User talk:Hyacinth/Identity

This page is a topical archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the topic:

"Please specify topic".

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there.

Cooperation

I appreciate your gentle, thoughtful and patient remarks. For example:

As the creator of the page in question (History of heterosexuality), I would approve a merge with Human sexual behaviour for both Same-sex sexual practices (SSSP) and Different-sex sexual practices (DSSP). Both would made great sections of a larger article. The DSSP article is no longer "little more than a crude rewrite" of SSSP, its now a crude rewrite with extra paragraphs tacked on.Hyacinth 05:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) In light of the continued debates are this subject, I propose we (wikipedia) create a Naming convention.Hyacinth 06:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) See: User:Hyacinth/Style guide

What do you think is the best place for the information in the "Is homosexuality a choice?" article? --Uncle Ed 12:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the best place to deal with the questions/topics homosexuality is a choice or no one chooses to be gay is as (a) section(s) of Causes of sexual orientation. This article already exists, putting both opinions/subjects together at a more general article decreases redudancy, and is a more neutral title. Plus, it is easier to NPOV things when the "other side(s)" are right there on the page. In fact, the causes of sexual orientation article, as stands, could use a discussion of the moral/political implications of causes.Hyacinth 15:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

delete talk page only?

What do u mean by posting Talk:History of heterosexuality in the VfD? do u mean to delete the talk page only, or the article History of heterosexuality? --Yacht 02:13, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Delete the talk page only, as the "article" History of heterosexuality is a redirect and thus does not need to be deleted.Hyacinth 17:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heterosexualism

Hiya, would you care to voice an opinion on the dispute on the talk:heterosexuality page (at the bottom re: heterosexualism)? I'd like to get this page unblocked and up and running again. Exploding Boy 03:20, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

LGBT-msg

Hello Hyacinth! I saw that you made some edits to thas msg. Are you aware of a project page for it? There should be one, I think, and if there is none yet, it should be set up. At the very least so that there is a place where its content can be discussed, although it would be a good thing to have a full-scale project. -- AlexR 22:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad to see you getting into the project game. :) I think the closest currently in existence is Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality. Snowspinner 22:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand me - I want there to be a project because the box is already there, and if it is there it ought to have a place where it can be discussed. In its current state, it is extremely random, and therefore even less useful than other article series boxes. I also doubt that LGBT belongs there; T does definitely not, and LGB is more a question of identity than one of sex, too, in my opinion. I also wonder whether Hyacinths user page is the proper place to discuss that; Hyacinth, if you don't like that, just say so. -- AlexR 06:37, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Created by me, for the record. I added the LGBT message to the list of short term projects(?). Hyacinth 23:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revision to R & H. It really helps when we correct each other like that. :-) --Uncle Ed 22:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude - I only corrected what I considered a mistake. As you can see I made an effort to not just revert your edit, but preserve the wikilink to groove that you inserted. I relied on you in checking it, but afterwards clicked it myself and discovered it linked to the wrong article. So I corrected that too. What does this have to do with Assume the best about people whenever possible?

Btw it doesn't show much respect for other people's work when you don't even read such a small entry before you edit it (no, you don't need "unlimited time" for that) and insert information which is already there. Saying "I don't have time, so spend yours to clean up my mistakes" also isn't very polite. But please, let's not get too upset about unimportant things. If my edit comments offended you, I apologize. Keep up the good work. Regards, High on a tree 01:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're asking: I was referring to the entry Riddim (which is short enough to be read in its entirety before editing it) and the content you had inserted was (A riddim is ...) often known elsewhere as a groove, while the next paragraph contained In other musical contexts a riddim would be called a groove. So I concluded that you hadn't read the second paragraph. Btw I also reverted your Sometimes a melody is associated with the riddim. back to Often a melody is associated with the riddim. - the vast majority of riddims have melody lines too. (The patois term is a bit misleading nowadays.) Regards, High on a tree 02:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this here instead of your Wikibooks talk page, since you seem to be here much more often...just to let you know, I started writing the music theory wikibook, tentatively titled Tonal Music Theory. I decided to move it to "Music" instead of "Music Theory" in order to match the namespace I wanted to use. You will probably find I have a different idea of how I want the book to go, so, if you wish, you might want to reconcile your ideas with mine before the foundation I have laid gets too "cemented". :) I'm learning much of the material while I write it, so my writing is kind of jumbled at the moment and may contain some inaccuracies. Feel free to fix it up however you like. :)

--Furrykef 10:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heterosexuality

I'm not sure I see this category really ever going anywhere. May I ask what your rationale for its creation is? Snowspinner 05:19, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted you to know I was being silly / genuine here, and not to get offended or upset or whatever. No harm intended. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I ment that I largely accepted what you were saying. Not things like "exploiting the complicatedness of the issue to POV the article" but things like "modern chic lifestyle" "attempts to legitimize" and "disallows even the mention of any other conception of sexuality". My POV is that alternate sexualities should not be discussed on Heterosexuality, and that alternate sexualities are deservedly marginalized by their fluidity and counter-cultural nature. I know enough about history and sociology to know that while homosexuality has occurred in nearly every society and era, the current circumstance of a "gay community" is nearly unique, with similar precedent to be found in other decadent, overpopulated societies. I have seen research where overpopulation in lab rats was shown to result in, among other things, increased violence and male homosexuality. I don't feel that an article on a subject as consistent as heterosexuality (which has by necessity been an important feature of every mammalian society in known history) should be allocating half its article space on the subject of alternative sexualities or paraphilia. There are other articles for that. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I again find myself largely agreeing w your summary of my reasoning, minus the fiat part.

I am interested however in how you would define heterosexuality differently from "procreation".

Of course sterile people can be happily married, but arn't they psychologically living out the societal norms brought about by reproduction? The fact that some people choose to behave in ways which don't facilitate reproduction could well be of benefit, I would assume it is. But that doesn't in any way diminish the over-riding importance of reproduction, and the heterosexuality which has traditionally brought it about.

Without heterosexuality nearly none of us would exist, and we can't possibly diminish its signifigance in stature when compared to alternative sexualities, however Pop science it may be to do so. Sam [Spade] 00:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Essentialist no, ahistorical of course not. I will agree with Objective, but only loosely. Too keep it simple, self-reporting is a poor methodology for scientifically investigating much of anything. While some researchers would be perfectly happy with allowing your friend to choose her own label, I am quite familiar w the failings of this method having been a sociological researcher myself. The problem your friend presents with her subjective labeling are only the tip of the iceberg, I assume for example she isn't even attempting to be deceptive (some do, or are shy, etc...)! I'm all about the bottom line, does she have sexual intercourse w males, and/or would she in some circumstances. If yes to either, I check the heterosexual box ;) How would you quantify and qualify heterosexuality if not by that? Sam [Spade] 02:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't alot more I can do for the (Heterosexuality) article, not generally being a writer of bulk content here (on the wiki). I will take another look however, and perhaps you will find something noteworthy regarding that. As far as your more recent statements I don't very well understand the references to "ahistorical" or this:

You yourself have described heterosexuality with outside of the, "does she have sexual intercourse w males, and/or would she in some circumstances," box. For instance, you're invoking of sterile married couples living the heterosexual norm. In fact, even the addition of "norm" to heterosexual goes beyond the box.

and I'm not entirely certain how to respond regarding your apparently mixed feelings regarding our conversation. I will mention that I avail myself of the opportunity to discuss a variety of intellectual and political matters w a variety of persons, few of them entirely in agreement with myself (much to their respective misfortunes ;). In any case I appreciate your thoughtful and polite nature, and have been glad to become aware of the benefit it brings to the wikipedia as a whole. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth article(s)

Hi Hyacinth. As you may have noticed, I split the Hyacinth article in two separate articles: Hyacinth (mythology) and hyacinth (flower). I hope I changed all the links to the appropriate articles. I didn't know which one you want your user page to link to though. You'll have to do that yourself. -- Kimiko 09:59, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Chinese

It doesn't matter. :D Are you learning Chinese? Do you know how to write them in Chinese characters(esp the Ts'ai-nü)? Romanized Chinese makes little sense to me anyway.... :( --快艇 (Talk)☺ 06:03, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't even know which romanization they are.Hyacinth 06:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gay cartoons

Hey, I am thinking about List of gay cartoons, any ideas? I would like to know some super gay heroes like that in spiderman or superman. ^_^ --Yacht (Talk)Q 02:58, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest List of gay comics.

Yo

[1] If you have a problem with me, and expect to recieve any sort of satisfaction thru policy, you have to talk to me and stuff. The guidelines actually say 2 people have to have contacted me about the problem, and I fail to be persuaded to stop violating policy. Not only was there so little in the way of policy violations that nobody commented on the comments page (what did I do, anyways? Those quotes don't violate policy) but even if I had violated policy, you would need to have complained to me directly about it first. I'm actually not such a scary fellow, just take a look at my talk page archive, you'll see that I'm known both for my candor and wit, as well as my engaging manner and thoughtful attentions :) I will warn you tho, if you read too much between my lines, you might find some things I didn't even say ;) This is a habit of those who get upset alot, I have found. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Policy #1: Avoid bias Policy #3: Respect other contributors

The terms "gay" and "straight" are biased terms. Paraphiliac is a clinical term, which is quite different. Jargon refers to terms specialized to a given community, which are relatively useless for use when attempting to communicate with those outside of said community. These terms are also not NPOV, but rather attempt to suggest that homosexuality is a happy condition, whereas heterosexuality is rigid and conformist. Therefore these terms are clearly unacceptable to many.

taking personally, other contributors as horrors.

I have not referred directly to any contributors as horrors, nor did I intend to. Rather I was referring to genital mutilation. The article suggests that society at large encourages transexualism. I made it clear elsewhere on that page that no matter how bizarre your paraphilia, mutilating your genitals is not the answer. Yes, I do find the concept of "heteronormativity" personally offensive, and yes I do dispute the accuracy and neutrality of that article. There is no policy violation in being either offended, nor in critiquing a particularly dubious article, as I continue to do. I will agree that this particular sentence could have been clearer, and that it is best to avoid topics that are offensive to me personally, which I have been trying to do, BTW. The requests for comment etc? is ment to bring in other editors, and I have long since removed the page from my watch list, although this is due mainly to the low level of debate on the talk page, and the innapropriate usage of reversion by some editors (you personally are not included in these complaints).

spelling

This is irrelevant, and if you think it is indicative of any general flaw in my reasoning or premises, that would be an ad hominem.

In conclusion, no, I did not find your communication on my talk page to be overly sassy nor distressing, spelling correction not withstanding. Feel free to contact me with further questions or concerns. I have made sure to put this thru a spell checker, for your convenience. A good day to you.

Sam Spade 19:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, gay and straight are biased terms, as is paraphiliac and all other clinical terms. Clinical does not equal true or accurate. Clinical does not equal neutral. Neutrality is not being engaged in any dispute or fight between these terms and their proponents (us and others). Whatever bias I may have, you're blanket urge to rid wikipedia of certain terms is not even attempting to avoid bias. (By the way, I don't think that "straight" is meant to imply rigid, it actually is meant to imply "straight and narrow" as in correct moral non-sinful.)

Refering to sex reassignment surgery as genital mutilation is inaccurate, refering to transsexualism as a paraphilia is inaccurate, and refering to transsexualism as a bizarre paraphilia is disrespectful, with a clear implication that transsexual people are bizarre.

Many people have commented on your "horrors" comment, I would request that you refrain from making such comments in the future. I would ask that you not cut true and accurate content, but rather, if you have objections, edit it so as to neutralize it. I would ask that you not try to impose your terminology and definitions on wikipedia. Having asked, I may now consider examples of the last two actions as vandalism. Hyacinth 21:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you find the term/concept of heteronormativity offensive as it seems the only way to do so would be if one believed that no one ever disregarded gay people and same-sex sexuality and that no one ever thought that gay people and same-sex sexuality were wrong or unnatural. Notice one can't actually believe this is unnatural oneself, as one would then have to grant that heteronormativity is correct, and thus nonoffensive. Hyacinth 21:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reject your conclusions. Your definition of vandalism is very far from the consensus, and I suggest you try listing me on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress if you think I am mistaken. Your dismissal of clinical terms as POV suggests to me that an encyclopedia, or other sources of learning are not compatible w your unusual POV. I certainly will impose clinical and other precise terminology upon the wikipedia. This statement "I would ask that you not cut true and accurate content, but rather, if you have objections, edit it so as to neutralize it" is too strange for me to be able to respond to. Your understanding of the ramifications of the concept of heteronormativity fail to take into account the whole of what has been said on that page, and thus commit the Fallacy of composition. Overall you strike me as confused/mistaken, and I advise you to review Wikipedia:Policy Library. Sam Spade 22:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That one as adorable as Hyacinth should be gay-bashed at Wikipedia is truly deplorable. If Australia wasn't so far from Montana I'd do something serious about it. Also, why does Hyacinth have bits of the Darwin family tree at hsi user page? Adam 11:29, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Here was I thinking User:Hyacinth was a female (owing to a character on a British comedy show) when really you are this hot guy. I really should look at user pages more... - Mark 02:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihate

It's a shame about that, it really is. I had a bit of a confusing run-in with someone when I attempted to put Grace Kelly in Category:Gay icons. While I wasn't called a faggot, I was mildly insulted and it's a shame that it has to happen here; you'd think people would be more open-minded, eh? Mike H 20:50, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Anon IP

I was in the process of adding a link in Response to the stuff I posted on the talk page. I had it under control, you know. Mike H 19:45, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Great. Hyacinth 19:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:-/ Mike H 19:48, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, good, that wasn't sarcastic. My bad. I had always thought you didn't care for me that much. Mike H 19:51, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Jesus! YOU thought HE never cared for you much? Mike, I think you overanalyze EVERYTHING that EVERYONE says to you, and always (possibly subconciously) look for malice in others' remarks to you. You sure did this when I questioned your reasoning for considering my Misdemeanor Elliott edits biased. The two of you (you & Hyacinth) have been backing each other up, sometimes ridiculously, on a number of different feuds with different people! It's a mystery why you'd think Hyacinth dislikes you! You two seem awfully buddy-buddy, IMO too much so!205.188.116.23 00:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Luckily, I haven't been vandalized that much. I got one hit on my talk page, and I archived that, even though there were posts that suggested that my friend Jennifer (in the picture on my user page) was a transvestite and my gay lover. Mike H 19:56, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

LOL! I was the one who made the comment about your girl friend being your gay lover. It's called irony--"ironically" enough, just today, a friend of mine who's in California pointed out that iron, sarcasm, and the like is not understandable in certain parts of the country. I was not aware of this. Maybe you live in a place where sarcasm is not used, and that's why you've had problems with people for stupid reasons.

I called your friend your "gay lover" because you suggested that Rienzo's comment about "your 'friend' ;)" was some sort of "gay bashing". Unless the girl's a transvestite (which she does not appear to be, but, hey, ya never know), then harassing "your 'friend' ;)" cannot be considered some sort of homophobic slur, as you've alleged against Rienzo. That was my point--I guess you just have a culture where some of this stuff is lost on you, for whatever reason. I should be more patient.205.188.116.23 00:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It hardly seems worth putting a picture up if it isn't JUST you (and most of my pictures aren't). BTW, you seem very intelligent, and both you and your boyfriend are very attractive individuals. Mike H 20:30, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to flatter him to win his approval.205.188.116.23 00:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anon, please do not post personal attacks on my talk page. Hyacinth 05:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what the hell you mean by "personal attacks". What in my comments above is a personal attack and whom is this "attack" being directed at? I am honestly stumped. Either you, too, are misunderstanding my writing--I thought I offered a more-than-sufficiently-clear explanation of my sarcastic comments above, legimitate comments that Mike is attempting to write off as "gay bashing". Explain yourself! You have the right to dictate what can and cannot be posted at your own page, yes, I agree; as I have my right to dictate what is stated on my pages (a right that some people here seem insistent on violating). However, I also have the right to defend myself from slander or libel wherever it occurs. As Mike has misrepresented--giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'll say "misunderstood"--comments of mine, I am standing up for myself against Mike's apparent confusion. Now, are you still confused, or are you simply going out of your way to create trouble with me?68.36.175.254 16:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All users

Please do not carry on conversations with other users on my talk page. That is why you all have talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 21:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. But please explain your accusations against me. Where's there a "personal attack" on this page?172.130.99.47 22:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Waiting for an explanation--my so-called "personal attack" against Mike H was given as reason for one of my many unsubstantiated bannings. I am pissed!205.188.116.23 17:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see your talk pages:

Thanks, Hyacinth 21:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Attacks against my person

I don't understand why the guy is so bent out of shape. From what I've read, he got angry when I didn't acknowledge his apology. I read it and thought it was very nice of him. I don't understand which flaws he wanted me to admit to, though. Can you make heads or tails of it? Mike H 17:21, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Consensus, including among members of the Arbitration Committee, seems to be that since that IP has been making death threats, the user can be safely hard banned. Which makes your request for arbitration both redundant and a magnet for him to keep attacking and vandalizing. So if you want to delete it, you should. Snowspinner 02:44, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

On intercourse

"All vaginal intercourse is sexual intercourse, but not all sexual intercourse is vaginal."

Yes, that's how I originally meant to deal with that section of Sexual slang, but in my latest edit(s) I forgot, since 'Anal intercourse' was not a subtopic of 'Sexual intercourse'. I'm going to make these changes:

Sexual intercourse

brief preamble here

Vaginal intercourse

all current 'Sexual intercourse' terms here

Anal intercourse

'Anal intercourse' terms here

- dcljr 04:53, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, BTW, Hyacinth: might I suggest you move the quote "merged 'Sexual intercourse' and 'Vaginal intercourse': no difference!" underneath the Intercourse heading on Talk:Sexual slang? I think that would make more sense to readers. As it stands now, it (initially) looks like an isolated quote with no comment or attribution; it's only after one reads the next section that one realizes why it's there. Oh, and thanks for your remarks about my edits. I kinda went wild on it yesterday... - dcljr 00:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth, I think if you check the Talk:Sexual slang edit history you'll find that something went terribly wrong in your latest edits. I have reverted that page to the version that was current when I posted the message on this page immediately above this one. (My first-ever revert!) I also switched the quote and 'Intercourse' heading (not sub-heading) as I was talking about above. I do think that's best. Finally, I included your latest comments about the term sex-worker. As they were not signed in your edit, I left them unsigned. I hope this all meets with your approval. - dcljr 06:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Effeminacy

a bit of help, if you will. Sam [Spade] 18:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ope, didn't mean to make you miss your bus, sorry. Sam [Spade] 21:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous

Anonymous, you have previously stated I should have control of my user pages, please do not edit them except to leave messages to me on my talk page without insults. Hyacinth 05:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Preventing anon from editing

Hi Hyacinth. Administrators have the power to block anonymous IPs who commit obvious vandalism from editing, as per the policy at Wikipedia:Bans and blocks. If you want to get an administrator's attention to deal with a vandal, you can list the IP at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. moink 05:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

two-spirit page

Check out the link mentioned in Talk, http://www.nwtwospiritsociety.org/history.html Looks well sourced.. Ronabop 12:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ahistorical blinders

I of course object to both of these terms, and it is fairly clear we are not communicating very well. I get the impression you might have misunderstood me, and that I might be misunderstanding you. I strongly suggest that you avoid using value judgements about my ability to assess data, and instead concentrate on specific points and counterpoints. My point is very simple, and undeniably correct: in traditional society, most people marry partners of the opposite sex. Nobody marries a partner of the same sex. Homosexual (and beastiality, etc...) acts do occur, but are cast in a profoundly different light that in the western world today. For example, in sociology class I remember a particular tribe, where after a successful raid on a neighboring village, the victorious chief sodomized one of his henchmen in front of his victorious war party. This was not shown to be atypical, but rather an acceptable sign of dominance and submission. Also there is the ancient greek system of "pedagogary" or whichever, where it was common for men to have (by todays standards) quite deviant relationships w preteen boys. I could go on and on, the information is abundant. One thing that did not occur however was "gay" marraige, gay culture, etc.. The whole concept of a gay community is almost entirely ideosyncratic, particularly in the proportions seen today. Sam [Spade] 03:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry

One way or another you have been impressively polite considering the sensitivity and personal nature of the topics we have been discussing. For whatever reason I have a tendancy to offend certain persons, which is unfortunate, and unintended. I would like to think I have avoided offending you. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 06:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Gay people

laughs* Very nice. :) - UtherSRG 23:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You may be interested in looking at the deletion debate for Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Guan aco 19:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Gay writers

Hey, I noticed your delete vote on Category:Gay people and realized I had just added the category Gay writers without even considering that some people might not appreciate it, and was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were. I was thinking it would be useful to anyone researching or interested in gay contributions to literature - I mean, there are college courses on the subject, ya know? I was also considering adding Category:Black writers for the same reasons, but now I'm pretty hesitant. -Seth Mahoney 23:26, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Comma abuse

Hi Hyacinth,

Comma abuse like your recent contributions to Effeminacy is distinctly in opposition to WP style guidelines. Please be moderate and careful with your comma placement in such seminal articles. Thanks! +sj + 02:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:

See my reply @ User_talk:Spleeman/Sam_Spade#Sources. Sam [Spade] 22:46, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Super Cute Thanks

Thanks for gettin' my back RE: transgenderism in the RuPaul/talk page. When you grow tired of your specs, can I have them? xxxoo, Pacian 07:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foucault

Hello there, hope you are well. I just wanted to say that I jacked a bit with the Foucault section in the Power (social) article and I revised your last sentence in the big paragraph. As wording these ideas can be tricky, I was hoping you could read it and see if it makes sense and doesn't alter the meaning you meant for it. Thanks. --DanielCD 19:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Over-reaction

If you dispute one of my edits to List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people and feel a revert is necessary, that's understandable, but deliberately reverting my other addition as well, was inappropriate... either clumsy or spiteful. Howard Cruse is unquestionably gay, and famous enough in his field; he belongs on the list. Tverbeek 23:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Queer theory

I created headings on the queer theory page, and moved your comment about Teresa de Lauretis there. I then a bit more information. If you could check it out and let me know how it looks, that would be great. Voyager640 16:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request to expand hate group about gay bashing

I received a complaint that the article hate group is unbalanced with too much focus on NRMs. Because of your interest in the homophobia article, I wondered whether you could expand on this with regards to gay bashing. Thanks in advance. Andries 20:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Faggot on list of sexual slurs

Sorry for not replying on your talk page before. Although I've been casually editing Wikipedia for some time I've never really got involved in the discussion/community side, so I didn't know it was usual to do so. Seems a little weird to me (there's no context here, for instance) but hey, when in Rome... --Pete

Yeah, on re-reading my edit summary I see what you mean. I stand behind the content of it (I don't think either of those etymologies are genuine, particularly the "gathering sticks") but I really should have phrased it better. Sorry. --Pete

Gay Template

Please vote your opinion of template:gay. Thanks. Apollomelos 19:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One Question

Are you a fan of Keeping Up Appearances, i just had to ask.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 11:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ahh i see, no gay connotation indented, i figured it was either that or the flower/bush, i am not to well versed in mythology that far off the surface. Well anyway, mind the pedestrian.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 11:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Digital Gay Bashing

The digital gay bashing you've received is shameful. Where do these people find the time for their hatred? --AStanhope 17:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello

You’re not the only one to get bashed on Wikipedia. Check out my new evil twin Apollomelos2 who is apparently communist, courtesy on Noah Peters. lol Later Apollomelos 00:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gay templates

Heya...do you think there's anything in Template:Gay that can be usefully reorganized and put into Template:LGBT sidebar instead? It strikes me that they have a very high potential of duplicating or competing with each other. I'm all for gay topics on Wikipedia, being in the club myself and all, but I also think Template:Gay, viewed objectively, does a pretty lousy job of what it's trying to do. On merit, LGBT is definitely the much better of the two...and the more appropriately titled, for that matter.Bearcat 19:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Friendly level. Mikkalai 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LGBT categories

Sorry to hear of your current woes. Are you aware of what is happening to all the LGBT categories? Check out: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 24. This has me pretty upset. It worries me that people's work can be deleted like this so quickly without an easy way to restore it. I didn't notice the discussion until after it happened. There is still discussion about this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Gay.2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people. -- Samuel Wantman 08:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion --Samuel Wantman 22:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hyacinth. I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7#Gay, lesbian, and bisexual / LGBT occupational categories. (Wikipedia really needs a GLBT noticeboard for stuff like this.) Jonathunder 05:10, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Inspired by Jonathunder's idea, I have created a LGBT noticeboard. Please take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 07:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Bernhard von Bülow was accused of homosexuality, but this is the first I've heard that he actually was homosexual. What's your source? Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I remember that Brand accused him. I just wasn't aware if there was consensus that Brand was actually telling the truth. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twink (Internet slang)

May I ask why you moved 'Twink (Internet slang)' to 'Twink (internet slang)'? I understood that the Internet is a proper noun which is always capitalised? Is it because such games are played over internets as much as they are played over the Internet? Fibula 11:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]