User talk:Insomesia

I have created Template:Did you know nominations/Ben (Gay is Okay) under eligibility rules of WP:DYK. One of proposed hooks will be reviewed. Thank you for your contributions to this article. --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately I wrote up several discourses and it all was erased in error. Some articles I found to be

Harry Hay, Men who have sex with men, every religion and homosexuality article I've seen, Homophobia, etc. Many of the known myths of anti-gay hate seem to be over represented:

from [1]

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked 1. Gay people molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals 2. Same-sex parents harm children. 3. People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents. 4. Gay people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals. 5. Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust. 6. Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia. 7. Allowing gay people to serve openly would damage the armed forces. 8. Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol. 9. No one is born gay. 10. Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

As far as I can see each of these myths is alive and well here. Hopefully this will change but as it's so pervasive and has been around for so long I must assume there is a majority of writers invested in these ideas.

Oh wow, that's a very good point. Have you discussed this issue on any talk pages? --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 22:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I want to focus on small sections where I can introduce credible research to counter the myths presented. On articles that are really bad I'm looking at if I have the energy to work on them. Thank you for looking at this.Insomesia (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response on the AfD page for the Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident. One of the reasons that some editors are reluctant to keep this article is that they do not want to open Wikipedia to daily scandal-mongering. If you listen to some radio talk show hosts and cable news commentators, every week there is a new controversy about some politician, and most of it is crap. I believe that the Cranbrook incident could become a very big issue in the next few months. If there is a decision to merge, it may have a silver lining. Based on this Wikipedia traffic site, the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 website gets about 1000 hits per day, whereas currently the Cranbrook article gets 400-500 hits per days. NJ Wine (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a great point. I do wonder though, if the article is already getting nearly half the traffic? It would seem people are interested in getting a good neutral report on the incident. I obviously hope it's not deleted. Thank you though for being very reasonable in your views.Insomesia (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a layterm that people understand. Two scientific studies supporting this and none opposing would indicate that this is an issue that should be on the frontburner. Javsav (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any studies that clearly explain the two and how they are different? The entire section was made up of quotes and sources that I had added so I am already familiar with those. One of the sources talked about how there are several terms, but they don't always equal each other. Is there a good source that separates out what are the types of homophobia?Insomesia (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a transgender person I can tell you that I almost never call the discrimination that I face homophobia. Especially because that the most common prejudices I face are actually from the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual community. I think the Homophobia article needs to address the difference between homophobia, biphobia and trasphobia especially due to the discrimination in the Lesbian and Gay community towards bisexuals and transgender people. For example if a gay man says that Trans and Bisexual people are Gays and Lesbians who refuse to come out I cant really turn towards that person and call them a homophobe. If you want to keep LGBT together fine but find a way to do this while making sure that the Trans community especially isn't brought in on this. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking a similar thing. That first we have the institutionalized and internal ones, then a new section with the lesbophobia et al. Personally I see trans people called fag, poofter all the time and it just rolls off them as they've heard it so often. Based on the activity at Homophobia I'm guessing those sub articles are also in need of some care.Insomesia (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think if internal LGBTQ community transphobia is notable it may need to get into the intro at transphobia.Insomesia (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by lumping the entire LGBT community together you are confusing the difference between homophobia and heterosexism. Homophobia, Lesbophobia and Asexual related prejudice are forms of Heterosexism. Lesbophobia and Transphobia are actually forms of Sexism. So I think that your lede on the LGBT community would be better but still not perfect on the Heterosexism page rather than the homophobia page which is literally negativity towards homosexuality. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying. I think if this were a different sort of website we could be very literal and it would wok. There is a way to make this work and maybe a universal paragraph explaining the differences would help. I wonder if it needs to be addressed first at the template? Lesbophia doesn't seem to be listed yet we have it as a main form, I'm not sure we have that correct. Maybe we come up with a clear paragraph about the terminology, as I've always heard of trans, bi- and lesbophobias as specialized forms. I'm leaning towards keep and explain in the intro as the general public may be interested and just needs to know where to look. If we want to spell out that homophobia, etc are forms of heterosexism, we need to strongly source it, I see presently it's under "Distinctions and proposed alternatives." I've been looking at just little sections but the whole article does need attention.Insomesia (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that to an extent biphobia could be a branch of homophobia and lesbophobia clearly is a branch. However transphobia is not about sexual orientation. Its about gender identity. If a woman becomes a man and is attracted to women he is a straight man. He faces transphobia but to say he faces homophobia would be a strech because he is 100% straight.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree that transphobia isn't homophobia although I agree the T is often lumped into LGBT issues without real care to explain the difference in orientation vs. gender identity. I think there is still crossover as those who display anti-gay or homophobic speech and actions don't often differential why they are expressing their thoughts, they just see anything different as a threat to their being, whether a sexuality or gender issue. Another editor has simplified all of that intro a bit. I think we could break out transphobia from that third paragraph and emphasize its difference. Do you think that would help?Insomesia (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would definately help. Thank you. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, took a try at it, let's see if someone can improve on it!Insomesia (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it - Developmental Psychology is a journal published by the APA, not a book published by Vintage Books. AV3000 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye, I didn't even think to look it up. Thank you for doing that.Insomesia (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BEN (song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the pro-gay rap song "BEN (Better Everything Now)" was inspired by the coming out of the artist's gay friend and the It Gets Better campaign? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling was the first book published on health and mental health care for lesbian and gay youth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work i've seen on Homophobia, it's much needed and much appreciated. We need more editors with an interest there. Thanks again Jenova20 10:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well thank you! I like learning new things and trying to tie together sentences explaining .. anything, is sort of fun to me. I'm glad I'm able to help. I'm still digging through the history of conversion "therapy", the origins of transgender and the unclear facets of heterophobia. I need others to see some of the obvious flaws that I miss repeatedly! But if I can help then great!Insomesia (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't really know how to reply on the DYK thread, so I thought I'd stop by here. I was browsing the DYK list, (I have an article in the line) and I read your hook. Since you asked for suggestions, I wondered about something like "... that the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention is to reduce attempted suicides and deaths in the United States due to carbon monoxide poisoning by redesigning automobiles?" I just think that would really catch my eye, FWIW. Good luck with it. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I do like some of the word choices and added it all plus a retweak at Template:Did you know nominations/National Strategy for Suicide Prevention.Insomesia (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of National Suicide Prevention Week at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World Suicide Prevention Day, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that World Suicide Prevention Day (10 September) builds awareness of suicides, including that one third are committed with pesticides like United Nations-banned organophosphates? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/World Suicide Prevention Day. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Catholic sex abuse cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Orange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some new issues with the hook, both length and sourcing. I'm sorry it's taken so long to get this nomination moving again, but with luck it will get a full review shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Insomesia. You say, "Ignoring them hasn't seemed to work for the past months". I can't say whether or not it would work, but it's odd to say it hasn't worked when the talk page and its archives make clear that no such attempt has been made. Ignoring means ignoring—no response at all. You know the old saying, "I won't dignify that with a response"? There's something to that, it seems to me.

There's little doubt in my mind that this is all going to blow up into some big, dramatic showdown one of these days, and that worries me. When those things happen, there's usually fallout that winds up hurting everybody, the innocent as well as the guilty. Just lately, outrageous statements have been made, buttons have been pushed, and fights have been picked. I'm not immune to the effects; some of it is just so fucking stupid that it makes me want to lash out in response. But reacting that way doesn't benefit anybody or anything, it's not reflective of my better self on- or off-wiki, and it will wind up as a diff for someone to throw back in my face at ANI to demonstrate that there's fault to be found on all sides. And if reacting in a more measured, thoughtful way is equally unproductive, then maybe the best option is just not to react at all. I really don't know, but I think it's worth a try. Rivertorch (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to give it a try and have left a note with Jenova to that. I think many more would also have to agree to ignore and even then I'm not sure if it would make any difference. I would like a guideline, especially if it is meant to push people's buttons, as to what specifically warrants any response. To me that's why a FAQ may be helpful - "generally only specific actionable suggestions accompanied by reliable sources for changes are taken at face value." But that may be unworkable. I dunno. Maybe I should just figure out what can be written up on Heterophobia and focus all my energy on fixing just one little aspect at a time. I'll help however I can, even if I'm being called out for demanding reliable sourcing. Insomesia (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ approach is worth considering, and I'm glad you suggested it. I have found it helpful on a couple other pages. Don't know if it would work here, but it might be worth a try. Hardcore POV-pushers don't respect FAQs because they don't respect the consensus that leads to agreed-upon wording in an FAQ. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try it. I think it shows there's been an effort to address these issues (again and again). Insomesia (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ongoing, even an FAQ will be disputed by the POV pushers. Maybe (or maybe not) removing those comments when they appear per NOTFORUM would work? Thanks for the edits to User:Jenova20/Born This Way foundation they were useful. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll come to see that some deeply closeted people will look to an odd communion of sorts, as a way of reconciling issues within themselves or that are deeply personal. They may never be stepped through logic and facts, and as far as I'm concerned it's not our job. Our job is to be ourselves and let others take or leave of that what they will. This, incidentally, seems to be at the core of the BTWF on which I am happy to work and let's make all the little monsters happy with it when it relaunches. Insomesia (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's passion for editing...You have a nice day Insomesia ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a quick note - most people aren't aware of this, it seems, but when copying between the attribution requirements of the license require that we state where the material was copied from. Normally we can get away with just mentioning this in the edit summary, but for larger amounts of text Template:Copied can be handy. :) I've fixed the attribution for Catholic abuse cases, but if you're interested in the details you might want to have a quick scan of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll check it out. Insomesia (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The LGBT Barnstar
		...but to hand out awards! Brilliant work! You even referenced stuff i wasn't planning on doing for a bit. Incredible ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you! Insomesia (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some help from you and other LGBT and LGBT-interested editors on helping me with my infant article on binarism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thats amazing. I can't thank you enough for all you did for the binarism article.-11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for the help you gave me on binarism. Thank you so much Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm glad I could assist. Insomesia (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and please feel free to continue to do so. Your contributions will always be appreciated. This article means alot to me because it has personal significance and every time you help the article you will be giving me a small gift.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember that. Once it's a little more fleshed out I could help you get some sources as well. Insomesia (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks again for the procedures to fix the Heterophobia and Homonegativity issues. Right now, I think it should be a priority to remove Closeted because of what it really is: nothing or simply a repeat of what's in Coming out. You will see that much earlier interventions (not on my part) to Closeted were an apology or defense of remaining in the closet in addition to a hodgepodge of unrelated references, some of which being ex-gay.

I've already added a succint "Closeted" section to Coming out and even though this new section is just a beginning, it is the most appropriate place for the inseparable concept of the closet to be fleshed out.

Now, the actual difficulty with Closeted is the high number of articles linked to it. Is there a bot that can magically and unintrusively replace "Closeted" with "Coming Out#Closeted|closeted"? --CJ Withers (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to delete anything and i think we should look to resolve the bigger issue that we have several overlapping articles/concepts. Notably missing IMHO is openly gay. I think it would make sense to think logically where they all should land and make it clear to ourselves as well as readers. Maybe closeted should only go to coming out, or i could see it as being distinct enough. Not sure, or we could just allow that things build as time goes on. Insomesia (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that what's left of relevant content in Closeted is already included in Coming out (overlap). What's more, "openly gay" is explained in the lede of Coming out. Please read through the article (again), as the issues you raise are answered there.

It would also be great if there were a bot that could direct all instances of "openly gay" to Coming out.--CJ Withers (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that openly gay easily could be its own article. It has been developed as such but gay is not the same as openly gay so that distinction, when the phase was first used, how it's generally used, and that some people never considered themselves to be "in," so never felt the need to be out, etc. facets could be addressed. I think all those redirects are ok as is as they do not all equate to the same thing although we presently send them all to the same place(s). I'll think on it more, and we could ask for more opinions. Insomesia (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Excellent, esp. for getting more input. I see Coming out as encompassing "openly gay", "out", "closeted", etc. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, right now I'm leaning towards ... a new compilation article like Terminology of coming out that summarizes the stages more fully than what we do in coming out. It might include summaries of:

• Closeted
• Coming out/National Coming Out Day
• Outed/Outing
• Openly gay
• Flaming and other modifiers
• Open secret

Also it could weave in appropriately

• That some people are never in the closet
• closetedness can be in phases and recurring
• the presumed default in most cultures is that people are heterosexual, etc.

Does this sound like a possible solution? Insomesia (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to the Parents Action League article. It's nice to encounter people who work collaborative and constructively to expand important content on the 'pedia. If you ever decide to retire from Wikipedia, this valuable Barnstar can be redeemed for a well-deserved frosty beverage of your choice. Enjoy! – MrX 20:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This brightened up my day! I'm a hopeless optimist and I look to see what an article can share about a topic. Thank you as well for all that you did to ensure the content was accurate and coherent. Insomesia (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Religious right and Anti-gay

Classification of transsexuals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Normality

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice start! You should also include GIDAANT and pseudotranssexual, categories that apply to most people who are fixated on scales and hierarchical classification schemes. I'll take a look down the road, maybe next month. I mostly edit because I find it enjoyable, and dealing with some editors here on these topics is far from that for me. Jokestress (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up to your request for feedback on your article improvements, I can email you some relevant materials like the DSM-III and DSM-IV texts on GIDAANT; my gmail address is jokestress. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your kind and constructive words to another editor who was clearly having a difficult time. I believe that actions such as yours make a profound difference in our community. j⚛e deckertalk 22:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so work! I've had to disengage from much of the arguing which did not seem very collegial. And I admire them for sticking to strong editing and diplomacy when I perhaps wouldn't have! Insomesia (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job improving the quality of the page Gay Robot with a multitude of sourcing discussion and referencing efforts, excellent work! — Cirt (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! It was a big dig to find some of that but I hope it helps! Insomesia (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The NPOV Barnstar of Merit
		Excellent edit[2] turning possible POV into NPOV.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  01:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
		This WikiAward was given to Insomesia by   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  on 01:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Insomesia (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding rescue of Mitch Walker. That was a junk article before, puffery than a resume. Now the reader actually is told something of use, with references to boot. Thank you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! Insomesia (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks User:Horrifico (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gay-for-pay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The LGBT Barnstar
		I see you regularly keeping nonsense to a minimum and standing up to the clueless and hate-mongering. I'm not able to contribute as much as I would like so I appreciate that you do what you do! Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You really made my day and I too appreciate what you do! Insomesia (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

You've been mentioned here. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Insomesia. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

OlYeller21^Talktome 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insomesia, do you have evidence that LGR is actively wikistalking you, following you to articles he's never edited before, and reverting you? If you do, make a list of the articles and I'll help you submit the evidence to ANI. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Insomesia, I've reverted your edit to Template:COI/doc because one of the reasons we put these templates on articles is to warn readers that there may be issues with articles. In some cases, such as COI, the reader may wish to keep these issues in mind when reading the article, to help them interpret what is presented to them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created a redirect and merged the Salt Lake Metro article with the related QSaltLake article on Feb. 25. The redirect was undone a few hours later without a stated reason, but the merged text remains a part of the QSaltLake article and has been improved with additional references, citations and links. The Salt Lake Metro article hasn't been so improved, and proves the need for a merged article. As such, there now exists two, very similar, articles.

I wasn't part of the discussion to delete the Salt Lake Metro article, and didn't know about the disussion until the redirect was undone. The result of the discussion was to keep the article, which should mean that a valid redirect and merger is in order.

My reason to merge the articles, and two others (stubs), was that: 1) all the articles relate because the business projects which are their subjects were and are owned by the same person; 2) the most recent and largest of the articles is the QSaltLake article, and should logically include the older and smaller articles as part of its business history; 3) the information included in each of the three or more independent articles complements the others and should, therefore, reside in a single article; 4) maintaining three or more independent articles about different business projects is difficult and encourages disparate or redundant references, citations and links; and 5) doing so "is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect" and "is supported by the guideline to be bold when editing" according to WP:BLAR.

As described in the QSaltLake article citations and links, the QSaltLake publication is the legal successor to the Salt Lake Metro publication, and continues to be owned by one of the original Salt Lake Metro owners. The owner paid the business debt of Salt Lake Metro after creating QSaltLake and, as such, gained sole ownership. So, merging the articles is legal, logical and supported by WP to maintain single, unambiguous articles, when possible.

If the verifiable information was merged and improved (not deleted as discussed previously), shouldn't the redirect be restored? I encourage you to do so. Thanks! QSSVbibi6N76J (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, blocked indef as a sock. I'm not going to template your page, but you know the rules well enough. Please apply to WP:BASC if you wish your community ban to be investigated - Alison ^❤ 07:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so generous here. Seriously? Please let me know as I see this as outrageous to be giving this editor such special treatment!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement. I attempted to help you and look past your baseless accusations only to find that my gut reaction was correct. You have perverted the system for your own, misguided end and apparently didn't care who you hurt in the process. You may think that your actions are somehow helping your misguided cause but I assure you, you're incorrect. How many people, in the face of being accused of prejudice against the LGBT community, will now keep their guard up? I hope you've gained something out of this because you've only hurt your cause. I find your actions pathetic and disgusting. Please don't ever contact me again. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a.......I should have fucking known. I wrote a huge amount of stuff just now but deleted it. O1Yeller21 said it best and I will simply support that. I am really pissed off about this.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already said something on my own talk page yesterday and wasn't going to pile on here, but I'm feeling just awful enough about this to say something here as well. Benjiboi, if this is indeed your sock, I hope you do the honorable thing at this point and leave Wikipedia well alone henceforth. I suspect that in RL you're a good person and an asset to the world, but your actions are deeply damaging both to the Wikipedia community in general and, as OlYeller21 implies above, to the Wikipedia LGBT community specifically. I wish you all the best, and I hope you never return. Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment either, because I don't think Benji cares, nor do I honestly expect him not to continue as he has before. But this consequence of Benji's actions need to be brought to his attention. Someone did the honorable thing and tried addressing Benji's concerns and now they feel duped and ashamed. This is a fellow human being that has been hurt because of you Benji. I'm sure you will continue socking, so why don't you man up and create a throwaway sock and apologize to OldYeller on his talk page. No, an email apology won't cut it. The community is owed this as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this happened, I think you do mean well but if you do return don't step on toes I guess. Thank you for your advice. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:After The Ball cover.gif. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lesbian and Gay youth.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Insomesia; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little monsters (fan) needs a lot of work, just like the Born This Way Foundation did. Are you up to it? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Insomesia. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Insomnia. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Atlanta's Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. We are expanding the LGBT Atlanta, Georgia pages. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --tdempsey (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 3 huge paragraphs giving a history and discussion on the DSM you added to Classification of transsexual people. The 3 paragraphs were off-topic and only tangentially related to the subject of the article. --Beneficii (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are currently indefinitely blocked. I have not examined the details of the reasons why-- I am not sure I want to know what they are. I wanted to talk to you about your proposal for deletion of the COI template, which I recently read and felt great sympathy for. I wanted to tell you that I know some of the editors that disagreed with you, and that I did not realize myself just how misaligned this particular template was. And that I wanted to know if you thought it would be worth a third (!) attempt at a deletion proposal, which I would have maybe been personally willing to make after contacting those editors and seeing if I could get them to maybe change their opinions. But here I am, and you have been gone for three years now. I thought you articulated your argument very well, and I don't think those who opposed you really understood your reasoning or intentions. Damn it, why'd you have to go and get yourself blocked?? I suppose it happens... It's just that this is one of those time when I really wish it hadn't. You had me excited because it looked to me like you had a good point. But I'm not about to go challenging the likes of Jim Watson on my own, even if I think he missed that point. The man has too much street cred. And you are gone. Damn it. Looks like the template is going to hang around a bit longer, and to no one's real benefit. Damn it. KDS4444 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Florida Family Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Instaurare (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]