User talk:Haiduc

Other user pages:

• User talk:Haiduc/sandbox
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2004
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2005
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2006

WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Χαῖρε! Salve! From your edits, it looks like you're interested in Ancient Greece and/or Ancient Rome. Would you like to join the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome?

Queer as Folk

While the show may contain a subplot about a pederastic relationship, it is not primarily (or even to any level of importance) about pederasty. Therefore, the "pederastic film" tag is inappropriate and, given that the show is about gay people, a little offensive (although I'm sure no offense was meant). Treybien 15:18 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Ishq

ur comments regarding Ishq.

When u love some one with some intetions (sex,money,lust,any sort of lust) then it is called as "Muhabat", "Piyar". when u do nt hav any intention just love then it is Ishq. God and his messangers are the one u can love regardless of any (lust,sex,any other intention). lemme knw if u want more information,may be i can send u some links

Khalidkhoso 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Metaspheres

Once again removed your comments from the LGBT noticeboard. I restored them, and am about to warn him again. He threatened me after the last warning, so I am curious as to how he will react to this one. :-) Jeffpw 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Happy New Year to you, too! The ball's going to drop here in 55 minutes. Jeffpw 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  

Happy New Years to you both. I actually made the second revision of the posting, and Jeff reverted it as being from Metaspheres. I can see metas point. I think all postings on the board should be as NPOV as possible, and brief. I don't want arguments and discussions to happen at the board. There's no point in diffusing the effort. I wouldn't like it if a group of bigots had a board with POV postings about "the LGBT activists are pushing their agenda and ignoring the facts", etc... So can we leave it as a dispute and not imply the way we would like the dispute to be resolved? Even if someone is 100% correct in their position, discussion isn't productive if everyone digs in their heals. -- Samuel Wantman 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, Samuel, but that was actually the third revision. In any event, I still strongly disagree with anybody removing another's comments on a talk-page if they are not vandalism. In fact, Wiki has a policy against that. I would appreciate it if you would discuss that sort of change with a user before doing it, and give them the opportunity to make the change (or not) themselves. Jeffpw 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuel, you are right about the neutrality. As for the pattern of abusive edits by Metaspheres, which is what deleting another user's post is, there is no excuse. And changing a post should be done with the strikeover function, if at all, even by the original poster. I'll take a look and modify accordingly. Haiduc 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He's done it yet again, and states he is reporting you and me for harassment, for your statement on the noticeboard, and my warning him to stop deleting your posts. Jeffpw 09:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• His harassment report was just dismissed. You can check his talk page for the message, but it says we were both remarkably civil towards him. Jeffpw 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue II - January 1, 2007

Happy New Year to all our members! Project News Several new templates have been created: {{Bi}} and {{Transgender}} by Dev920 and AliceJMarkham respectively. SatyrTN also created a {{LGBT Welcome}} template to welcome new members. Thanks to them all. The LGBT Portal's various sections could do with updating on a weekly basis. Please pitch in if you can. Latter Days became a Featured Article on December 31. It was written and nominated by Dev920. Congratulations Dev! A new assessment system has been implemented - we have tagged and assessed over 1100 articles so far! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system. A fledgling monthly LGBT Collaboration has been started, with Homosexuality as the December article and Gay stereotyping as our January article. Please contribute to this if you can, even if it's just correcting typos. A Translation department has been set up, to translate LGBT articles from foreign language Wikipedias that may have more information than our equivalent article. Please add your name if you are fluent in any language other than English. We have a brand new unique Project! Jumpaclass is a new semi-competition to improve our lower quality articles - see the subpage for more information. Please sign up and get it going! Finally, our membership numbers have exploded! 21 new users have joined the Wikiproject: AdelaMae, WJBscribe, Trodaikid1983, Jtowns, Agne27, Boyau, NickGorton, Dialecticas, DaliJim, Tonei, Cabbers, silent, Textorus, GLGerman, Haiduc, Hornandsoccer, Bopopop, NinaOdell, Badbilltucker, DanB DanD, and Tiger Marc. Please make them feel welcome!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

a resource for you

have you used this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gay-Life-Culture-World-History/dp/0500251304/

gay life and culture, a world history, by robert aldrich

looks like a treasure house... cheers... Leskey 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks interesting, I have ordered a copy. Haiduc 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Replying to your query

I haven't gone anywhere as of yet. However, until this situation is resolved, I will be restricting my editing to the Rfc and Arbcom. Once it is settled I will make a decision about remaining. Jeffpw 11:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, I noticed your good words to Jeffpw. You might not be familiar with GMS508 but this is another good user who's troubled by the same situation. =) — coelacan talk — 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'd like to offer my help on an article you're working with MetaSpheres. Leave a message on my talk page if you would like some. Nina Odell 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask your help?

Hey, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to help me with a small judgment on an article. If you look at the article on US Senator Lindsey Graham, you'll see someone has added some material about his sexuality. I feel it should be removed in its entirety or substantially altered due to NPOV concerns (the amount of space in this article this issue occupies makes it look like a tabloid article and not an encyclopedia, and I fear serious political motivations for the inclusion of this material.) and that these claims are non- or poorly sourced claims and hence might be libelous. Could you take a look (it's a very small article) and tell me what you think should be done? I'd be very grateful! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shudo

Thank you for creating this category. As homosexual relations with young men bore particularly significance in pre-modern Japanese society, and was truly quite separated from today's modern (Western) morality regarding pederasty and pedophilia, I thank you for separating this away from that whole field. LordAmeth 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gymnasium (ancient Greece)

Thank you for your input on this article. I noticed that the article is currently rather poorly sourced, and was hoping that since you apparently know about the subject that you might be able to add some sources. As such I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thank you. -- Ec5618 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Leo's sexuality

Yeah, that sums it all up tidily. Thanks for removing the "German Doctor". He really is terribly intrusive! If you feel inclined to call the article I created on Leonardo and Salaino "by any another name" I'm sure it will smell the same. see Two Gentlemen of Firenze.

--Amandajm 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" Romeo and Juliet.(miss quoted in a well-known Australian humorous poem called "The Play" by C. J. Dennis.) Two Gentlemen of Firenze for Two Gentlemen of Verona... --Amandajm 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Michelangelo

Thank you for the kind reference to my edits on the Michelangelo page, and thanks also for the inclusion of the poem, which well illustrates the issue. Best wishes, JNW 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest developments

Greetings Haiduc,

Am appealing to you, as a veteran Wikipedian, to try to help Dr Stoehr. We are obviously dealing with an even more inexperienced Wikipedia user than yours truly and if I were to do it would be a true case of the blind leading the blind. I was going to appeal to my own Wiki mentor, but as you know the background to this I think you are the one! Sorry for presuming ypou have the time for this and to lumber you with it, but it'll look good on your wiki cv!--Technopat 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue III - February 1, 2007

Announcement: If someone requests help or feedback on an article, please try your hardest to help them out if you are able. Thank you. Project News The LGBT Portal has once again been revamped and a work rota started. Efforts towards Featured Portal status are slowly coming together. The assessment system has been a great success, we have tagged over 4000 articles! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system. The Translation department has changed its focus, to LGBT articles about non-English topics and people on which there may be more information on the relevant foreign Wikipedia. Please add your name if you are fluent in any language other than English. Jumpaclass is picking up slowly, with nine people having entered. With over 2000 stubs we need to improve our article quality. Please sign up and get it going! Challenge another user to see how far you can jump a stub! There is an ongoing discussion about the current LGBT categorisation system here, here, and a little bit here. A special page has now been set up here to deal with this. A Watchlist has been set up to monitor controversial and/or highly vandalised articles. It can also be used for article disputes, just add a note explaining the nature of the dispute. With the influx of so many active members, there is now enough support for a LGBT studies peer review, which may be found here. It's in the beta phase at the moment, so bear with us if we make any mistakes. Feel free to peer review any articles you have been working on. It was agreed this month to start reducing the uses of the Notice board, as many members felt that it was not effective. An open tasks template has been created, bringing together important announcements, FAC/FARs, Peer reviews, XfDs, the COTM, and requested articles. You may desire to watchlist it. A Deletion sorting subpage is also now working to bring together XfDs - this should be bot-driven, but we have not currently tagged enough articles to make this fully automated, so please update the list with any LGBT-related XfDs you come across. Article news Two articles were recently shepherded through the Featured Article process by two of our members - Same-sex marriage in Spain and The Well of Loneliness. Congratulations go to (respectively) Raystorm and Celithemis! Member News We more than doubled our membership this month! 53 new users have joined the Wikiproject: Aleta, Koweja, Profriend, Andrewn, Carolynparrishfan, Cpnlsn88, Brian1979, Tullerk, Garydw, Ganymead, Celithemis, Burnley, Lquilter, Parammon, Forsakendaemon, Allyn, bcatt, Dfeuer, Raystorm, Fabienne1, Esprix, Antanta, Janusvulcan, Elizabeth Lund, Ashleyvh, E. Sn0 =31337=, MiraLuka, White hotel, Zythe, Athena2006, CosmicWaffles, Emiellaiendiay, Musimax, AlexReynolds, Swollib, Nield, Kriza, 100110100, Andral, thickslab, Ronline, Iamvered, FisherQueen, William percy, Viannah, Ssbohio, Ali-oops, Anyaanomaly, Revolución, Ender2155, LuciferMorgan, Kathryn NicDhàna, and Artgoyle. Please make them feel welcome!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

SatyrBot and Pederasty in Ancient Greece

Hi, Haiduc! I thought I was pretty good about removing only when appropriate - did I remove the cat from an article that it belonged to?

The bot only ran in oversight mode, so I was personally reviewing each article before tagging and/or making any changes to the page. If I made an error, please let me know - and I apologize in advance if I did! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Haiduc - I've replaced the cat for Aeschines and Parmenides, which are the only two in the Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece that I removed. Do you know if I should put back:

• Category:Pederasts on Tsunayoshi Tokugawa
• Category:Victorian pederasty on George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston

Those are the only other two I removed.

As a side note, before I removed the cats I read through all four of these articles and didn't see in them anywhere any indication that they should belong in the various pederasty categories. For instance, Aeschines has no mention of lovers, relationships, students, tutors, boys, or anything remotely connecting him to pederasty in ancient Greece except for his attack on Timarchos. While I respect that you know more than I in this area, and that you have verifiable sources and all, but for those of us without that information, it might be helpful to state in the article something about why they're in the category.

Sorry for what must have seemed an arbitrary and wholesale removal, but was really just me removing a couple articles that I *thought* were incorrectly categorized. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet :) And thanks for all your effort on all of them! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

sexual objectification

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

If you add the link back into the John Bosco page, I'll report you for 3RR. Take it to the discussion page where it belongs. --evrik ^(talk) 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Homosexuality

Hi Haiduc. You reverted a change I made to the article on Homosexuality, specifically the removal of the third paragraph which is restated later in the article. I removed it from the introduction because being placed in the introduction gave it—I believed—an undue weight in the article. Given that the anthropological perspective stated is only one of the various ways of talking about homosexuality, it seemed strange to place it in the introduction, particularly as the idea of homosexuality as expressed by these anthropologists is pretty far from normal usage. They suggest three models in societies - one egalitarian, one gender-structured and one age-structured.

In contemporary use, you could argue that each of these three categories could be equally well used about heterosexual relationships (one where partners are equal, one where they are confined to gender roles and one where there are large age differentials between the partners, the latter being normally what we call paedophilia). There is no such passage in the introduction to the wikipedia article on heterosexuality however. I would suggest its presence in this introduction makes it see like homosexuality is an societal construct (which is debatable), that anthropology is the right way to explore it (which is highly debatable) and that it in some way is conflatable with completely different axes of identity - dom/sub, masculine/feminine, age-differential and the like. Particularly with regard to the age-differential aspect, I note that there is no written piece in the heterosexuality article which gestures towards heterosexual paedophilia (by far the more common of the two).

My suggestion was to remove the paragraph from the introduction, where it took on the apparent characteristics of notable truth, and to leave the exact same subject material in the section on anthropological views of homosexual relationships later in the page, where it could be contrasted with other interpretations and categorisations from other discipliens.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation (second nomination)

Haiduc, since you're mentioned rather prominently in this AfD, I thought I'd make sure that you knew about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, I wonder, Haiduc, how did you manage to miss the massive open tasks template and the specific request to post AfDs at WP:DSSG near the very top of the noticeboard to place Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation (second nomination) at the bottom of the completed AfDs list? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hello Rlevse, I see that you and the others involved in the Scouting portal have steered clear of the AfD on Baden-Powell. Is that a wise choice, considering that if this article is dragged down the material will have to find a place in the main article again? It seems to go counter to the work that we and others did on this subject a while ago. Regards, Haiduc 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't steered clear of it, I was just watching how it was going. I did see at least one other member of our project vote on it. If it is deleted, the material, in full, going back in the article, would cause the same problems as before. I'll see if I can gen up some interest.Rlevse 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

PS-I hate it when things keep coming up for afd/cfd don't you? Anyway I've contacted our active members to look this over and vote. I see three have already done so. Take care.Rlevse 10:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

John the Apostle

I'm afraid I don't see the reference you referred to in your comment to the above article. I have however now added the references section at the bottom for references. If you were referring to the List mentioned at the bottom of the section, you should know that wikipedia does not consider other wikipedia pages as good references. John Carter 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thought you'd like to know the content you added to the article above has been deleted by an anon. Feel free to restore it. If you do so, I will also help to ensure that the content remains. However, I repeat that I think it might be a better idea to create a Queer readings article which would help assert the notability of such content as well, and possibly, at least initially, perhaps add some of the content there. Then, as that page becomes big enough, it would be very logical to transfer some of the content to other pages, and make it much less likely that such unwarranted deletions of content take place again. John Carter 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. -- SatyrTN (talk · contribs)

Recent edit to Jesus

While I agree Homosexual readings of Jesus and John is a valid subject to link to ... hoo, boy, is that gonna stir up a hornet's nest. :) Justin Eiler 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Secularism

Haiduc,

The "formulation" you mention is not mine at all, however I do not find it either biased or snide (please explain). Both recent occasions I have reverted changes to the word "extreme" I have cited the same two reasons. I fail to see the POV issue the change addresses (which still hasn't been clarified) and I feel that the word change alters the meaning of the differentiation between the two types of secularism. The other edit to which I am referring here is this one. The intended meaning of extreme is not "broad", but something closer to "stronger" or "harder"--that is "more" in a qualitative sense. Saying that it is "broader" implies that it is more general. This isn't the case. Your wording, in my view, also suffers from a similar problem. One could interpret it to mean that the apparatus and expression of secularism is "restricted" to a smaller social domain in the first sense and more extensive in what it encompasses in the second sense (which I would agree with). However, one can just as easily interpret it to mean (as i did at first) that secularism in first sense is more specific and the second more general, or even that it less common and more common respectively. What the original formulation tried to convey was something like this. The author of this paper, Barry Kosmin (a sociologist who runs an institute dedicated to the study of secularism) uses the terms "hard secularism" and "soft secularism"--and not moderate and extreme (or weaker and stronger) ... although those terms do come up in his essay. I don't agree that your formulation makes the nature of this differentiation any clearer (and as I stated I see no POV). I'm sorry if you interpreted my revert as because "I say so", but that is really not what my intention was/is. What do you think about the essay I referenced above? Can you explain to me how the original formulation was POV? This what I have yet to understand. Thanks.PelleSmith 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think those qualifiers are not exactly the same as Kosmin's, and I see your point. People may associate "extreme" with "extremism" so it can and probably does lead some readers to think that something like what you described is implied by the use of the term. Basically I was being stubborn in insisting that there is nothing inherently negative about the phrasing. Point well taken. I also like the idea of not using a qualifier perhaps. Maybe I can link a reference to the Kosmin essay above the two definitions and we can let the descriptions speak for themselves in the entry--without any qualifiers. Of course now I feel mischievous not having this conversation on the talk page of the entry, but besides that how do you feel about such a solution?PelleSmith 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have this article watchlisted, Haiduc. I will revert vandalism as necessary. Jeffpw 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Changing those pederasty categories looks like hard work - you deserve this! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

You didn't say too much about the NAMBLA/LGBT organization issue; what were your thoughts? I honestly am torn on the issue, and I had hoped we'd flesh out a general, flexible definition of what constitutes an LGBT org., but I don't think many people wanted to bite into that apple. By the way, if I implied during our Ginsberg discussion that you are a pedophile, I did not mean to do so. When I re-read my comments, I thought you would have had a valid reason to take offense, and I apologize. --DavidShankBone 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

there was a compromise: take the LGBT organization category out, but place them in the "List of LGBT organizations". I thought that was a good compromise, actually. I agree, that gays need to accept the past, and that our movement went through quite a few growing pains. When I asked Ginsberg about the issue in 96 (he made me follow him in the bathroom and talked while he pissed) he down-played the more insidious (right word?) side of NAMBLA and made a reasonable argument: a kid at 15 or 16 knows what he (or she, and since women mature faster sexually, especially) is doing. But once you pass 15, it starts to cross lines. I personally don't know what a mature sexual being finds attractive about gangly, goofy teens; I can't relate. But one of the most brilliant pieces of comedy, literally, is a piece in the Dave Chappelle DVD "Live at the Filmore". It is entitled, "How old is 15 really?" I swear, it is not only hysterical, but perhaps the most brilliant piece of comedy I've witnessed since Richard Pryor. I would even say it's educational. That segment of his routine runs about 15 minutes, and at the end I would say most people would walk away with a shift in perspective. You should check it out. --DavidShankBone 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the NAMBLA "compromise": there is now opposition to the article being placed on the list of LGBT-related organizations. It's as if the only tags they want on the article are pedophile tags. Well, this is a controversial issue, and people tend to get hysterical. I suppose, too, that people can feel good about themselves, thinking they have fought pedophilia by refusing to classify this article properly. But in the end, we are writing an encyclopedia, not taking a position on the issue. It's situations like this which cause me to lose faith in the masses' ability to reason. Jeffpw 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologizing

This is late in coming, I should've done it sooner. I'm sorry about my hostile behavior towards you and general rude and wanky twuntness re: Talk: Selim Ahmed (Dahoum). I could've been civilized or else thought before I typed and hit "save page". --Jaguara 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo

Hmmph! I'm very cross with you for readjusting the Personal life and leaving in my hidden comment which said that the info was beyond dispute. In fact, I've left a nasty message to that effect on the discussion page.

Can you have another look at the passage and see if it really needs more than it has now.

You can't possibly win. If you write the apparent facts blatantly you're slammed for that and if you write it discretely, then the language is criticised. Good luck!

--Amandajm 12:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All my own way

No, it's not entirely like that! I just want the bloody argument to go somewhere else. For the survival of the page, because it will get swamped with sex-life again. There is no doubt that the matter is significant. One only has to look at J the B to know that it's significant. He never painted a woman looking that sexy. Hey! mebbe its not Mona Lisa at all.... maybe its actually Melzi Lisa.... now have you thought of that?

--Amandajm 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Female portrait

I put up the pic of Beatrice. I also put up the pic of Salai in costume. I was trying to find a good reproduction of the pic of him in profile which shows his realy stunning features. When I get a sufficiently good reproduction of it, I will include it. Or else the John the Baptist picture. It is not my aim to make the man appear heterosexual. I would just prefer that the parties who insist on arguing the case did it at another venue.

I can understand that there are people who find it distatseful that he probaby had sex with underage youths (whatever that means). I find it distasteful myself. But there is no point in denying that it happened or that it was generally socially acceptable.

As I see it, the reality of his sexuality either has to be very much understated or else proven at great and tedious length with a million inline references and a pic of Salai's butt being chased down the street by rampant dicks. There is no way of satisfying those people who will rail at any suggestion that anyone admirable is anything other than heterosexual.

I also suspect that if you put your name to any further edits to the particular section, they'll just be deleted immediately.

I might have a look for John the Baptist.

--Amandajm 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

not quite right

As I've said before, I don't want the page to simply turn into a forum for trying to prove or disprove the nature of the man's sexuality. Because when that happens, every time it happens, the sexuality swamps everything else and, rather than writing about the love, what is revealed takes on a pornographic intensity. It's as bad as those ghastly long-distance photos of people's cellulite and facelifts that you get in magazines.

I've made it clear what my reasons are for not wanting this to happen.

On the other hand, if the evidence indicates that Leonardo was homosexual, it is inappropriate not include the fact in the article. Kids have as much right to that information as anyone. In a general way, they need to know that to be homosexual is an OK way to be. But that doesn't mean that the article needs lurid descriptions.

Leonardo left us with an image- the very beautiful and enticing painting of John the Baptist. I really think that image says a great deal about the nature of the relationship.

To make it clear, (which I thought I had), what I find objectionable is the sexual exploitation of children by those in positions of care. For me, it's hard to draw a neat line between pedophile and pederast sexuality. However, when I look at the painting of John the Baptist, I don't see an eroticised picture of a pubescent boy. What I see is a young man who is old enough to decide for himself what direction he would like the relationship to take.

If indeed the relationship between Leonardo and either of his aprentices was physical, do we really have any idea how such a relationship came about and how old the boys were at the time, or is it speculation? There is a considerable ethical difference between a man having sex with a ten year old and a man having sex with a 17 year old. The insistance on the pederast (rather than homosexual) nature of Leonardo's relationships calls this into question.

--Amandajm 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments have been taken on board. I agree entirely that to say that the relationships were sexual in nature doesn't convey fully the nature of the relationships, in the light of Melzi's statement. I can't do any serious editting of anything for about a week because of the limitations of my laptop. --Amandajm 12:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparta

Hi Haiduc. The reference citing Xenophon and Aristotle has always been in the ref tags. I changed "affirm" and "is of the opinion" to "writes" in order to add precision. If there is something else please refer to me in my talk page. There's already an open debate in the article with a new editor who is a bit of a pain due to his lack of experience. So I would prefer to discuss more serious issues separately until that one is done. Miskin 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It was me who cited Xenophon and Aristotle but I referenced Powel because when you asked me I didn't remember in which primary work it was mentioned. I needed a secondary source which cites them and I randomly found Powel the same way you did. I don't remember reading his analysis, since I was only interested in citing Xenophon and Aristotle, and I didn't have the slightest intention at being fraudulent. After listening to this however, I understand how this comes off as a manipulative edit, and I'm sorry. I'm going to look for the primary source in order to avoid the implication of Powel supporting Xenophon's and Aristotle's view on the topic, after all mainstream scholarship probably does not. I would like though to present the views of the ancient writers for the sake of NPOV. Miskin 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Marcel Schwob

I was recently made aware of an edit you made, saying that Marcel Schwob died of syphilis due to anal intercourse with a minor. Do you have any evidence to substantiate whether Mr. Schwob did indeed contract syphilis or engage in pederasty? Ral315 » 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Britten

Hi - I see you've put Britten's Children in tne Modern Pederasty category which seems to be a list of individuals not books etc. Wouldn't it be more logical to link from Benjamin Britten? Tony 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

thanks for your reply. I certainly don't want to end up fighting either. We need to run with broad interpretations of the 'words' that are our focus - 'pederasty' for you and 'pedophilia' for me. I don't know about you, but I get a bit proprietorial about articles that have lots of my man hours in, then someone comes along and tries to put another slant on them. I love the average Wiki editor, but there are some less-than-helpful people around. In a spirit of co-operation you might want to check out the edits I did on les amities particulieres. There were various references to pederasty there which didn't seem appropriate. I know the book and movie well (the movie in the original French too!) and there is no sexual activity portrayed anywhere. It is strongly implied that priests do fancy the pre-pubescent boys and also that there may be sexual goings on too. Are you happy with that? If not, please revert my edits. The word homoerotic was also used in the article for the relationship between a 14-year-old and an 11-year-old and I didn't think that was appropriate either. Tony 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

Request to join discussion

Hi Haiduc :) I was hoping, if you had a little free time that you could possible toss your two cents into the dispute I've been having with Jolb over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants#Categorization_dispute? Thanks in advance :) --Thoric 02:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and John

You're probably right. I think I got a bit overanxious here. CaveatLector^Talk 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

SatyrBot 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

What do you mean it, spell it? Surely you have already by messaging me? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't want help with a vandal, you want help keeping your pederasty category, which I do not agree with, on the article. IMO it shouldn't be there at all. So excuse me when I saw your report (which you keep putting on a deactivated page, btw), looked at the five edit wars I've been in this week when I should have been doing my coursework, and didn't really feel like getting into it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no pederasty in the Happy Prince! There's one kiss between a swallow and his prince, and that's it. Just because Oscar Wilde was gay does not mean he made it a policy to put pederastic relationships in his stories that we have to tease out. He was also a touchy feely romantic aesthete, it is hardly surprising that his characters act in an intimate way towards one another. So you have a source that claims it's pederastic, there are sources that claim that 9/11 was a massive government conspiracy! That IP isn't vandalising, he's making valid edits. Our pederastic categories are overflowing: can't you improve some to GA or FA status instead of claiming The Happy Prince as gay? I would really like to see Homosexual Readings of Jesus and John make FA one day, it seems such a delughtfully off the wall article.

And the issue of where to request help was never fully solved. Everyone else is currently using the main talkpage, I think. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the patience to examine every crackpot theory put together by English majors. You think I should support your efforts to insert references to homosexuality into what seems to be every article on Wikipedia? That I should fight for your right to gay up Lion and The Happy Prince, neither of which are legitmate LGBT topics (ok, so some lions have gay sex - about 1500 species of animal do, it's not that exceptional, see List of animals displaying homosexual behavior)? That I should try and maintain your obsession with adding pictures of adolescent boys to every article you can think up an excuse for, apple included? I would imagine it's because of you that the article on courtship's main picture is a gay one, even though pederastic courtship is a tiny fraction of all courtship. So sorry, but no, I have more interesting things to do. And David Shankbone's response to you on my talkpage sums up why I don't edit pederasty and you do - I don't much care about sexual relationships between older men and adolescent boys, in the same way you don't care about LGBT film. It's just not our primary interest. So don't make out like you're making a brave sacrifice to edit pederasty, I've seen your posts to Passion Histoire, read your comments across the Internet about pederasty on the strangest of websites (the Hindu forums?) and noted that your Bebo account's friends are all under 18. You and I both know why you edit pederastic articles and it's not because of your concern for their welfare. If I didn't care about ending censorship and discrimination against LGBT in this encyclopedia, I wouldn't have revived WP:LGBT, but I don't see it as censorship to point out when the LGBT content of some content is very dubious indeed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because I am "head of the gay pages" that I am trying to make you see what damage you are making to our cause. Your desire to insert pederasty into everything should be curbed because it's not there and it's making us, and Wikipedia, look bad. Trying to make lion gay? Trying to add a gay image to Apple? These do not help our work, Haiduc, they hinder it. I am all in favour of ending systemic bias against LGBT in encyclopedias, which you surely must know if you have read any promotional media I have produced. We have been discriminated against for millennia and I, for one, am determined to see to see a complete end to it and full coverage of LGBT issues and people here. I'm happy to fight the bigots on this site who try to whitewash people's articles - that's why I fought for two months to get a note of the speculation between Jake Gyllenhaal and Austin Nichols included in their articles, why I've supported the inclusion of allegations of homosexuality on James Buchanan, and why I have systematically reverted all people who keep removing our banners from people's talkpages. But there's no systemic bias in articles like apple and lion for you to correct - you are merely forcing pederastic ideals onto other articles. Surely you can see the difference between fighting to include verifiable information and trying to force inappropriate content, images and categories onto articles?

And I simply don't believe you when you say that these accounts on other sites aren't yours. They claim to be you, and they write like you, and they provide the same information you have provided here. They demonstrate the same single minded obsession with pederasty, claim to be writing a book on the subject and hold your job. FYI, I certainly do not go hanging around on sites that discuss pederasty in French, I background checked you when you made several dodgy comments over the NAMBLA thing and I got concerned. I was satisfied that you are not a pedophile and left it at that - your apparent sexual inclinations to late teens are perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned (I'm a classicist) so there's no need for you to act so defensively.

Basically Haiduc, I am asking you to please cease adding suspect content, images and categories to non-pederastic articles. You appear to have a wide knowledge and sources to draw on, and I am asking you to turn that energy of yours to improving the pederasty articles we have, and not to get involved in edit wars over such silly things. It just wastes all our time. And there's so much to do... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo again

The reason why the article is currently such a mess is that I was doing some major rewrite in order to include other aspects of the man, Vasari's descriptions and so on, and the business about his vegetarianism which is just as significant to a lot of people as his (perhaps) pederast relationships are to you.

Your division of his "sexuality/modern interpretations" is fine by me. But the sentence in which you make the point that pederast behaviour was a common way of expressing homosexuality is clumsy. There is also that statement "particularly in Florence". I don't know that this is "particularly" true of Florence.

The number and nature of your edits on this subject promotes a certain curiosity as to which end you are approaching it from. One is curious to know whether you promote (if that is the right word) pederasty from the point of view of the older man, or the youth.

In modern Western society, the youth (particularly if not of homosexual nature) often comes to feel he has been abused. At least, this is the common experience of youths that I have counselled, much the same as girls who have been "taken advantage of" by men in positions of trust (either in the family, officially, or as friends). They don't always remember that the person who screwed also them loved them, taught them things and perhaps even provided for them. When the youth walks out with ten pairs of shoes, the gold jewellry, the flat screen, the pot plants and the paintings off the walls, the man says "Ungrateful little shit! After all I did for him!"

Nowadays, men that act in this manner leave themselves wide open to extortion. Sometimes, as happened to a particular well-respected Alderman, the youths comes back one day and beat him to death with his own golf clubs. Let me emphasise here that it was seen as retribution, not gay-bashing.

So, the insistence on a division between relationships that were homosexual and relationships that were essentially pederast because the boys were not simply younger but were mere boys, is bound to offend people, including other wikipedia editors. Do we know that Leonardo had sexual intercourse with these boys during their adolescence? We know that some writer fantasised about it but that proves nothing.

One can of course insist that there was a "love" for the boys that Freud would certainly have interpreted as sexual, because, as the man said "Well doctor, you're the one drawing the dirty pictures..." I suppose that you can insist that if Leonardo had sexual relations with Salai as a young adult, then, by definition it was pederast because of the differences in their ages.

It seems to me that there is a considerable difference in the age of the young man depicted in Leonardo's homoerotic John the Baptist and that of the urchin whose genitalia was subject to the minute scrutiny of Carravaggio. The latter may be of very real significance to your cause, but the former, in my opinion may be an indicator of homosexuality, but does not generate any notion of pederasty. If I may put it crudely, it is the picture of a young man who is beyond doubt able to fuck the artist if he wishes to. Has it occurred to you that this might have been Leonardo's particular liking? there is just as much evidence for this case as for yours!

--Amandajm 09:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, what I am having difficulty with is the notion of a "chaste" pederastic relationship. Does this also mean that one can have a chaste paedophile relationship? Should we then presume that any loving relationship between man and boy that does not express itself through sexual intercourse is none-the-less pederast? And that by a natural extension of this notion, loving relationships between adults and children are essentially paedophile, regardless of how innocent? Am I taking this too far.... or is it possible that you are taking your notion of what constitutes a pederast relationship too far.

I am looking at the matter from a legalistic view point. Base line- Either sexual contact occured or it didn't. Either the younger party could be reasonably categorised as a man, or he was still an adolescent.

As for the question of pederasty in Florence, I merely question whether it was indeed more common in that city than in others. I don't doubt that this is possible as the whole ethos of cities differs one to another.

Coming back to Leonardo - that he had a warm and loving relationship with his pupils seems beyond doubt. That it was suggested in a fiction that he indulged in sexual intercourse with one of his pupils is a fact. (You are aware that in the quotation which is in the article, there is no emphasis on love. The emphasis is entirely on the sexual act.)

Despite these things there is nothing to indicate definitely that the relationship was, by my definition, pederast. But since you include "chaste manifestations of pederasty", then your definition is different, and you wish to use the word pederasty in contexts where I would use the word "love".

Your continued use of the word "pederasty" to describe relationships that might well be sexually chaste seems to offend more people than just me. Your intensity of focus gives the appearance of someone who is pushing the barrow of a type of behaviour which many people find unseemly. Why do you keep expecting a sympathetic hearing?

Are we really to regard every man/boy friendship a pederast relationship? Or can we find words to describe human relationships (that might be chaste) that are not distasteful to so many people? I personally recommend "Love". It covers a multitude of sins and, more to the point, a multitude of blessings.

Indeed, if we are to believe Melzi, Leonardo loved his pupils. There is little other than that that can be said with certainty.

Haiduc, you write beautifully. Why are you so focussed on this particular topic that you have made a commitment to it, at the expense of others that could benefit by the skill of your writing?

--Amandajm 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...

The confusion came because I received a link to the article which said this was only for pederasty in Ancient Greece. As it includes the history of the concept, yes, the LGBT link can be included, but note that it would be more appropiate if Ancient pederasty and modern pederasty were separated, since the concept is not the same in both cases. In the 1st, it implied an adult teaching a young boy, not only sexually. In the 2nd, it is a case of an abnormal behaviour and abuse to young children, girls and boys, even babies (of course, I'm only taking into account the definition of the word taken out of its etymology, the one that is in most languages, and the only one that is correct, then). I will put the link back, but consider what I've told you. Greetings --Bucephala 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: Pederasty in ancient Greece

I'm not certain how to move forward with this but I wanted to inform you, as a significant contributed to several articles I've come upon recently, to read the message I posted on the talk page of Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece. I will be rewriting sections several articles that I see as NPOV (see comment on talk page of linked article) in regards to the topic of pederasty.

Nudas veritas 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drunk on the Wine of the Beloved - Book cover to the Hafez translations of Thomas Rain Crowe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drunk on the Wine of the Beloved - Book cover to the Hafez translations of Thomas Rain Crowe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical couples

I deleted the portrait of Radiguet because it's a modernistic likeness, not a photograph or close likeness. The article has no shortness of pictures. Ghosts&empties 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Yagatani's research

You reverted my edit in the article on Selim Ahmed (Dahoum), but I really don't agree with that action per W:OR. Please respond on the talk page of that article. --Tinctorius 12:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you still there? If so, please respond; I'd like to resolve this conflict. --Tinctorius 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight on "Kylix"

I read with great interest your contribution on the "discussion" page of the "Kylix (drinking cup)" article. I had never before questioned the reason for the shape of a kylix -- but your explanation (to maintain sobriety) makes perfect sense. O, wisdom of Hellas! Writtenright 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Gustav Wyneken

Do you know much about Gustav Wyneken? Is there a ref that says he was gay? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Let me know if you find anything. Hope your summer goes/is going well :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Anal sex

First, your use of 'rvv' is improper given that my edit was not vandalism. As I explained in the edit summary, the reference cited in the introduction says that 10% of heterosexual couples regularly have anal sex. Now, personally, I suspect even that's too high, but the 10% figure should stay. Changing it to 30 or 50% is simply abusive; this is an encyclopedia article, and we should reflect our sources where we have them. The way, the truth, and the light 04:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I now see that there is another quoted source for 30 to 50%. However, that source is not cited properly and I have no idea how reliable it is. Additionally, it's rather absurd given that other sources in that section show that about 30% of heterosexuals have ever done anal sex, and if only 30% have done it even once, it couldn't be that 30-50% do it regularly. The way, the truth, and the light 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kagema and Nishikawa Sukenobu

Hello. Two years ago, you provided on Talk:Kagema some good insights about why the woodprint at kagema is depicting a man/boy/girl scene and not a man/girl/girl one. Maybe you could also help us about whether there's a good reason to suppose the girl her to be a servant, or a geisha, or a prostitute (e.g., maybe from her kimono or her hairdo)?

The informations and discussion about it are at the tangential topic Talk:Bisexuality#Wrong caption for the Japanese illo

Regards,

62.147.38.251 00:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gay_penguins_NY_Zoo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gay_penguins_NY_Zoo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Greek love

During my absence, I note that a wind of change has blown through the article, which may mean some re-construction. I have not forgotten your assistance - I had already drafted a way forward - and the insights that were beginning to emerge. With your other tasks, you may (understandably) have washed your hands of this particular issue: I may however need some support from a reliable source who at least understands the (implications of) the subject. Let me know if you will be 'on tap' if need be! Regards Dominique 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for response. Changes to the article aside, I was encouraged by Welland's support for the retention of the article in the face of continuing 'redundancy' claims. I have also noted the interesting discussion on the 'Pederasty' article, in particular re 'the most prevalent form of homosexuality' and may well add my own two penny worth to that. Dominique 09:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

John Bosco

i've noticed you had a clash with the Catholic crusader Evrik lately. I think his patronization of articles such as Don Bosco is untollerable (he lately tried to quench a sourced stuf f I've added about lurid use of dreams by that "saint"). If you've time and want to help me, we could raise again the matter about homosexuality/pedophily that him and other Catholic fanatic quenched some time ago. Let me know and good work. --Attilios 16:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Batman_and_Robin_-_Gay_underground_camp_take,_ca._1998.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Batman_and_Robin_-_Gay_underground_camp_take,_ca._1998.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 07:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kalvin_Klein_1995_ad.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kalvin_Klein_1995_ad.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Batman_and_Robin_-_Gay_underground_camp_take,_ca._1998.jpg

I have tagged Image:Batman_and_Robin_-_Gay_underground_camp_take,_ca._1998.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosco

Thanks. I think, it'd be hard with Evrik. His behaviour, in my opinion, is a substantial ownership of that article. Everything he dislikes, he deletes it with little excuses in the talk pages, forcing you to 3RR. Let's see. Anyway, thanks a lot, of course it'd nice to collaborate to rewrite what is substantially a feeble, unreadable hagiography. Good work. --Attilios 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

I'm guessing you have not had Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation on your watchlist for a while. That article was in quite reasonable shape when you last edited it, but now bears little resemblance. Frankly, except for the lead-in (which was non-existent for months), I have pretty much washed my hands of it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GL - erotic?

The first para is still not 'right', though you have eased it slightly. I take the view that GL was more or less than 'erotic' e.g. plus pedagogy, plus 'Platonic', plus Classical, if one seeks a modern standpoint which embraces these add-ons (incl Uranian educationists). It may be easier to discuss on the article talk pages, since more will happen later! Dominique 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

An...interesting objection...

...to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A's FLC. I thought you might be interested. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A Featured List Candidacy. Someone is objecting to the list because "there's no evidence for Hadrian/Antinous". I have never studied Hadrian extensively, but it seemed rather in your area of interest. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren Cup

Hi Haiduc. I think you'll be glad to learn that the Warren Cup article is now illustrated. They're not perfect, but I did the best I could. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

James Kilfedder

Have you read the reference you claim is a biography and reputable? it is titled 'The 1995 North Down by-election, A personal account' written by Nicolas Whyte, 6 years after the event. It includes his Gmail address so you can get in touch if you campaugned with him in the same election. The section supposedly referencing the section you keep readding reads:

'Was Fate helped? Kilfedder's homosexuality was one of the most public secrets in Northern Ireland politics. It was of course nobody's business but his own and I would not mention it here were it not for the following circumstances: on the evening of his death, the lead story in the Belfast Telegraph, Northern Ireland's main newspaper, was that a number of MPs including one (unnamed) from Northern Ireland had received letters from the gay rights campaign group Outrage! threatening to expose their sexuality if they did not support gay liberation issues in Parliament. Whether or not Kilfedder received one of these letters, he must have been deeply perturbed at the possibility that his sexuality might become a public issue'

This is not a reputable source or subject to editorial review. It is one man's recollections and musings on events. Find a true source and I have no objection to you adding the inforamtion to the article, but this is not it. Nuttah68 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, someone failed to set up the references correctly so two [1]s were showing. Regardless, the 'source' you are using is a first party account. The policy at WP:V is clear, 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.' It then continues (highlighting as in policy) 'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ' As I said, find reliable sources and I have no problem with the inclusion, but so far none of the 'sources' offered satisfy the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. Nuttah68 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are using the wrong definition of self published in this context. Self published here means the same as 'first party', the work is written by the subject. The article needs third party sources, evidence produced by people unconnected with the incident(s). Nuttah68 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:V 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources'. Here third party means not those directly involved (first party as you are using), nor those taking statements (second party, which is what you source would be if another reporter wrote the story) but those who had no connection to the original events. Nuttah68 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Batman panel - Robin what have I done to you.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Batman panel - Robin what have I done to you.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman

Unfortunately the panel has no context or commentary, and since there's enough fair use in the article already, we can do without it. Sure it's an interesting panel, but it doesn't really add to the encyclopedic value of the article. WesleyDodds 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For us to claim fair use, there needs to be accompanying critical commentary, either in the image caption, or (preferrably) the the text it is accompanying. For example, the picture of Bane breaking Batman's back is valid under fair use because it illustrates soemthing detailed in the text. I originally removed the Justice League image because it was the weakest of the three(!) images there contextually. Really, its relationship to the section relies on a humorous out-of-contet reading of the panel; ultimately it doesn't have an encyclopedic purpose, when other images can be used to better (and more clear) effect. Additonally, the reason I left the image still there is because I recall actually reading some critical commentary on it (which I am currently trying to find). WesleyDodds 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pogrom

However, in this case the relevant material is (or should be) in the body of the article. In most of the articles in question, it was not stated elsewhere (obviously, you don't have to believe me – check for yourself): and yes, I agree that it "should be". And I agree that it doesn't usually have to be in the lede. And yes, the word "pogrom" was poorly chosen, and now I am fully educated on the etymology and precise definition of the word. However, the systematic removal of information about sexuality from a body of articles is bad news, which is why I called attention to it. Cleduc 15:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Um. I already did. Cleduc 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleduc (talk • contribs)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

James K.

I'm sorry I haven't been in this discussion more recently, but I'm pretty much fed up with Wikipedia as a whole (as my user page now explains). I have run into far to many immature, dead-headed people in this community who either have absolutely no respect for history, historical accuracy, or truth and who in general have no fucking idea what they're talking about (read: the user claiming that the information in question on the James K. article is a 'criminal accusation' or people claiming that Spectator is a 'tabloid'). I just can't handle it anymore. The inclusion of the information has my support in this matter, but I can't spend more of my time fighting in this community when I'm not seeing results. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty and Project tags

I have reverted all changes to various articles that the well meaning Wikipedian made. God save us from nincompoops and those who claim to be "straight but not narrow". With friends like that.....Jeffpw 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. All prostestations to the contrary, I know the hoi polloi when I see them and I know how to deal with them. -:)Jeffpw 13:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry

Regarding your advice to find out Wales' reasoning: It's a case of "The Great Oz has spoken!" After he made a 2 sentence remark about the damned article, he wouldn't say anything else, and we are all left to puzzle out any hidden meaning (or agenda, as the case may be). Thanks for checking in on it. Jeffpw 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ISBNS

Neither can I 'fathom' the disappearance of the ISBN nos. I have spent about an hour comparing versions and examining refs, and indeed found one or two revisions where the nos were absent. But why I do not know. So I have simply reverted, and left the original typo I had sought to correct. It may have something to do with my proxy server - this happened with another article I tweaked - though I doubt it. Dominique 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anal sex

Reverting to your desired version when multiple editors have objected to your contributions is unacceptable. You need to discuss this on the talk page and refrain from edit warring. VanTucky ^Talk 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Caelus

Hi! I added to a mythology article called Caleus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelus Would you mind editing it or cleaning it up? Thanks! Neptunekh 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Catlin_-_Dance_to_the_berdache.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Catlin_-_Dance_to_the_berdache.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Frequency

Please forgive me if i created an unnecessary change, but there is a distinction between sexual activity and sexual orientation. While for the most part; heterosexuals engage in heterosexual sex, and homosexuals in homosexual sex; this acts do not indicate the preferences of a person. For example, many straight folks experiment with the same sex, and many gays have opposite-sex relations.

I tried to make the distinction between surveys of heterosexuals, surveys of homosexuals, and surveys with no sexual orientation stated. It would be a misnomer to say that all men having sex with men are gay; it would be a misnomer to say that lesbians cannot use alternate methods for anal sex. Scepia 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter much. I was trying to separate the studies based on their given polling group - all of the studies except for 2 specified an orientation, so I moved the other 2 into the general heading. Scepia 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks

I have blocked you for this personal attack:[1]. The block will expire in one week. When it expires please refrain from making nasty comments like that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As a temporary fix for BLP concerns, I have commented out the 20th and 21st century section from the article concerned, pending discussion. DGG (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to other wishing your input in the BLP issue mentioned above, I have reduced your block to 24 hours. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Glad to see you're unblocked. According to the blocking admin, you're on a short leash. Personally, I have every confidence that you'll conduct yourself as a gentleman, as always. If I can ever give you a hand, feel free to call on me (as always). Jeffpw 15:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I never unblocked him, I reduced it to 24 hours[2]. It will be another 14 or so hours before it wears off. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [3]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. --Cheeser1 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words at my talk page, sadly I found the contributions of one other editor were too offensive and potentially damaging to both Wikipedia and good faith editors for me to continue to be involved in the debate. Best wishes. DuncanHill 12:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Photo of magazine page.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Photo of magazine page.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Related to our written conversation

I saw your recent conversation with Until(1==2) on his page, searched through the offending editor's history, and uncovered libel about you in a post of his. I asked Until(1==2) to deal with it and he refused. It is now on the admin discussion board. You may wish to participate. By the way, I don't know if you read the LGBT Project newsletter (I never did), but I wrote it this month, and added a section about the Pederasty controversy. Jeffpw 06:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

TRY TO DO SOMETHING : FRANCIS BACON IS FALSELY ACCUSED OF HETEROSEXUALITY DESPITE THE STRONG EVIDENCES OF THE CONTRARY. If I may, let me to do a suggestion : you could introduce quotes of Francis Bacon about his fascination for masculine body from On beauty : why did he choose to take masculine examples of beauty rather than feminine ? It could write about Phyrne, the lover of Praxiteles, or about Aspasia, the lover of Perikles, rather than Alcibiades, Ismael and tutti quanti. And I am sure that there is other examples. The relations between Bacon and his wife can be developped too. He doesn't choose her to be his mistress, but his fellow, according to one of his quotes. That's obvious that his wife has another point of view : she wanted to sleep with her husband. And Simon d'Ewes knew that.

There is so many evidences.