Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 00:05, 6 February 2013 (→being a heterosexual may systematically bias your viewpoint: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Start-11/07 12/07-02/08 02/08-07/08 07/08-11/08 11/08-05/09 05/09-03/10 03/10-11/10 11/10-12/11 12/11 to present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thank you!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thank you so much for setting up the auto-archives bot on my userpage. More than appreciated! — James Cantor (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Most welcome :) WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Hi WLU, you were very objective in your assessment of the situation at chiropractic during the recent RFC; I was hoping you would provide another objective assessment here. The controversy is over the addition of 'chiropactic is a health profession' to the lead, which was reverted . Any insight would be appreciated. Regards Puhlaa (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia, taken to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hey, WLU. I'm alerting you to this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your laborious work expanding Fang Zhouzi, which goes far to improve the article in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and related policies, I award you this BLP Barnstar. Thank you for bringing Misplaced Pages closer to its goal. wctaiwan (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it :)

I still have a lot more work to do :( WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Hebephilia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

being a heterosexual may systematically bias your viewpoint

"being a heterosexual may systematically bias your viewpoint" and therefore your edits should be considered suspect. Really? -- Kim van der Linde 20:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody can edit from nowhere but that doesn't mean everyone's starting point is unproblematic. Being a transexual woman is less a problem than the fact that Andrea James has undertaken real life and on-wiki activities that significantly affected (choosing an extremely, essentially inaccurate word) the lives of several scholars. While her COI as a transexual woman might mean care and scrutiny of her edits, her actions as an activist on and off wikipedia are the history and reason that a topic ban may be appropriate.

Actually, thank you for this point, it has forced me to rethink the issue and highlighted the real problems. Unfortunately I've removed the section so now I can't edit it, but I will point to this discussion if it comes up in the future. Had I the ability to access the database directly, I probably would have phrased it as "being a transexual activist who has used intimidation and fear to silence scholarly debate and make a researcher's life miserable indicates that your viewpoint may be too biased to deal with a topic neutrally". It's the actions that were the problem, not the person. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

When someone shoots a thief who is entering his home, who should be punished? The thief or the home owner who defended his house? -- Kim van der Linde 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you make your point clearly and without analogy please? It will help me focus my understanding, comments and replies. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let me say this. In my opinion, you are blaming the victim for lashing out to the abuser. -- Kim van der Linde 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Who would you define as the victim and the abuser here?

Also, how is such an argument relevant to the neutral summary of reliable sources, the core content policies to determine page content? If you think James Cantor, or J. Michael Bailey saying things in the scholarly literature about transsexual people that Andrea James found personally hurtful is justification for the wikipedia community to allow Jokestress, I strongly question this and point to the following which seem to bear me out in a wikipedia context:

• Misplaced Pages is not therapy
• Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs
• Misplaced Pages is not the place to advocate (the policy)
• Again, Misplaced Pages is not the place to advocate (the essay)

My belief is that a good outcome of arbitration would be a mutual interaction ban and a topic ban (complete for Jokestress, and a formal limitation of James Cantor to talk pages with no edits to sexology articles).

Perhaps I am cold-hearted but I think the personal offence felt by Andrea James at J. Michael Bailey's book/James Cantor's articles/Ray Blanchard's theories is less important than ensuring the relevant scholarly and popular debate is faithfully reported on the wikipedia pages. This seems like one of the situations where nonfinancial COIs must be recognized as impacting the quality of the editing and debate on a page. For instance, Jokestress's objections to my own edits seem rather spurious and based more on the fact that I happen to get along with James Cantor (or some other reason I'm not aware of) than any actual substance. Rarely have my edits been criticized for improperly summarizing a source, and I have frequently integrated sources on the basis of her comments (which I've also done for James Cantor). If she can't assume good faith after our few, civil and largely trivial interactions in which I've responded very reasonably to her comments, that seems to be quite a red flag for her ability to neutrally and calmly the pages. Can you point to any edit I have made that gave her any reason to question my integrity or neutrality as an editor on these pages? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition to your statement

I have seen that you divhided your last addition to your statement. Although this may hide the content, it still breaches the 500-word limit. I'd recommend to remove it and add a diff linking to what you wrote. That way, everyone will be able to read your thoughts and you won't be above the word count.

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome WLU. Have a nice day. — ΛΧΣ 21:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Et vous aussi! WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)