Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 7 August 2009

fundamentalism

User:MishMich/fundamentalism

Intersex

User:MishMich/intersex

Julie Bindel

User:MishMich/Julie Bindel

Started,

, see draft. -- Banjeboi 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll work my way through formatting citations - will take a bit of time. Still catching up on Wiki standards etc.

Mish

It would be helpful to just bundle her writing articles together so we know which ones concern which topics. Those refs will be a little trickier because we'll have several articles bundled in one ref note like <ref>Bindel's writing on lesbian issues include; * 25 March 2009, ''The Guardian'', * 9 June 2006, ''The Guardian'', etc. </ref> If it's mind-numbing just tack the link to each article and i can sort through it. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Appended links. Is there a representative enough sample now, or should there be more? Mish (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dare I ask ... how many articles has she written? We'll need to review all the ones that cover bi and trans communities. -- Banjeboi 09:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Over 160 for the Guardian, plus at least one each for the Telegraph and the Independent (these two are cited) - to go further back than ten years would involve my trawling an academic database, and that would start taking us into original research.
• We have all the ones that deal with trans issues I am aware of.
• One for the Telegraph,
• one about a rape crisis center, her views phrased in a way that is offensive about trans people,
• one about the issues raised in a GMC disciplinary of a psychiatrist, an interview with a trans regrettor, and her views
• one about the Hecklers debate & her views,
• one a mention in the context of discussion about gender-neutral toilets,
• one in response to the protest in the context of the expansion of L&G into LGBTQQI..
• Bisexuality? She's written nothing apart from the post-protest piece that I am aware of, nor can I find anything.
• The only reference seems to be the one which includes bisexuals in the 'list' of LGBTQQI inclusions as people seen as having 'odd sexual habits' that she questions lesbian inclusion with.

• The bisexual aspect is news to me, so ask the person who had it inserted to verify she has singled out bisexuals?
• As with the claims that she has written substantively more about trans than the articles cited - instead of saying 'she wrote more' she needs to show where she that she did this.
• No?
• If I get time I will go through them all again, see if anything pops out, but I have been over them a couple of times already. Mish (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow and thank you. My brain hurts so I have to take a break but will more fully respond. It sound like bisexual stuff should be dropped - if it's included we can state of the 160 articles Bindel has written only one mentions bisexuality, etc. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've finished with the draft for now (see link above), and pointed Rebecca to it for her comments. Mish (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

user page

Saw the note on your current user p. The old versions of your user page have not actually been deleted. They are visible in the page history to anyone who looks--and its perfectly alright that they should be so. If for some reason you would like them actually deleted so only administrators can see them, this can be done--ask me (but I see no reason that it is necessary to do this). DGG (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think about it. The purpose was not to 'hide' the information, but remove it from view (following an objection to what I put there). Mish (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to work collaboratively

I appreciate your taking the time to work on User:JamesMLane/Robinson sandbox, but there's really no point in continuing. My idea was that all of us would collaborate to create the RfC with a fair and concise statement of each position, and that only after that language was in place would the RfC be posted. Instead, however, Banjeboi disdained participating in that process and posted the RfC unilaterally. A few people responded before I could even present my side.

The RfC is now in full swing. Banjeboi's action has rendered the sandbox page a dead letter. I personally don't intend to work on it any more, despite the time I already invested in it. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt that was disrupting, luckily we are communicating with the subject to get their views on the salient issues so we should be able to resolve this soon enough. -- Banjeboi 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tamsin Wilton

Hi, good job on that article! I have three comments:

• The list of her works is quite exhaustive and I think it is only a matter of time before somebody slaps a {{laundry}} template on it. It is more usual in this kind of bios to limit such a list to the most significant works of a person.
• I am not sure that the LGBT/Queer studies portal template at the bottom is at its place here, as the article concerns a person, not those studies themselves. But I am not familiar with that portal, so I may be wrong (but there is not a link to something like "bios" in it...)
• Notability has not yet been established conclusively, I feel. For an academic to become notable it is not enough to have published, all academics publish. Those publications should have been noted. Perhaps you have a reference somewhere that shows the impact that her works have had on her field(s). The award named after her would go a very long way, if the organization that established it would be very notable in itself. At this point, that is not clear. (I am not saying that I don't think she's notable, I'm pretty sure she is, I'm just saying that the article does not yet establish this beyond doubt. I am in the life sciences myself, so I know less about how to do this in this field, otherwise I would already have tried to find some sources for this myself).

Hope this helps! Happy editing, --Crusio (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help & feedback. Mish (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

IfD for LawrenceFobesKing.jpg

Hi - Your last comment seems to need better formatting to read clearly. It's hard to follow the way it is. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. — Becksguy (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Article

What article exactly is being contested? Homophobia? Let me know I'll try and see if we can reach a consensus, Have we sent the legal threat template to whoever is threatening you? I am not admin but I'll try and helpHellinaBucket (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the diffs he left on the Admin board, if that is what you are reffering to that wouldn't be a legal threat. Is there somethign else we're missing?HellinaBucket (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, I've come across several of your posts recently, and they're thoughtful and interesting. I do have one suggestion though, if you don't mind: splitting long posts into paragraphs makes them much easier to read. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Buggered

You said "I'm sure for a lot of people who don't like it, it's because they simply can't be buggered with it." I'm not a native English speaker. What does this mean (the "buggered" part)? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a 'Double entendre'. 'Buggered' was a common term used in various way 'Your car is buggered, mate' (broken), 'I can't be buggered with that' (can't be bothered), 'Silly bugger' (fool). The other meaning of 'buggery' is 'sodomy'. Like 'bugger', the abbreviation of sodomy could be used in similar ways too: 'Silly sod' (fool), 'Sod off' (get lost), 'Sod that for a lark', (I don't fancy that). The use of 'bugger' in this way was quite common amongst both 'upper' and 'lower' class men up till the 1970's, but is less used nowadays outside of the upper classes. 'Sod' was more common amongst the working classes. People today are more likely to use other terms that are more obviously swear words in this way like 'fuck that for a game of tiddlywinks', 'fuck that for a game of soldiers', or 'I can't be fucked' (can't be bothered). I doubt I could find sources to substantiate this, but it was quite common in some circles (some would see this as swearing, of course, so it was not always acceptable). The way I used it was a humorous way of playing with the dual meanings - the obvious intention 'can't be bothered', juxtaposed with an aspect of homosexual practice, namely, buggery. In other words, some people will have an aversion to 'homosexuality' (in your comment) as personal practice because they are not homosexual. Mish (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive explanation. Sorry I missed the joke. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done on, er, slipping that one in, Mish. Are you in a part of the Anglosphere where "Can't be fagged" would have a suitably multifacted meaning as well? Orpheus (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of scope for 'fag' double-entendres here, because that is what cigarettes are commonly called. So, 'fancy a fag?' is the most obvious one. People tend not to say 'can't be fagged' here, but more likely to say 'can't be arsed', although we do say 'fagged out'. Problem with me is that I tend to operate slightly tongue-in-cheek 60% of the time, but it gets lost in the medium. I've been bending over backwards to try and come up with a retort to the innuendo you inserted - but as you can see, the possibilities are limited. It would be good to pull together a list of derogatory words, innuendo and double-entedres - but where would you find the sources? And would Misplaced Pages cope with all the depravity? I'd hoped the comment might raise a slight smile and diffuse some of the angst. It has been an interesting discussion, not least because my own views shifted to some extent. I do like changing my mind, believe it or not, as it reminds me I am still alive, not a fossil, do not know it all, and still have much to learn - but it is not aways easy). Mish (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised what's already in Misplaced Pages. Euphemism has a large-ish collection, and profanity illustrates with examples. Also see Category:Profanity and List of ethnic slurs. Regarding retorting, fire away - as I said on the category talk page I try to avoid taking these things too seriously. I'm more likely to misunderstand during the 40%.

Incidentally, you mention on your user page something about an intro - I wouldn't mind seeing it, if you have no objections. Orpheus (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I got an admin to delete it - I decided that because there were some people whose paths I crossed I would rather not be able to work out who I am, I felt more comfortable having it removed. Mish (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A favour

Having seen the work you were able to do on a compromise for the Bindel article, I wonder if you might be able to pop by the brewing mess at Michael Flood, which I stumbled across this morning.

He's a respected feminist male academic who used to teach at my university, and has evidently antagonised some men's rights activists, who are trying to have an article that's about 90% about their disputes with him. He's already complained about his article and unsuccessfully tried to get it deleted, and it seems the quick BLP rewrite someone did is going to be vigorously resisted.

I realise that it's a bit ironic considering we were on opposite sides of the Bindel dispute, but resolving these sorts of conflicts aren't really my specialty, and you did a damned good job with that. Rebecca (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Not on opposite sides, it is just that I respect Bindel for most of what else she has done, and feel it is time we put the 1974 article behind us. She said what she said, and she has the views she has. She shouldn't have said what she said, but I can live her having her views. Mish (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's a pain, but I appreciate another eye on the thing. I've watchlisted the GLF draft; looks pretty good to me at a first glance at least. Rebecca (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Please see my suggestion to Exploding Boy. (Discussion continues on my talk.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1ee 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the DYK hook to only quote "biship" and "keep on sinning". The reason I haven't quoted the entire segment is because I had modified (shortened) the text of the original quote. If you would like the entire segment to be quoted then the text from the original quote must be used. --Bruce1ee 05:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A shiny barnstar!

Thanks, Benji, I have learned a lot in the process - not least to try and take a step back now and then. I still think the detail is too much, but if it gets round the concerns about how things are represented than let's see if it stands. The Misplaced Pages policy of reflecting sources as accurately as possible seems to be the way to go. I have put this on my user page. Mish (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Transgender topics and religion

Hi, i just wanted to let you know I created the transgender religion cat above, but haven't added any articles other than the main transgender/religion article, except for Two Spirit, and Hijra (South Asia). I checked kathoey, but didn't see any religious content mentioned in the article (except that Buddhism was generally tolerant of it), so I didn't add to the cat (in case you want to add it, or know any other articles which would fit). :-) Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at Kathoey, and you are right - but this gives some scope for development of that theme within the category. I am sure there will be others in the future, and this provides a basis for them, as well as sexuality, under LGBT issues and religion. I will get around to looking at the CofE, EA, etc., as I get time. Mish (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action

On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glory hole (naval)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glory hole (naval), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP not a dictionary

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Langley Simmons

I'm rarely active on the LGBT WikiProject, but these days I'm not all that active here at all. Life is busy. I have to admit I had never heard of Dawn Langley Simmons before reading about the new guidelines for transgendered people. Looking over her life, this is exactly the kind of biography we all should be pushing towards at least good article status. I've known of her for little over 24 hours and am already fascinated and there must be reams of material about her. I look forward to working on this subject more than I have on any in a long time. AniMate 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the article now. I've removed some copyright violations from the NY Times obituary, sourced everything I could, and did some rearranging. There are a few facts that need verifying, but very few. The Mae West interview seems legit, but the article from the Independent has been purged from every online source. I also can't find verification of he appearance on Tomorrow with Tom Snyder. Still, I think it's in okay shape, and with some more work and fleshing out, could get promoted one day. AniMate 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a couple of minor textual edits earlier. I have found a couple of cheap books that cover her life, one by herself and one that does so critically. So leave the fact tags, and I'll see what is in them to verify the information. It is odd, because the independent has items by the same contributor around that time, and items (including obituaries) that go back before 2000. So I'm surprised there is nothing there, if there was something, but given how noteworthy she was, I am more surprised that there is nothing in the Guardian or Times either. What is odd is that this is not the only missing link - the LGBT wiki had a link to a page on Jeannette Winterson's site, and another site to Newsweek, both are dead now too. It is as though references to her have been erased at some point over the past two years - yet I cannot see why or how that would happen. It is intriguing. he book on her was published in 2004, yet it seems odd that it is already unavailable on Amazon apart from through resellers. I find it exceedingly odd that apart from her books and wiki sites, a search on Google tyrns up so little. I'll see what my media hardcopy on her is tomorrow. If the source is no longer available online, then it is still valid if it once existed, but without a link. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the most part everything was verified, either through the NY Times or Peninsula of Lies, which is hardly complimentary. From what I've read, Ball seems rather hostile, dismissive, and skeptical, but he did a thorough job of tracking everyone down who was still alive. If anything, I'd be interested in finding some reviews of her works. Critical reception of her biographies would help flesh out the article, because aside from knowing she wrote the books, we don't really know anything about how they were received. AniMate 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ravel theories

Given Ravel's Bolero, I'm wondering if you have any psychosexual theories about Maurice Ravel. James470 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is well known for its sexual connotations, although probably only through anecdote; I am sure somebody did a comedy sketch full of sexual innuendo once based on it (Dudley Moore?). It would make for an interesting artcile, though, the psychosexual connotations of works of classical music. I am sure there must be others. Hate to think what Stockhausen was into... Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Glory hole (naval)

I have nominated Glory hole (naval), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glory hole (naval). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Passportguy (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Yogyakarta Principles

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Yogyakarta Principles, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Start by rewritting or adding quote marks to any phrases, sentences etc that are from that website. Work on rewriting each, since the document is 2006 it is most likely fully copyright so everything will have to be rewritten and trimmed back. Also add a note to the talkpage taht you are working on rewriting it all to satisfy Copyvio concerns. -- Banjeboi 11:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Project rationales

I couldn't tell from the talk page if you knew how to add these, so i put an example below:

{{LGBTProject |nested=yes |class=C |explanation=This article is within the scope of the '''WikiProject LGBT studies''' project, because... }}

So you simply add another field with |explanation=xxx. Hope it is useful to you!YobMod 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh - I didn't know that, thanks. So much to learn, so much to do, so little time... Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

The Miss Julie Memorial LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter: Special Pride 2009 Booty call edition

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XVIII: June 24, 2009 Yo, happy Pride y'all - are you ready for your close-up? Stonewall riots How do you change the world? You can start by writing an incredible article for the world's encyclopedia. Moni3 kicks it old school again with Stonewall riots - a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn. hey have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world. It's a featured article hitting the mainpage this Sunday to mark the 40th anniversary of the events. So first off, wow! Clever and cool. Moni3 has been recently named hottest delegate to Obama's bookclub but that may not be official yet. (Shhh!) Otto4711 mentioned that gee we really should swamp the DYK section with LGBT-related articles for use on the 28th as well. We have eight or so in the holding area and if you push yourself to get an article together you might be able to get in on the fun. Do this now! The official rules for DYKs can be found here. Once you have expanded an article 5-fold or created an article with at least 1,500 characters of prose, place your DYK thread here. Use this handy tool to count your 1,500 characters. As a suggestion, when you add your potential hook, include the character count and a link to the source(s) that confirm the hook. These will be confirmed anyway but may help. Trans quotes needed for Portal:Transgender The layout for the individual quotes is here (just copy/paste into one of the red links on Portal:Transgender/Random quote). Then this counter has to be upped to match the new # of total quotes (not counting quote zero). Obama proclamation On June 1, President Barack Obama declared June 2009 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, citing the riots as a reason to "commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans". Excerpts at the bottom. F*ck me I'm famous I was interviewed by Misplaced Pages Signpost, the weekly in-house newsletter, for the WikiProject report. The Signpost has nearly 1,000 Wikipedian subscribers and arguably many of those folks actually read it. It came about rather quickly and my worst fears - that it was an elaborate hoax by a troll - were apparently unfounded. I hope y'all feel I did fine by the project, I did my best to avoid the phrase "man-humping, cock-sucking, doggy-style loving queer" but otherwise did ok. Free image appeal A friendly reminder to consider taking photos while you're out and about at various Dyke marches and Pride parades. Consider donating them to the world at Wikicommons. I'm sooo totally over having to deal with lovely images being deleted and argued about. If they are just free they are then also freely usable worldwide. And no, they don't need photos of your cha-cha or hoo-hoo-dilly. Chaz Bono Sonny and Cher's daughter was a famous lesbian and now he's a famous transman, possibly the most famous in the world. This also serves as a friendly reminder that we recently updated Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines - it's not perfect but should help inform on those gnip-gnop battles that do seem to drag on, and not in the good way. R U Popular? Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Popular pages is a new handy place to see which LGBT-tagged pages are the most popular in any given month. Article alerts As part of the redecorating at our talkpage, the article alerts and keyword search alerts are handily located at the top of the page. Always fascinating to see what's up. All help appreciated on those. Glambert Adam Lambert is soooo gay - surprised? Neither is anyone else. Nuff said. David Ogden Stiers was outed but apparently he wasn't terribly in either. Community Quilt reminder Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Quilt - update it and add yourself! Our own little IRC home The LGBT studies project does have its own free Internet Relay Chat channel, #wikipedia-en-lgbt , for coordination, collaboration and socializing. This channel is hosted on Freenode and can be accessed in one of two ways: If you already have an IRC client, click the link to the left. If you do not have an IRC client, you'll need to get one installed on your computer first. Once you've done this, then click on the link to the left. For more general information on IRC and a listing of other useful Misplaced Pages-related channels, see Misplaced Pages:IRC channels. The project had at one point another channel at #LGBTproject but as the original people associated with the setting up and administration of that channel have seemed to have disappeared, this new channel has been set up. Plus the new channel is inline with required naming conventions for Misplaced Pages related IRC channels. So, feel free to use this channel. Such a channel gives opportunity to discuss the latest happening on articles, the LGBT project itself, latest happening in your life with "wiki-friends" here, etc.. You can say things on there you normally wouldn't here on Misplaced Pages (keeping it civil of course) like talk about the latest hot guy/girl or tell a joke.. you get the point. Anyway, see you there - eventually! LGBT to-do list (held over from last edition) Give out more barnstars, and let each other know that what they're doing is valued. Create a guide to stave off burnout, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb. Bring back the monthly collaboration project. Participate in LGBT Peer reviews. Get familiar with the characteristics of Good Articles and get our top priority articles to WP:GA. Keep our project page and open tasks template updated. Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too! Offer research materials, copy editing, ideas, and support to your fellow editors. Keep the project talk page informed of problems and discussions we should know about. “ There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. n both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists. - Barack Obama, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009, The White House (June 1, 2009). ” Click your heels three times ladies and gents, home is where hot is! -- Banjeboi To receive this newsletter in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for support

Thank you for support on Conversion Therapy Talk Page. Maybe you could post your opinion to the very similar issue on LGBT parenting Talk Page. --Destinero (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look, and tried to edit some of the writing in a way that neutralises it a bit. I'm not really familiar enough with the position in the USA to comment that much, but when I have time I will see if I can dig out anything from Europe/UK to add. I have begun editing down the history section from the CT article, it is accessible in a sandbox off my main page as User:MishMich/CV_history.Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

Misch...Thanks for the heads up. Note that each comment I made is accurate and factual, not suggesting incivility but rather constructive criticism. I admit to the isolated question about IBM and Control-C, but I am sincerely interested in the answer that question. Most everything the editor in question has contributed has been a copyright violation, hurting Misplaced Pages.Tobit2 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it is just that reading this, it came across as quite sarcastic, and could be read as baiting. I think you need to make it clearer what you are referring to when you say things like that, because I read this as a response to what was in the preceding paragraph - which was linked to the source, and used in discussion rather than on the main page. Copyvio does apply to what is on main pages, but when used in talk pages to substantiate a point that is less clear. I am not familiar with these discussions myself, as they are about US issues, and am not that familiar with the discussions in Europe either, so I am approaching this from how it looks from the 'outside'. I rephrased some of the text on the article, because the language is not quite what we expect in an encyclopedia (emotive words like 'remarkable' are not neutral). If you are saying that this passage itself was lifted from somewhere, then do point me to it, and I will compare them. I also think that what was said in the part of the section I edited could have been said more succinctly (it was quite repetitive), but will refrain from condensing until it is clear that the edit war has ceased. I feel that balancing views do have to be presented, but where they are marginal and contrary to established opinion, they need to be clearly highlighted as such, and this is well covered in the guidelines. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again MischMich. I am no expert in this area. I'm aware of the parenting studies based on some adoption research, but that's the extent of my knowledge. So I be much obliged if you could improve the text. I think the previous edits you made already caught most problems. However, the first and fourth paragraphs appear to have some lifting from Ref. 20 still. For example, the sentence beginning "Empirical research," and the one containing, "inherently better parents." The fourth paragraph seems to be lifting large phrases from Ref. 24. Thanks again.Tobit2 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mish, please be careful with using such a loaded term as "vandalism." I have been fair and patient in removing the plagiarized material, documenting where it occurs line by line.Tobit2 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Misch, I am sorry, but you have re-inserted plagiarized material. This is against Misplaced Pages's rules. You should be adding back only valid material, line by line, after discussion on the Talk Page. I will give you a short period of time to correct the situation and then if the plagiarized material continues to exist, I will need to report it. Please take this up on the Talk Page so that we can do it the right way.Tobit2 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than threatening me here, I would prefer it if you did address this on the talk page. Mish (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not been threatened, but advised of Wiki policies. I thank you for understanding the importance of this situation and removing the plagiarized material. If you work on it off-line and remove the offending issues, that would be wonderful. That said, since the paragraph in question is a major addition to the article, I do ask that the addition be proposed and discussed on the Talk Page as well.Tobit2 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia at The Hardy Boys

Hi, I found your name through the LGBT project page. There's a massive amount of homophobia going on at Talk:The Hardy Boys - the article has been purged of all sources that discuss the issue b/c homophobe-editors say the issue is "fringe". I am way outnumbered, so I am trying to raise awareness of the problem. Any help would be appreciated! Ricardiana (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is the first time I've heard about them. If you would like me to have a look at some material or sources, as an uninterested observer, I can give an opinion, but TBH I don't think I have much to offer on this. Mish (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

		The LGBT Barnstar
		I am awarding MishMich this barnstar for LGBT studies, for taking an active interest in all parts of the project, and usually getting to things before the rest of us, and actually fixing problems when he finds them. It's great to know you are keeping an eye on articles that can cause controversy and may fly under others' radars. Thanks!YobMod 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LGBT parenting

Thank you so much for your contribution, Sorry, I had a really hard time trying to explain what you eloquently expressed. For me that settles it. I was worried that a previous framing of the question would undermine what the authors really were trying to get across. But your edit really convey what it says. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, I tried, but I doubt I will be persisting. Mish (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, MishMich. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, because I removed the page from my watchlist after the RfC was closed, and though the matter was settled, I was not aware of the situation. Mish (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

E.O. Green/Lawrence King

Hey MishMich,

You're right that the thread you participated in here (btw, you forgot to sign) started two weeks ago. However, it contains (four comments from the top) a link to a thread from last month that ended very differently from this one. I inserted that link in the hope that anyone who happened along would be sure to read the earlier thread and realize the new thread was part of a larger, longer discussion before drawing conclusions.

Incidentally, if you're new to watching this article, it has an extraordinarily contentious history. I'm rather enjoying this spirited discussion among thoroughly civil people, considering some of what happened there over the past year. Happy weekend to you! Rivertorch (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this article, although I did visit it before over the issue of the photo, which featured on another article as well. I wish more discussions could be civil. Happy weekend to you to. Mish (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Homophobia#Anti-pederasty

FYI, WP:DFTT. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

List of unlawfully killed transgender people

I notice in the hidden text to that article that it states A photograph has a place ONLY in an article about that person. Photographs placed here will be removed on sight by any editor without discussion - as an instruction I'm not sure it has any force ? - most of our rather complex rules around photos relate to copyright images, I can see no restriction in policy that provides the addition of public domain or creative commons images where appropriate to the article. I know some will make the "it turns the article into a tribute!" argument but surely that's created via prose? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Tks. Maybe needs removing? I will wait and see if there is any other response. Mish (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The hidden text should be removed. We don't use images to decorate but to illustrate so Cameron Scott is spot on here that the primary issue is fair-use. Images should have a good description explaining why that image is meaningful. IMHO, I would only use commons images on most list articles unless none are available. -- Banjeboi 18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tks, Removed the comment, replaced with something more appropriate. Mish (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate template

Hi, why have you created Template:LGBT and Christianity when it is a duplicate of the already existing Template:Homosexuality and Christianity? - Epson291 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is different - this covers LGBT issues, not just homosexuality, so it includes transgender (and bisexuality). Mish (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For several reasons. First it was discussed in October of 2006 (see here) about adding Jewish organizations and possibly renmaing the page. Then, in March of this year, the Jewish references were removed (which had been there for several years, including the word synagogue in the lede) and the page was moved without any discussion. - Epson291 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. OK, I have recreated the Christian one, and dropped the Jewish references. The renamed one needs to reduce the detail about Christian churches, expand the detail about Synagogues (I believe that in the USA conservative as well as liberal and reformed are more affirming now - is that right?), include information about Muslim LGBT-organisations, and link to the church one, maybe? I'd be OK about it staying as you have put it, but I'm be reluctant to put the Template:LGBT and Christianity on there. What do you think?

I think it would be better to have it as one article, and just move the LGBT template on Christianity lower than the lead. I don't think, at this time, this is enough seperate information for multiple articles. That said, if you think they are better seperate I don't oppose it. - Epson291 (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think you may be right, I'll revert the page back to a redirect and do that - just don't want to put anybody's nose out of joint by putting it on there. Mish (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK it looks good. - Epson291 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I will look at converting it to a proper nabox as you have done with the religion template - but no time right now. I have separated out into sections for Christianity, Judaism and Islam - but need to find more details on the latter (only know of one group in the UK). Added more info as well. Mish (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on Islam, such as a gay welcoming mosque, so add this organization that you know of. As for Christianity, I wrote a little bit, but I hesitated writing anything in depth since I am not incredibly familar with the topic, espcially in terms of how welcoming/affirming different churches are/ between different denominations (ex. UCC, Episcopal, etc...). - Epson291 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks

Thanks for catching and correcting my lapse in attention on Homosexuality when applying MOS:IDENTITY. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - well spotted on the rest, BTW. Mish (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (I think)

"I find the use of 'romantic' problematic, in part because it is alien to me (I assumed it was something heterosexuals do)" Mish, I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. You've obviously never been serenaded from below your open bedroom window by a gorgeous homosexual person strumming a guitar with a rose in his or her teeth. Come to think of it, neither have I. And, man, am I glad!" Rivertorch (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, glad you appreciated it - it does sound like a bit odd, doesn't it? I don't think I have ever heard the word used by lesbians or gay men (other than critically). Mish (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm sure I've heard it used ironically by other LGBT people. I can't think offhand whether I've heard it used seriously, but I'm absolutely sure it's thought of seriously. It's a bit tricky up there in the lede because it's so subjective, but it is sourced. Besides, how dare str8 people have exclusive dibs on romance! Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ironic use. I agree it is odd in the lead, but from a queer perspective it is an interesting insertion. Mish (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision links

Hi. The number of links in promotion and opposition needs to remain balanced. Please discuss which one of the existing you would like to remove and why the one you wish to add is superior, so that the balance may be maintained. Thank you for understandning the fine line we have to walk on very contentious articles such as this one. -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a UK link, if somebody wants to insert a pro-circumision link from the UK, let them. Mish (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As the article is a powderkeg, I highly suggest that this be discussed at Talk:Circumcision. Per WP:EL, it is not prudent to have too many links in toto. Having a UK link makes sense, but it should come by removing one that is there, in my opinion, and I suggest we let others discuss as well. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but given there are four international EL's that will not be relevant to people in countries like the UK, it would be advisable to break this down into international and national organisations. I have made a start on this by separating out USA (against), UK (against) and Israel (for) - which leaves the international section balanced with 4 for and against. If somebody wishes to, they can add 1 for for both UK and USA, and 1 against for Israel. I have outlined this on the talk page. Mish (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision external links

Specifically on sexasnatureintendedit, this was added quite recently, as discussed here: previous discussion. You might also like to read:Talk:Kristen_O'Hara#Notability.
Why do you think NORM-UK would be better than sexasnatureintendedit? Don't people already get the same type of information from http://www.cirp.org/library/, http://nocirc.org/ and http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/. I think you have to see that some anti-circ sites offer certain information better than others. From my perspective the best of the anti-circ sites is probably cirp.org. Why do you think NORM-UK can offer something extra for the reader that isn't already being offered?
Or is it that you just want a 'representative from the UK', as it were? If so, the solution might be to include both, and add a pro-circ site from the UK too, such as: http://www.gilgalsoc.org/. That way we could offer a wide variety of perspectives. Some of the editors at circumcision are insistent it be perfectly balanced.
The article needs to reflect more the worldwide (including the UK) view of circumcision, but I don't think the external links are the main 'culprit' of this worldwide-view imbalance. Tremello22 (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried adding the EL, but this got reverted as some editors have set a five-a-side limit. I tried adding it as a UK-specific link, but those editors would not allow that either. They suggested that the only way it could go in was to replace an existing link. I looked at locating under the only UK section, but that is restricted to medical-bodies only (not groups such as those that are pro/anti circumcision. The whole page is seriously flawed - it appears engineered in a way that fails to represent the extent of opposition to this practice in some countries, while accepting unquestioningly the normativity of certain religious approaches. I am all for NPOV, but this article doesn't seem to come near it, and it appears that WP policies are being used to disallow legitimate material and links from being inserted. Mish (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mish. Thanks for your help and concern relating to Circumcision. I agree with your summation of said article's NPOV state. Feel free to be bold and use WP:BRD to edit page. Myself and others who share similar viewpoints will support you when available to try and correct these errors. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

For the record, you are close to, if not already over, wikipedia's restrictions on edit warring on Circumcision. -- Avi (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not, I have reverted one edit - yours - if you revert that, then you are violating WP:3RR. Mish (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ed) Seconding Avi's comment. This is a controversial article, with the {{controversial}} template on its talk page. I think it's reasonable to proceed something like this: for changes that are unlikely to be controversial, you can just edit them in. Other changes can be suggested on the talk page, and if there's no reply after 24 hours, I think it's reasonable to edit them in; but in any case as soon as an objection is expressed on the talk page or somebody reverts, then I think the article should be left reverted to its previous state until there is a consensus for change on the talk page. You've done far more reverting than that. Note that editors can be blocked for editwarring even if they don't exceed 3RR. Avi has done 2 edits to the Circumcision article in the past 24 hours. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, doing 4 reverts in a 24-hour period violates 3RR. However, it's taken in context. Avi is reverting to the previous consensus version; you're doing reverts of material which one to three editors have expresses opposition to, and before there's been a reasonable amount of time for discussion on the talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(Although, for the David Reimer material, Garycompugeek has expressed support. Please wait until consensus is reached, though.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "stonewalling" : please assume good faith, and comment on content, not on contributor's alleged motives. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: WP:AN3#User:MishMich_reported_by_Avi_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29

I have done two reverts in the past 24 hours. The only other edits have been to accommodate other editors' criticisms, or editing in the light of other editors comments. I shouldn't worry, it is plain to see that this article is hopelessly biased, where editors use policy to try and obstruct insertion of relevant material, and I see nothing constructive to be gained in trying to do anything with this article beyond what I have done. Remember, I came here because of an RfC due to the existing problems you have here, and my interest in this prior to that was negligible. I often see this, where editors post RfCs hoping to gain support for things, but then get upset when coming from a neutral perspective reasonable edits are made that conflict with their sense of what they like in the article and what they don't like. Mish (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've added (re-added?) the David Reimer material 4 times in 24 hours. I'm going to add to Avi's 3RR report I think. I suggest that you self-revert your last edit to avoid a possibility of being blocked (which could happen even with fewer than 4 reverts). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion, MishMich, that you are edit warring despite multiple attempts to discuss issues with you on the talk page of the article as well as this page (see above sections). The responding admin to the edit warring notice will make the decision; as an involved party, I cannot, of course. You are more than welcome to post any defense or explanation you may have at the notice. -- Avi (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion he isn't. This editor has been making discussion changes on talk and using the edit summary. You and Jake have not liked some of his changes and have decided to edit war. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the 1st addition of David Reimer material may not have been a revert, but 3 clear reverts of re-adding David Reimer plus one revert of re-adding norm-uk.org definitely violates 3RR in my opinion. Plus the fact that it's a controversial article, other editwarring yesterday etc. Adding to Avi's report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MishMich: In response to Garycompugeek's post at the noticeboard: I am certainly not trying to drive you away from the article! I meant it when I said I welcome your participation, and I still do. It's just that I'm accustomed to having things discussed and agreed on before being edited into the article. And that's what the "controversial" template suggests. I think it works better that way. A lot of time can be wasted on revert warring. Also, this is a highly polished article. It gets a lot of page views, and I don't like to see material going in with spelling mistakes and other problems. We want to work with you cooperatively. Let's focus on discussing the reasons for various proposed changes, and work towards consensus. Welcome. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice that the spelling on the image at commons was wrong, but when it was raised, I corrected it on the article (I cannot do much about the original image, that is down to whoever posted it there). I have addressed each point that has been raised, and accommodated them where appropriate. I think that the way the article has been structured is poor - because it works to exclude certain perspectives in favour of others - so religion and medicine are in, but there is no place for circumcision in popular culture, the media, academic discourse, and so on. This article has serious WP:OWN problems - although I don't see you as being part of that, as you have been civil. I consider the accusation of edit warring so soon into my starting to contribute to this article as extreme bad faith, and I do not respond well to people who try to bully people. I do not usually work on articles that operate in the way you describe, there is too little time and too much work to do - I doubt I will be hanging around, because I have seen that when one or two editors have WP:OWN issues, and concentrate on excluding material they do not like, using whatever policies they can to do so, what you find is a series of editors who attempt to improve the article, but get frustrated and give up and move on to articles they can contribute to without acrimony. That leaves the problematic articles to stagnate. It is unfortunate when that happens to an article as important as this one. I disagree about the restriction on ELs, for example, by placing an arbitrary number of links that excludes countries like the United Kingdom, (I agree they should be balanced) as many people come to the encyclopedia looking for information, and ELs are one way they can find links to organisations that they can follow-up to find out more in ways that are specific to their situation. Links to organisations mostly based in the USA (or Israel) may well be useful for people in the USA or who are Jewish, but not for most people. Mish (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I did when I wanted to change the article: I began by posting my proposed change on the talk page: Talk:Circumcision/Archive 55#Without anesthetic. In that talk page post, I followed my "What, Why, Where" method. Nobody objected to the change, one editor approved, and after about a day and a half I edited it into the article. Another editor expressed approval afterwards . It helps to present the proposed change as clearly as possible, connecting it with reasons based on sources and arguments about due weight etc.

So you see, I didn't even do BRD; I didn't even edit once before discussing and getting consensus. The "controversial" template calls on us to be more careful on this type of article.

If you're not going to hang around long, I hope before you go you'll present the changes you want to see in a nice, organized way so that it will be easy to refer back to your messages in the talk page archives and discuss the proposed changes even after you've left.

I know, the first time I tried to edit a controversial article I felt similarly: as if they were excluding all changes. Now I'm on the other side of the fence. I'm not excluding all changes. However, the article has been edited a lot already so it's very high quality already (or seems so to those of us who have been editing it) so most changes are seen as not being improvements. The article does change nevertheless, though, and I'm sure there's room for improvement. You can help make it better: you're bringing in a fresh perspective and ideas we hadn't thought of.

It would be helpful if you could come up with arguments based on sources and due weight about how much information there should be about various subtopics. I admit that the sizes of the sections agreed on a couple of years ago was rather arbitrary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would self-revert your last edit. It would be a show of good faith and cooperation, and help get us all into the spirit of working together. We can still continue to discuss the changes you propose. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that - and I'll see how the WP:AN3 goes, but TBH I am only peripherally interested in this aspect of genital surgery, and am more concerned with editing LGBT articles. Mish (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for self-reverting!! I struck out the last revert in my report here: ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I have withdrawn the report. Hopefully we can work out a better article through dialog on the talk page. -- Avi (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the successful proposed change I described above re anesthesia: actually, it was more complicated than that. There had been several discussions, I think, now and then spread out perhaps over a couple of years, about deleting the Glass quote. Those discussions did not lead to change. But when I put the work into doing a web search, reading the sources etc. and coming up with a well-organized argument and proposed specific new wording, then it was finally accepted as described above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes well and good but not at all in the spirit of the wiki. This article needs to conform to the standards of the rest of the encyclopedia. Anyone should be able to come and edit the article as long as are policies and guidelines are followed. One of the reasons the articles POV has shifted so much are the gatekeeper/ownership methods have dominated it for so long. Editors come and feel like they must have Jake or Avi's approval to do anything. I think the article would be much better off if we all (regular editors) unwatched it for a year and simply let the wiki process correct the NPOV issues. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary: Besides unwatching the page for a year or otherwise reducing the amount of participation, is there anything else you can suggest that editors could change in their behaviour to improve the situation in your opinion? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and thank you for your open minded interest and concern Coppertwig. I will reply on the Talk:Circumcision since this has more to do with us regular circumcision editors and less with Mish. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hi, Mish. The new lead text in Homosexuality is being aggressively challenged by an editor who feels it is faulty. When you get a chance, could you swing by here and here and help build consensus? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism

Hi Mish, Unitarian Universalism grew out of the Christian theological threads of universalism and unitarianism. However, modern UUs are not as a whole Christian (whether non-trinitarian or otherwise). Some are Christian, but others are atheist, Pagan, Buddhist, etc. LadyofShalott 03:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, is this a problem? Thinking of Alan Watts and other Anglicans who are still Anglican and also Buddhist, Pagan, etc. Mish (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It means UU should not be listed under Christianity. Most UUs are not Christian. LadyofShalott 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have relocated to the end, as it should appear after Baha'i, being a more recent offshoot of Christianity than Baha'i as an offshoot of Islam. Mish (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I re Phoenix of9

Hello, MishMich. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here.—Scheinwerfermann ·_C23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)