User talk:Treybien

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) --Actown ^e 03:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dottie West Page

Why did you delete all that information on the Dottie West page. It contained a lot of important highlights of her career. Chrzcline1961 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOTTIE WEST

I am curious as to why you would think Dottie West's article needs to be cleaned up. I have noticed that it keeps changing to become a smaller article. I don't believe this is necessary. A lot of important points have been left out on West's career that you have deleted in the past. If you need to clean the grammar mistakes up, then clean it up yourself. I wouldn't just complain about it to everyone else when something can be done about it. I miss the much-bigger article and thank the user who made it so lovely. LovePatsyCline 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression

I pulled the speedy tag since it is a populated category. You can use CfD to delete this category. Vegaswikian 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dottie West Article

If you wish to fix the grammar mistakes, then by all means do so. It will improve the article greatly. I was not the one who reverted the information on her page. Frankly, I was only being rude to you because I thought you were insulting the Dottie West article, when you said, it is such a poor article. I would like if you fixed the grammar mistakes, but please, don't delete any info. Thanks for listening!! LovePatsyCline 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Travolta

Good work on the John Travolta article! Welcome to WP!--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 03:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category Anti-semitic people

I appreciate your comments to the user that supports the category "Anti-semitic people". I agree with your concerns, and I would add that the category violates two Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in that it makes Wikipedia make judgments as to whether or not people are anti-semites. That is biased and original research. Drboisclair 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Good work on the Robert Byrd article. One point, however, is that years are only wikilinked when part of an exact date. For example, January 4, 1887, but not 1923. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-heroes

You are probably not aware, but that category was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 13#Category:Anti-heroes. WP:CAT notes that "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It was felt that this category was too ambiguous to exist. I have therefore deleted it again, and protected the category against accidental re-creation. If you believe this is incorrect, feel free to discuss the issue with me or see Deletion review. Steve block Talk 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, if you are looking at moving to list such qualities and then characters that exhibit such qualities, you are probably best off starting a list. However, note that comparing characters against a standard created by wikipedia editors amounts to original research and as such is proscribed against. You would need to provide citations as to where and why the character has been noted as an anti-hero, and allow citations offering opinion that the character is not an anti-hero. Thus, this area is better treated as a list in the article space rather than a category, and so I suggest List of anti-heroes in fiction as the best place to create such a list, although further discussion might be better held at Talk:Anti-hero, and to pre-empt that I've copied and amended my comments there appropriately. Steve block Talk 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Darth Vader

I'm not sure if you're aware, but several editors, myself included, are trying to focus this already overlarge article on Darth Vader instead of Anakin Skywalker (because the latter has its own article), and you're undoing that work without discussion, including putting the prequel trilogy first, adding mentions to Jake Lloyd, and other, similar edits. Before reverting again, could you please comment on Talk:Darth Vader? Thank you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit previews

Thanks for your edits to Anakin Skywalker. Before saving an edit, please preview it and check it is correct. This would mean you didn't end up editing the same image 4 times and end up leaving it exactly the same as it was before you found it ;) --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 09:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional anti-heroes

Just a few things. Please use edit summaries, it lets others know what changes you've made, without having to compare revisions. Second, please review past edit summaries to see what changes were made, and sometimes specific reasons for them. For the third time you've used answers.com as a source for the Shadow even though I've explained it's invalid since it's simply a Wikipedia mirror, a copy of the Wikipedia article, which doesn't cite a source for the anti-hero claim either. Third, some, but not all, of the sources you're citing are unreliable, like blogs and other things that basically anyone can write. You can check out Wikipedia:Reliable Sources on your own, but the most important line from there is: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". By making sure the list is top shape, follows guidelines and avoids the reasons it was deleted in the past, it will hopefully last a while. Thanks. --TM 12:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep using answers.com as a source? --TM 00:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to List of ancient Jedi

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from List of ancient Jedi. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're not actually removing it, but creating articles with unintuitive titles, putting "{Star Wars)" after their names. Why are you doing this? In the very least you should make sure the redirects go to your new articles, as it is they are impossible to find.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Tolkien images

I don't want to start a fight, but would you kindly stop removing the image tables for characters? I'm trying to give equal treatment to all adaptations here; there's no real reason why the Jackson versions should be featured first, except their current popularity level, which is by no means permanent. I know the "biography" sections look better with images in them, but see here: Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_6#Screenshot_fair_use_criteria, which basically says that screenshots of characters from different adaptations should ideally be in their respective section. Uthanc 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I don't want to give any adaptation "priority" or "supremacy", as might be implied by using the Jackson images first. How about getting illustrations? The problem of copyright violation comes up... well, putting credited, low-resolution copies of artworks on Wikipedia isn't commercial, so it would probably fall under fair use. Uthanc 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Palpatine

Several editors are attempting to bring this article into conformity with WP:WAF; your edits so far are not helpful.

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Palpatine. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dmoon1 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What your doing is not helpful. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dmoon1 04:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is making threats. These are standard templates created by Wikipedia to warn people who make detrimental edits to articles. This is how a fictional character's article is supposed to be written. Please see WP:WAF and the two Star Wars FACs, Jabba the Hutt and Padmé Amidala. These are what the Wikipedia community has determined that a fictional character article should look like.

Quotes from films and books are needed for context and are normally requested by reviewers during peer review and FAC. The information about McDiarmid is also required because he (and Lucas and other authors) essentially made the character what he is. This article is not supposed to read like a Wookieepedia article, which covers Palpatine's biography as if he were a real person. The article is not as long as it appears, a large portion of KBs are taken up by the images and notes.

Your style of editing is not bad, but it's not exactly helpful either. Judging from the other messages on your talk page you need to review Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. Believe it or not, but there are editors out there grumpier than myself who have the power to block your account. Don't be perturbed; I made similar mistakes when I first came here. Dmoon1 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other Star Wars articles are featured, which means they do not represent the best articles on Wikipedia and should not be used as examples. BTW, please leave messages on users' talk pages, not their main userpage. Dmoon1 11:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently under review, if you have suggestions for improvement please make them here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine. You are removing and changing content that has been somewhat agreed upon by consensus. Dmoon1 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Treybien

I think you might be reverting edits that were meant to remove a category (political critics of George Bush) that has been nominated and accepted for deletion. I might be confused on the whole issue but searching back through categories for deletion has convinced me of the validity of the category removal. Check the archives on 2006 Aug 15. Also, feel free to delete this comment at anytime.Thanks. Jasper23 06:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the discussion page? I think it was a succesful nomination for deletion. I think the justification is that almost everyone has been a critic of George Bush at one time or another so the category is not encyclopedia material. But it really doesnt matter to me as I have not been following the discussion and am unaware of the resulting wikipedia policy implications. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the previous discussion and werent reverting pages on false assumptions. Also, you accidently posted your comment on my user page. Could you move it to talk or delete it. Either way. Thanks Jasper23 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate the categogory Supporters of George W Bush for deletion. To have one (supporters) and not the other (critics) is NPOV. Wandering Star 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could fix this whole stupid thing by letting both categories exist (see my above arguments.) Sheesh. Treybien 17:30, 29 August (UTC)

Recreation of deleted material

Hi Treybien. You have recently created the following categories: Category:Critics of George W. Bush, Category:Journalist Critics of George W. Bush, Category:Hollywood Critics of George W. Bush and Category:Musical Critics of George W. Bush.

These were deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create these categories: if you disagree with the categories deletion, you may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks. Korg (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

You placed the {{protect}} template on Category:Political Critics of George W. Bush. This is misleading because the page was not actually protected. Only an admin can protect a page.

From the comments above, it seems that this category has previously been deleted. I was going to flag it for deletion myself, but instead I'll await your response to what's been said on the point. My reason for deletion is that, as has been stated, almost every politician has criticized Bush over something or other. John McCain and Bill Frist belong in the category, just to mention a couple prominent examples. JamesMLane t c 10:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politician categories

I note you've been adding a lot of categories to articles on politicians. Two points:

a) When you add them, can you use [[Category:Whatever|Surname, Name]] rather than just [[Category:Whatever]]? This'll make them sort properly in the categories, so John Smith comes under S not J.

b) You've added quite a few "Supporters of capital punishment" etc. categories - before adding these, can you check that the claim is already made in the article? These seem to be being slapped on with no sources given either in the edit summary or with reference to the text of the article, which isn't good... categories should reflect the content, not be an addition to it. Shimgray | talk | 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "there's a source somewhere in the external links" isn't sufficient for something contentious, especially when (as with Tim Kaine) the text of the article seems to contradict your interpretation of the source.

If their stance on capital punishment (or whatever) is significant, it should be mentioned and cited in the article - if it isn't significant enough to be there, it shouldn't be in the categories. Please consider expanding the content as well as just "tagging" Shimgray | talk | 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood supporters of the Dems/Reps

I trust you've seen my responses to your comments on the talk pages of those categories? Dismas|^(talk) 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta

Hi. I noticed that you did a lot of edits to the characters from V for Vendetta. Could you possibly add images of the characters who do not have images yet (Etheridge, Heyer, Valarie, etc.)? I already posted links on their pages.- Just Phil 12:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider using edit summaries more

Hi Treybien,

User:Crossmr has drawn attention to your lack of edit summaaries on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). I have replied there that you are under no obligation to use edit summaries. However, I thought I'd mention some reasons why it would help for you to use edit summaries.

First, edit summaries help people understand what changes you are making and decide whether or not to look at the change. Many of us have hundreds of pages on our watchlists and we're looking for a number of things: vandalism, inappropriate edits or interesting edits. Edit summaries help us decide which edits to click on for more details.

Second, failure to use an edit summary suggests vandalism to many vandal-fighters. I check out most contributions by anonymous editors that show up on my watchlist. I also check out questionable edit summaries or empty edit summaries. You will make the job of vandal-fighters easier if you use edit summaries to let us know that yours was a legitimate edit rather than vandalism.

Third, many times edits are back-and-forth dialogs between two or three editors. Edit summaries help us figure out what the dialog is about and whether we want to jump in and read more or just stay out.

You might also check out Help:Edit summary for the official position on edit summaries.

Thanks for your time and Happy Wikiing.

--Richard 18:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard was refering to your general low use of edit summaries, and the fact that someone asked what could be done about this on the village pump. For your information, most actual discussion on the 'pump happens on the page itself, people rarely check the talk page. LinaMishima 02:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W supporters category

Thanks for your understanding to delete this category. Also, incidentally there is a Category:Wikipedians in Oregon for residents of your state. GilliamJF 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OCD

Hi. I see you categorized Woody Allen as suffering from OCD. While I don't deny that this seems plausible, I remember that this was debated a few months ago and we could find no credible source that established this. Same goes for a number of other actors. In particular there were a few names given in a Daily Mail column about Beckham but that was pretty much a gossip column. For these kinds of things, it's particularly important to have multiple reliable sources before you start spreading dubious information. Pascal.Tesson 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, same goes for Winona Ryder (also reverted). Please check the discussion we had a while back on the talk page of obsessive compulsive disorder. We need to avoid transforming Wikipedia into a gossip column. If you have credible sources then by all means do bring this up. Until then I will continue reverting these edits. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during September 19 2006 (UTC) to Nikki Grahame

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. _{J Di}^talk 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, somebody's just pointed out to me that there wasn't any vandalism on this article, but this edit made me think you were vandalising. I'm sorry about that, I'm going to revert it back and correct it. I hope I haven't put you off editing Wikipedia, and I'm sorry for this mistake. _{J Di}^talk 09:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Alba

Your recent edit to Jessica Alba was not supported by the article itself and has been reverted. In the future, please remember to provide a reliable citation for all such edits. Thanks. --Yamla 20:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who have played gay characters

Cheers for starting this category. I actually contributed a lot when it was a list (which somehow got deleted). In the future tho, please use the break and type last name, First name after all categories. I've fixed all of the entries in the category as of now. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 12:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for your anti-gay rights category?

Is it something measurable or just who seems to be against gay rights? You should have the criteria listed on the category page. Thanks Jasper23 23:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional intellectuals

User:Treybien: Uh ... what's up with this category you just created? I stumbled across your change to Lisa Simpson, and was about to add the other members of Springfield Mensa from The Simpsons, but when I hit Comic Book Guy, I discovered Category:Fictional geniuses with 96 entries, including Rodney McKay from Stargate Atlantis, who I was also going to add.

If creating a duplicate category was a mistake on your part (see Category:Fictional characters by nature), then I suggest that you zap the nine references it currently has, and delete this category before it attracts other editors. BTW, some of those nine, like Sherlock Holmes, are already in the "Fictional Geniuses" category ... looks like only the Crane Brothers and the Griffins would be left out of that list, but why have a category that's so small, or else is just grows to become a duplicate of a much larger one?

Anyway, I found all of the members of Springfield Mensa in Category:Fictional geniuses except for Lindsay Naegle, but that's only because Lisa Simpson, Professor Frink, Dr. Hibbert, Comic Book Guy, and Seymour Skinner all have their own articles ... so I think that this is a POV fork and it should be deleted. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 12:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Miller

For future reference, Frank Miller is a disambiguation page. You should be using Frank Miller (comics). Cheers. -- Robocoder (t|c) 21:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter's Categories

I'm not sure if you've actually seen the show or watched the book, but Dexter is clearly a sociopath and clearly a murderer. Whether or not the people he kills deserve it, stalking someone and tying them down and killing them qualifies as premeditated murder. Again, it might be morally ambigious murder but murder is murder.

Also, Dexter is definitely a sociopath. There is no question about this. One of the major parts about Dexter's character is his unability to feel human emotion. I think he does care for some people, but on a distant level. He has referred to himself several times in the novel as a sociopath. From the novel "Whatever made me the way I am left me hollow, empty inside, unable to feel. I'm quite sure most people fake an awful lot of everyday human contact. I just fake of all it. I fake it very well, and the feelings are never there." Unless you have any concrete proof that Dexter doesn't qualify as a sociopath, please don't remove it again.

I am not sure if you have finished the novel, so I won't go into details about it, but what happened to Dexter as a child was traumatic but it wouldn't qualify as abuse. So I've removed the victims of abuse category.--CyberGhostface 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

70.178.158.31 13:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor E. Marsden

Superb job of changing that article from a laughable mess. Now it's mostly an article about someone who probably doesn't merit an article at all -- it's really yet another of Ludvikus' articles about the history of the Protocols, and someday we'll figure out a way to collate his obviously extensive research into something more suited to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Middle-earth universe"

Hi again. Look at this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth#Terminology

Blanket phrase: "In J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium"

Breakdown of geography of Tolkien's legendarium:

Fictional universe: Eä (Universe or Milky Way)
- Fictional world: Arda (Earth)*
  - Fictional continents:
    - Middle-earth (Africa-Eurasia)
    - Aman a.k.a. The Undying Lands (?)
    - Númenor (Atlantis)

Blanket phrases	Specific phrases
...fictional universe of Middle-earth...	...fictional universe of Eä...
...fictional world of Middle-earth...	...fictional world of Arda...
...fictional world/universe of Middle-earth...	...fictional continent of Middle-earth...
...fictional world/universe of Middle-earth	...fictional continent of Aman...

Also, LOTR's not a trilogy; see trilogy which explains it well.

And could you please put edit summaries? Uthanc 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know, and we're working on that. Uthanc 07:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Saddam's Execution

Thanks for all your help keeping vandals, etc at bay with that page! Viperphantom 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits concerning the Rejects being sociopaths

A sociopath is someone who can't feel and has no emotion for anyone and is usually cold and calculating. The Rejects, while being psychotic, do feel emotion for each other. They might represent some qualities of a sociopath but overall psychopath is a more fitting category.--CyberGhostface 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you might, I don't know, actually reply instead of blindly reverting my edits? Because if you have any proof to support that the Rejects are sociopaths incapable of feeling emotion, I'd be happy to know of it.--CyberGhostface 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as well for losing my temper. I've been having a pretty bad week.--CyberGhostface 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catch-22 Film info

Hi Treybien,

I moved or put back all the film info of the various Catch-22 characters back to the bottom on the page. I have done this as it in the format of the templates used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, and if you disagree either bring it up on that the Wikiproject or here Talk:Catch-22#Expanding_Characters_and_Merging. Keep up the good work, Cheers Lethaniol 10:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Stabler

G'day,

I just changed a bunch of info on the Elliot Stabler page, and I'd love some feedback.

Great job on breaking up the page and re-working it!

WLU 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Gollum's Song article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Nationalparks 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinforcing my change -

- to Craig Sweeney (as a child molester, not a pedophile).

Not what I would expect from a journalist, though. All I can say is 'keep it up'. --Jim Burton 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobic people

I don't get it. Are you trying to make a point? Homophobic people will suffer the same problems as Anti-Semitic people. I think your first inclination, to delete Category:Anti-Semitic people was the correct impulse, and your apparent reaction, creating Category:Homophobic people is not. -- Samuel Wantman 00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching what happened at Category:Anti-Semitic people. I have proposed the category for deletion in the past. Your reaction, though is a WP:POINT violation, and is counter productive to your own goals. Here's why: when you next call for the deletion of Category:Anti-Semitic people, your own credibility will be hurt by having created a similarly flawed category. If everyone reacts to difficulties like this, and reacts by trying to make a point, things get much worse instead of improving. Keep working to do what you believe, not what you don't believe. -- Samuel Wantman 00:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to delete Category:Homophobic people. With your OK, it can be speedily deleted. Let me know. If not, I'll nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 01:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, but if everyone reacts to something they think is wrong here by creating things just as bad, the project will degenerate into something that nobody likes. I hope you have read WP:POINT. It really is a very important guideline for making things better.

As it turns out, someone else has nominated the new category for deletion, so it will be discussed at WP:CFD --Samuel Wantman 06:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hey. You removed quite a bit from Gregory House, and while I think almost all of your edits were spot-on and sorely needed (that article is not so good), I really wish you would use edit summaries (I see you've been told so before). Anyway, just wanted to thank you for cleaning out some of the silly fannishness and maybe push you in the direction of using edit summaries. :) --Galaxiaad 06:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WP:LGBT

Hi! Thought you might be interested in joining the LGBT WikiProject. Take a look around, and if you are interested, sign up? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, Treybien, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, and a project-wide article collaboration, both of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close to Leo

Hi Sure it is not a pedophile film, nor is it a major theme of the movie. There are definite signs, however, that Yvan's mother is attracted to Leo and flirts with him. They walk upstairs together and one interpretation is that they are going to the same bedroom. Tony 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Queer as folk

Sorry for the rushed revert - even as I was doing it I realized too late you were not just another anon. However, please realize that the show included a pederastic relationship - with the fifteen year old. Haiduc 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice

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

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Politicians who oppose abortion rights

A tag has been placed on Politicians who oppose abortion rights, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Sorry for the pre-form template, also the article doesn't give any context as to the country. Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply back. The article was deleted and I see you have created a category. It's still not specific though. Are you expecting every politician from around the world to be listed, or just the U.S? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Hi Treybien. I've nominated some of your categories for deleteion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 21#Politicians by stance on abortion issues. You are invited to comment there. If you've not participated in CFD before, you should probably read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This is nothing personal and I think I understand why you want these categories, but I don't think they're right for Wikipedia. Please do join the discussion. Peace, — coel acan — 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]