Talk:Gay Youth UK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

[edit] Site admin edits

I noticed that the site admin has been editing this page. That's not a bad thing, but please refrain from promotional language and unsupported claims. Simply saying that you're a site admin, and therefore an authority isn't quite sufficient since a) we don't know who you are b) we can't trust site administrators to be objective (sorry, nothing personal). -Harmil 04:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When, have I ever said I am site Admin and I am right?

I think you will find, if you check all of the versions that the "claim" which has been made, (that the organisation has risen in popularity due to its non-political style) was there before, written by someone else. You seem to have a grudge against me because I am a site Admin. There is no support to your claims, as I have never ever once professed to be an authority on the topic. Nor, would I ever profess to be wholly objective. You will find that I have included the link to our so called rival because a member has decided to edit it out, yet in my objectivity between the sites, I feel it should be included so added it back in.

--Ludo 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Harmil. Looking at your site you may not be 'site admin' but you are very invovled with it and I think this represents a bug conflict of interest, especuially considering you have made so many big changes to the article in a shameless attempt to proote this website of yours. Is it an organisation? I have never heard of it, despite this how can you prove that it has 'risen in popularity' when the only evidence is growth of sign-ups on your web-board? This is mis-leading.

The entire article looks like spam and self promotion for what is mearly a set of message boards. I think it should be deleted, wikipedia is an encyplopedia, not a billboard. If people want to find your site they will do it though google or other more suitable means.

--Chrysaor 02:05 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of the site but I also the promotion should be toned down, at loeast if it means the page isn't deleted from WikiPedia.

--Spacepostman 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article now only states factual information; to delete the article would be extremely harsh, as other charitable organisations such as stonewall, or non-gay related organisations (of which GYUK is a non-profit organisation) are available for users to search for on wikipedia.

--Ludo 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the article was written by me, not Ludo, and it is an unbias account of a community website, just the same as Friends Reunited, Final Fantasy Shrine (obscenely big and detailed), and MySpace. I was the one who added the line "has risen in popularity"—admittedly a seemingly not very NPOV statement, but nevertheless an observation I had witnessed over a time period. I can see the validity of Harmil's points, and I think it has been a good idea to take them into consideration for the article's benefit, as some of the language added by Ludo was slightly promotional. However I think that Chrysaor's attack is unfounded and OTT. Certainly, just because you have never heard of something does not validate its deletion from Wikipedia.

I am of the impression that the article now conforms to NPOV and Wikipedia standards, and does not exceed its notability in terms of length or content. And I think that, in principal, there is nothing wrong with someone editing an article on themself (see the Talk pages of any number of wikipedians with articles), and it is certainly not against the rules. It does, however, have to be monitored to conform to Wikipedia's NPOV standards, as it has been here. (Incidently, I've cleaned up the talk page so it is easier to read). -Erolos 00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email group

The link to the email group appears to be broken. Is there a better link? :) -Erolos 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)