| Revision as of 13:19, 5 February 2008 edit72.68.127.152 (talk) →Gay porn!: puzzlement and observation← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:27, 5 February 2008 edit undoDev920 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers11,497 edits remove attack post per NPANext edit → | ||
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
| *I had to postpone my Lucas interview by a week, just FYI. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *I had to postpone my Lucas interview by a week, just FYI. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *Lucas must have given you a royal drilling that you couldn't do the interview. What, you can't operate a recorder while on all fours? Fitting that you would do it doggy style with him! Now that you've gotten what you craved, you can go over to his bio and revert the unsourced edits you've made at his behest. --] (]) 13:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Rookie question == | == Rookie question == | ||
Revision as of 14:27, 5 February 2008
Shortcut|
|
Category:Queer Wikipedians
There is a deletion review which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_21#Category:Queer_Wikipedians. DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion of the recent uproar here. I'm inviting all the other gayasses to join in and see if we can't work toward some unified position to present at the discussion - maybe a move to "Queer" or "LGBT"? Hope you'll look it over. Thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was incredibly offended however months ago to find my "Bisexual Wikipedians" category removed by some bot due to an out-of-process and blatantly heterosexist ("what does gay have to do with Misplaced Pages?") argument which got it deleted. While I don't feel I am necessarily equipped to argue this in the DRV, I really hope there is a complete overturn.~Zythe 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Several heavyweight admins have joined the deletion review and spoken in well-reasoned terms. There have also been calls there lately to just go ahead and relist Queer Wikipedians thereby invoking an RfC that could potentially produce genuine consensus. (BTW: My humble opinion is that bisexuals could count as "queers," like the rest of us -- and that we ought to be inclusive and welcoming. Anyway, I think that the RFC has to be cast not as comment on Queers, but comment on self-identification categories as such. So, if the RfC is successful, then bisexuals and others could chose to have their own categories too.)
The deletion discussion has suggested that the relisting should be done by somebody experienced who understands the technicalities. However, no one has stepped up to do it. I think I've reasoned out ways to frame the summary of previous discussion in a perceptibly fair, comprehensive way. But, as a newbie, I still find the technical issues (how to "tag" the catergory, how to get the RfC listed, etc.) daunting. Depending on how much time I have for research tomorrow morning, I may take a crack at it. Good idea? Or no? William P. Coleman (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Despite the arguments advanced, the category:Queer Wikipedians deletion review has been closed as deletion endorsed. No attempt was made by the closing admin to acknowledge or address the policy issues raised. Even the comments of DGG were ignored. However, there is some good news. Avruch has created a category:LGBT Wikipedians and include a well considered and appropriate explanatory note, which you may want to read. DuncanHill and I have both commented on Avruch's talk page, expressing appreciation for his action. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't notice the discussion further down - will scroll down next time! Jay*Jay (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Queer Wikipedians (DRV results)
The DRV has now been closed. You can read the result at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_21. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm baffled. Didn't exactly the same thing just happen there again?
- Namely, that there was no consensus in that discussion and the closer simply substituted his own views for those expressed in the thread despite many voices to the contrary.
- It seemed clear to me that if there were any consensus it was that the category should be reopened and immediately tagged for an RfC, asking whether non-collaborative, self-identification categories (in general, not just for sexuality) should or should not be allowed.
- I don't even know where to go to register a complaint.
- I can only repeat: Misplaced Pages baffles me. I understand science. I understand a lot of intricate things. But Misplaced Pages is way too much. William P. Coleman (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked the closing admin to explain his decision at his talk page, I will update when he responds. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have had a discussion with the closing admin on his talk page, he makes some interesting points about how Misplaced Pages apparently works. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot believe how some editors - who I will assume good faith of - can see the need to ignore valid points in favour of a majority of misinformed (heterosexual) editors. Is there a DRVRV? Time to get pointy and kill off the religious categories. How does one define Christian anyway - is it self-identification, or must you adhere to strict doctrines? How does one objectively define what a Christian must and must not do? But god knows those categories would never, ever be deleted. What's the point of the User Categories system then? ~Zythe 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just to say my manners don't agree with this page coming under the 'gayass' category, can it be removed please? I would try to get the LGBT categories back on track but frankly I'm too busy with research atm. And anyway I don't believe in categories, being a champion of antinormativity...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot believe how some editors - who I will assume good faith of - can see the need to ignore valid points in favour of a majority of misinformed (heterosexual) editors. Is there a DRVRV? Time to get pointy and kill off the religious categories. How does one define Christian anyway - is it self-identification, or must you adhere to strict doctrines? How does one objectively define what a Christian must and must not do? But god knows those categories would never, ever be deleted. What's the point of the User Categories system then? ~Zythe 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Duncan, I really do want to repeat my personal thanks to you for your consistent efforts to maintain fairness and access.
- Update on one thing incorrect about the closer's summary: Nobody contended (as he reports) that deleting the category was unfair on the grounds that other sexualities had categories. The grounds were -- and are -- that other, non-sexuality, self-identification categories are allowed to exist and any motion towards deleting them is slow. It's not scientifically possible that the repeated, comprehensive moves to delete sexuality categories are due to random chance. There's a systematic, targeted effort.
- There is evidently no consensus in Misplaced Pages at large that all such categories should be deleted. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many of them, with so many members.
- If "Queer Wikipedians" were relisted, and then subsequently deleted after a sincere, Wiki-wide effort had been made to delete all self-identification categories, then the LGBT community would just have to realize that categories are not the correct way to identify themselves and we should use other means. Otherwise, any attempts at deletion are inevitably perceived as homophobic and unfair. William P. Coleman (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Category:LGBT Wikipedians. 21:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're the one who did that. Thank you! (One small complaint, though: could you please just delete the actually unnecessary sentence about us not being pedophiles, rapists, etc? The text will still make the same point without it.)
- In the course of our previous disagreement, we said a number of angry things. I've tried to apologize wherever I did so, and I sincerely mean it. If there's any further way I could repair the unnecessary damage I did, please let me know. I obviously completely misjudged you and I shouldn't have written what I did. William P. Coleman (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure about that part, but I wanted to make the statement as strongly worded as I could. In the absence of a policy consensus, only clearly trolling/disruptive categories should be deleted outright (IMHO). The examples I left are some of the ones I think ought to be simply deleted, and I chose the ones I did because they are so diametrically opposed to the LGBT Wikipedians category. And there's no hard feelings - the most recent category might still be around if I hadn't nominated it for deletion while unaware of the background of this type of categories, so in some respects I felt like it was my responsibility to re-create a similar category. 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- So Misplaced Pages is a consensus, and some might even call it an anarchy. One trait of anarchic systems (and this is strictly from experience outside Misplaced Pages, not from any book study of the subject) is that, if you don't like the outcome, you're free to repeat the exercise. Given enough time, the outcome will change - perhaps not to what you were expecting, but at least closer.
- As such, I'm excited at Avruch's boldness - and applaud it! I was unaware that there were so many members of a (non-) category. Sheer numbers should also count for something in the (possible) CfD (re-)debates.
- I urge others to add the category to your watchlist, and then we can post here and participate in any ensuing discussions. The recent keep-ing of Category:American Wikipedians, as well as the continued existence of
- Category:Wikipedians by education, Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, Category:Wikipedians by hardware, Category:Wikipedians by interest, Category:Wikipedians by language, Category:Wikipedians by location, Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, Category:Wikipedians by profession, Category:Wikipedians by religion, Category:Wikipedians by skill, Category:Wikipedians by software, and Category:Wikipedians by website
- means that Wikipedians by interest and/or lifestyle and/or whatever-you-want-to-call-it should continue to exist. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have awarded the Special Barnstar to Avruch for his actions in creating and defending category:LGBT Wikipedians. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow!!! . . . In about 24 hours category:LGBT Wikipedians has grown from the 7 or so members it had when recreated it to nearly 1000 members just now. !!!! There must have been a lot of pent-up frustration out there. I'm inundated way back in the W's and perfectly happy about it.
- I would like to suggest another minor change to the category description. In addition to the existing warnings against homophobic vandalism, there should also be some words that welcome potential users. Further, recognizing the diverse POVs expressed by many LGBT users during the discussion(s) and recognizing that many didn't participate, we whould also have wording recognizing that coming out is a personal decision each LGBT has to make for her/himself: some LGBT users will wish to join the category -- and that's fine -- and some won't wish to -- and that's fine too.
- I would also like to suggest that the category have a userbox that people can use to enroll and to celebrate. We should design one. Below is my personal suggestion -- a simple, quietly flaming pink-and-blue userbox for users who are pink, blue, both, neither, or other. Perhaps others can come up with more suggestions. Eventually, we should move some userbox to the category and list it on the Userbox directory.
|
- I suspect that some userboxes have already been used to add people to the cat. I, for instance, did not add myself directly, but have had a bisexual userbox on my page for ages (back when it put me into that category before the big lgbt-cat deletion). Aleta (Sing) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the sexuality userboxes are located at User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality. I have already changed all I could find there and in other places so that use of any of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender boxes puts the using user into LGBT Wikipedians, hence why it filled up so fast from like 5 users to almost 1000. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- How do I get into the category? I have the categories on my user page, but don't seem to be on the list. Confused. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the sexuality userboxes are located at User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality. I have already changed all I could find there and in other places so that use of any of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender boxes puts the using user into LGBT Wikipedians, hence why it filled up so fast from like 5 users to almost 1000. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that some userboxes have already been used to add people to the cat. I, for instance, did not add myself directly, but have had a bisexual userbox on my page for ages (back when it put me into that category before the big lgbt-cat deletion). Aleta (Sing) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're in the "U" section. You can change that by adding a {{DEFAULTSORT:Jay*Jay}} anywhere on your page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, SatyrTN, that fixed it. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedian Demographics on Wikiversity: Sexuality and Relationships survey added
Hello all. After seeing a conversation on the Administrators's Noticeboard, I had replied that whether or not categories for "Wikipedians by sexual preference" were a good idea on Misplaced Pages, these sorts of categories would be more than appropriate on Wikiversity (both as part of the demographics resource and as a way of organizing "learning groups"). I finally had time today to add a survey about sexual preferences and opinions, if anyone would like to give it a spin.
The survey is very general (and incomplete), but I would be more than happy to help make surveys that are specifically aimed at the GLBT community (I'm honestly not quite sure what should be asked). The basic questions I included are the obvious one (are you hetero-/bi-/homo- sexual), and the others ones stem from topics I hear about on the radio: "is homosexual sex immoral?" and "is sexual preference genetically determined?" I didn't add one on "Gay marriage" yet because I'm not sure how "global" the issue is (is this just an American provincial thing, or is it discussed in other places as well?), and likewise "Gays in the military" (same reason).
As far as Category:Queer Wikipedians is concerned, I wasn't entirely sure whether the controversey was in the term "queer" or about the category in general (apparently Category:Christian Wikipedians is acceptable?), but it did strike me that a question about how one refers to their sexual preference (for example: "straight" vs. "heterosexual" vs. "...", etc.) could certainly have some merit.
I'm guessing this is the first most of you have heard of Wikimedian Demographics, but it's a learning resource aimed at learning how demographics works, but also about the dempgraphics of "we, the Wikimedians". The surveys are in the form of templates you fill out, and instructions are provided at every step (follow the wikilink and hopefully it will all make sense. Templates are editable, but the #if+#switch stuff can be a bit daunting for those without a good bit of experience, so don't be afraid to just point out problems for someone else to do the fixing. --SB_Johnny | 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- A good idea - but a couple of gripes. 1) Requires an account at Wikiversity. 2) Instructions on the first page could be clearer. 3) Lack of anonymity - will deter some LGBT Wikipedians completing relevant fields (also likely to deter others from other fields). DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks DuncanHill... I'm glad you like the idea :). Responding to your gripes:
- It only takes a few seconds to make an account
- Sorry about that... things often seem much clearer to me than they are for Wikipedians (Wikibookians and Wikiversitans tend to be much more comfortable with templates)
- You can always use a different username than the one you "usually" use. When you create an account, you're more or less anonymous except for the CheckUsers, and the only "active" CU on Wikiversity is, well, me :), and I can only offer you my word that I would never use it for evil (or even personal) reasons.
- Very cool to see a bunch of new survey takers today! Thanks guys, gals, and, um, gals :). --SB_Johnny | 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks DuncanHill... I'm glad you like the idea :). Responding to your gripes:
- Thanks for creating the survey, and for letting us know about it! (And well, at least for me, about Wikiversity in general!) Aleta (Sing) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Rosie rewrite revert-watch
Per the recent drama on the Rosie O'Donnell article, folks deleting first then discussing when compelled, I have rewritten, resourced and refocused Rosie O'Donnell#Accusations of anti-Catholicism and would appreciate others keeping an eye on it since the article just came off protection. Benjiboi 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality in sports
I was reading Alone in the Trenches: My Life As a Gay Man in the NFL by Esera Tuaolo, which is very moving by the way, a good read. I am active in St. Louis Rams WikiProject and a general fan of the NFL and I thought I would see if there is an article about homosexuality in the NFL or in sports in general. The only one I saw was Homosexuality in women's sports. Would any be interested in or find notable to have an article about homosexuality in sports in general? Or even homosexuality in the National Football League? --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget Ray McDonald (running back). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The lesbian article is just begging for a sports section to be added. It would be more of a summary but might be a good place to start. Benjiboi 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Homosexuality in figure skating is just begging to be created and heavily vandalized. Kolindigo (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gay Olympians could be a timely article and also heavily vandalized, perhaps we could develop a tour for vandals? Benjiboi 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- "And on your left, you will find premium flaming ground for both homosexuals and athletes you can't stand. On your right, the Washington Monument. Please watch your step." Kolindigo (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Harlequin (color)
Why on earth is that in this project? I see that Satyr added it, which is only reason I didn't delete our tag immediately. Is there something I'm missing? Aleta (Sing) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I imagine it was because of this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that would explain it. I guess I should have looked in the history. Thanks, Dev. Well, if it survives the AfD (and maybe while it's still an open question), either that tidbit needs replacing or it should go out of the project - right now there is nothing in the article to indicate that association. Aleta (Sing) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Judy Garland
Promoted to FA!!! Congratulations to User:Otto4711 and all the others that helped to get it there! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
David Leavitt
Someone created a disambiguation page and the author would go as David F. Leavitt, but tbh I have *never* heard him being referred to that way. Is my dismay misguided?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Paddock Club
This article is up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paddock Club, with the reasoning "Non-notable. Kill it with fire." Pairadox (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to take a look at it and see if I can tidy it up so deletion won't occur. I lived in Greenville for a while and I want to keep the article.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Gay porn!
Hey homos - I'm interviewing porn king Michael Lucas (porn star) on Sunday. There are two purposes to this interview: 1. to clarify problems he has with his Misplaced Pages page (even if we don't remove info, we can give his side); and 2. to talk philosophically about the porn industry and the life of a porn star. If you have a question you'd like to ask Mr. Lucas, please leave it on my talk page. I hope you all are doing well out there in your Wiki worlds. --David Shankbone 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. Right. "talk philosophically". Sure. Are you taking pictures of you two "talking philosophically"? And will they be available at my favorite sites?
- =D =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little envious, David, at your chance to interview such a hunk. But does that not amount to "original research"? Not trying to be a smartass here, just genuinely wondering. (But even if it is, by all means, enjoy! And get us some good pics too . . . .) Textorus (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I imagine it's not OR since he's probably doing the interview for Wikinews, of which David is a credentialed reporter. And if by hunk, you mean "yuck!".. lol :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a Wikinews story. Lucas is actually quite an intellectual and we have had some pretty heavy philosophical e-mails (e.g. "What is love?") so don't count him as a lightweight. He's very passionate about his beliefs, and I assured him that if I could tongue-tie the President of the ACLU no less than two times in an interview, I could probably tongue-tie him. --David Shankbone 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I imagine it's not OR since he's probably doing the interview for Wikinews, of which David is a credentialed reporter. And if by hunk, you mean "yuck!".. lol :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little envious, David, at your chance to interview such a hunk. But does that not amount to "original research"? Not trying to be a smartass here, just genuinely wondering. (But even if it is, by all means, enjoy! And get us some good pics too . . . .) Textorus (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the image! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I had to postpone my Lucas interview by a week, just FYI. --David Shankbone 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Rookie question
So I'm new to this gay mafia project, but I was wondering if Kimpton Hotels & Restaurant Group should be added to the project? I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with them, but it's one of the most gay-friendly companies and hotel chains in the country. Look at their website's LGBT section. They do alot of charity work and cater heavily to the LGBT crowd. I know they're popular with the gays here in D.C. I'm not sure if companies are added to the project or not, but I thought I'd check with you guys and gals...and those in between.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it! The article has a well-ref'd section regarding LGBT issues. --Phyesalis (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
More category puzzles
I nominated the Christian Wikipedian and American Misplaced Pages categories for deletion using the same rationale which was used to purge Misplaced Pages of the Gay Wikipedian categories. Both were speedily closed by admin Jc37 as speedy keeps without any discussion allowed at all. On the face of it, this seems a double standard to me, and I am wondering if anybody has any thoughts on what, if any, action should be taken about it. Personally, I think we should simply start a category titled "LGBT Wikipedians interested in collaborating", and use these speedy keeps as precedent for keeping our category when it is inevitably nominated for deletion. The current LGBT category has a userbox which says, "This user is interested in LGBT issues - which does not necessarily reflect the user's sexual orientation". Unless we can add ourselves to the category without such a disclaimer, I am removing myself from it. Jeffpw (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we should trim down the four paragraphs on Category:LGBT Wikipedians and add something similar to Category:Christian Wikipedians. Just so that category is safe from deletion as well. I'd hate for them to worry about their cat being deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the userbox says that, then there should be a different userbox that isn't so equivocal. "Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues" is not the name or point of the category. I don't know that trying to delete other categories is constructive, though - I think what you want is to have categories retained on the same basis, and if the categories you nominated are deleted it spells the inevitable deletion of the LGBT Wikipedian category (again). The most powerful argument is that these categories need to be dealt with collectively and not by cherry picking. I'm fine with seeing the intro paras of the category refined or removed, but making this argument and providing some background was my primary motivation for writing it. 16:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- No offense was intended towards you, Avruch! My point was that we're forced into having a full page of info defending our category, whereas other categories escape CfD speedily. Perhaps adding the defensive language to the other cat will help people understand the disparity. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Satyr, I don't think the Christians are worried. After all, they have the lord on their side. They've put up with being eaten byb lions, I doubt a category deletion will bother them much...though I predict yet another stunning KEEP result for that
malignantdevout category. Jeffpw (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)- I think that transferring the language on isolated deletion to the other similar usercats is a good idea, both in the GF sense and in promoting general parity. LOL, though I agree that the Christians probably aren't too worried. -Phyesalis (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Satyr, I don't think the Christians are worried. After all, they have the lord on their side. They've put up with being eaten byb lions, I doubt a category deletion will bother them much...though I predict yet another stunning KEEP result for that
- No offense was intended towards you, Avruch! My point was that we're forced into having a full page of info defending our category, whereas other categories escape CfD speedily. Perhaps adding the defensive language to the other cat will help people understand the disparity. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Something for the Ladies!
Bisexuality Not A Transitional Phase Among Women, According To New Research
| “ | Bisexuality in women appears to be a distinctive sexual orientation and not an experimental or transitional stage that some women adopt "on their way" to lesbianism, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association. | ” |
Angelina Jolie is taking calls! Benjiboi 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Michael Lucas (porn star) COI
Resolved
FYI on a WP:COI Noticeboard debate involving User:David Shankbone and the Michael Lucas (porn star) article in: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Michael Lucas (porn star). — Becksguy (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Closed today as not COI. — Becksguy (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Aaron Tone
Is he worthy of an article? He's Andrew Sullivan's husband, but also an artist and sometimes actor. Thoughts?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:User categories/Proposal
Category: