i recognize personal experience is discounted and this is not a forum, but the cistemic erasure of queer from this 'pædia is a well-known, decades-long practice. removing queers removes inclusion. LGBT is no longer in contemporary usage, as GB-centrism harms folks marganilized by their gender or sexuality who don't fir in traditional gay culture.

editors may dismiss it with Write Grate Wrongs but i still have my freeze peach. it is not possible that editors of LGBT (shudder) articles are unaware that using the earlier variant is queer-exclusionary. at this point, LGBT (shudder) is archaic, not contemporary. it was archaic a decade ago. it was gauche to insist on LGBT (shudder) not LGBTQ in 1998

Wikipedians tone defaults to dismissive in my experience. A presumption of automated vandalism combined with an allergic reaction to "queer" prevents Wikipedia from accurately describing any P2QUILTBAG and other gender and sexual minority communities accurately. There is a negative presence of queer here, and it is by design. Strand (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"LGBT is no longer in contemporary usage." This is demonstrably false.[1] "LGBT" is the single term most commonly used currently in the media, which is why it is the default term used (when applicable) on Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've implemented the self-requested block of your account for the duration of one week. Before you return to editing, I'd advise you to review the introductory overview of our policies laid out at HELP:GUIDE (plenty of additional resources will be provided there as well) and determine for yourself whether you think you'll be able to contribute here in accordance with those policies. I understand you're frustrated, but you need to keep your cool in order to edit here. Not doing so is counterproductive to both your own goals and the project itself. If you can handle the inevitable negative interactions and conflicts that occur from time to time, you can probably do some good here. If not, you should probably not edit here for your own sanity. Swarm ♠ 07:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ty. it is so fucked that wilipedians try to remove queer from our records. ☮️ Strand (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think somebody is trying to maliciously suppress information that they don't like, it's important that you don't engage them directly. Try to assume good intentions on their part, and work to resolve disputes if possible. But, if you have evidence that they're motivated by something malicious, report them to us at WP:ANI. Swarm ♠ 08:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. i do not believe people are behaving maliciously, that is, with ill will or harmful intent. i believe the cistem works as intended. I believe the reasons this 'pedia lags behind contemporary usage of lgbtQ community is just mundane inertia. I know that this encyclopedia is slow to change. i also know that when it comes to subjects related to my personal identity, i should refrain from editing. while my patience is usually in plentiful supply, i lack it when it comes to my self. —Strand (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're acting with ill intent. You have worthy goals. But – based on what I've seen of your behavior – you are ill-equipped to edit Wikipedia. Your first instinct seems to be to assume the worst about others' motivations and accuse them of it aggressively, and that won't work in a community that has "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" among its main rules. Your complaints about "tone" are profoundly tone-deaf, because you have been relentlessly hostile yourself. To complain about others being insufficiently welcoming while snarling libel such as "nazi sympathizer" at people, isn't just hypocritical, it's disqualifying.

But since you want to talk about queer erasure, I'd like to point that you're doing it here. I have been openly queer since Jimmy Carter was president. But you talk as if you are some lone queer pioneer here, as if I didn't even exist. I've been editing Wikipedia pretty much continuously since 2003 (since 2007 using this account, which currently ranks #4101 on the list of the most edits to the English Wikipedia).[2] So I don't need you to lecture me (or more charitably, on my behalf) about Editing Wikipedia While Queer. I'm here, I'm queer, I'm more knowledgeable about WP than you, get used to it. :)

It's a truism that Wikipedia is "a work in progress". But if a queer person has the temperament to remain civil, the wisdom to listen to those with more experience, and the perception to understand (if not agree with) opposing viewpoints, they can make a lot of contributions here. Unfortunately, I don't see those traits in you. Instead I see warning flags all over the place, of someone who has some serious issues to work out before even trying to take on the whole damn fucking culture of Wikipedia (as you seem to think you are the one to do). I genuinely hope you focus on those issues instead; you're the only one who can. Wikipedia has (guess what?) other queers who can continue working on its shortcomings. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Strand,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Queer erasure for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Bisexual erasure.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Natureium (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee declined the CSD before I could. I would be surprised if this didn't duplicate some existing article, but at a quick glance did not see anything other than Heteronormativity that was close, and there's room for a separate article there. It certainly doesn't duplicate Bisexual erasure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual erasure is arguably a subset of queer erasure, as queer is commonly understood as an umbrella term that includes bisexuality. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i concur with Jason that bisexual erasure is a subset of queer erasure, however the superset is more nuanced and distinct than you may think. queer erasure can sometimes contextually mean the erasure of people who describe themselves as queer; or the erasure of people who do not fit into either LG/LGB/LGBT communities; or generally the erasure of any of the gender or sexual minorities in the P2QUILTBAG+ community. So sometimes queer erasure can be used to refer to bisexual erasure, but in other contexts one might contrast queer erasure with bisexual erasure. Salutations, and best of luck in all your endeavours. Strand (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also i find it recursively ironic that yall are considering deleting queer erasure. 🙃 im gonna step aside from further comment, as these discussions can be a little trying for me.