User talk:AlexR/Archive 05 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Response?[edit]

Hi, Alex,

I hope to be able to make progress on the cross-dressing article, and to do so I want to step around certain distractions that trouble both of us. Could you please respond on the cross-dressing discussion page to my last question to you? (The one above the line where the distracting material appears. ;-) ) Thanks. P0M 16:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder what distraction you are talking about. The only other thing that is being debated seems to be more important than ... errr ... that famous sack of rice in China? The colour of Bush's underwear? Uh, now I am being nasty ... but to some it seems certainly more important than correct and NPOV articles. Oh well ...
I did not manage to respond to you in the morning because I was a bit in a hurry to get to my father, and since I helped him repairing the roof today, I am too tired to get together a complete answer. But don't worry, it isn't forgotten, it might just become a longish answer. ;-) -- AlexR 19:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Insulting[edit]

I'm willing and eager to accept your truce on Heteronormativity and other articles. However, I would ask one thing - please try to assume good faith on the part of other people. I know Hyacinth, and I know he means well. He is not trying to be insulting. He saw a conflict and made a genuine and sincere effort to resolve it. The fact that you find his attempted resolution unacceptable really shouldn't be a cause for calling the effort insulting. I assure you, there was no malice behind it. Snowspinner 03:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


Mediation[edit]

Hello Alex. Ambi has heard from AWilliamson, and I have contacted him to start mediation. Please could you email me and let me know the situation so far, and how mediation might be able to help. My address is sannse (a) tiscali.co.uk Please also read Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation and let me know if you are happy with this. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Autobiography (album)[edit]

Please stop your reverts on Autobiography (album). They are getting on my nerves. Everyking 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, how about stoping your edits, which are appreciated by no one but yourself? They are getting on several people's nerves. -- AlexR 14:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

can we resolve disagreements without insults?[edit]

Your responses to my criticisms of your texts consist primarily of insult and invective. It might lead a reader to assume you have no factual or intellectual support for your opinions. I can handle disagreement and discuss it, but your post makes me question whether you can. Can you do better? alteripse 15:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you joking? You were the one who reverted to a POV-pushing version and ranted and insulted me for trying to improve "your" article. And obviously my edits shows much more "intelectual support" for what I wrote than your, too. So maybe you ought to try and to better the next time - like checking facts and not insulting people, for example. However, if you consider my last comment on the talk page as "primary insulting", then obviously there is no basis whatever for a meaningful debate between us, and that clearly shows that you have neither the capacity not the willingness to resolve the problem. Well, so be it. -- AlexR 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Everyking[edit]

Hi, I noticed you were at one point involved in the dispute at Autobiography (album). Well, I've filed an RfC against Everyking, and I thought you might like to certify or at least endorse it. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and as you know, it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Just because you weren't involved as deeply as some of us shouldn't prevent you from sharing your opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template[edit]

In the interest of stress reduction, I suggest the creation of Template:Transfac (or even Template:Transfacts), which you could then use to post on contributors talk pages with a polite (even when you are not, because its automatic), informative, and useful discussion of common Wikipedia mistakes regarding trans issues and folks. This would hopefully not only facilitate your discussion and editing with individual users, but would also facilitate a more broad discussion involving other editors and it would create a permanent record of the progress made during that discussion (rather than going through the process with multiple users each time it comes up, simply point them to what is already established). This idea comes from Template:Edit summary.

For instance:

Hello, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you continue to enjoy and improve it.
However, I am writing in regards to you recent edits to transgender and related articles. I appreciate your interest in the subject, however, there are some common mistakes in regards to these topics, one or more of which you added to an article:
  • [bulleted list, example:] Gender identity is not sexual orientation. Transgender is not a sexual orientation. [short explination] For more information see: [links].
  • ...
Thanks again, Sincereley,

Tell me what you think about this idea in general. I hope you do not take this as an insult of the way you have been handling the issue so far. I think you have been mostly awesome, and I hope this assists you. Hyacinth 21:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Diction[edit]

I noticed you reverted the lesbian article after I changed prefer to sexually oriented. Why? I disagree with the usage of that term and I believe all neutral organizations do. I've never seen a company or government policy use the wording "sexual preference", it is always "sexual orientation". The reason behind that is mainstream science considers a persons sexual feelings to be not changeable. The only discussion regarding that in mainstream science is why? Why is a person gay or lesbian? Not if they can change, that is only a radical segment that is POV that believes that. 207.224.215.134 00:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. To prefer women over men would mean you have at least some attraction to men. That means you would be bisexual, not a lesbian. Lesbians are only attracted to women so they cannot prefer. Pefer is highly inaccurate on the lesbian page. 207.224.215.134 00:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yours is a decidedly odd reasoning, since "prefer" is established use since don't-know-when. Also, sex is not the only thing being lesbian (or gay) is about, as "sexually orientated" implies, so that is flatout wrong. And furthermore, a few advices to you: Get a username, because IPs are rarely taken seriously - especially not if they edit such highly controversial articles. And don't discuss something like that on somebodys userpage, try the talk page of the article, where it belongs, instead. -- AlexR 01:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

Just wanted to say, I'm continually impressed by your edits. Thanks for all the great work! -Seth Mahoney 18:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT cleanup[edit]

Hi, I've come across two reversions of category changes I've made, because they've been "unexplained"...I'm trying to clean up Category:LGBT because there were too many articles there, many of which fit entirely in one or another subcategory. I'm also making new categories and consolidating redundant ones... -- Beland 03:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genderfuck[edit]

I touched it once. You reverted. So be it. Don't beg for an edit war where one does not exist.

That being said, I do consider it appropriate for Template:sex-stub as it relates to the usage of sexual characteristics in such a manner as to run counter to expectation, a type of role-playing. "Sex" doesn't just mean "having sex", it includes all manner of things related to how we perceive and use our sexuality.

If that is not acceptable to you, then general-stub it is.

Courtland 09:06, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Genderfuck 2[edit]

I don't especially care where it goes. I threw it in with sex-stubs not for some political or categorizational or personal reason but for the purely pragmatic reason that there at least it is more likely that someone with the knowledge and inclination to destub it will find it. Check out Category:Stub; its a mess. Category:Sex-related stubs is at least navigable and, as I said, more likely to be browsed by someone who is able and willing to destub the article. Finally, lose the fucking condescending attitude. Not every perceived miscategorization is an attack you need to respond to aggressively. I've read a lot of your work on the wiki, and its great. You obviously know your stuff, and I'll generally acknowledge your authority in your areas of interest. Just saying, "hey, I don't think this should go there" is probably gonna do it. You don't need to get into the whole snotty "Whoever uses that one ought to get a grip on the differences between gender, sex (the equipment) and sex (the action)". -Seth Mahoney 19:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Genderfuck 3/Stub-sorting[edit]

As I am aware of your acute interest in this, having read the edit-history of genderfuck and others (and your other contributions), I think that you'll be happy to know that there is now an LGBT-stub; I've taken the liberty to change the stub-category accordingly and left a message on the talk-page there Lectonar 12:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HRT (trans)[edit]

Re HRT - Was there any reason for that deletion?
There's a reason for everything, AlexR. In this case, the reason was carelessness on my part. I clicked on the first Hormone replacement therapy link and saw that the article mentioned use of HRT "by transgendered or transsexual people", and so assumed that the second link lead to the same article. My apologies. -- Picapica 19:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us - only on deletions like this, from experience I am ready to assume the worst. My appologies, too. -- AlexR 08:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

for your help on IRC the other night. If there's ever anything I can do to help you out, please let me know. KC9CQJ 10:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Youve got mail![edit]

For letting me know how to upload multiple images I here by ward you the WikiThanks unit. WikiThanks.png

Gender identity-role article[edit]

I noticed your remark in your edit summary to minor changes to the G-I/R article. I think the reason the article is there is to serve as an acknowledgement that according to Money's analysis the two terms "gender identity" and "gender role" are pretty thoroughly intertwined. Probably anything that tends to anchor the understanding (and definitions) of these critical terms should be kept. There are so many people around who use "gender" as a sort of euphemism for "sex" and otherwise indiscriminantly fling these terms around that anything that encourages people to learn the history of the terms, the reasons they came into existence, etc., is a plus. 金 (Kim) 05:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Fine, but I think the article, either way, has serious POV issues. — Phil Welch 02:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to your remark:

Would you kindly stop making those stupid and incorrect edits to transwoman? It is obvious that you have no clue about gender assignments, so stop putting BS into the article, or you might find yourself treated as a vandal.

I'm not familiar with the theory, but you're presenting POV as fact and being bold as vandalism.

For example, one is not born in any sex

One is definitely born with a set of sex chromosomes and genitalia. There is established POV that states that sex is a matter of genetics and anatomy.

there are debates whether transgender people are clearly one sex

My edits have never made a factual statement either way about that issue.

and intersex people can get assigned another gender at any time, not only shortly after birth.

Fair enough.

And, the most basic thing: You may have something hanging between your legs, but what gets into the papers is not put there by said thingy, but by people - namely, doctors, midwifes and/or parents.

What gets into the papers, according to your POV, decides or "assigns" one's sex. I assert that in most cases, it is simply an empirical observation of a pre-existing biological condition that is recorded. But this is a matter of POV, not fact--as editors, we must often be careful not to confuse the two. — Phil Welch 03:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transsexual[edit]

Hi Alex,

You just said,

"since gender variant behaviour is seen by proponents or reparative therapy as an extreme form of homosexuality (a view that long has disappeared from scientific discourses)."

on the above page. It's most certainly a view which is rapidly losing favour but, as you know, it's one of the two views expounded by Bailey, Blanchard et. al. Now, I'm not a big fan of B&B (at all!!!) but stating what you did isn't totally NPOV. Unfortunately, scientific discourses are still propounding this stance - bogus as it may be.

Comments? - Pete C 09:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

One could include a "most" or even a "serious" or "widely accepted" there, if needed - one might also argue, though, that B&B are not exactly part of the scientific discourse - they don't really fit any definition of science I have ever heard ;-) -- AlexR 11:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
True, true :-) I'd say in the interests of broad factuality, maybe change it to 'most' or 'almost all'. There are BB&L fans out there that would probably jump on the chance to scream "POV", whereas I feel the point you made is very valid to the article and needs to be stated. Note also that HBIGDA as a whole don't seem to have a lot of time for reparative therapy - Pete C 12:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and it should read "a view that has long since disappeared" (grammar) - Pete C 12:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Notice the update - thanks, Alex! - Pete C 16:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people[edit]

There's a discussion (here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 4) on changing the name of Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people to Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people. I know you've been active on a lot of the trans-related pages, and there's some concern over whether to use "transgender people" or "transgendered people" or some other variant. I'm sure you get sick of these sorts of issues, but if you're at all interested, I'd be grateful if you'd pop on by and give us some guidelines. -Seth Mahoney 21:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7#Gay, lesbian, and bisexual / LGBT occupational categories. (Wikipedia really needs a GLBT noticeboard for stuff like this.) Jonathunder 06:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Inspired by Jonathunder's idea, I have created a LGBT noticeboard. Please take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 07:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:AlexR/temp[edit]

...is currently poking into various main namespace categories. If this draft is no longer needed, should it be deleted? Either way, it should be removed from the categories it's currently in, to avoid self-references. -- Beland 03:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Günter Dörner[edit]

I assume you know who he is. What is his reputation in Germany these days? Among LGBT communities? I remember some articles from the gay community in the 70s or 80s lambasting his ideas and research. I assumed he was long-dead, but recently ran across a recent article [PMID 11781536]. Although he takes pains to disavow prejudice and intolerance, he seems to pretty clearly consider such variations as "transsexualism" a result of pathologic processes to a greater degree than anyone in North America has been willing to express in a scientific publication, attributing them to pernicious environmental influences such as endocrine disrupters like DDT or stress. On the other hand, to that same reference is appended his resolution to the WHO that "homosexuality not be regarded as a disease or a mental disorder." Since I gather his idea of a biological basis of LGBT conditions has found more favor in those communities than it used to, is he considered sympathetic or an ally despite his calls to "prevent" those? There is no hidden agenda in my question, just curiosity, and I assume this is a topic you are familiar with. He is the only German researcher in the area of sex hormones, brain biology, & sexual behavior that I have heard of, and he has been around forever. alteripse 19:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I actually had to do a google search for him - the name rang a bell, but not a loud one. To assess his current standing, you have to be aware that he was working in the GDR, not West Germany. Now, apparently, until the mid-1970s, his biological theories and proposed "cures" were well recieved in parts of West Germany, too, but back then biologistic theories and "cures" were all the rage, anyway. Since the mid-70s, though, LGB questions were considered far more from a social point of view, with those theories pretty much disappearing both from the public eye. (Trans* went a different path, staying until recently firmily in the hands of sexologists, and IS staying firmly in the hands of doctors.)
Now, actually, most of Western Europe has not taken anywhere as much interest in the "new" biological theories of the origin of sexual behaviour as the US has done; people regard the question as anything from mildly interesting to mildly amusing, nothing more. However, I did find some rather leftist LGB(TI) comments on him, apparently he got a medal of honor a few years ago, and they were mad about that - the left LGBTI most certainly does not see him as an ally. I have not found anything mainstream about him, but I would be very very very much surprised if anybody in the mainstream would consider anybody with his history and his views an ally - after all, that guy maintains that LGB(TI) has a simple reason, and could theoretically be cured in the womb. Actually, no biological theory is very much in favour, anybody proposing any biological theory would need to have very convincing evidence and a snow-white ethical standing to be even remotely considered as an ally. (Biologistical theories still have that faint - and in this case, not so faint - smell of the 3rd Reich about them in Europe, too.) And of course his theories do belong a) to a different time, and b) to a different society, so he just isn't much talked about at all among LGBTI circles. If he is talked about, though, it is hardly favourable.
As for T and I, well, I is known to have biological reasons, but everybody familiar with this knows it is a lot more complicated than that, and his theories on T don't exactly sound as if there was anything behind them, either. Certainly he is not discussed much there, either, although transgender people, especially transsexual people, are far more in favour of a biological explanation than LGB people. However, the focus there is on things like Gooren's (fe)male brain, not so much on how it became that way, but as the ultimate proof that one isn't "just a nutcase". With the move towards simply accepting it as it is instead of "curing" it, which was the previous focus on transgender people, even that becomes less important. So, all together, this guy is not very important to any current discourses, including, as far as I am aware of, most of the medical discourses regarding LGBTI people.
PS: And sorry, other answer is on the way. -- AlexR 12:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. It is exactly what I was wondering. alteripse 15:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

FAOC[edit]

Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.

Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your fifth choice and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.

Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone else votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. That is why though very popular Alternative 1 is being beaten. Remember the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition. Slán FearÉIREANNFlag of Ireland.svg\(talk) 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Resent newbie/vandalism[edit]

Hi,

You might want to have a look at the recent edits to transwoman -- somebody has been making sort of opinionated changes in many articles. I'm not sure whether they are good or bad. P0M 04:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Top Sekrit Cabalist Rollback Function[edit]

Hello Alex. It appears you sent me a message about this earlier, but due to some strange deficiency in my IRC software I only saw it when I disconnected. The helpful facility you are after is called godmode-light and is detailed here. I came across it because it was mentioned on the village pump some time ago. I don't think anyone there condemned its use, but it was said by some people that anyone using it should follow the rule for admin rollback which is to use it only to revert vandalism, and not in content disputes (it doesn't allow you to fill in an edit summary explaining the revert). To use it you just add document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"><\/SCRIPT>'); to your monobook.js, and rollback links will magically appear in the appropriate places. It is not brilliant by the way, and sometimes fails when the servers are running slowly, but overall I found it a helpful tool. I don't think it is actually secret, it's just not talked about too much so as to avoid broadcasting its existence to the hordes of marauding vandals. (But, of course, it doesn't really exist, and even if it did you wouldn't have heard about it from me.... This message will self-destruct in five seconds.)Trilobite (Talk) 09:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

re: all the Islamic articles[edit]

Thanks for the advice, I have been floundering a bit. Haiduc 10:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Patpong[edit]

There is nothing impolite about using standard English words for things. The standard word for transsexual is transsexual. You can't just rename things because you feel like it. I have never seen the word "cissexual" and nor has (hardly) anyone else. We can do without yet more euphemisms and neologisms at Wikipedia. Adam 07:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes I know this game of sexual politics more-politically-correct-than-thou. Every six months new and ever-more-esoteric words are invented for everything to do with sexuality and gender, and anyone who objects is a bigot homophobe hatemonger etc etc. OK darling have it your own way. This old fag has better things to do than argue with you. Happy gender confusion. Adam 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

LGBT[edit]

I apologize if my judgement was in error on a couple of articles, but my purpose was simply cleaning up the way some people use Category:LGBT as a catchall even for topics that are already filed in LGBT subcategories. Under Wikipedia's stated policy of category management, the number of categories on an article needs to always be kept to the minimum possible number, and an article should never be simultaneously filed in a specific subcategory and the master category that the subcategory belongs to.

For example, bisexuality (one of your reversions) doesn't need to be -- and under Wikipedia policy, really can't be -- in both Category:LGBT and the subcategory Category:Sexual orientation. One or the other is sufficient, and the only thing I did to that article was to remove the LGBT category; it was already filed in both of the other subcats. And most of the other articles you reverted are already filed under "transgender-related topics", which is also subcategorized under LGBT already. As for 1983 ISIS Survey, I simply typed the wrong category by mistake; my actual intention was to file it under Category:LGBT history.

Some people seem to think "LGBT" needs to act as a one-stop master list of all LGBT-related topics regardless of where else they're filed, but that's not how categories work or what they're meant to be doing.

And, for the record, it hardly constitutes "widespread changes getting pushed through without proper debate". One doesn't have to debate following Wikipedia policy on category management. The angry tone you took on my talk page is neither an appreciated or an appropriate response to the matter, particularly since I'm almost singlehandedly responsible for the T being in most of the category names in the first place, and I will not even acknowledge any future discussion from you that strikes that tone again.

Later update: I see you also reverted Tribe 8. For one thing, one does not have to announce a category change before making it; the assertion that an unannounced change should be reverted just for being unannounced is utter bullcrap. But, since you want to know, here was why I made the changes I did:

  1. The category "punk rock groups" is redundant with category "later punk groups"; going back to the stuff about subcategory vs. master category, it's a one-or-the-other case, not both.
  2. Tribe 8 is not an individual; it's a band. "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" is for individuals. This change does not remove them from a queer context, as they're still filed under "LGBT musicians".
  3. The band should be sorted as "Tribe 8" under the letter T, not as "8, Tribe" under the number 8.

Bearcat 16:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way...the next time you want to accuse me of thoughtlessness, you might want to take a gander at the description of Category:Sexual orientation and identity before you start typing: The category is for articles that have to do with sexual orientation, sexual identity, labels, and gender identity. So if you think that's wrong or offensive, take it up with the person who wrote that. Bearcat 19:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fail to understand where you get the notion that the category is conflating "sexual identity" with "gender identity". Where in anything connected to the category is there even the suggestion that anybody thinks transgender is a sexual identity? The category title doesn't say that. The category description didn't say that. I genuinely fail to grasp how you're interpreting "identity" as inherently meaning "sexual identity" to the exclusion of any other meaning of the word, when the category quite explicitly distinguished two distinct concepts of "sexual identity" and "gender identity", and nothing implied that one was being subsumed into the other. And that doesn't make me a transphobic bigot or a person who should somehow "know better" than anything; it makes me a person who knows how to read what's written and not infer stuff that isn't there. Bearcat 00:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Humanbot update 13 June 2005[edit]

The spelling2 project (to work on secondary namespaces) was opened and finished. Progress charts will be available soon.

Version six-three tracks who made the edits, and rankings are available. Much of the work was done while I was asleep, explaining my low place ;).

The next project, which may even be released today, will probably fix incorrectly capitalised headings, particularly "See Also" and "External Links".

The mailing list has grown to 24 people and while that is very nice for my ego, it is rather difficult to send out updates. This is why I did not send out a notice that the spelling2 project had opened. From now on, then, you must watch User:Humanbot/announce for updates. r3m0t talk 12:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

You removed my picture[edit]

I worked very hard on that picture and now you removed it. Is there something I can do to make it acceptable for you? Shorthair 04:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if I find the right picture, you will okay it? Shorthair 18:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex please respond[edit]

I would like to add picture examples to transvestite and shemale articles. Will you block all pictures? Or are some acceptable? And I'd also like to have my self portrait (now on my userpage) somewhere--If I shrink it will it then be allowable? Is there any article where it can be allowed a decently large size. Please respond to me. Shorthair 18:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

belated thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support of my RFA nearly a month ago. Unfortunately a sad event occurred in my family right at that time, so I haven't been able to participate as actively as I would like in Wikipedia. I hope to get back to active editing soon. Thanks again, FreplySpang (talk) 23:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

AlexR, during the RfA for Eequor, I engaged you in an unnessesarily confrontational way. I am extremely sorry for my behavior. As Eequor's nominator, I was upset and frustrated by the way the voting was going, and it seems that I took out some of my frustration on you. I highly regard you as a Wikipedian, and I hope you can forgive me. I'm sorry. func(talk) 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)

You reverted my contribution to Process calculus[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted my contributions to Process calculus with no notice to me and without giving a reason.

I have restored my contributions.--Carl Hewitt 9 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Imposter[edit]

Please note that there has recently been a user trying to appear to be you, making edits as User:AIexR. ~~~~ 12:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with the tranny movie picture.[edit]

You admit that you can't tell if they're shemales, sex-change-men-to-women, or crossdressers. There are also four of them and you say you don't know for every one. Yet you're launching into an edit war with a ton of people, trying to claim they're one thing and not the other. Look, if you can prove they are this or that (even through logic) then fine, but don't just keep putting shemales because you like shemales better than sex-change-men-to-women or crossdressers. SnowConeYellow 15:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you have been reverting for the sake of reverting. I reverted you once because you used invalid logic. You edited it three times. I then instead of going on an edit war against many people like you do, I went and talked to you. Also the article's talk page is a red link, showing it has never been created. You never added any proof. You claim a google search, but let's show it. The article where the picture is in has no talk page posts from you. SnowConeYellow 19:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You still refuse to supply any links to me to prove that they are ALL this or that. The website doesn't say clearly if these are shemales or what. SnowConeYellow 20:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That homosexuality intro[edit]

Hi, it seems that some users would be a lot happier if we could *not* have a list in the intro. I think I could take the content and render it as passable prose. Do you have any objections? Haiduc 02:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Raoul Alexander Michael Regh[edit]

Raoul Alexander Michael Regh, do you not think these Image:TGirlsMoviePoster.png are beautiful ladies? Shorthair 14:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rollback and godmode-light[edit]

Hiya, AlexR, I noticed you use the godmode-light script. As you use an emulation of the rollback feature I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a proposal I have which would grant the rollback feature to those who request it, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, except with a lower threshold. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback; your comments are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

LGBTI vs "intersex", "trans", "gay", "lesbian" on Heteronormativity[edit]

To follow up to my reversion of your change to my edit on Heteronormativity:

I'm thinking of the reader who has not the foggiest idea what's going on. Rather than making them click on 5 links (yes, it's 5, you removed any reference to bi-sexuality twice now), seems harsh. Instead, the LGBTI article gives them a nice, short reference to everything they need to know, via a decent article and many citations to other articles. Everything you wanted to list is there plus much more. If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info (note: if you're going to go that way, there's no need to reference the redirect at LGBTI, just go straight (er... well) to LGBT, since the name of the link doesn't show anyway). -Harmil

Reproducing your comment from my talk page: First of all, I would appreciate if you would sign your entries like the one on my talk page; that way, I don't have to go through the history to answer you. Second, I don't think that linking to LGBT is the way to go here, since lots of people probably won't know what that is - lots more people will at least recognise some of the expanded words, though. If you are really worried about bisexual people (who are nowhere else mentioned in the article) then add that word, and don't just revert to the acronym. Not to mention that the article that it links to references intersex people rather sparingly; they are rather important at this place, though. So kindly stop this mindless reverting, since it is nothing but ill thought-through reverting for reverting's sake by now. I may also add that I just restored the previous version, so if you want any changes, change it to something that makes sense at this point. -- AlexR 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, forgetting the signature was just an oversight, sorry. It seems that you didn't read what I actually wrote, above and are simply replying to the subject, since you conflate "linking to LGBT" with people knowing what the acronym means. To re-quote what I wrote: "If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info". As for "reverting for reverting's sake", I was not. You changed my use of "LGBTI" to a less-complete collection of words, some of which ("intersex" and "transgender") would be just as unknown to the majority of readers, while removing the reference to bisexuality (I take personal offense at that one), and when I restored my change with a comment to indicate why, you again reverted it. Please, do not accuse me of "reverting for reverting's sake" when you are removing content and context from a page. -Harmil 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In response to your concerns about LGBT/LGBTI, I've made some extensive edits there. I'd very much appreciate your input on them. I really feel that these articles should be show-pieces which can reasonably be used as the "one-stop-shop" to introduce the topic of the LGBTI community whereever it is needed. -Harmil 19:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:LGBT, which you might want to read over. I think the current wording is not broad enough, and while I understand your concerns with the old wording, I think we need to adapt it in some way to cover the middle-ground without unreasonably expanding what should be a short summary.... -Harmil 13:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert Templeton[edit]

Hi Alex Very many thanks for your paragraph edits and wikification. Much appreciated. Could you look at Hermann Loew please? Best wishes from Ireland. Robert

Etomologists[edit]

Many thanks for the Templeton edits. I get the idea now but please keep a watchful eye on me.Never quite got paragraphs at school. Ever read Joyce? Musca User:81.144.158.195

Please help me to understand[edit]

I think that we're talking past each other on Sexual characteristics. I specifically will assume that you are approaching this with the same degree of good faith that I am, and feel that you have explained yourself fully. I, on the other hand, do not understand your concerns fully yet. I see you get frustrated when I ask for details, and I suspect that this is just a difference in the way we approach problem solving. Please, assume that I honestly do not yet understand your concerns, and that your explanations have not made them clear to me (no fault there, just different ways of explaining one's self and learning). Please return to the discussion and help me to develop a clear understanding. -Harmil 17:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India[edit]

There is very little on the Internet or on Wikipedia about Homosexuality in non-Western cultures, including India. I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards creating a detailed article about Homosexuality in India, one that discusses historical, literary, cultural and religious attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as the current situation. I know for a fact that India has a significant LGBT community, though a lot of it is underground. I wrote the article Gay rights in India. Could you take a look at it and integrate it with a larger article on Homosexuality in India. --Notquiteauden 01:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Merovingian[edit]

Your edit has dropped out all special characters, as at Franks. I didn't revert it; would you fix it? --Wetman 12:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Just wanted to offer some advice for this. This kind of thing can happen when:
  • Your browser settings force a particular character set (e.g. iso-latin-1)
  • You do your editing in an external application which uses a non-UTF8 character set.
You can check your browser preferences ("options" in Windows parlance) for character encoding. In Firefox, I use View->Character Encoding and select "Unicode (UTF-8)".
Other applications that you may edit in probably have similar controls. -Harmil 15:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint - for some reason, jEdit, which I use with the WP plug-in, decided today that it didn't like special characters any more. I noticed a bit later, and I think I have corrected everything, but that is indeed annoying. I'll check for that in the next time, to be sure. -- AlexR 15:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Transgender[edit]

Thanks. Learn something every day. –Shoaler (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The archaic editor[edit]

Hi Alex, I generally do not stand on little particulars, but your modification of "warp and woof" gains nothing and, as it somewhat vague, loses the sense that the two loves were complementary and integral to male experience. I also am not sure that it is more encylopaedic to favor dry formulations over more expressive ones, within reason. As for the accuracy of the statement, it is not my opinion (alone) but the consensus of the classics. It stands out in the writings of many, if not all, such as Plutarch, Lucian, the poets (both Greek and Roman) and so forth. Oh yes, and in the mythology too. Can you please find an alternative formulation, or even better, leave mine. It is anything but archaic. Cheers, Haiduc 11:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Was I harsh? I speak more freely to friends, and I welcome it in return. Interesting, that "warp and woof" was not recognized. I'll second your edit based on that, I would have imagined that it is a phrase intelligible to anyone. Goes to show you that it is not good to be too much inside one's own head. Be well, Haiduc 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we stop this?[edit]

Somehow, you decided I was one of "them" (I'm really not even sure which "them") back when we tangled over heteronormativity, and you clearly carried the idea along to LGBT and Sexual characteristics. Your insults have been rather scathing ranging from calling me "stupid" to insulting my work to saying that I clearly had "too much time on my hands" (seems a counter-productive desire to want editors with less time available). I've tried several times to bury the hatchet, but you have had none of it.

Is it possible that you would accept that:

  • I don't hold a grudge against you (my comment about "personal offense" was ill considered, and was not intended to convey a sense that I was upset with you, only with being a member of a group which is so easily discounted).
  • I agree with you in many things, though I think you feel more strongly than I do in many cases.
  • I'm not trying to inject a POV into anything on WP, rather quite the opposite.
  • While I don't agree with your doctor friend on the nature of modern medicine and science, I do agree with the assessment that heteronormative structures present a difficult hurdle for LGBTI people, and that's unfortunate.

Sadly, there's not much I can do to contribute to Wikipedia in areas where my every edit will be reverted, and given the speed with which you and I could have put together Sexual characteristics if we could work together... well, it's even more sad.

I hope that in the future you will bear these things in mind and perhaps cut me a bit more slack, as I have tried to do for you (and will continue to do so).

Thank you for your time. -Harmil 18:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Atypical gender identity article[edit]

Hi, Alex,

I have been monitoring the article on Atypical gender identity. There is some pressure to either improve it or to merge it elsewhere. I believe it was originally spun off from the gender identity and gender role areas because some people were uncomfortable with depicting G-I/Rs that were not the vanilla varieties. Probably that was a wise decision since the original articles contained absurdities on even the vanilla stuff and it was more important to fight those fights and put the even harder to get clear on somewhere else. (Boys naturally prefer blue, they claimed. I naturally preferred green as a child and I naturally prefer orange as an adult, so what does that make me? No, don't answer that. ;-)

As I have time, I'm going to put a brief description of Hijra and any other examples I can find where there are clear "mixed elements" in the clothing and behavior. I figure you probably have lots more examples in mind just reading this note.

One of the strange (to me) requests was that there be section headings -- despite the fact that the article is now very short. So I will put in a major section marker for "Examples" and minor ones for Hijra, Xanith, etc. Since there are major articles already, all these sections need to do is refer readers to the other articles and then give a paragraph or so in which we highlight the specific social signals that go along with the and announce the gender identities or that would create the false impression of a gender identity if someone accidentally used the wrong clothing, e.g., picking up a jacket that buttoned on the wrong side, work boots of the "wrong" color, etc.

Since the title involves identity rather than role, it's going to be a little tricky to get a correct characterization of what it feels like to be a xanith. What makes a person recognize e is a xanith? Have xaniths written about their experience of self? Or do we have to depend on some anthropologist's account?

I think this article could really be useful to people trying to understand "the other."

金 (Kim) 17:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you play Volleyball?[edit]

If so, bump, set, spike. I can never bring myself to just remove them. ;) -NickGorton 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi! I saw that you've reverted at one point the Jodie Foster article. Unfortunately it was all in vain. You are not the only one who's done it. There is a very persistent anonymous person who is inserting many personal views (mainly negative ones) in the article, especially some regarding Foster's commercials in Japan. Because of this situation, on the talk page of Jodie Foster's article there is a Final vote about including/not including the advertising info. If you have the time, please state your opinion there. Best regards! Tavilis 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for voting and supporting us against the anon. user- and also just wanted to say that I liked your page on stupid edits. =D --PatadyBag 22:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

Your comment on Queer Studies included this edit summary:

...stick to articles you know something about

Please don't make comments like that to me. Uncle Ed 12:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I asked why you didn't do that - which is quite different. Intentionally misquoting is not exactly good behaviour in my book, Ed. -- AlexR 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Thank you, good friend! At least you understand what I'm aiming at! Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I formation[edit]

You flagged this article for {{attention}} yesterday, think it's safe to remove that notice now? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Transgendered[edit]

About your recent statement, "transgenderED is still not a word". Here are some references:

I think it's safe to say that transgendered is a word, though not as commonly used as "transgender". Debating over the appropriateness of its use I could see, but that's another matter.

Hope this helps. -Harmil 13:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That still does not make this abdomination a word. -- AlexR 14:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
What, then, is a word? I thought that common usage and citation in reference works were considered sufficient. Should we go by the fact that 477 Wikipedia pages use the word (135 if you don't count talk pages or lists)? The fact that the U.S. Military has a special rule for "Transgendered Beneficiaries" [1]? The fact that "Transgendered Network International" (TGNI) has been around since 1992 [2]? The fact that there is an "American Library Association Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table" [3]? -Harmil 18:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
You will find an awful lot of misspellings, some of them even more common than the proper spelling. So your point was?
Transgender was from the beginning used as both an adjective and a noun. Only a few years ago this abomination of "transgendered" turned up, without any reason for its existance but pseudo-grammar like "thou shall not split thy infinitive". It is not only unnecessary, it also sounds like a passive - whenever I hear that somebody is transgendered it makes me want to ask who did that to that poor fellow. Which is the reason that no matter how many actual usages of the word you turn up, as far as I am concerned, this is not a word, but an abomination. So you might wish to turn your attention to other matters now. -- AlexR 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Patpong[edit]

Some might also consider it insulting for you to impose your western categories (transwoman) on an indigenous Thai identity form. How do you know that a kathoey is the same as a transwoman? Adam 11:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Spare me your childish attitude games. Adam 11:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Association_of_Moral_Wikipedians Deletion[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you since you indicate you are involved with gay/lesbian/transgender issues on Wikipedia and Wikimedia and I want to bring to your attention a likely troll group called Association_of_Moral_Wikipedians that formed on Meta Wiki one of whose goals is:

  • "Ban Homosexuals, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and other potentially threatening Wikipedians from attaining the Administrative Offices. This must be done to ensure Wikipedia is Conservative, and to ensure that our Association's status in the Wikipedia Community is not threatened."

I put this group up for deletion here but if you know an administrator over there that can help delete this crap or if you are on IRC (I dont have access to IRC / have been gone from IRC for a little while) tell them.

Thanks! --ShaunMacPherson 14:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender[edit]

Please weigh in on this AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please use babel[edit]

Hi! Please put on your userpage a babel template indicating what languages you can speak. Read Wikipedia:Babel for more. This could help immensly by helping to find people who can speak a certain laguage fluently. Please consier putting it on your userpage, even at the end of it, if it looks "ugly". It helps. Thx, Msoos 12:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (PS: see my User:Msoos page for an example)

Political correctness[edit]

Why have you reverted the correction of "India" to "Indonesia"? Columbus was headed for the East Indies, specifically the Moluccas, not for India as we now use that term. Masalai 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Transsexuality[edit]

One thing I have noticed in this article is that some sections use "transsexuality" and others "transsexualism". I think it would be better to use one term consistently within the article. I have considered renaming the article as "transsexualism", as that seems to be the term in widest use, but I felt like I needed to discuss this change with others before making it. I also left a note about this on the article's talk page, but no one has replied there, so I am asking users who I know have made significant contributions to this article.

Andrea Parton 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I see that you made a few more edits to this article. Some of them were excellent. I fixed a few typos you made and reworded a few things for clarity; I know you're not a native speaker of English and so I don't blame you for making these mistakes. I removed your statement "This however is not quite compatible with the definition of transgender" as it is unclear what "this" refers to and this statement does not seem NPOV. I also removed a few other statements you added that seemed to border on POV. And you changed a couple of things that I didn't revert, even though I don't particularly agree with them. For one, you edited the opening paragraph to state that a transsexual person "wishes to" establish a permanent identity with the gender opposite their assigned sex. Well, the latter part of this sentence may be unclear to some readers and should perhaps be rephrased to "as a member of the gender opposite their assigned sex". Well, that aside, I really think it is more factually accurate to state that a transsexual person establishes an identity as one of "the opposite sex" than that they wish to. Gender identity is how one sees them self; it has nothing to do with how they present themselves or are seen by others. I, for one, am still in transition and not living as a woman full-time; many people who see me relate to me as a male, but I identify as a woman. That said, I don't think the phrase is any more or less neutral either way. Please explain your reasoning for this edit.

You also added "This however has its own considerable health risks" in reference to the statement that some transpeople obtain hormones from black market sources. I have already reworded this statement slightly, but it seems kind of redundant given that the section on hormone replacement therapy already stated that HRT had risks and that it was considered inadvisable to take hormones without a physician's supervision. Do you think there is a reason for this to be stated twice?

Andrea Parton 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediator :), just letting you know that a request for mediation has made. I'd be grateful of your input... - FrancisTyers 16:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Invite to join/help organize Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies[edit]

Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)





See talk page[edit]

User_talk:VoiceOfOne VoiceOfOne 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in all of your assertions.

I hope you have fun playing with yourself.

Response?[edit]

Hi, Alex,

I hope to be able to make progress on the cross-dressing article, and to do so I want to step around certain distractions that trouble both of us. Could you please respond on the cross-dressing discussion page to my last question to you? (The one above the line where the distracting material appears. ;-) ) Thanks. P0M 16:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder what distraction you are talking about. The only other thing that is being debated seems to be more important than ... errr ... that famous sack of rice in China? The colour of Bush's underwear? Uh, now I am being nasty ... but to some it seems certainly more important than correct and NPOV articles. Oh well ...
I did not manage to respond to you in the morning because I was a bit in a hurry to get to my father, and since I helped him repairing the roof today, I am too tired to get together a complete answer. But don't worry, it isn't forgotten, it might just become a longish answer. ;-) -- AlexR 19:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Insulting[edit]

I'm willing and eager to accept your truce on Heteronormativity and other articles. However, I would ask one thing - please try to assume good faith on the part of other people. I know Hyacinth, and I know he means well. He is not trying to be insulting. He saw a conflict and made a genuine and sincere effort to resolve it. The fact that you find his attempted resolution unacceptable really shouldn't be a cause for calling the effort insulting. I assure you, there was no malice behind it. Snowspinner 03:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


Mediation[edit]

Hello Alex. Ambi has heard from AWilliamson, and I have contacted him to start mediation. Please could you email me and let me know the situation so far, and how mediation might be able to help. My address is sannse (a) tiscali.co.uk Please also read Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation and let me know if you are happy with this. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Autobiography (album)[edit]

Please stop your reverts on Autobiography (album). They are getting on my nerves. Everyking 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, how about stoping your edits, which are appreciated by no one but yourself? They are getting on several people's nerves. -- AlexR 14:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

can we resolve disagreements without insults?[edit]

Your responses to my criticisms of your texts consist primarily of insult and invective. It might lead a reader to assume you have no factual or intellectual support for your opinions. I can handle disagreement and discuss it, but your post makes me question whether you can. Can you do better? alteripse 15:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you joking? You were the one who reverted to a POV-pushing version and ranted and insulted me for trying to improve "your" article. And obviously my edits shows much more "intelectual support" for what I wrote than your, too. So maybe you ought to try and to better the next time - like checking facts and not insulting people, for example. However, if you consider my last comment on the talk page as "primary insulting", then obviously there is no basis whatever for a meaningful debate between us, and that clearly shows that you have neither the capacity not the willingness to resolve the problem. Well, so be it. -- AlexR 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Everyking[edit]

Hi, I noticed you were at one point involved in the dispute at Autobiography (album). Well, I've filed an RfC against Everyking, and I thought you might like to certify or at least endorse it. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and as you know, it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Just because you weren't involved as deeply as some of us shouldn't prevent you from sharing your opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template[edit]

In the interest of stress reduction, I suggest the creation of Template:Transfac (or even Template:Transfacts), which you could then use to post on contributors talk pages with a polite (even when you are not, because its automatic), informative, and useful discussion of common Wikipedia mistakes regarding trans issues and folks. This would hopefully not only facilitate your discussion and editing with individual users, but would also facilitate a more broad discussion involving other editors and it would create a permanent record of the progress made during that discussion (rather than going through the process with multiple users each time it comes up, simply point them to what is already established). This idea comes from Template:Edit summary.

For instance:

Hello, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you continue to enjoy and improve it.
However, I am writing in regards to you recent edits to transgender and related articles. I appreciate your interest in the subject, however, there are some common mistakes in regards to these topics, one or more of which you added to an article:
  • [bulleted list, example:] Gender identity is not sexual orientation. Transgender is not a sexual orientation. [short explination] For more information see: [links].
  • ...
Thanks again, Sincereley,

Tell me what you think about this idea in general. I hope you do not take this as an insult of the way you have been handling the issue so far. I think you have been mostly awesome, and I hope this assists you. Hyacinth 21:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Diction[edit]

I noticed you reverted the lesbian article after I changed prefer to sexually oriented. Why? I disagree with the usage of that term and I believe all neutral organizations do. I've never seen a company or government policy use the wording "sexual preference", it is always "sexual orientation". The reason behind that is mainstream science considers a persons sexual feelings to be not changeable. The only discussion regarding that in mainstream science is why? Why is a person gay or lesbian? Not if they can change, that is only a radical segment that is POV that believes that. 207.224.215.134 00:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. To prefer women over men would mean you have at least some attraction to men. That means you would be bisexual, not a lesbian. Lesbians are only attracted to women so they cannot prefer. Pefer is highly inaccurate on the lesbian page. 207.224.215.134 00:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yours is a decidedly odd reasoning, since "prefer" is established use since don't-know-when. Also, sex is not the only thing being lesbian (or gay) is about, as "sexually orientated" implies, so that is flatout wrong. And furthermore, a few advices to you: Get a username, because IPs are rarely taken seriously - especially not if they edit such highly controversial articles. And don't discuss something like that on somebodys userpage, try the talk page of the article, where it belongs, instead. -- AlexR 01:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

Just wanted to say, I'm continually impressed by your edits. Thanks for all the great work! -Seth Mahoney 18:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT cleanup[edit]

Hi, I've come across two reversions of category changes I've made, because they've been "unexplained"...I'm trying to clean up Category:LGBT because there were too many articles there, many of which fit entirely in one or another subcategory. I'm also making new categories and consolidating redundant ones... -- Beland 03:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genderfuck[edit]

I touched it once. You reverted. So be it. Don't beg for an edit war where one does not exist.

That being said, I do consider it appropriate for Template:sex-stub as it relates to the usage of sexual characteristics in such a manner as to run counter to expectation, a type of role-playing. "Sex" doesn't just mean "having sex", it includes all manner of things related to how we perceive and use our sexuality.

If that is not acceptable to you, then general-stub it is.

Courtland 09:06, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Genderfuck 2[edit]

I don't especially care where it goes. I threw it in with sex-stubs not for some political or categorizational or personal reason but for the purely pragmatic reason that there at least it is more likely that someone with the knowledge and inclination to destub it will find it. Check out Category:Stub; its a mess. Category:Sex-related stubs is at least navigable and, as I said, more likely to be browsed by someone who is able and willing to destub the article. Finally, lose the fucking condescending attitude. Not every perceived miscategorization is an attack you need to respond to aggressively. I've read a lot of your work on the wiki, and its great. You obviously know your stuff, and I'll generally acknowledge your authority in your areas of interest. Just saying, "hey, I don't think this should go there" is probably gonna do it. You don't need to get into the whole snotty "Whoever uses that one ought to get a grip on the differences between gender, sex (the equipment) and sex (the action)". -Seth Mahoney 19:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Genderfuck 3/Stub-sorting[edit]

As I am aware of your acute interest in this, having read the edit-history of genderfuck and others (and your other contributions), I think that you'll be happy to know that there is now an LGBT-stub; I've taken the liberty to change the stub-category accordingly and left a message on the talk-page there Lectonar 12:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HRT (trans)[edit]

Re HRT - Was there any reason for that deletion?
There's a reason for everything, AlexR. In this case, the reason was carelessness on my part. I clicked on the first Hormone replacement therapy link and saw that the article mentioned use of HRT "by transgendered or transsexual people", and so assumed that the second link lead to the same article. My apologies. -- Picapica 19:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us - only on deletions like this, from experience I am ready to assume the worst. My appologies, too. -- AlexR 08:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

for your help on IRC the other night. If there's ever anything I can do to help you out, please let me know. KC9CQJ 10:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Youve got mail![edit]

For letting me know how to upload multiple images I here by ward you the WikiThanks unit. WikiThanks.png

Gender identity-role article[edit]

I noticed your remark in your edit summary to minor changes to the G-I/R article. I think the reason the article is there is to serve as an acknowledgement that according to Money's analysis the two terms "gender identity" and "gender role" are pretty thoroughly intertwined. Probably anything that tends to anchor the understanding (and definitions) of these critical terms should be kept. There are so many people around who use "gender" as a sort of euphemism for "sex" and otherwise indiscriminantly fling these terms around that anything that encourages people to learn the history of the terms, the reasons they came into existence, etc., is a plus. 金 (Kim) 05:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Fine, but I think the article, either way, has serious POV issues. — Phil Welch 02:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to your remark:

Would you kindly stop making those stupid and incorrect edits to transwoman? It is obvious that you have no clue about gender assignments, so stop putting BS into the article, or you might find yourself treated as a vandal.

I'm not familiar with the theory, but you're presenting POV as fact and being bold as vandalism.

For example, one is not born in any sex

One is definitely born with a set of sex chromosomes and genitalia. There is established POV that states that sex is a matter of genetics and anatomy.

there are debates whether transgender people are clearly one sex

My edits have never made a factual statement either way about that issue.

and intersex people can get assigned another gender at any time, not only shortly after birth.

Fair enough.

And, the most basic thing: You may have something hanging between your legs, but what gets into the papers is not put there by said thingy, but by people - namely, doctors, midwifes and/or parents.

What gets into the papers, according to your POV, decides or "assigns" one's sex. I assert that in most cases, it is simply an empirical observation of a pre-existing biological condition that is recorded. But this is a matter of POV, not fact--as editors, we must often be careful not to confuse the two. — Phil Welch 03:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transsexual[edit]

Hi Alex,

You just said,

"since gender variant behaviour is seen by proponents or reparative therapy as an extreme form of homosexuality (a view that long has disappeared from scientific discourses)."

on the above page. It's most certainly a view which is rapidly losing favour but, as you know, it's one of the two views expounded by Bailey, Blanchard et. al. Now, I'm not a big fan of B&B (at all!!!) but stating what you did isn't totally NPOV. Unfortunately, scientific discourses are still propounding this stance - bogus as it may be.

Comments? - Pete C 09:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

One could include a "most" or even a "serious" or "widely accepted" there, if needed - one might also argue, though, that B&B are not exactly part of the scientific discourse - they don't really fit any definition of science I have ever heard ;-) -- AlexR 11:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
True, true :-) I'd say in the interests of broad factuality, maybe change it to 'most' or 'almost all'. There are BB&L fans out there that would probably jump on the chance to scream "POV", whereas I feel the point you made is very valid to the article and needs to be stated. Note also that HBIGDA as a whole don't seem to have a lot of time for reparative therapy - Pete C 12:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and it should read "a view that has long since disappeared" (grammar) - Pete C 12:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Notice the update - thanks, Alex! - Pete C 16:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people[edit]

There's a discussion (here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 4) on changing the name of Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people to Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people. I know you've been active on a lot of the trans-related pages, and there's some concern over whether to use "transgender people" or "transgendered people" or some other variant. I'm sure you get sick of these sorts of issues, but if you're at all interested, I'd be grateful if you'd pop on by and give us some guidelines. -Seth Mahoney 21:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7#Gay, lesbian, and bisexual / LGBT occupational categories. (Wikipedia really needs a GLBT noticeboard for stuff like this.) Jonathunder 06:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Inspired by Jonathunder's idea, I have created a LGBT noticeboard. Please take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 07:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:AlexR/temp[edit]

...is currently poking into various main namespace categories. If this draft is no longer needed, should it be deleted? Either way, it should be removed from the categories it's currently in, to avoid self-references. -- Beland 03:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Günter Dörner[edit]

I assume you know who he is. What is his reputation in Germany these days? Among LGBT communities? I remember some articles from the gay community in the 70s or 80s lambasting his ideas and research. I assumed he was long-dead, but recently ran across a recent article [PMID 11781536]. Although he takes pains to disavow prejudice and intolerance, he seems to pretty clearly consider such variations as "transsexualism" a result of pathologic processes to a greater degree than anyone in North America has been willing to express in a scientific publication, attributing them to pernicious environmental influences such as endocrine disrupters like DDT or stress. On the other hand, to that same reference is appended his resolution to the WHO that "homosexuality not be regarded as a disease or a mental disorder." Since I gather his idea of a biological basis of LGBT conditions has found more favor in those communities than it used to, is he considered sympathetic or an ally despite his calls to "prevent" those? There is no hidden agenda in my question, just curiosity, and I assume this is a topic you are familiar with. He is the only German researcher in the area of sex hormones, brain biology, & sexual behavior that I have heard of, and he has been around forever. alteripse 19:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I actually had to do a google search for him - the name rang a bell, but not a loud one. To assess his current standing, you have to be aware that he was working in the GDR, not West Germany. Now, apparently, until the mid-1970s, his biological theories and proposed "cures" were well recieved in parts of West Germany, too, but back then biologistic theories and "cures" were all the rage, anyway. Since the mid-70s, though, LGB questions were considered far more from a social point of view, with those theories pretty much disappearing both from the public eye. (Trans* went a different path, staying until recently firmily in the hands of sexologists, and IS staying firmly in the hands of doctors.)
Now, actually, most of Western Europe has not taken anywhere as much interest in the "new" biological theories of the origin of sexual behaviour as the US has done; people regard the question as anything from mildly interesting to mildly amusing, nothing more. However, I did find some rather leftist LGB(TI) comments on him, apparently he got a medal of honor a few years ago, and they were mad about that - the left LGBTI most certainly does not see him as an ally. I have not found anything mainstream about him, but I would be very very very much surprised if anybody in the mainstream would consider anybody with his history and his views an ally - after all, that guy maintains that LGB(TI) has a simple reason, and could theoretically be cured in the womb. Actually, no biological theory is very much in favour, anybody proposing any biological theory would need to have very convincing evidence and a snow-white ethical standing to be even remotely considered as an ally. (Biologistical theories still have that faint - and in this case, not so faint - smell of the 3rd Reich about them in Europe, too.) And of course his theories do belong a) to a different time, and b) to a different society, so he just isn't much talked about at all among LGBTI circles. If he is talked about, though, it is hardly favourable.
As for T and I, well, I is known to have biological reasons, but everybody familiar with this knows it is a lot more complicated than that, and his theories on T don't exactly sound as if there was anything behind them, either. Certainly he is not discussed much there, either, although transgender people, especially transsexual people, are far more in favour of a biological explanation than LGB people. However, the focus there is on things like Gooren's (fe)male brain, not so much on how it became that way, but as the ultimate proof that one isn't "just a nutcase". With the move towards simply accepting it as it is instead of "curing" it, which was the previous focus on transgender people, even that becomes less important. So, all together, this guy is not very important to any current discourses, including, as far as I am aware of, most of the medical discourses regarding LGBTI people.
PS: And sorry, other answer is on the way. -- AlexR 12:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. It is exactly what I was wondering. alteripse 15:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

FAOC[edit]

Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.

Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your fifth choice and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.

Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone else votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. That is why though very popular Alternative 1 is being beaten. Remember the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition. Slán FearÉIREANNFlag of Ireland.svg\(talk) 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Resent newbie/vandalism[edit]

Hi,

You might want to have a look at the recent edits to transwoman -- somebody has been making sort of opinionated changes in many articles. I'm not sure whether they are good or bad. P0M 04:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Top Sekrit Cabalist Rollback Function[edit]

Hello Alex. It appears you sent me a message about this earlier, but due to some strange deficiency in my IRC software I only saw it when I disconnected. The helpful facility you are after is called godmode-light and is detailed here. I came across it because it was mentioned on the village pump some time ago. I don't think anyone there condemned its use, but it was said by some people that anyone using it should follow the rule for admin rollback which is to use it only to revert vandalism, and not in content disputes (it doesn't allow you to fill in an edit summary explaining the revert). To use it you just add document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"><\/SCRIPT>'); to your monobook.js, and rollback links will magically appear in the appropriate places. It is not brilliant by the way, and sometimes fails when the servers are running slowly, but overall I found it a helpful tool. I don't think it is actually secret, it's just not talked about too much so as to avoid broadcasting its existence to the hordes of marauding vandals. (But, of course, it doesn't really exist, and even if it did you wouldn't have heard about it from me.... This message will self-destruct in five seconds.)Trilobite (Talk) 09:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

re: all the Islamic articles[edit]

Thanks for the advice, I have been floundering a bit. Haiduc 10:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Patpong[edit]

There is nothing impolite about using standard English words for things. The standard word for transsexual is transsexual. You can't just rename things because you feel like it. I have never seen the word "cissexual" and nor has (hardly) anyone else. We can do without yet more euphemisms and neologisms at Wikipedia. Adam 07:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes I know this game of sexual politics more-politically-correct-than-thou. Every six months new and ever-more-esoteric words are invented for everything to do with sexuality and gender, and anyone who objects is a bigot homophobe hatemonger etc etc. OK darling have it your own way. This old fag has better things to do than argue with you. Happy gender confusion. Adam 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

LGBT[edit]

I apologize if my judgement was in error on a couple of articles, but my purpose was simply cleaning up the way some people use Category:LGBT as a catchall even for topics that are already filed in LGBT subcategories. Under Wikipedia's stated policy of category management, the number of categories on an article needs to always be kept to the minimum possible number, and an article should never be simultaneously filed in a specific subcategory and the master category that the subcategory belongs to.

For example, bisexuality (one of your reversions) doesn't need to be -- and under Wikipedia policy, really can't be -- in both Category:LGBT and the subcategory Category:Sexual orientation. One or the other is sufficient, and the only thing I did to that article was to remove the LGBT category; it was already filed in both of the other subcats. And most of the other articles you reverted are already filed under "transgender-related topics", which is also subcategorized under LGBT already. As for 1983 ISIS Survey, I simply typed the wrong category by mistake; my actual intention was to file it under Category:LGBT history.

Some people seem to think "LGBT" needs to act as a one-stop master list of all LGBT-related topics regardless of where else they're filed, but that's not how categories work or what they're meant to be doing.

And, for the record, it hardly constitutes "widespread changes getting pushed through without proper debate". One doesn't have to debate following Wikipedia policy on category management. The angry tone you took on my talk page is neither an appreciated or an appropriate response to the matter, particularly since I'm almost singlehandedly responsible for the T being in most of the category names in the first place, and I will not even acknowledge any future discussion from you that strikes that tone again.

Later update: I see you also reverted Tribe 8. For one thing, one does not have to announce a category change before making it; the assertion that an unannounced change should be reverted just for being unannounced is utter bullcrap. But, since you want to know, here was why I made the changes I did:

  1. The category "punk rock groups" is redundant with category "later punk groups"; going back to the stuff about subcategory vs. master category, it's a one-or-the-other case, not both.
  2. Tribe 8 is not an individual; it's a band. "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" is for individuals. This change does not remove them from a queer context, as they're still filed under "LGBT musicians".
  3. The band should be sorted as "Tribe 8" under the letter T, not as "8, Tribe" under the number 8.

Bearcat 16:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way...the next time you want to accuse me of thoughtlessness, you might want to take a gander at the description of Category:Sexual orientation and identity before you start typing: The category is for articles that have to do with sexual orientation, sexual identity, labels, and gender identity. So if you think that's wrong or offensive, take it up with the person who wrote that. Bearcat 19:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fail to understand where you get the notion that the category is conflating "sexual identity" with "gender identity". Where in anything connected to the category is there even the suggestion that anybody thinks transgender is a sexual identity? The category title doesn't say that. The category description didn't say that. I genuinely fail to grasp how you're interpreting "identity" as inherently meaning "sexual identity" to the exclusion of any other meaning of the word, when the category quite explicitly distinguished two distinct concepts of "sexual identity" and "gender identity", and nothing implied that one was being subsumed into the other. And that doesn't make me a transphobic bigot or a person who should somehow "know better" than anything; it makes me a person who knows how to read what's written and not infer stuff that isn't there. Bearcat 00:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Humanbot update 13 June 2005[edit]

The spelling2 project (to work on secondary namespaces) was opened and finished. Progress charts will be available soon.

Version six-three tracks who made the edits, and rankings are available. Much of the work was done while I was asleep, explaining my low place ;).

The next project, which may even be released today, will probably fix incorrectly capitalised headings, particularly "See Also" and "External Links".

The mailing list has grown to 24 people and while that is very nice for my ego, it is rather difficult to send out updates. This is why I did not send out a notice that the spelling2 project had opened. From now on, then, you must watch User:Humanbot/announce for updates. r3m0t talk 12:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

You removed my picture[edit]

I worked very hard on that picture and now you removed it. Is there something I can do to make it acceptable for you? Shorthair 04:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if I find the right picture, you will okay it? Shorthair 18:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex please respond[edit]

I would like to add picture examples to transvestite and shemale articles. Will you block all pictures? Or are some acceptable? And I'd also like to have my self portrait (now on my userpage) somewhere--If I shrink it will it then be allowable? Is there any article where it can be allowed a decently large size. Please respond to me. Shorthair 18:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

belated thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support of my RFA nearly a month ago. Unfortunately a sad event occurred in my family right at that time, so I haven't been able to participate as actively as I would like in Wikipedia. I hope to get back to active editing soon. Thanks again, FreplySpang (talk) 23:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

AlexR, during the RfA for Eequor, I engaged you in an unnessesarily confrontational way. I am extremely sorry for my behavior. As Eequor's nominator, I was upset and frustrated by the way the voting was going, and it seems that I took out some of my frustration on you. I highly regard you as a Wikipedian, and I hope you can forgive me. I'm sorry. func(talk) 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)

You reverted my contribution to Process calculus[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted my contributions to Process calculus with no notice to me and without giving a reason.

I have restored my contributions.--Carl Hewitt 9 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Imposter[edit]

Please note that there has recently been a user trying to appear to be you, making edits as User:AIexR. ~~~~ 12:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with the tranny movie picture.[edit]

You admit that you can't tell if they're shemales, sex-change-men-to-women, or crossdressers. There are also four of them and you say you don't know for every one. Yet you're launching into an edit war with a ton of people, trying to claim they're one thing and not the other. Look, if you can prove they are this or that (even through logic) then fine, but don't just keep putting shemales because you like shemales better than sex-change-men-to-women or crossdressers. SnowConeYellow 15:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you have been reverting for the sake of reverting. I reverted you once because you used invalid logic. You edited it three times. I then instead of going on an edit war against many people like you do, I went and talked to you. Also the article's talk page is a red link, showing it has never been created. You never added any proof. You claim a google search, but let's show it. The article where the picture is in has no talk page posts from you. SnowConeYellow 19:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You still refuse to supply any links to me to prove that they are ALL this or that. The website doesn't say clearly if these are shemales or what. SnowConeYellow 20:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That homosexuality intro[edit]

Hi, it seems that some users would be a lot happier if we could *not* have a list in the intro. I think I could take the content and render it as passable prose. Do you have any objections? Haiduc 02:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Raoul Alexander Michael Regh[edit]

Raoul Alexander Michael Regh, do you not think these Image:TGirlsMoviePoster.png are beautiful ladies? Shorthair 14:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rollback and godmode-light[edit]

Hiya, AlexR, I noticed you use the godmode-light script. As you use an emulation of the rollback feature I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a proposal I have which would grant the rollback feature to those who request it, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, except with a lower threshold. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback; your comments are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

LGBTI vs "intersex", "trans", "gay", "lesbian" on Heteronormativity[edit]

To follow up to my reversion of your change to my edit on Heteronormativity:

I'm thinking of the reader who has not the foggiest idea what's going on. Rather than making them click on 5 links (yes, it's 5, you removed any reference to bi-sexuality twice now), seems harsh. Instead, the LGBTI article gives them a nice, short reference to everything they need to know, via a decent article and many citations to other articles. Everything you wanted to list is there plus much more. If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info (note: if you're going to go that way, there's no need to reference the redirect at LGBTI, just go straight (er... well) to LGBT, since the name of the link doesn't show anyway). -Harmil

Reproducing your comment from my talk page: First of all, I would appreciate if you would sign your entries like the one on my talk page; that way, I don't have to go through the history to answer you. Second, I don't think that linking to LGBT is the way to go here, since lots of people probably won't know what that is - lots more people will at least recognise some of the expanded words, though. If you are really worried about bisexual people (who are nowhere else mentioned in the article) then add that word, and don't just revert to the acronym. Not to mention that the article that it links to references intersex people rather sparingly; they are rather important at this place, though. So kindly stop this mindless reverting, since it is nothing but ill thought-through reverting for reverting's sake by now. I may also add that I just restored the previous version, so if you want any changes, change it to something that makes sense at this point. -- AlexR 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, forgetting the signature was just an oversight, sorry. It seems that you didn't read what I actually wrote, above and are simply replying to the subject, since you conflate "linking to LGBT" with people knowing what the acronym means. To re-quote what I wrote: "If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info". As for "reverting for reverting's sake", I was not. You changed my use of "LGBTI" to a less-complete collection of words, some of which ("intersex" and "transgender") would be just as unknown to the majority of readers, while removing the reference to bisexuality (I take personal offense at that one), and when I restored my change with a comment to indicate why, you again reverted it. Please, do not accuse me of "reverting for reverting's sake" when you are removing content and context from a page. -Harmil 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In response to your concerns about LGBT/LGBTI, I've made some extensive edits there. I'd very much appreciate your input on them. I really feel that these articles should be show-pieces which can reasonably be used as the "one-stop-shop" to introduce the topic of the LGBTI community whereever it is needed. -Harmil 19:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:LGBT, which you might want to read over. I think the current wording is not broad enough, and while I understand your concerns with the old wording, I think we need to adapt it in some way to cover the middle-ground without unreasonably expanding what should be a short summary.... -Harmil 13:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert Templeton[edit]

Hi Alex Very many thanks for your paragraph edits and wikification. Much appreciated. Could you look at Hermann Loew please? Best wishes from Ireland. Robert

Etomologists[edit]

Many thanks for the Templeton edits. I get the idea now but please keep a watchful eye on me.Never quite got paragraphs at school. Ever read Joyce? Musca User:81.144.158.195

Please help me to understand[edit]

I think that we're talking past each other on Sexual characteristics. I specifically will assume that you are approaching this with the same degree of good faith that I am, and feel that you have explained yourself fully. I, on the other hand, do not understand your concerns fully yet. I see you get frustrated when I ask for details, and I suspect that this is just a difference in the way we approach problem solving. Please, assume that I honestly do not yet understand your concerns, and that your explanations have not made them clear to me (no fault there, just different ways of explaining one's self and learning). Please return to the discussion and help me to develop a clear understanding. -Harmil 17:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India[edit]

There is very little on the Internet or on Wikipedia about Homosexuality in non-Western cultures, including India. I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards creating a detailed article about Homosexuality in India, one that discusses historical, literary, cultural and religious attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as the current situation. I know for a fact that India has a significant LGBT community, though a lot of it is underground. I wrote the article Gay rights in India. Could you take a look at it and integrate it with a larger article on Homosexuality in India. --Notquiteauden 01:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Merovingian[edit]

Your edit has dropped out all special characters, as at Franks. I didn't revert it; would you fix it? --Wetman 12:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Just wanted to offer some advice for this. This kind of thing can happen when:
  • Your browser settings force a particular character set (e.g. iso-latin-1)
  • You do your editing in an external application which uses a non-UTF8 character set.
You can check your browser preferences ("options" in Windows parlance) for character encoding. In Firefox, I use View->Character Encoding and select "Unicode (UTF-8)".
Other applications that you may edit in probably have similar controls. -Harmil 15:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint - for some reason, jEdit, which I use with the WP plug-in, decided today that it didn't like special characters any more. I noticed a bit later, and I think I have corrected everything, but that is indeed annoying. I'll check for that in the next time, to be sure. -- AlexR 15:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Transgender[edit]

Thanks. Learn something every day. –Shoaler (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The archaic editor[edit]

Hi Alex, I generally do not stand on little particulars, but your modification of "warp and woof" gains nothing and, as it somewhat vague, loses the sense that the two loves were complementary and integral to male experience. I also am not sure that it is more encylopaedic to favor dry formulations over more expressive ones, within reason. As for the accuracy of the statement, it is not my opinion (alone) but the consensus of the classics. It stands out in the writings of many, if not all, such as Plutarch, Lucian, the poets (both Greek and Roman) and so forth. Oh yes, and in the mythology too. Can you please find an alternative formulation, or even better, leave mine. It is anything but archaic. Cheers, Haiduc 11:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Was I harsh? I speak more freely to friends, and I welcome it in return. Interesting, that "warp and woof" was not recognized. I'll second your edit based on that, I would have imagined that it is a phrase intelligible to anyone. Goes to show you that it is not good to be too much inside one's own head. Be well, Haiduc 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we stop this?[edit]

Somehow, you decided I was one of "them" (I'm really not even sure which "them") back when we tangled over heteronormativity, and you clearly carried the idea along to LGBT and Sexual characteristics. Your insults have been rather scathing ranging from calling me "stupid" to insulting my work to saying that I clearly had "too much time on my hands" (seems a counter-productive desire to want editors with less time available). I've tried several times to bury the hatchet, but you have had none of it.

Is it possible that you would accept that:

  • I don't hold a grudge against you (my comment about "personal offense" was ill considered, and was not intended to convey a sense that I was upset with you, only with being a member of a group which is so easily discounted).
  • I agree with you in many things, though I think you feel more strongly than I do in many cases.
  • I'm not trying to inject a POV into anything on WP, rather quite the opposite.
  • While I don't agree with your doctor friend on the nature of modern medicine and science, I do agree with the assessment that heteronormative structures present a difficult hurdle for LGBTI people, and that's unfortunate.

Sadly, there's not much I can do to contribute to Wikipedia in areas where my every edit will be reverted, and given the speed with which you and I could have put together Sexual characteristics if we could work together... well, it's even more sad.

I hope that in the future you will bear these things in mind and perhaps cut me a bit more slack, as I have tried to do for you (and will continue to do so).

Thank you for your time. -Harmil 18:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Atypical gender identity article[edit]

Hi, Alex,

I have been monitoring the article on Atypical gender identity. There is some pressure to either improve it or to merge it elsewhere. I believe it was originally spun off from the gender identity and gender role areas because some people were uncomfortable with depicting G-I/Rs that were not the vanilla varieties. Probably that was a wise decision since the original articles contained absurdities on even the vanilla stuff and it was more important to fight those fights and put the even harder to get clear on somewhere else. (Boys naturally prefer blue, they claimed. I naturally preferred green as a child and I naturally prefer orange as an adult, so what does that make me? No, don't answer that. ;-)

As I have time, I'm going to put a brief description of Hijra and any other examples I can find where there are clear "mixed elements" in the clothing and behavior. I figure you probably have lots more examples in mind just reading this note.

One of the strange (to me) requests was that there be section headings -- despite the fact that the article is now very short. So I will put in a major section marker for "Examples" and minor ones for Hijra, Xanith, etc. Since there are major articles already, all these sections need to do is refer readers to the other articles and then give a paragraph or so in which we highlight the specific social signals that go along with the and announce the gender identities or that would create the false impression of a gender identity if someone accidentally used the wrong clothing, e.g., picking up a jacket that buttoned on the wrong side, work boots of the "wrong" color, etc.

Since the title involves identity rather than role, it's going to be a little tricky to get a correct characterization of what it feels like to be a xanith. What makes a person recognize e is a xanith? Have xaniths written about their experience of self? Or do we have to depend on some anthropologist's account?

I think this article could really be useful to people trying to understand "the other."

金 (Kim) 17:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you play Volleyball?[edit]

If so, bump, set, spike. I can never bring myself to just remove them. ;) -NickGorton 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi! I saw that you've reverted at one point the Jodie Foster article. Unfortunately it was all in vain. You are not the only one who's done it. There is a very persistent anonymous person who is inserting many personal views (mainly negative ones) in the article, especially some regarding Foster's commercials in Japan. Because of this situation, on the talk page of Jodie Foster's article there is a Final vote about including/not including the advertising info. If you have the time, please state your opinion there. Best regards! Tavilis 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for voting and supporting us against the anon. user- and also just wanted to say that I liked your page on stupid edits. =D --PatadyBag 22:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

Your comment on Queer Studies included this edit summary:

...stick to articles you know something about

Please don't make comments like that to me. Uncle Ed 12:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I asked why you didn't do that - which is quite different. Intentionally misquoting is not exactly good behaviour in my book, Ed. -- AlexR 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Thank you, good friend! At least you understand what I'm aiming at! Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I formation[edit]

You flagged this article for {{attention}} yesterday, think it's safe to remove that notice now? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Transgendered[edit]

About your recent statement, "transgenderED is still not a word". Here are some references:

I think it's safe to say that transgendered is a word, though not as commonly used as "transgender". Debating over the appropriateness of its use I could see, but that's another matter.

Hope this helps. -Harmil 13:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That still does not make this abdomination a word. -- AlexR 14:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
What, then, is a word? I thought that common usage and citation in reference works were considered sufficient. Should we go by the fact that 477 Wikipedia pages use the word (135 if you don't count talk pages or lists)? The fact that the U.S. Military has a special rule for "Transgendered Beneficiaries" [4]? The fact that "Transgendered Network International" (TGNI) has been around since 1992 [5]? The fact that there is an "American Library Association Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table" [6]? -Harmil 18:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
You will find an awful lot of misspellings, some of them even more common than the proper spelling. So your point was?
Transgender was from the beginning used as both an adjective and a noun. Only a few years ago this abomination of "transgendered" turned up, without any reason for its existance but pseudo-grammar like "thou shall not split thy infinitive". It is not only unnecessary, it also sounds like a passive - whenever I hear that somebody is transgendered it makes me want to ask who did that to that poor fellow. Which is the reason that no matter how many actual usages of the word you turn up, as far as I am concerned, this is not a word, but an abomination. So you might wish to turn your attention to other matters now. -- AlexR 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Patpong[edit]

Some might also consider it insulting for you to impose your western categories (transwoman) on an indigenous Thai identity form. How do you know that a kathoey is the same as a transwoman? Adam 11:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Spare me your childish attitude games. Adam 11:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Association_of_Moral_Wikipedians Deletion[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you since you indicate you are involved with gay/lesbian/transgender issues on Wikipedia and Wikimedia and I want to bring to your attention a likely troll group called Association_of_Moral_Wikipedians that formed on Meta Wiki one of whose goals is:

  • "Ban Homosexuals, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and other potentially threatening Wikipedians from attaining the Administrative Offices. This must be done to ensure Wikipedia is Conservative, and to ensure that our Association's status in the Wikipedia Community is not threatened."

I put this group up for deletion here but if you know an administrator over there that can help delete this crap or if you are on IRC (I dont have access to IRC / have been gone from IRC for a little while) tell them.

Thanks! --ShaunMacPherson 14:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender[edit]

Please weigh in on this AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please use babel[edit]

Hi! Please put on your userpage a babel template indicating what languages you can speak. Read Wikipedia:Babel for more. This could help immensly by helping to find people who can speak a certain laguage fluently. Please consier putting it on your userpage, even at the end of it, if it looks "ugly". It helps. Thx, Msoos 12:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (PS: see my User:Msoos page for an example)

Political correctness[edit]

Why have you reverted the correction of "India" to "Indonesia"? Columbus was headed for the East Indies, specifically the Moluccas, not for India as we now use that term. Masalai 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Transsexuality[edit]

One thing I have noticed in this article is that some sections use "transsexuality" and others "transsexualism". I think it would be better to use one term consistently within the article. I have considered renaming the article as "transsexualism", as that seems to be the term in widest use, but I felt like I needed to discuss this change with others before making it. I also left a note about this on the article's talk page, but no one has replied there, so I am asking users who I know have made significant contributions to this article.

Andrea Parton 02:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I see that you made a few more edits to this article. Some of them were excellent. I fixed a few typos you made and reworded a few things for clarity; I know you're not a native speaker of English and so I don't blame you for making these mistakes. I removed your statement "This however is not quite compatible with the definition of transgender" as it is unclear what "this" refers to and this statement does not seem NPOV. I also removed a few other statements you added that seemed to border on POV. And you changed a couple of things that I didn't revert, even though I don't particularly agree with them. For one, you edited the opening paragraph to state that a transsexual person "wishes to" establish a permanent identity with the gender opposite their assigned sex. Well, the latter part of this sentence may be unclear to some readers and should perhaps be rephrased to "as a member of the gender opposite their assigned sex". Well, that aside, I really think it is more factually accurate to state that a transsexual person establishes an identity as one of "the opposite sex" than that they wish to. Gender identity is how one sees them self; it has nothing to do with how they present themselves or are seen by others. I, for one, am still in transition and not living as a woman full-time; many people who see me relate to me as a male, but I identify as a woman. That said, I don't think the phrase is any more or less neutral either way. Please explain your reasoning for this edit.

You also added "This however has its own considerable health risks" in reference to the statement that some transpeople obtain hormones from black market sources. I have already reworded this statement slightly, but it seems kind of redundant given that the section on hormone replacement therapy already stated that HRT had risks and that it was considered inadvisable to take hormones without a physician's supervision. Do you think there is a reason for this to be stated twice?

Andrea Parton 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediator :), just letting you know that a request for mediation has made. I'd be grateful of your input... - FrancisTyers 16:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Invite to join/help organize Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies[edit]

Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)





See talk page[edit]

User_talk:VoiceOfOne VoiceOfOne 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in all of your assertions.

I hope you have fun playing with yourself.