|Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
I'd like to point out that this whole survey process is pretty much invalid. Transgender people make up an estimated 2 to 5% of the population. . The 2013 study The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited measured gender bias in survey completion and estimated that as of 2008, 84% of English Wikipedia editors were male. In the worldwide Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011 of all the Wikipedias, 91% of respondents were male. There are significant differences in the acceptance of trans people between males and females surveyed, with men being significantly less accepting than women of transgender individuals, with white males being the least accepting among males and with the widest gap between white male and white female opinions.  Somewhere between 58-63% of males are sports fans, while only 36-41% of woman are fans. 
So, 60% of the 84% male editor population is about 50% of Wikipedia editors, while 40% of the 16% female editor population is 6.4%. Even assuming the unlikely high number of 4.6% for the trans editor population, that puts the expected ratio of female+trans to male editors responding at 1 in 6. Basically, there is no possible way that the outcome can be anything but a "male sports fans" opinion, which would be in no way representative of what our readers want and would necessarily be significantly skewed toward the less accepting male view of transgenderism. Unless a better way can be found to do this, these results are completely invalid and should be ignored, leaving MOS:IDENTITY as it is, as the previous consensus was arrived at through discussion about transgender individuals who were not athletes, leading to a more balanced and more accepting result. That is, the past consensus more accurately reflects the general opinion of Wikipedia editors as the inherent biases were not exaggerated by the attraction of sports fans to the previous discussions. Skyerise (talk)
Most of the relevant discussion is not on the talk page, it's at WP:ORN#Sources to support claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a majority democracy. A poll is useless in this case, as the discussion is between those who provide reliable sources that mention Leary as a philosopher, and those who say "But you have no sources" ad infinitum. What you don't see is agreement. But there is a clear consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The Gospel of Simon: Revelation of the Sacred Mysteries
Regarding your deletion of the citations from the Bibliography: when I first created the page, that was not included. I added it as a result of a criticism from another user, attempting to satisfy their concern. It was in no way an attempt to cause "spam" on wiki (whatever that is).Christopher Carpenter (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
- Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
- Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
- Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Hi. You restored some invalid ISBNs. Do you have any proof that these books actually exist? For instance this link that 9847027700459 is a valid ISBN-13 which clearly is not. goodreads.com is not a reliable source when it comes to ISBNs. Unless I am wrong. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)