User talk:Vanisheduser5965 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) at 22:55, 8 February 2009 (→Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:55, 8 February 2009 by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Vanisheduser5965, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary

DarlieB:

I think your summary on TMWMBQ is about as balanced as I have seen, so I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying on the parts on which we disagree. I think we are disagreeing over more than one piece, so let me try to take them apart.

First is whether the two-types-of-transsexualism/autogynephilia theory has been discredited. Whether any theory is discredited or not is an opinion. There are still people on both sides of the issue. Perhaps we should just call it controversial?

Second is Baily's intent: Was he trying to >describe< autogynephilia (etc.) or do science (i.e., test an hypothesis)? In the book, he says he wants to describe it...at least, if he had an hypothesis he was trying to prove, no one (not even he) has said what it was.

Thoughout the book, although he did not provide the references to Blanchard's journal articles, he describe the content of Blanchard's articles and why Bailey was convinced by them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarionTheLibrarian (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 May 2008

TMWWBQ controversy section

Thanks for your work on TMWWBQ. We are in the midst of a long-running effort to reach consensus on the controversy section, and the materials you removed were part of that consensus. Please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page first, so that the remainder of the negotiations on content do not get mired down in discussions we have already had. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know I sent an email per your request via the Misplaced Pages system (I didn't have any email from you in my contacts list). Please send a reply and I will follow up. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: The question has been posted on the RS noticeboard.

Hello. I have decided that at long last we have a good enough question to ask the notice board and posted it. here The question has been negotiated and all parties have had input. It is possible to comment further on the notice board so any other questions or concerns can be raised there. I think that the question that I posted which is evolved from drafts of mine, Jokestress's and James_Cantor's is a good framing for the issue and gives all the information that the uninterested RS editors will need to make a determination.

I took this action because we could end up negotiating the content of this question and have about as much success as we have had with the article itself. Someone had to say enough. So I say enough already. I hope that we can resolve this question and move on to more productive editing of the article in the near future. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dreger and NYT

Your edits look like a good step, but now you've got "Dr. Dreger" repeated a few times, and then "Alice Dreger" and then "Dreger"; it should be "Alice Dreger" once and then just "Dreger"; titles like Dr. are not usually used. And the NYT is still mentioned inappropriately, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Would be Queen WP:NOR/N

I have reported your recent edits to TMWWBQ on the No original research notice board. Have a nice day! :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again

Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board.

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James Cantor at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request made.

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in The Man Who Would Be Queen. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring.
Your removal of this sourced information solely because of your personal opinion that scientific journals and major newspaper articles are not reliable sources has been steadily opposed on the talk page and is contrary to the decisions made at the reliable source noticeboard. Please STOP the edit war and WAIT for someone else to agree with your wholesale deletion before deleting it again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, I think you may have a valid complaint about this section that WhatamIdoing made up violates WP:BLP. The rules there prohibit her from re-inserting material thus challenged unless there's a consensus on the talk page to do so. To find out if there's such a consensus, we should start, or restart, that discussion, instead of just edit warring. Take it to the talk page or to the BLP noticeboard. It seems likely that it would be OK to discuss this issue if the section were not so imbalanced; maybe we can get to a consensus version with either less of Dreger or more of alternatives. For example, in the commentaries, Moser reacts to this topic, saying "Did she uncover a pattern of lies and false allegations? No, the allegations were basically true; they just did not constitute any formal misconduct," and "The death of free speech and academic freedom has been highly exaggerated. Science is not free of politics, never has been, and never will be. The origins of transsexuality are still not known and the concept of Autogynephilia is still controversial. Can we all get back to science now?" What think? I'll help; this section is bogus BLP violation in its current form. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The material is not in violation of the BLP policy. Respectfully, Wachholder (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly interested and all agree from Dicklyon, to JamesCantor (a historic day really) That you should be involved.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at The Man Who Would Be Queen

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanisheduser5965 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user who reported it was up for conflict of interest because he is a co-worker of Dr Bailey. We have requested he be permanently blocked from editing TMWWBQ and this is his revenge. The rule was imposed on me but not the people who reverted this text repeatedly (please check the computer tags) . This section make libelous claims of a conspiracy against three academics with no official proof. If I have need to report this where do I go ? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_DarlieB

Decline reason:

I don't see where the information you removed was libelous, and you clearly violated WP:3RR. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vanisheduser5965 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, this is going to be hard to explain Jayron so here I go. Alice Dreger made accusations of the infringement of Academic Freedom in a paper she wrote about Dr Bailey In that paper she claimed that three "transsexual academics " formed a conspiracy to out Dr Bailey . Our own wiki says : "A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities." The academics in no way worked together an no conspiracy beyond Dregers fantasy was ever proved. Dreger was quoted in a NYT's article about her paper but there never was any proof of any infringement of "academic freedom " ever nor any proof whatsoever of a "conspiracy ". That's defamation to claim someone did something illegal and violates "Do no harm" does it not ? Bailey resigned for his own reasons claiming that the investigation had nothing to do with it. . The person who reported my edit is a collaborator of Dr Baileys, Dr John Cantor and while I inadvertently violated a warning would have done as well. Wiki can slander who they want I guess.

Decline reason:

Read below. Your block is only 24 hours. Take the time to read up the dispute resolution process and use what you learned to better your argument. — w 08:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I would also have declined the unblock request. The content you reverted at is attributed to a NYT interview and does not prima facie appear to violate WP:BLP. Its removal is not exempt from WP:3RR. — Sandstein 08:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Darlie, while it's unfair, there are rules, too. When you've got three or four editors against you, you're not going to win by edit warring; you'll just get blocked. Slow down, use the talk page thoughtfully, and help me counter these jerks and their powerful buddies. I agree with you that User:James Cantor should be permanently blocked for all the damage he's done in pursuing his real-world fights on wikipedia. But we have to do it as responsible wikipedia editors; wait for the block to expire, then come back refreshed and ready to engage productively. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware . I found out that Dreger is not only up on ethics charges but held widely in contempt by intersexed groups. It's time to even out the critic herself and this quoted in papers that I believe even the Baileyite must consider "hi quality" sources . See you tomorrow DarlieB (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC Vs. Dicklyon

I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation:Just making doubly sure you are aware of this.

You are clearly interested and all agree from Dicklyon, to JamesCantor (a historic day really) That you should be involved.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the point is that the mediation is different from the ArbCom case where you added your thoughts earlier (ArbCom doesn't want to bother with the case until formal mediation has been attempted), and that if you don't agree, then there's a strong likelihood that the formal mediation can't proceed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DarlieB, please add yourself in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate if you agree to mediation. We all recommend this path. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen#Mediator

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)