Welcome Gleeanon409!

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

		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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

		The RuPaul Barnstar
		For your work on List of Rusicals and other articles related to the show, congratulations you're a winner. APK whisper in my ear 20:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much! I’ll do the tour and sign every autograph! Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@APK: I think you meant condragulations :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or (in my best Raja or Raven voice) SHOOT! APK whisper in my ear 23:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it was Toot! Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The best ones get a SHOOT and Raven is known to be a lot pickier when giving that honor. APK whisper in my ear 00:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fabulous! Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place ((subst:Dobos Torte)) on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Thank you! I was just headed to your page ... Glee^anon 13:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 18 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival celebrates LGBTQ culture with Wigstock events for drag queens, a bear fest, athletic events, and an art festival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pink Loerie Mardi Gras and Arts Festival), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, very much, for your comments here about tone and casting aspersions. You are working to help improve the civility of the community. Thanks again, Right cite (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You’re welcome! We’re all volunteers here trying to share knowledge, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Glee^anon 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I wish more editors behaved the way you do! Right cite (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your attempts to improve tone and civility on Wikipedia! You are valued! Right cite (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Thank you! You’re valued too! Glee^anon 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

Thanks for uploading File:FirehouseTheater.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

On 8 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gun serial number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a gun serial number can be any random set of numbers letters or a character string? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gun serial number. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gun serial number), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7:, FWIW, I have no intention of socking whatsoever. Glee^anon 00:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heavy (magazine). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30#Heavy (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning Gleeanon409, I have received your email. In short, I am not the person you need to appeal to; the Benjiboi account is banned by community consensus and you would need to request an unban at the administrators' noticeboard. If you post an unblock request (copy and paste ((unblock|(reason) ~~~~)) (replacing (reason) with your appeal for why you should be unbanned), I or another administrator can copy your appeal to the correct location. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC). I’m having technical problems using the site but here goes...thank you for your response. I was asking you to take the request to the appropriate board for consideration but as you wish I’ll try here as well.Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gleeanon409 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As is seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi/Archive I have had a checkered history. How people conduct themselves with other editors has improved over the years but back then (2006) I was out and gay and had more than my share of negative attention both on and off wiki from other editors. I was also active with the Rescue Squad which put me squarely in the crosshairs of the perennial deletionist/inclusionist issues. I was new to social media so didn’t handle the constant abuse well, I felt I was targeted and attacked, on and off wiki. Suffice it to say I eventually reacted very poorly and by late 2010 made up a ton of socks which ended up causing headaches to others, it was obvious the attacks would continue and there was an organized offsite effort. I certainly shouldn’t have, and I wish I would have known or considered any better options. I saw zero future for me with a project I loved, and saw zero options but the poor ones I chose. Until 2021 I either didn’t know or realize a standard offer existed. In 2019 I tried to make what I thought was a clean start but was sleuthed out by editors who are into such things. I regret that they also made bad faith accusations as a pillar of the report alleging that I have any support for child rape, I certainly do not, but I’ve learned anyone canu say anything on the internet without consequences. Generally I think my Gleeanon409 account shows that I support insisting on reliable sources and building consensus when disagreements arise. It can take longer but the results last longer as well. I’d like to resume with the Gleeanon409 account with the community’s permission. I’d appreciate if you could take this request to whatever board is appropriate for consideration. p.s. I did try editing a bit on other wiki projects but I didn’t find it to be a good experience. Glee^anon 13:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the discussion at AN, your request to have your CBAN lifted was denied. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Checkuser note: I see  Possible sockpuppetry here, on 2021-06-12 and 2021-08-29 and have concerns more broadly. I want to be incredibly clear, though, this is possible rather than likely. Another checkuser should weigh in here as the technical specifics make this a bit more tricky than normal to render an opinion. --Yamla (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jpgordon looked into this and we discussed it. Our consensus is that the edits on those dates are  Unrelated and so from a checkuser point of view, there's no evidence of recent sockpuppetry or block evasion here. --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Yamla and Jpgordon, appreciate that. I will post the appeal to AN. Gleeanon: I recommend that you watch that discussion; if you have specific comments to make you may make them here and ask that they be copied to the discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(And for what it's worth, I know your email asked me to copy the request where appropriate from the start; but for the sake of transparency I prefer that that kind of request be made in public rather than by email) GeneralNotability (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@GeneralNotability:, thank you for your help in all this, I’ll try to keep up. Glee^anon 16:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GeneralNotability:, I’d appreciate if someone could move my comments to the discussion. Glee^anon 00:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Floquenbeam:, I gave up and did some reflecting on my poor actions, after 2014 I turned my energies into other personal projects. Since 2014 I’ve only had the Gleeanon409 account and used it on Simplewiki, and wikidictionary. I had technical issues interfacing with them as a newly user in particular. I quickly realized it would just be a gap experience for me if I stayed as article building and improving is what I prefer. Glee^anon 16:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)UTC)Reply[reply]

• @S Marshall: and @GoodDay:, if the community wants restrictions placed then I’ll of course abide. I do want to ask to consider more some of those areas: not accusing — yes, I can invite more eyes on any situation, accusations were leveled at me and I certainly didn’t like it; AFD/DRV — sure, this is often a contentious area and I can live without the grief, holding off on ARS at the same time; proxying — of course not; not editing LGBTQ BLPs — this is my area of expertise, however if it helps rebuild some of the trust I’ve damaged I’ll certainly cooperate with a carve out for reverting vandalism if that’s acceptable. Glee^anon 18:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reckon accepting said topic-ban(s) is your only way to being unbanned from the 'pedia. That & no socking. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC) UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay:, I need to mend the damage I’ve done and earn trust again. Plus S Marshall’s insight how combative I was is humbling. Life’s too short to be fighting. Glee^anon 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Grandpallama:, I’m not blaming anyone for reporting banned users. I screwed up and deserved the ban. They were simply doing their duty. I will defend myself in being squarely against child rape. Glee^anon 20:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• @Bison X:, all fair points, in trying to keep it brief and provide some explanation I definitely left out most of the context. The banning was because I was sockpuppeting. The reasons behind my decision to do so are less important than the disruption I caused. A big part of this has been my combative attitude which I have to keep in check, and just take breaks if things get heated or personal.

“more than my share of negative attention both on and off wiki” in retrospect some of it was certainly because I was openly LGBTQ and focused editing on those subjects. I was also too invested in preserving content in that topic area and saw things through a filter of always being in crisis, moving from one article under “attack” to the next. It wasn’t healthy and turned other editors off. I have to learn to extend good faith that others mean the best.

Coupled with this was the very battleground of deletionists vs inclusionists. I helped build up the Article Rescue Squad and had to learn to dial down my bad faith assumptions there as well.

Then the brewing issue of Paid Editing came up and I sympathized with those who may truly need a job, I tried to build some guidelines to help move things forward but my actions were interpreted that I must have been paid myself, I wasn’t but also felt I didn’t have to deny it. So on all fronts I had objectivity flaws and people that found my style problematic at least.

There was at least one website dedicated to “fixing” Wikipedia which lampooned me. The griefing was near constant by then, or it sure felt that way. I saw threats everywhere even if none existed in that moment. I also think there’s never a need to hound or grief or harass other editors even if you feel they deserve it. I felt lower than dirt and some assumed I was already socking before I had ever even created one. I figured my time was short. I mention it because it was taking the Wikipedia battleground and extending it into my real life.

“but was sleuthed out by editors who are into such things”, yeah I could have phrased that better. In fairness I think there are some dedicated editors attuned to anything dealing with child rape, and I caught their attention even if I wasn’t a high priority to them. There is a decades-old slur against LGBTQ people that we aim to sexually abuse children so I found a bunch of incendiary unsourced POV content and removed it as such. That was among the evidence that I was in some way okay with child rape. I’m not and never have been. Glee^anon 22:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• @S Marshall:, I have no interest or intention of editing here unless the community allows it. I walked away in 2014 and realized that using multiple accounts was simply abusive and I didn’t want to be a part of that at all. In 2019 I tried with a fresh account making productive contributions and was soon caught anyway. I took almost a year off and learned about the standard offer. I’m hoping now to resume that account with whatever appropriate restrictions. If the community decides not now then I’ll simply continue to hold off until they allow me to return. Glee^anon 21:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• @Grandpallama:, this is the only way I can communicate so apologies in advance for the hassle. You are correct that “child rape” is not the common Wikipedia term, it’s at the heart of many abuse survivors terminology because that’s a big part of what pedos do. My defense of Haiduc, years ago, was an appeal to treat them civilly, and pre-dated them being banned for pedo-promotion including false sourcing. Another charge was that I defended the most notorious pedo organization in history, I don’t however it is a fact some of their founding members were homeless teenage sex-workers and the group had early support as it included supporting legal rights for those youth. Support evaporated when pedos demanded everyone abolish all age of consent laws. Along the same lines has been my effort to get Hay’s bio to be NPOV. He was an emancipated teenager when he seduced an older man, and later recalled this many times as a positive experience. It’s a type of pederasty but is presented so POV that all nuance is lost. So child sexual abuse/pedo* is what is alleged I in some way supported. I am against all child abuse, sexual or otherwise. Glee^anon 01:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Wham2001:, I was assured at the Reference Desk that it was a reliable source, and I only suggested it might be useful to that article. I fully left it for editors there to use it if they saw fit, and didn’t push any content or other ideas when they didn’t. As for the Desmond is Amazing article several editors double-checked everything in the article, and we worked on consensus to make changes. And you are mistaken on the sourcing, none of it was against policy, and nearly none were from primary sources. Glee^anon 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @CorbieVreccan:, yes my behavior was horrible way too often, I apologize for not assuming good faith and trying to more collegially build consensus. It had been many years since I edited and I was too quick to be combative. I still think the Hay article violates NPOV, and relies on content from NAMBLA itself, but that will have to stay that way I guess. As for the Desmond is Amazing article I was steadfast that any content had to be reliably sourced. In hindsight I wish I would have disengaged quicker and waited for more people to get involved. Glee^anon 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @GeneralNotability:, you mentioned my comments could be copied over to the discussion. Can that please still happen? Or how should I request that be done? Glee^anon 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gleeanon409,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jason Bolden for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Mos:LEADIMAGE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:LEADIMAGE until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]