User talk:Gleeanon409

Welcome Gleeanon409!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,242,363 registered editors!

Hello Gleeanon409. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Scope creep, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Too many references

Hi @Gleeanon409: I think your putting too many refs into this tiny article per WP:REFBOMB. There is policy called WP:CITEKILL. I whole lot will need to come out. scope_creep^Talk 11:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe some of them can be combined? I only added when new information was introduced that someone would question. Desmond is certainly notable so it’s not there is something to prove. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I never noticed until this morning how many there was. Every sentence could needs a ref is the standard. He is eminently notable so I don't think there is any problem with them removing at least 30 of them. Removal of duplicates is the ideal. It is 33k so not a huge amount, a couple of dozen. scope_creep^Talk 11:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think removing any refs is a very bad idea, none of those guides really state that what we have is a problem. And this is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. There are multiple cases of the same ref being listed multiple times, maybe those could be combined? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Yip, I don't think there is any lack of references. It is wikipedia policy. It unusually one ref per fact, I think. I got called up for it, in similar situation donkeys ago, so it is genuine thing, a real policy. You can use ref tags as <ref name="john">jim</ref> and then apply <ref name="john"/> to another location and you only have one reference location, but it linked multiple times. There is only seven areas where is needs to be done, e.g. Drag performances section. I don't mind cleaning it up. Are you planning to stick around Gleeanon409, once you finish this. There is plenty of other articles that could do with some work.scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Generally we only have one ref per fact, some statements had more than one fact. Right now I haven’t figured out how to see the underlying code, I switched editing display so I could add full refs and I don’t know how to switch back. I’ll see if I can figure it out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I found a combiner tool Reflinks, it worked! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: did you notice that's not a policy, but actually only a WP:ESSAY? MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Gleeanon409, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Gays Against Guns have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

help please - Redirect

I want to edit GuRu (book) but the redirect is preventing me from getting to the page to start the article. Could someone remove the redirect code so I can start? Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The redirect doesn't need to be deleted. Click the link in your message above and you will be redirected. Right under the article title, you will see this text:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from GuRu (book))

You'll notice that "GuRu (book)" is a link -- click that to be taken to the redirect page, which will suppress the redirect. You can then edit that page directly. --Chris (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t work on my phone, it only keeps sending me to RuPaul. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Click on the link at the top of the article and it will take you back. scope_creep^Talk 22:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As I’ve stated that doesn’t work, I don’t get a link to go back on redirects apparently just a brief pop up that tells me what happened but no link in the pop up box. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, try going to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GuRu_(book)&redirect=no or you could also temporarily switch to desktop mode (There should be a Desktop link at the bottom of the page next to Terms of user and Privacy) then the link he is talking about will show up - Scio c (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you so much! Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to mark the question as resolved for now since multiple people have responded and the &redirect=no should work for all devices. If it doesn't work, feel free to restore the template. You can also create the page anywhere else (e.g. at Draft:GuRu) and ask it to be moved over (replacing the redirect) when you're close to done, if that would be easier. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I was able to edit but I couldn’t delete the redirect. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Could someone delete the redirect from GuRu (book)? There’s an article there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The redirect is no longer there, you've converted it to an article now. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Need to rename Camp; Notes on Fashion

Hi! I must have made a typo. Can you please rename Camp; Notes on Fashion to Camp: Notes on Fashion? The punctuation was wrong. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference WP:Requested moves is a good place to ask for page moves. Huon (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll keep the page move in mind if it happens again. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Good job with the article. Do you think you could possibly make similar articles for their earlier exhibitions? They don't have to be as detailed--if you start then, others will add to them. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I was trying to get it into good shape as the exhibit is already open. Two of the articles are already done but I’ll consider doing the other two. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Nice start with Sweet Tea: Black Gay Men of the South—An Oral History Keep it, add more references and feel free to ask me if you need any help regarding improvements. I can help you in finding references, getting research articles/books too. thanks

QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@QueerEcofeminist:, I would love any reference you can find. I did as much as I could but now paywalls and subscriptions have stopped me in my tracks. I know there is at least five journal reviews, and countless books that talk about Sweet Tea but I can’t seem to access them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, Send me your email address on sureshkhole.com@gmail.com , I can give you a few more reviews. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Also WP:RX If you know the source but can’t access it.

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating United We Pride.

User:Rosguill while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

It's not clear to me that this subject has received enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Half of the cited articles don't even mention "United We Pride", and even the ones that do have fairly trivial coverage for the most part.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, I was on the fence with that one. I had hoped to find coverage in each of the world cities it went to but it doesn’t look like the project did any publicity to get media coverage.

It was spun out from the rainbow flag article so we can send it back there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Tip of the Day

Tip of the day...

Editing articles for web accessibility

Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers.

While editing articles, keep in mind the goal of making Wikipedia web accessible. All users, regardless of ability, should be able to read, navigate, and contribute to Wikipedia easily.

The Accessibility section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) is a valuable resource that provides helpful guidelines. In addition, Accessibility dos and do nots is a quick summary of the most important guidelines for editors.

WikiProject Accessibility is a group of editors promoting better access for disabled and other users. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

In appreciation

		The LGBT Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your timely and articulate opposition to the erasure of historic LGBTQ relationships. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much! Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is trying to erase anything, Gog the Mild. The nominator hasn't even responded yet! It simply may be a case of the nom not even realising it. To say this was an "attempt" to erase such an important issue is assuming bad faith. Cassianto^Talk 00:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether it was intentional or not, the net effect is similar to cases where prose is changed from ‘Foo realized he was gay at six years old’ to ‘Foo discovered his sexuality at six years old’. They might mean the the same thing but to me feel miles apart and purposely erasive. One can always claim innocence but after a series of similar edits all erasing LGBQ sexualities a pattern emerges. I just happened to stumble upon a case like that last year. This case may be well innocent but the ease at which all LGBTQ categories were just plucked off was a bit chilling to me. If they really don’t belong then all is well but two women who marry feels like it’s an LGBTQ relationship. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

We simply cannot be accusing someone of bigotry when they haven't even had the chance to answer for themselves. The use of "attempt" conveys the idea that it is premeditated, when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is homophobia. Ok, so there have been a few edits that have been questionable, but we should be assuming good faith until such a time when it becomes apparent that they they are being homophobic and that is the time they should then be reported. Cassianto^Talk 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree, cheers! Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeated edit clash. The debate is over whether the LGBT category tags should be/have been removed. They have been erased. It is not an " "attempt" ", it is an accomplished fact. Gleeanon409 objected, promptly and civilly, to this. I commended them for it.

I am not sure why you are throwing around words like "homophobia". We are simply having a civil debate as to the threshold of evidence required to support a particular cat tag. ABF is not helpful.

As I said in the FAC "I also think that the main author has got the balance spot-on." Not surprising - from the main author's nomination statement "Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements." (Girth Summit by the by is one of the most sensible and considerate editors I have come across.)

I agree with your opinion that category allocation is not a FA criteria. But that is our opinion. The Rambling Man brought it up as part of their FAC review. We can seek consensus that it shouldn't be there. We shouldn't, IMO, unilaterally remove part of a review; still less should we remove just the subsequent discussion attempting to reach consensus. Personally I have no problem with TRM's comments, other than thinking that they don't belong in a FAC and disagreeing with their suggestion. That's a run of the mill content dispute, being settled by reference to policy. I am even defending TRM's right to keep his comments on the FAC, despite disagreeing with them.

It may well be that I am misreading my own comments, but if there is any lack of AGF by me, then whoever points out just where will receive a fulsome apology. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am throwing around words like "homophobia" as in my view, making an "attempt" to erase LGBTQ history, facts or any mention of homosexual relationships, whether it be in the form of prose or tags, suggests homophobia. Simply erasing LGBTQ history, facts or any mention of homosexual relationships, whether it be in the form of prose or tags, may not be homophobia. It is your use of the word "attempt" in the barnstar above that I object to as it suggests malevolence when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is the case. I am in no doubt that your intentions were honourable, let's make no mistake about that, but we enter dodgy ground when we start making indirect allegations of bigotry when that may not even be the case. Cassianto^Talk 07:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Thank you for so clearly isolating your area of concern. Even with that I struggle to so how it is a tenable reading. But I claim no expertise in the nuances of English, and if a reasonable reader, such as you, can find the word "attempt" so loaded, then it is probably best if I remove it.

Gleeanon409, I am extremely wary of altering anything on your talk page, even if it is my own words and within a barnstar citation. Can I ask for your forbearance in this case. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem Gog, and thank you for your understanding. Cassianto^Talk 11:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gleeanon409 - I don't want this to become unpleasant, and I'm not here to have a go at you - indeed, I think that your comments at the FAC discussion have been fair, reasonable and helpful. Having just seen something you've written above though, I want to make one thing entirely clear: I have no wish to erase lesbian history. I wrote the article from scratch (in collaboration with another editor) because I found Macpherson Grant's story so compelling - I was attempting to expand our content on the history of gay people, not to erase anything. I think it was my collaborator, rather than myself, who added those categories, but I was perfectly happy with them being there. You say that you found their removal 'chilling' - please let me explain exactly what happened from my perspective. First, an experienced reviewer said that he was not sure the categories were appropriate because of the lack of sourcing explicitly confirming her sexuality; in doing so, he suggested that we remove them temporarily and put it to WikiProject LGBT Studies for comment, and that he would be happy with whatever the consensus was. So, I acknowledged his concerns at the FAC discussion, I removed the categories with an edit summary referencing that discussion, and in my very next edit I posted at the talk page for WikiProject LGBT Studies asking for editors with knowledge of this area to comment. How you can see that as chilling escapes me - what could I possibly have done to be more open and collegiate about this?

I'm also troubled by your mention above of a series of similar edits all erasing LGBQ sexualities - no such series exists in connection to me, I'm not aware of ever having removed categories like this from any article in the past, and I don't understand why you've raised this. I appreciate that you are naturally and rightly concerned about the possibility of biased editing in this area, and I thank you for your vigilance; please also recognise that even the suggestion that one might have homophobic motivations can be deeply unpleasant. Saying This case may well be innocent is not sufficient - this case is most certainly entirely innocent, and I'd thank you if you'd be kind enough to acknowledge that explicitly. Please feel free to examine my contributions history thoroughly to satisfy yourself about that. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I may have felt, it’s a thing these days, “triggered”, to see such a quick removal of all the categories, easily I might be just too sensitive on the subject. For me it brought up instances I’ve witnessed on Wikipedia before of purposeful anti-LGBTQ erasure. I may have been using short-handed explanations as to my concerns so please accept my apologies if that caused problems.

The issue is being looked at and pretty much universally it’s been explained no harm was meant. That’s good enough for me. Thank you for taking the time to check in.

@Gog the Mild:, no worries, do whatever is needed, I trust you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these words - that's also good enough for me. No harm done all round, thanks for taking an interest in the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, Gog the Mild and Gleeanon409, thank you for the time; apologies for my over-cautiousness, and thanks for your time here. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 15:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Making COI concerns

Hi Gleeanon409. Please avoid making COI accusations without solid evidence (serious accusations require serious evidence). If your concern is based on information which the user has not publicly disclosed, you should forward that information privately to Wikipedia administrators or functionaries instead of posting it to Wikipedia. Otherwise, if there is no concrete evidence, it's usually best not to make the accusation. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There is some evidence as far as I’m aware but I’ve simply asked Tenebrae if they have an article on Wikipedia. Hopefully that will resolve the issue one way or the other. Really I’m not that interested but the COI looks like it was intertwined in the Peppermint RFC which his sock was heavily involved. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin

thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of unreffed BLP text that needs removing; I don't appreciate the GOCE being used as the cleanup crew, though I'll carry on with it tomorrow and see what we have. Baffle☿gab 06:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If I misused the process I apologize. I find it hard to organize and edit large articles and hoped someone more experienced would move things around and make sense of it. I tried cleaning up the Controversy section but even then I’m sure others could do it better.

I didn’t realize Cleanup project existed, maybe a note at GOCE instructions page would help others in the same circumstance. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I'm sorry for my tone above, there is some common ground between the two WikiProjects. I'll continue the c/e tonight, it will distract me from the news media and facebook. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re awesome! Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I've removed all of the uncited text, and I note some of the sources used are showbiz gossip sites that not generally regarded as reliable sources, so you might want to replace those with more reliable sources per WP:BLP. I've marked a few with {{Unreliable source}} but I didn't get them all. I'm done now, good luck improving the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Consider helping expand Truth Wins Out

If you have any free time it would be great if you could help expand the Truth Wins Out article. I have seen your edit history includes a lot of LGBT media but that article in particular is rather short. They closed briefly a few years ago but are still running again. They did quite a lot of talking to science researchers and talked with men who went through so-called reparative therapy. There is quite a lot of petitions/activism they have done that need adding to the article. If you are interested, that is. Many thanks. --Sxologist (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-20

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Everyone can now import photos from Flickr to Commons with the UploadWizard. Before this only autopatrollers on Commons could import photos from Flickr. [1]

Problems

• Commons will be on read-only for a few minutes on 12 May. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. [2]
• Several wikis including Wikidata will be on read-only for a few minutes on 19 May. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. English Wikipedia will be on read-only for a few minutes on 21 May 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. [3][4]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 May. It will be on all wikis from 14 May (calendar).

Future changes

• JavaScript scripts and gadgets can no longer check multiple keys at once via mw.config.exists() or mw.user.tokens.exists(). You can use exists() or get() to check one at a time instead. [5]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Charlie's Angels. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have now called me "less than collegial" on another talk page. Please stop your personal attacks, strike your previous comments, and respond to actual content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)