Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Archive 3

POV pushing at Alfred Kinsey
I'm having trouble with an editor on a smear campaign against Alfred Kinsey. Many of his edits and suggestions are not in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:BIO and other policies. I've been trying to reign him in, but he is very persistent and confrontational. If other editors could weigh in on the discussions, it would be most appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a gander.-Wafulz (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of missionary position
Please see Peer review/Missionary position/archive1. I would like feedback on this article in order to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of missionaryish positions
Please vote on inclusion of the various missionaryish positions at Talk:Missionary position/Votes on inclusion as missionary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FAR of History of erotic depictions
History of erotic depictions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Zantastik  talk  09:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Userbox
Hi there!

I've just joined this WikiProject, so I thought I would contribute by create a userbox for members to post in their user pages. To see it, type User:ISD/WikiProject Sex See a list of userboxes here. ISD (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BDSM WikiProject?
I don't know if there has been any sort of discussion on the matter, but has anyone thought about creating a WikiProject dedicated to BDSM and fetishism? If one was created, how many people from here would want to become involved with it? ISD (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Project template
The project template used to include a small logo, which helps with the formatting of the banner (particularly for unassessed articles). Was this logo removed intentionally? Could a blank box of some kind be inserted so that the project template doesn't automatically expand to take up another half-inch vertically? (See the question marks in the banner on this page for an example.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible task force/work group
There is currently a proposed work group to deal with articles related to sex workers at WikiProject Council/Proposals, which has five parties expressing an interest. Would the members of this project be willing to take on such a group as a task force, work group, or whatever name you might prefer? I could help adjust the template and any other work required to establish the new group. Thank you in advance for any and all responses. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to let people know, this project has been created and can be found here. – Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP Sexuality: Articles of unclear notability
Hello,

there are currently 10 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 2008-03-12 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC for Gay
Hi, there is a request for comment at Talk:Gay that could use some more input - most of the contributers so far have already been involved in the dispute, and some outside voices could certainly be used. If you could take a look and comment, it would be appreciated! Aleta  Sing 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look. The discussion looks like War and Peace. A part seems to be about the definition of the word "potato". Could somebody do a short precis on the nature of the dispute(s) from whatever POV (so long as this is made clear). --Simon Speed (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The verbosity of one particular person is part of the problem. Masculinity is trying to introduce material that purports that the concept of "gay" does not mean the same thing in non-Western/non-Westernized spaces as it does in the West, and parts of the non-West that have been Westernized. He has references to support this contention. Others feel that there are issues of undue weight and POV with what he wants to say, how much he wants to write, and where in the article to put it. (Should it go in the lead section, or only lower down in the article?) As per this RSN thread, there are also questions about the reliability of one of his main sources. Aleta  Sing 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex
I've rewritten the Sex article which&mdash;according to the article before I got to it&mdash;should be describing biological sex (rather than social issues, etc, I assume). The page is tagged as part of this wikiproject (not surprising), although given the material it's probably not that related to this project's subject matter. Anyway, I'm leaving a note here to bring my rewrite of the article to your attention. Thoughts on how to improve the article are always welcome. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I get any dissenting response here, I'm going to remove this projects banner from this page in a week. This wikiproject is about human sexuality, and the article is about biological sex, not sexuality. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 14:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article looks good, although a few more reference citations might not be a bad thing. I don't think that there would necessarily be any real objections to the removal of the project banner, although it might not be a bad idea to add the Biology project's banner. My compliments on your work, though. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, good point, thought I had done this. Done. Thanks! Article still needs more work, yes. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, removed now. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Play party (BDSM)
This article recently survived an attempt to delete it. An editor has now decided to simply remove every line without an inline reference. I have added 2 online sources at the end, but this has been ignored. Few articles in the Wikipedia would survive such treatment (which I think is both Wikilawyering and vandalism) and I hope it is not something that gets done to all the sexuality articles. I had earlier removed some dubious material from this article but I'd like some support against an attempt to destroy it. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think the AfD was closed improperly. According to the strength of the arguments, the article should've been deleted.-Wafulz (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have substantially re-edited the article including 5 reliable sources. Please comment on the deletion request. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BDSM WikiProject?

 * Would anyone be interested in collaborating on a BDSM WikiProject? Voyager640 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps a Task Force within this WikiProject?

Feedback requested for Erotic Asphyxia page
Hi, folks. Although I am decently well read in sexuality, I am new to writing for wikipedia. I have revised much of the erotic_asphyxiation page; any feedback to that page's talk page would be appreciated. Thanks, in advance. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Barnstar
I thought a nice barnstar could help recognize editors' efforts, raise morale and help us take pride in what are some of the most important articles on Wikipedia. Please take a look and comment. I'm open to suggestions and will definitely modify it if there's a consensus. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've improved it. Feedback, boys & girls? --Simon Speed (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if anyone wants to use it just copy and paste the following line into the editor's discussion page replacing "YOUR MESSAGE HERE" with something sensible:-

--Simon Speed (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of a barnstar for sexuality. I also very much like the symbols you used in this one. My only concern is that the symbols and textures get lost because of the dimensions in which the whole barnstar has to fit. Something with less detail pattern might be more attention-getting. Perhaps starting with the usual symbols for male (circle with the arrow coming out of it) and female (the circle with the cross at the bottom), but replacing the circles with barnstars? —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I did think of something like you've said at 1st, but the idea's already used by WikiProject Gender Studies. I tried to go for something a bit different (Satin Chic and Bonny Doone) and it has suffered a bit because I didn't quite appreciate the effects of scale. Nevertheless I think its suggests more than it depicts and sort of works. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Protecting sex pages?
I think we all wish the editors involved and will at least try to help to fight off the tide of vandalism and censorship. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that sexology and sexuality pages are disproportionately targeted for vandalism. It might be worth asking that many of them to be protected. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgasms during sexual assault or rape
The article Orgasm contains a brief section on involuntary orgasm during sexual assault or rape. It is supported by a citation of a literature review paper in the (peer-reviewed) Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine. User:Supriyya attempted to remove this section on the grounds that it was only a "claim", that the person who wrote it must have been a rape apologist, and finally that s/he didn't believe that it was possible to have an involuntary orgasm, so clearly when anyone who claimed to have been raped but had an orgasm, if they had "escape[d] into experiencing their own pleasure, because he or she is unable to get away, then that means that the victim has participated in having the orgasm"[...]. I am stating policies over and over and feel like I'm not being listened to; if anyone would like to weigh in on either side you'd be welcome. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weighed in.-Wafulz (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

seeking opinion
Seeking input on Talk:Biology and sexual orientation whether the use of the word etiology in discussing the causes of sexual orientation implies that homosexuality is a disease. TIA. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with it. The term is used mostly by medical and behavioral researchers, and the people who investigate the biological causes of sexual orientation are (unsurprisingly) medical and behavioral researchers (a great many of whom are openly gay). —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the response... wikipedia: learn something new everyday, eh? Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my favorite part. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on a merge
Following discussion at Talk:Pearl necklace, a loose agreement to try a merge of Pearl necklace, Facial (sexuality), and Cum shot was agreed, and bits from Bukkake, Gokkun and Mammary intercourse. I've created a sample article at User:Neil/ejac. The exact name of the article is still being discussed (Ejaculation acts? Ejaculation as sex act?). I would really appreciate the thoughts of this project on whether this is viable. Try to keep the discussion to one place (Talk:Pearl necklace) so I can keep track, if possible. Thanks. Neıl 龱  11:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reproductive medicine task force
A "Reproductive medicine" task force has been proposed. It would be hosted by WikiProject Medicine, but would also have as parent projects WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WikiProject Pharmacology. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces. LyrlTalk C 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This task force has been created. The task force's page is here and all interested editors are welcome.  Please also consider listing this as a related project/task force on your main page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One issue which might overlap with medicine and sexuality is the effect of various medical conditions and treatments on sexuality; ie, how clinical depression and antidepression medication effects sexual desire and response. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rape fantasy
Can I get a third opinion on the title of rape fantasy? I moved it to forced sex fantasy a while back because that title better describes the scope of the article. It's been reverted since then.-Wafulz (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rape fantasy is what it is called in most cases, I don't think forced sex fantasy would be an accurate title. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that "rape fantasy" is the commonly used term for the general topic. With regard to BDSM behavior, there are synonymous terms such as "ravishment" and "forced-sex roleplay" (FSRP)Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cum Shot
Please join the discussion regarding a photo in the article. Exxolon (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see any photos in this article Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was removed by another editor. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding this and whether an image should be included. Exxolon (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 1086 articles are assigned to this project, of which 498, or 45.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Help
First see here. A lot of articles on wikipedia are using the terms "fetish" and "paraphilia" interchangeably, although there is a difference medically. Basically a fetish is a type of paraphilia and is the sexual attraction to an object while a paraphilia is sexual arousal/enjoyment from something other than "biological" sexual activity. Hopefully we can bring the articles under a standard. --Philip Laurence (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Men who have sex with men
See debate at Talk:Men who have sex with men regarding people inside and outside the MSM demographic. Are transmen and women MSM? Are rape victims in prison? Hyacinth (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally yes depending on what they themselves on those who have sex with define them as. Banj e  b oi   13:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual urban legends template
I've created a new template Sexual urban legends. If you think of any others, please tag them for the category and feel free to add the template to the article as well as editing the template itself. Banj e b oi   13:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment
Please look at the article Homosexuality (which appears to be undergoing a complete overhaul) about almost all sections of the article. This has recently resulted in a large portion of the information being moved to a new article titled Homosexual orientation, in an effort to reduce the bloating. This strikes me as utterly bizarre and unnecessary. Notice that there are no Heterosexual orientation or Bisexual orientation articles (note: there has just been a proposal to start a "Heterosexual orientation" article), yet we already have an article on Sexual orientation as well as one on Sexual identity. This seems to be partly a case of editors confusing sexual orientation and sexual behaviour, and partly a case of the homosexuality article being in dire need of trimming as it's been filled with only tangentially related information. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename
There is an ongoing discussion about renaming homosexuality and bisexuality in animals to homosexual behavior in animals. Please feel free to offer your comments! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation
Hi, there is currently a spirited debate occurring on Template_talk:Sexual orientation concerning what should and should not be included on the template (which is a sidebar that is included on a number of articles about sexual orientation-related topics). The debate centers around whether pomosexuality, autosexuality, zoosexuality and paraphilias are considered orientations. There are several draft proposals on the table, but we could use more voices in the discussion. Thanks! Steve CarlsonTalk 01:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtesan
Hi all, I am editing the Italian article Cortigiano, and I insisted in order to have the same page for the male role (cortigiano) and the female one (cortigiana) in order to better show parallelism and differences. IMHO the English page Courtesan is lacking most of all an obvious link, that is "COURTIER", which was the original meaning of Courtesan. This would be of great help to better understand a very important social figure in past times, and gender differences. Excuse my poor English--S vecchiato (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Moved from project page.-Wafulz (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Recognition
Just a note to recognize project members who have actively participated in sexology and sexuality articles the past six months: I will be putting a Barnstar on their talk page as appreciation for contributing to the Sexology and sexuality Wikiproject.
 * AnotherSolipsist (Talk) (inactive since June of 2008)
 * APatcher (Talk)
 * Atomaton (Talk)
 * Bushytails (Talk)
 * Cazort (Talk)
 * DesmondRavenstone (Talk)
 * Doug (Talk)
 * ForesticPig (Talk)
 * Herostratus (Talk)
 * Homologeo (Talk)
 * James Cantor (Talk)
 * Kriza (Talk)
 * Mgoodyear (Talk)
 * NoMonaLisa (Talk)
 * Simonxag (Talk)
 * The Wednesday Island (Talk)
 * Tyciol (Talk)
 * Voyager640 (Talk)
 * Yes, Grasshopper (Talk)

Thanks! Please keep on contributing! Atom (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rating Project articles
I went through a large number of unassessed WP Sexuality articles and classified them giving them a class (FA, GA, B, Start, Stub) or priorioty (Top, High, Mid, Low) or both depending on the article. There are still more remaining (Please see Unassessed)

I also reclassified some of the articles, from high to top, and low to mid.

Along the way I reformatted the Wikiprojects section when there were more than just our WP Sexuality project link. Wikiprojects can now take advantage of adding a "nested=yes" tag that abbreviates a project, and displays it on one line. Also, there is a broader method that can optionally be used to encapsulate multiple projects in a banner called WikiprojectBannerShell. To avoid confusion in the future, I am proposing that we follow some kind of general guideline for implementing either of those on articles on our project.

The primary purpose of the nested tag is to make a large wikiproject header smaller, show the essentials, but take only one line. A user can click on the right side to open it fully to see the while project banner.

The primary purpose of the WikiprojectBannerShell is to aggregate mutiple projects on a header page. This is intended, and most functional when the talk page of an article is very crowded, usually when it has four or more Wikiprojects associated with it.

My suggested guideline is that we use the WikiprojectBannerShell when there are four or more projects. When there are 1, two projects they should be nested, but not part of the WikiprojectBannerShell. With three projects, use if the shell should be based on whether the talk page is cluttered or not, and not used unless that is the case. The projects within it should be nested to work correctly. Here is an example of this:

For one or two projects only, and in some cases three projects (for sparse talk pages) it would look like this (no WikiprojectBannerShell)

Summary:
 * 1 or 2 projects - nested=yes, no WikiprojectBannerShell
 * 3 projects, nested=yes, WikiprojectBannershell if the talk page is heavily used and crowded in the article.
 * 4 projects or more, nested=yes, Should use WikiprojectBannerShell unless it is a special case agreed upon by that articles editors.

If you aren't familiar with how to rate our articles, or include new articles within our project scope, here are some quick tips.

If adding an article for the first time, add:

If the project header is already in an article (or after you add one), then evaluate the class and importance, and fill them in.

Evaluate the article as (stub, start, B, GA, FA):
 * Is it a new article, and just a stub? Put "class=stub".
 * Is it a little more filled out than a stub, but still needs lots of work? Put "class=start"  (We don't use "class=c" on our project, some other projects do.  "start" and "C" are the same for us.)
 * Is it a pretty good article, and might be GA (Good Article) quality, but has not been evaluated yet? Put "class=B".
 * If it passes, or has passed a GA review successfully, then "class-GA" is appropriate. (We don't use class=A, but go from B to GA or FA.)
 * For some select few articles, it passes the FA review, and becomes a Featured Article on WIkipedia. (Class=FA)  Our project only has three of these at the moment.  It would be great if we can collaborate and produce, improve articles until we have many GA and FA class articles.

For ''Importance', this is subjective, but a good faith effort to classify the importance as Top, High, Mid, or low. If in doubt, place it at low, and others can update it later.

Here is an example of an article that has been evaluated:

(See Template:WP_Sexuality for details)

Thanks for helping on our project! Please leave me messages on my talk page if I can help you. Atom (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded to you on my talk but my initial look into things is that; there is no need to nest if there is only 1 or 2 tags but WikiProjectBannerShell is helpful to organize when there are 3 or more. I've never seen of nesting without a bannershell and, I believe, the nesting parameter was created for that purpose. The template itself is apparently under the consent of the wikicouncil. That would be a better venue to propose changes than on a single project. I also want to offer my thanks for looking to assess so many articles as that's quite important. Banj e  b oi   01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Use of the bannershell is optional, and up to the discretion of the people who edit a given article. The recommendations say that it should be considered for articles with three or more projects, and not for fewer.  My suggestion above mirrors this, suggesting that three should be a judgement call either way on our part.   (A busy, cluttered article could probably benefit from using it -- a sparse talk page, infrequently edited, probably has no need for it.) I haven't proposed any changes to the bannershell, only this projects preference for implementation on articles we watch over.  Nesting was created for use with the bannershell, but works marvelously without it.  In my opinion, articles with one, two, or three projects work great with "nested=yes", and no bannershell to clutter the page.  Atom (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your view - we'll have to agree to disagree on this. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, got some clarity on this, we are not supposed to use the "nested=yes" parameter without the Bannershell as it goes against the conventions set forth for template to be at 80% width. See Talk page templates for more information. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read WP:TPT before, and I don't recall anything like that. I'll go review it to see what you may mean.  In the mean time, what we could do is talk through what we want the convention to be first, and then change things instead of wasting both of our time.   Atom (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see where WP:TPT suggests 80% width. It is not a requirement, it is a guideline. The nested attribute is new, and more recent than the previous WP:TPT guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean above "we'll have to disagree on this" as I thought I was proposing standards to follow for our project.  I didn't know we were having a disagreement.  Atom (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Sexuality
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Sex work
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please RSVP to Purity Ball
You are cordially invited to join us at Purity Ball, to assist with its expansion. Please come. Whatever404 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of Woman on top (sex position)
I have proposed that this page be renamed. The discussion can be found here  C t j f 8 3 Talk 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New page of relevance here.
I have created a page, List of sexology organizations, which might be of interest to folks here. Please feel free to add to it appropriate organizations. I hope also that that list encourages the creation of WP articles covering those organzations themselves. — James Cantor (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The links should be wikilinks, not external links.-Wafulz (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; yes, I think you might be right. I am changing them over, but it leaves a bunch of redlinks. It's making me realize only now that pages for these organizations should be created. Any help from interested editors would be appreciated. — James Cantor (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Need reviewers and watchers for nocturnal emission
For a long time I've been keeping an eye on nocturnal emission, but in the times when I couldn't commit as much effort to watching it, many questionable edits fell through the cracks. Today I reverted an unjustified section deletion that was two months old. Additionally, anonymous editors have frequently edited the article to refer to a variety of popular unsubstantiated myths about nocturnal emissions, particularly with regard to their cause. Unfortunately, there are many misleading sources out there on the subject that some of our editors find persuasive. It'd be really great if I could get a few more people to review this article for correctness and bias, and help to watch it for vandalism. Thanks! Dcoetzee 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual GA reassessment
Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pearl necklace image deletion nomination
Just to inform any editors interested the pearl necklace image has been nominated for deletion on Commons. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 4th nomination‎ Bidgee (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)