User talk:Juddlackland

Edit warring
Please be careful with multiple reverts of cited information. You might want to review Edit warring sometime very soon. In this case, you appear to be in line with the consensus of previous discussions, but that is generally not an exemption to the hardline rules we have here. 130.111.39.47 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Noted. Juddlackland (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing references to sexuality
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Almost every single edit you have made to articles is to remove well-sourced information about someone's sexuality.

The consensus here is that we include that information — not least because a lot of LGBTQ+ people consider it a key piece of their identity. Do not remove further information from biographies about the subjects' sexuality. Doing so is vandalism.

As I mentioned on Talk:Sam Altman, our guidelines are all about avoiding undue prominence, not avoiding mention of subjects' sexuality. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Sexuality, WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Identity.)

Your repeated description of subjects' sexuality as "prurient" makes it sound like talking about sex and sexuality is somehow dirty. Wikipedia is not censored; we don't consider describing people's relationships or sexuality as "prurient". If you think someone's sexuality should not be included in their biography, despite them being out, then you should provide compelling evidence and establish consensus to do so on the Talk; page before removing that information. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * As a gay man, I have a view on the prominence of references to sexuality, and those that I have removed are all because I'm my view they were unduly prominent @OwenBlacker - this is my prerogative as an editor. It is not vandalism, and when I make a reference to someone's sexuality being prurient is is exactly because that is how I, as gay man, read it. It is sensationalising it and for no good reason. I also have no idea why you put it in quotes.
 * To use the Altman example, see not reason whatsoever to refer directly to his sexuality as he is neither a campaigner for gay rights or makes his living because of his sexuality - I have been shouted down and am yet to respond to it. Juddlackland (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I have never referred to anyone's sexuality as prurient - it is the undue interest that is prurient and this is when it is not in any way necessary, as I view the case to be with Sam Altman, that is the prurience, not his sexuality. Juddlackland (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how you think Tom Allen's sexuality is of "undue interest" — or that of Luke Macfarlane, Jane Hill ‎or Amy Lamé.
 * In any case, whether you view it as "undue interest" or not, you are removing well-sourced, relevant information that Wikipedia consensus is to include. If you want to change that consensus, you should convince discussions on the talk: pages of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Sexuality, WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Identity.
 * Until you gain that consensus, removing that information is vandalism. That you (and I) are (both) gay doesn't change that. Please desist or you may be blocked from editing. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
(Just to be sure that you're aware of the details around the Contentious Topic of gender and sexuality) —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)