378: 377: 371: 361: 357: 352: 348: 347: 346: 345: 342: 337: 335: 328: 325: 317: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 288: 287: 286: 282: 278: 273: 272: 271: 267: 263: 258: 257: 252: 248: 244: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 228: 224: 209: 205: 201: 196: 195: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 164: 160: 156: 151: 147: 146: 145: 141: 137: 133: 132: 131: 130: 125: 121: 117: 112: 111: 110: 109: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3118: 3097:just because 3096: 3004: 2997: 2989: 2986: 2948: 2941: 2902: 2855: 2842: 2698: 2660: 2611: 2600: 2597: 2543: 2539: 2536: 2529: 2496: 2479: 2456:ephebophilia 2425: 2395: 2374:Bareback sex 2342:Vaginoplasty 2305: 2300: 2248:The Advocate 2224: 2212: 2208: 2180: 2163: 2156: 2129: 2093: 2073: 2052: 2020: 1988: 1979: 1950: 1944: 1839: 1833: 1808: 1768: 1746: 1736: 1730: 1724: 1714: 1670:this section 1617: 1613: 1550: 1523: 1491: 1435: 1434: 1432: 1379: 1151: 1123: 1117: 1111: 1102: 1075: 1050: 889: 885: 882: 878: 874: 871: 868: 863: 859: 856: 852: 822: 816: 812: 737: 699: 693: 686: 682: 675: 643: 637: 633: 629: 575: 548:human rights 540:civil rights 520: 468: 372: 366: 359: 355: 350: 333: 329: 323: 321: 255: 254: 247:"hate crime" 226: 220: 149: 78: 43: 37: 2885:Fred Phelps 2546:—Preceding 1557:Dave Awards 1163:NOTIMELIMIT 1045:Fred Phelps 36:This is an 3083:WP:PORNBIO 2993:our deaths 2987:Dear all, 1547:Second ANI 1442:discussion 1267:WP:PORNBIO 817:look it up 394:coming out 98:Archive 40 90:Archive 36 85:Archive 35 79:Archive 34 73:Archive 33 68:Archive 32 60:Archive 30 2926:welcome. 2594:Elections 1765:Third ANI 1740:block log 1127:block log 625:Professor 525:clergyman 425:professor 386:professor 360:something 251:WP:OUTING 223:WP:OUTING 3140:contribs 2798:contribs 2756:contribs 2678:contribs 2664:contribs 2582:contribs 2568:this one 2548:unsigned 2501:Bastique 2366:Safe sex 2302:absurd. 2262:contribs 2145:contribs 1992:contribs 1728:contribs 1374:WP:FURRY 1361:contribs 1285:contribs 1115:contribs 925:WP:RFC/U 687:specific 529:activist 413:contribs 292:nonsense 3131:SatyrTN 3078:WP:LGBT 2789:SatyrTN 2747:SatyrTN 2669:SatyrTN 2573:SatyrTN 2440:Shalott 2410:Shalott 2370:felatio 2350:Gay sex 2318:Gay sex 2253:SatyrTN 2222:? No. 2220:Fascism 2195:Shalott 2136:SatyrTN 1810:studies 1747:against 1666:comment 1352:SatyrTN 1276:SatyrTN 1155:PORNBIO 1082:request 929:WP:RFCU 872:Finish 661:Zazaban 542:in the 505:Zazaban 404:SatyrTN 389:means." 256:on-wiki 253:covers 39:archive 3157:Jeffpw 3153:Dev920 3106:Jeffpw 3102:Dev920 3012:Jeffpw 3008:Dev920 2654:Dev920 2426:per se 2170:(talk) 1612:Hmmm, 1469:WP:AGF 1159:BEFORE 857:Begin 829:(talk) 744:(talk) 706:(talk) 685:, and 650:(talk) 594:clergy 552:martyr 441:WP:BLP 340:(talk) 324:marked 296:a week 181:WP:AGF 2666:) -- 2218:, or 2181:those 2069:Hijra 1976:RFC/U 1465:WP:TE 1263:WP:RS 1140:RFC/U 804:Adler 634:might 606:WP:RS 432:Adler 150:"him" 16:< 3136:talk 3045:chat 2964:talk 2960:Mish 2932:talk 2928:Mish 2875:talk 2871:Mish 2831:chat 2794:talk 2752:talk 2734:chat 2674:talk 2658:talk 2645:chat 2606:here 2578:talk 2556:talk 2514:talk 2510:Mish 2487:talk 2483:Mish 2432:Lady 2402:Lady 2386:talk 2382:Mish 2352:via 2290:talk 2286:Mish 2258:talk 2232:talk 2228:Mish 2187:Lady 2164:Tony 2141:talk 2121:and 2101:talk 2097:Mish 2081:talk 2077:Mish 2040:talk 2032:diff 2004:talk 1986:talk 1945:Banj 1932:talk 1928:Mish 1917:talk 1902:talk 1898:Mish 1857:talk 1834:Banj 1818:talk 1814:Mish 1794:talk 1790:Mish 1779:talk 1756:talk 1734:logs 1722:talk 1698:talk 1694:Mish 1683:talk 1656:talk 1652:Mish 1641:talk 1637:Mish 1626:talk 1622:Mish 1604:talk 1586:talk 1582:Mish 1566:talk 1538:talk 1508:talk 1477:talk 1450:talk 1412:chat 1357:talk 1313:talk 1281:talk 1271:WP:N 1241:talk 1223:chat 1188:talk 1184:Mish 1172:talk 1161:and 1121:logs 1109:talk 1090:talk 1012:talk 1008:Mish 998:talk 983:talk 979:Mish 968:talk 964:Mish 954:chat 927:not 915:talk 907:here 895:talk 891:Mish 823:Tony 801:Hans 759:talk 755:Mish 738:Tony 721:talk 717:Mish 700:Tony 665:talk 644:Tony 638:some 615:talk 611:Mish 583:talk 563:talk 559:Mish 509:talk 495:talk 491:Mish 476:talk 449:talk 445:Mish 429:Hans 409:talk 396:and 367:Banj 334:Tony 304:talk 281:talk 266:talk 236:talk 204:talk 189:talk 185:Mish 159:talk 140:talk 136:Mish 120:talk 116:Mish 2601:his 2396:you 2157:not 2036:Ash 2000:Ash 1943:-- 1832:-- 1775:Ash 1752:Ash 1715:As 1600:Ash 1562:Ash 1551:In 1534:Ash 1524:As 1520:ANI 1436:not 1309:Ash 1237:Ash 1198:AGF 1168:Ash 694:not 676:not 630:not 600:or 596:or 579:DCX 472:DCX 398:gay 365:-- 351:gay 277:Ash 232:Ash 3159:. 3138:/ 3108:. 3014:. 2966:) 2942:do 2934:) 2877:) 2796:/ 2754:/ 2676:/ 2580:/ 2558:) 2516:) 2489:) 2436:of 2406:of 2388:) 2292:) 2260:/ 2234:) 2191:of 2143:/ 2103:) 2083:) 2042:) 2006:) 1953:oi 1934:) 1919:) 1904:) 1859:) 1842:oi 1820:) 1812:. 1796:) 1781:) 1758:) 1700:) 1685:) 1658:) 1643:) 1628:) 1606:) 1588:) 1580:? 1568:) 1540:) 1510:) 1479:) 1452:) 1359:/ 1315:) 1283:/ 1243:) 1190:) 1174:) 1092:) 1014:) 1000:) 985:) 970:) 917:) 897:) 819:. 813:so 761:) 723:) 667:) 617:) 585:) 565:) 527:, 511:) 497:) 478:) 451:) 411:/ 375:oi 306:) 283:) 268:) 238:) 225:- 206:) 191:) 161:) 142:) 122:) 94:→ 64:← 3142:) 3134:( 3041:3 3038:8 3035:F 3032:J 3029:T 3026:C 2962:( 2930:( 2873:( 2827:3 2824:8 2821:F 2818:J 2815:T 2812:C 2800:) 2792:( 2758:) 2750:( 2730:3 2727:8 2724:F 2721:J 2718:T 2715:C 2680:) 2672:( 2661:· 2656:( 2641:3 2638:8 2635:F 2632:J 2629:T 2626:C 2584:) 2576:( 2554:( 2512:( 2485:( 2384:( 2288:( 2264:) 2256:( 2230:( 2147:) 2139:( 2099:( 2079:( 2038:( 2002:( 1998:. 1989:· 1984:( 1951:b 1947:e 1930:( 1915:( 1900:( 1855:( 1840:b 1836:e 1816:( 1792:( 1777:( 1754:( 1742:) 1737:· 1731:· 1725:· 1720:( 1696:( 1681:( 1654:( 1639:( 1624:( 1602:( 1584:( 1564:( 1536:( 1506:( 1475:( 1448:( 1408:3 1405:8 1402:F 1399:J 1396:T 1393:C 1363:) 1355:( 1311:( 1287:) 1279:( 1239:( 1219:3 1216:8 1213:F 1210:J 1207:T 1204:C 1186:( 1170:( 1142:. 1129:) 1124:· 1118:· 1112:· 1107:( 1088:( 1010:( 996:( 981:( 966:( 950:3 947:8 944:F 941:J 938:T 935:C 913:( 893:( 757:( 719:( 689:. 663:( 613:( 581:( 561:( 519:" 507:( 493:( 474:( 447:( 415:) 407:( 373:b 369:e 302:( 279:( 264:( 234:( 202:( 187:( 157:( 138:( 118:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 34 - Knowledge

Index