James Cantor (talk | contribs) →ArbCom request made.: new section |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →January 2009: new section |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#user:Dicklyon.2C_user:Jokestress.2C_and_user:James_Cantor_at_The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen_and_related_pages here].<br> |
I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#user:Dicklyon.2C_user:Jokestress.2C_and_user:James_Cantor_at_The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen_and_related_pages here].<br> |
||
[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 02:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 02:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== January 2009 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits{{#if:The Man Who Would Be Queen|, as you are doing in [[:The Man Who Would Be Queen]]}}. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. The [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit warring]], even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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. <br>Your removal of this sourced information solely because of your ''personal opinion'' that scientific journals and major newspaper articles are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] has been steadily opposed on the talk page and is contrary to the decisions made at the [[WP:RSN|reliable source noticeboard]]. Please STOP the edit war and WAIT for someone else to agree with your wholesale deletion before deleting it again.<!-- {{uw-3rr1}} --> [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:36, 17 January 2009
Welcome!
Hello, Vanisheduser5965, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)