Talk:OUTeverywhere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Gaydar (remove)
Why keep reverting to the Gaydar website link? This website is only one of a possible list of slightly similar websites, but is very different in ethos. It seems like a blatant attempt at advertising by Gaydar to have the link there. It doesn't add anything of value to the article. [Unsigned]
- It is being reverted primarily because you keep deleting it without explanation. It is always helpful to add a reason when you make an edit.
- I think it is a helpful link. It is not a link to the Gaydar site, but to the article. Its presence does not make any comment about similarities or differences, but invites the reader to compare two related subjects for themselves. David L Rattigan 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Yes. They are the same thing - so obviously that it doesn't seem worth discussing it. I'll happily merge the two myself later today if I get a moment. David L Rattigan 09:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Great. This article has the correct title, but I don't know if they have different information or which one is better, so your efforts will be greatly appreciated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary sandbox here
[edit] Merged and tidied up
I merged the articles and cleaned things up. It still needs some sources. David L Rattigan 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It looks really good! Which statements need sources? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- For example, the statement about the founder and why he created the site needs a citation, and the membership stats etc. I don't dispute anything in the article, but it will need citations eventually. David L Rattigan 10:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advert
This looks too much like an advert. Recent controversies on the site are not even touched upon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.223.76 (talk • contribs).
- Unfortunately it's in the nature of an article like this that some of the more controversial aspects are not touched upon, as there is not much research to draw on, and original research is not permitted. David L Rattigan 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unencyclopedic
I see the article is now marked as potentially unencyclopedic. I what way is it unencyclopedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corky1979 (talk • contribs).
I've made some changes to remove some of the "unencyclopedic" content...
[edit] This Is Gay
Should "This Is Gay" be mentioned in the article? Not sure what exactly is happening with it, but it was mentioned in the Daily Star briefly. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Probably not worth it now as it's being abandoned as a bad idea... Corky1979
