|}<small>This newsletter was sent by <font color="green">[[User:ShepBot|'''§hepBot''']]</font>''' <small>(<font color="red">[[User talk:ShepBot|Disable]]</font>)'''</small> at 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of [[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]])</small>
|}<small>This newsletter was sent by <font color="green">[[User:ShepBot|'''§hepBot''']]</font>''' <small>(<font color="red">[[User talk:ShepBot|Disable]]</font>)'''</small> at 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of [[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]])</small>
==Hi==
Hi! Please note that I have filed a request for appeal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_PHG here]. Comments welcome! Best regards [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action." - Frank Herbert
Welcome to my Talk Page. Please read this very Special Note before you proceed: On this page we will assume good faith about each other. I am a very firm believer in WP:Honesty and that neutral point of view applies to you, even in disputes. If you don't believe these three things, then I'm sorry but we won't be able to deal together.
That you have a strong belief that I might be a dick, is not evidence that I actually am. I don't happen to be one of those warm-and-fuzzy types. I'm more the Spock type with a bit of McCoy.
There is the possibility, however bizarre it might at first appear, that although I don't happen to agree with you, I am in actuality a sensible person just as you feel you are.
If you are under the impression that I'm violating policy in some way, you should be prepared to quote the exact wording of that part of that policy. I feel that I am quite aware of what our policies do and don't state, having myself spent many hours working on those same policies you're now throwing at me.
If you don't feel that you have the sufficient dialectic tools to discuss things with me sensibly as adults, you might want to consider first having a good stiff drink.
If you feel the pressing need to talk down to me, instruct me in etiquette, or impugn my intelligence or motivations, during your discussion, you are quite unlikely to be successful in your goal of correcting the Evil I'm allegedly unleashing upon the world.
ARCHIVING NOTICE: I reserve the right to archive any discussion older then 15 days. And I reserve the right to archive whatever I feel like archiving, and delete whatever I feel like deleting. For older discussions see
Expert editors
I am a professional biographer, specializing in biographies of obscure persons of local historical note, as such I claim qualification as an Expert Editor on matters of Local History and Biography. Let me quote the No original research page:
'"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.' Wjhonson17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
A user can blank their own talk page, see: Vandalism? from which I quote: " It is generally recognized that the user of a talk page has the right to blank it. (Deliberate repeated deletion of requests, such as of requests to be civil, is not vandalism. It is only WP:DICK.) "
And furthermore this: User Talk is Not Article Talk from which I quote: "Many users, including admins and at least two arbitrators, routinely remove comments from their Talk pages, and advertise this." At this point he quotes User talk:Neutrality which states "I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me."
Per these statements, I am removing any "outside comment" from my talk page that I don't like as wiki policy (see Wiki:Vandalism) states quite clearly that a user "may remove any outside comment from their own talk pages at their OWN discretion" (added emphasis). Wjhonson17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick Glaysher
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Frederick Glaysher, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Frederick Glaysher, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Glaysher and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genie
Hi. I checked out the ongoing discussion and I still feel that it's fairly clear that the Wikipedia biography of living persons and privacy of names applies to this particular instance in the manner that For An Angel suggests. The Googleable current information online does not use her name. I'm happy to participate in some sort of mediation on this point if you'd like to bring this higher up the Wikipedia food chain, but I still feel that the policy leans to the side of keeping her name out. Jessamyn (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genie
That is certainly something to consider (and you continue to do excellent work with your site, by the way). I'm going to suggest we seek additional input on this matter at the talk page as to whether or not we should keep the name.--Cúchullaint/c19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has now been considerable discussion in talk:Genie about including the real name of this person in the article. I count seven editors who say the name should be left out, and one who thinks it should be included. I believe that by Wikipedia standards this is a good consensus to leave it out.
There is no necessity for you to agree with the other seven, but my understanding is that Wikipedia practise is to respect the consensus. Do you not agree that there is a consensus?
I ask you to reconsider your changes this evening to the article and the talk page in the light of the consensus to leave out the name.
Most likely. T'would help if editors would read the article before posting changes, ¿no?. Might help them hit the right century on a topic. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: BLP
A prior RfD discussion had already concluded differently. You can object to the original decision. I implemented it under speedy-clause G4. If you want to appeal the original decision, I recommend taking it up at WP:DRV. Rossami(talk)18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See line J.32 of Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O. You could have known that because he actually deleted the page as a result of that discussion. If you think there were process problems with the discussion, the appropriate remedy is through WP:DRV, not recreation. Rossami(talk)16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! I'm not one to be writing newsletters, but I miss our cruise director, Miss Julie, and our project is drifting along with a few leaking plugs in the bottom of the boat. Hey, it happens. Every group we join goes through changes. If Wikipedia weren't so interesting it wouldn't also be so frustrating sometimes. And vice versa. More than one Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through it, but this is one that can't afford to let that happen. Even if you pop in to the talk page of the project, you can let us know you're still around.
WP:LGBT's Role in HIV / AIDS articles
It wouldn't be a proper gay community without a li'l bit o' drama! That's right. If we aren't arguing about something, then we should be asking if we're still queer. Maybe that's for the best, since we know we're still kicking. Our most recent topic is how far the role of our project should go in dipping our toes into HIV/AIDS articles. The main AIDS article was delisted as a Featured Article last month, sadly. (Sending a swift kick to WP:Medicine.) A spirited discussion is available for your entertainment on the WP:LGBT talk page about just how much of HIV and AIDS should we take on. As ever, we'll take your opinions under advisement. We're going to have to, because it doesn't seem to have been settled.
Is Pride POV?
We have a pretty cool sidebar that identifies core LGBT articles. Its symbol is the iconic gay pride flag, much like other Wikiprojects have iconic symbols denoting the topic is a core subject in a series of articles. However, a question recently arose asking if the symbol itself is not neutral. Should a pride flag show up at the top of the article on Conversion therapy? How else would anyone know the article is about queer issues? Is there another symbol that is as widely recognized and that includes all our many splintered facets? At what point do we stop asking ourselves all these questions and just go have a mint julep on the verandah and stop caring?
For the love of all that is holy, no Kool Aid jokes. However, an editor involved in pioneering San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk's article has included a section about the late supervisor's support of Jim Jones and the People's Temple. While it may be accurate, there is a Request for Comment regarding how much emphasis the section places on Milk's support in light of his overall political influence on the city, and indeed the rest of the United States. Milk's article is a sad one in more ways than one. It lacks the detail and heart that honors its subject. Anyone want to do a barter with me? I'll bring Harvey Milk to featured status (give me a month or two so I can read stuff), if you do something of equal value to WP:LGBT?? Make me an offer...
Queer Studies is offensive!
The established branch of study known as Queer studies was brought up as an category for deletion because an editor was offended by the use of "queer" in the title. It was overwhelmingly rejected mostly by the usernames I see here on our Wikiproject page. (A clue that I know you are out there, hiding...biding your time...) So, I wish I could congratulate you, but now I'm all confused by my sympathy for the editor who was offended. So, if you're reading this, Moni has a short memory and can't remember your username. Don't be put off by our demonstrative pushiness. Join us. We can always use involved editors.
What can you do to help the project out? Be a wiki-fairy, on many levels. There are all kinds of articles that need help. Why, just this morning I removed those ugly wikify and cleanup tags from four articles at random. If you can put [[ ]] around stuff, you can clean up articles. There's a list of articles that need attention at the top of the WP:LGBT talk page. Or you can start with the Lambda Literary Awards, where the goddess of my altar received a pioneering award, and was "reduced to rubble" by Katherine V. Forrest's wonderful speech. The 20th ceremony of the Lambda Literary Awards, which celebrates LGBT literature, took place in West Hollywood on May 29th [1]. The page needs to be updated with the new winners, to be found on the official website [2].
Why on earth would someone want to delete material about homosexuality? 'Tis truly a mystery. But these embattled articles have some random evil gnomes removing information that places these folks under our queer umbrella. Help us keep an eye out for the deletions. Take a peek at the articles, familiarize yourselves with the info, and be handy with the undo function in the article history. If tempers flare, take it to the Hall monitors and let them sort it out. Best solution is to make sure your sources are immaculate.
This month's Wiki stars
This is what I get for opening my big fat mouth and suggesting the newsletter should be revived. Here I am writing it. So, to pat self on back (*cough*) Mulholland Dr. became a featured article in May. This is A Good Thing since it is my personal declaration that there is no such thing as lesbian porn. I don't care what Benjiboi says about the video collection at goodvibes. Instead, we have hot women who connect on a deep, personal, soul-touching level, so this film should qualify as some of the skankiest porn available for lesbians. Plus, it's completely confusing and surreal! D'you think Laura Harring would care that the article is featured? I don't think so either... (Call me, Laura!)
Compulsive hoarding of templates
Once I saw a harrowing episode of Animal Planet's Animal Cops where this guy had, like, 250 cats in his house and it freaked me right out. I'm drawing a parallel between 250 cats and, well...three, really, templates in articles involving LGBT issues. Can we stick to one, maybe? In the aforementioned Harvey Milk's article there's a core LGBT template, a link to the LGBT portal, and a sidebar for LGBT rights. Jiminy! You'd think we weren't the folk to set industrial grey carpeting and track lighting in vogue. An LGBT footer was designed to link to articles of interest that aren't the aforementioned core articles. What do you think, can we have either an LGBT template for core articles, a footer for LGBT articles that are high profile but not core, or an LGBT rights template? As ever, anything's up for discussion on the WP:LGBT talk page.
It's June, Pride month. Wear sunscreen, stay hydrated, get a designated driver, then go half-dressed in the streets find a girlfriend or boyfriend, or some homo who's standing there looking lonely and kiss 'em up real good. Remember, it all started 39 years ago when a bunch of drag queens just got fed the f*ck up by the cops raiding the bar and dragging them all out to the pokey again. Rock on, queens! Enjoy your celebrations. My town's is in October, and 200 people attend. I miss Denver.
It looks like we've picked up a lot of talent lately. We have no doubt you'll be making your indelible mark on LGBT knowledge as we know it, here at Wikipedia.
In the immortal words of Miss Julie, "May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon."
We miss you, Miss Julie, as well as all the others who have graced our project and are on wiki-breaks or just got fed up with all the nuttiness and went to live their lives. Get your stupid houses built and hurry up and come back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
An unfortunate effect of a group less active than in the past is that our articles lose integrity. This one is at Good Article Review for that reason. The talk page is quite active as a result. You have the opportunity to help. This is the corest of our core articles, and it needs some attention because it gets a lot of controversial input from many sides. If you can spare any time to edit the article, please do what you can.
Soon after we were informed that Homosexuality is being scrutinized, we heard the same for one of our few Featured Articles. As a participant of the Featured Article process, I think this is actually a good thing. The standards for Featured Articles are getting higher with time. But as a member of this project, that means that a few of ours may be de-listed unless someone can swoop in and save them. This one has to do with the designation of homosexuality as a crime in Germany. Most of this article's sources are in German. If anyone has any particular skill in this area, please lend a hand!
I know you folks think I have much experience in a gay bathhouse, and I hate to disappoint you, but I actually do not. I seem like the sort of person who likes to stroll about in a towel. Shocking, no? It appears that Ashleyvh is single-handedly addressing all the problems with this article at its GA Review. While that's pretty impressive, it's also no doubt exhausting. Can anyone help out there?
In what I hope will counter the jolt of re-evaluating three Good or Featured Articles, José Sarria and Janet Jackson as gay icon passed as Good Articles, and Black Cat Bar (famous San Francisco oft-raided gay bar) is nominated, all by Otto4711. Rock on, man. You're a machine. Good luck with your nominations. What is it about women that make them gay icons? And are there lesbian icons that aren't lesbians? How about bisexual icons? Am I the only lesbian who reacts with soul-trembling fear at the sight of Angelina Jolie?
New WP:LGBT studies member Pinkkeith has done this cool thing. If you click on that link, you'll see all the articles, categories, templates, and miscellany up for deletion. They're usually there because they're not considered to be not notable. That can be a relative concept, and sometimes it has to be argued that topics pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues are notable.
It seems a recurring issue which articles to tag, and what to say about a topic that's tagged. Certainly, because an article falls under our scope doesn't necessarily make the person gay. Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been rumored to be gay in some newspaper accounts. Although we all know Fred Phelps is supergay, he won't admit it so instead he does the absolutely awfulest anti-gay things on the planet to deflect suspicion. NAMBLA, the red headed stepchild of the LGBT world, is tagged with an explanation we have yet to decide if we'll keep.
In the lurking I do around and about on Wiki, I've long been astounded at the forbearance Benjiboi has for the utterly insane. Perhaps not so much, since the message on Benji's talk page notes frequent absences due to homophobia and transphobia. But it takes some kind of ... something that I don't have to face the constant anti-gay POV Benji does.
Benjiboi is a a bit of a WikiFaerie, a WikiGnome and also a member of the Article Rescue Squadron in addition to being a LGBT project member. A few of Benjiboi's favorite links for making the wikiverse more fab are:
Becksguy didn’t start actively editing until May 2007. His most frequent tasks on Wiki include reverting vandalism to LGBT articles and creating new project-related articles. He comes from New York state, and to prove not all of us are teenagers (ha! I am so totally 15!) he's in his 60s and retired.
Becksguy considers his biggest triumph on Wikipedia so far was a DYK in December 2007 for the first-ever newspaper report on what became AIDS, in the New York Native. He's also helped save several project-related articles from deletion. His lowest moment here was getting involved in the discussion on a particular terrorism related article, thinking he could help calm the roiled waters on an extremely contentious subject with multiple edit wars and passionate editors.
Here at WP:LGBT, he creates and improves articles that present notable LGBT related subjects in a fair and balanced way, and tries to include more of the significant alternative sexuality related subjects without being an activist, and works to better source project-related articles.
On Wikipedia as a whole, he says, "I think we need to learn better what processes work for a massive collaborative project. Some of what worked well for a more informal small project doesn’t scale up well. Process is not as important when the participants know each other. We need to get more of the current members to be more active. If more members were energized, the project would be able to accomplish more. We should be, in effect, the smaller and included Wikipedia for LGBT related subjects. Overall, I wish we could focus more on content creation and improvement, and less on vandal fighting."
"A Supreme Court decision in 1958 reversed a 1956 ruling by a federal district court that U.S. postal authorities were correct in prohibiting the mailing of the Mattachine Society's ONE magazine. The lower court had ruled that ONE was not protected by the First Amendment because the magazine's contents 'may be vulgar, offensive, and indecent even though not regarded as such by a particular group ... because their own social or moral standards are far below those of the general community ... Social standards are fixed by and for the great majority and not by and for a hardened or weakened minority.'" - Michael Bronski in Pulp Friction, 2003
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
On the mailing list you appeared to say that we didn't have an article on Richer of Reims, so you'd written one. I agree on the first point, we don't, strangely enough, but I can't find any sign of the new article. As for the DNB/ODNB test you proposed, it's not even worth starting it. We don't have all of the articles from either the original DNB or the newer ODNB. I'd guess around half, and two thirds at most. Anyway, can you have a look and see where Richer went? If he's escaped, I can cobble something up easily enough. Angus McLellan(Talk)10:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble finding the year of death of the English illustrator Miss M. Dorothy Hardy, fl. 1891 - 1925 (prior discussion here). Is this something you could, in principle, find out? Haukur (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been doing a bunch of research the last few days. Illustrators are difficult in general to research. And a name like Dorothy Hardy is just common enough to confuse her with someone else of that same name. Illustrators also don't tend to make the newspaper articles unless they are also famous artists of other kinds of art as well. It would probably take a great deal of work to pin her down. I mean on the order of perhaps ten to thirty hours of work. Of course if she had any close friends, with happen to have left diaries or autobiographies, that would help. Wjhonson (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may remember that during the DRV discussion last year (see the DRV log for May 28, 2007), you and other editors had started to change my mind concerning the BLP rationale for my deletion of Shawn Hornbeck. During the past year, it has become even more apparent that this individual is voluntarily holding himself out as a spokesperson for victims of crimes like the one he was subjected to, and is granting interviews etc. for that purpose, at an age where he is clear that this has been his own personal choice. A full-page article in today's New York Post is only the most recent incident in which I have seen attention drawn to this individual in an article obviously published with the full cooperation of the subject himself.
As such, it is now even more clear that, unlike the other person who was the subject of the companion deletion, there is no longer a viable BLP reason for this deletion, even under my own fairly conservative view of how policies should address articles concerning minors who are crime victims.
Please take this as consent by me as the deleting administrator to the re-creation of Shawn Hornbeck. Any administrator may feel free to unsalt or to provide a copy of the deleted material for use for this purpose. If process such as a DRV needs to be opened, please feel free to link here. Note that my personal opinion, for what it is worth, remains strongly that the name of the other victim, who was missing for a far shorter time and who has not voluntarily sought any comparable publicity, still should not be publicized. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heritage Network Wiki has been spammed
I've just visited the above site and found that some of the pages including the Main Page and the Talk:Main Page have been spammed, so I thought you'd like to clean it up. Kathleen.wright500:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know they've been spammed, but apparently the owners of that wiki are dead or something. Who knows. I just use it sometimes as a white-board now. Wjhonson (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
William Willoughby, 3rd Baron Willoughby of Parham
Thanks for your attention here William Willoughby, 3rd Baron Willoughby of Parham. One reference is indeed as you indicate a personal site with no real provenance; your astute recognition is well received. The other [4] I agree is simply a title page that requires input, however, I would really like to continue to use this source if only I could get it to function like some others, for example John Sackville, Esq.. For some reason, however, the example given seems to be an anomaly. Again thanks for your attention and input which I am certain to value in the future. Daytrivia (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to my jump page here "Sources" on CountyHistorian.com and you will find a great number of printed sources on the British Peerage that would be acceptable. Some of these are free on Google Books, such as Burke's Peerage. Be sure to cite to the page number where you find the relevant factoids. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wake up WP:LGBT! It's time to kick in gear and get some things done!
Project News
Wake up!
I say this to myself as much as I say it to all of us. I work a lot by myself or with individual editors who spend time at Featured Article Candidates. It seems on November 5 a fog was lifted off my brain that helped me realize that we have massive potential in this project to get things done. Take this allegory, for instance: On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.” “Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”Judith Warner from The New York Times
It definitely seems a start to a whole new era now. If planets align correctly to remind us that whatever advances we may have made in electing what appears to be an extraordinary president in the US, the moons that revolve around those planets also serve to illustrate it's not that simple. Florida, Arizona, and California all appear to have banned same sex marriage. As someone who was married in California and lives in Florida, this is particularly poignant. We seem to be at the juncture of two converging paths. If we maximize our efforts and take the right ones, we might just be able to affect some change for ourselves.
Though what we do is an interesting hobby for some, we have the power to make a difference. California's ballot initiative to ban gay marriage was a fierce fight. It's being challenged right now, but just look at how Wikipedia played a role in that: in October 2008, 360,238 people read its article. On November 5, an astounding 467,000 people read it. I commend the editors who work on that article—both those who support and oppose it. A look at the talk page shows a concerted effort to keep it civil and accurate.
What can we do?
How do you fight ignorance? With information. That's what Wikipedia is for. This project is overwhelming with 8,576 articles in its scope. We can continue to work piecemeal as we have in the past, or we can focus on goals. These are examples of areas we can concentrate on.
Current political events
LGBT Media and Literature
LGBT History
Sex and sexuality
Articles about political issues in the US and around the world that have been especially relevant within the past 5 years
Depictions of LGBT people and issues on television, film, newspapers, magazines
Topics about gay rights activism and the opposition to it
There are more than 8,000 articles to work on. Can we build a list of priorities? Can we build enough enthusiasm to work on these? What if we had editors who oversaw progress in these areas and reported to the talk page or in the newsletter? Surely someone here wants to report on the progress of sex articles.
Tony Perkins (irony) from the conservative Family Research Councilwas heartened by the recent passages of gay marriage bans. The Republican Party is without direction. What's going to take the place of a moderate voice will not be pleasant to our ears. Watching and improving articles of subjects that have opposed gay rights in the past will be of vital importance very soon, I predict.
But WP:LGBT is not a very active project
All we can do is start somewhere. The first step is answering this newsletter on the project talk page. Join in the discussion.
More things we can do
Give out more barnstars, and let each other know that what they're doing is valued.
Create a guide to stave off burnout, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb.
Bring back the monthly collaboration project.
Participate in LGBT Peer reviews.
Get familiar with the characteristics of Good Articles and get our top priority articles to WP:GA.
Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too!
Offer research materials, copy editing, ideas, and support to your fellow editors.
Keep the project talk page informed of problems and discussions we should know about.
Proposal: Put Importance Levels on articles
If this was decided long before I was a member, maybe it's time to revisit it. Other WikiProjects, such as WP:Novels determine that some subjects have an importance category: Top, High, Mid, Low, or None (undetermined). If we decide that our most core articles, it might help to organize which articles to address first. Top importance, for example, would be Gay, Homosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Sappho, Oscar Wilde, Stonewall riots, for example. High importance would be Homosexuality and psychology, Harvey Milk, Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, or Daughters of Bilitis, and so on. This can be a matter of discussion, or perhaps we could have someone in charge of determining these levels for all the articles we have tagged.
These are the editors I've seen working (and I know I'm forgetting a few). There's more of you out there I haven't seen. Some of you are new. We need all of you. Please help.
Miami, January 18, 1977 after the gay rights ordinance was passed: While Bryant and the others were creating the beginnings of the repeal effort, (gay activists) Basker, Campbell, Kunst, and the other (gay rights) ordinance supporters congratulated themselves on their success and then quickly disbanded... There was no organized recognition or celebration of the victory. As one activist remembered, "We just went home." They had little idea of the battle that was before them. - Fred Fejes in Gay Rights and Moral Panic, 2008
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
