User talk:Hfarmer/Archive 3

Blocked

Following the above report I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Your comments are both disruptive and border on harrassment. When the block expires I suggest you rely on the strength of your arguments rather than badgering disputants with juvenile abuse.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I have a user conduct request for comment open against the user upon who's behalf and upon who's word you have blocked me. His actions have been just as bad. Calling me names and such and I wish to prosecute him for those. There is also the mediation mentioned on the AN/I page. I would need to comment on that as well once that get's started. At least I was willing to let the community as a whole decide his fate, give him a trial by jury instead of a summary execution. Furthermore looking at the blocking policy I see that it is enough to say I won't do it again today. I really want more to get that mediation overwith. However I must also say that I expect civility in return from him. Which is something I have never gotten.

Decline reason:

Maybe it's enough to say you won't do it again ever, without all the unfit judicial metaphors. Wikipedia is a volunteer website, not a court of law. Please feel free to think about this a bit more and then make another unblock request. — Gwen Gale (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

That "today" was a typo I noticed and was going to fix. It should have read. Furthermore looking at the blocking policy I see that it is enough to say I won't do it again. Today I really want more to get that mediation over with. I am sorry I called Dicklyon by his real life first name and linked to an old WP:Policy. I should have realize that policy is not used any more. I am sorry that I did not stop after I was first warned and I will not to it again ever. I will refer to him by his screenname only from now on which could never be construed as an insult, afterall he choose it. I will continute to provide good editing and blanacnce to a controversial area of wikipedia as I have always done.

Decline reason:

Your unblock requests come across as somewhat...well, argumentative. Take the one reviewed by Gwen: you finish by complaining about another user, rather than confronting the reasons for your block. And this request still does not, in my opinion, address the reason you were blocked. I'd take the next few hours to just step back, review your behaviour in accordance with our polices, and ensure that this does not happen again in the future. Best wishes, — Fritzpoll (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Truth be told, I think that latest unblock request is yet another sneaky personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

what? It's his name. I wrote that I would not call him Dick and would call him Dicklyon instead. How the heck can someone using somebody's name which they themselves use be an attack? I don't understand this? In particular how I used it there could be construed as an attack. If I cannot call User:Dicklyon by his user name what can I call him? Can you please tell me that?--Hfarmer (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop going on about his name, please drop the topic altogether, since you've framed the whole topic as a personal attack. In the unblock request, please talk only about your own behaviour and what you plan to do, to address the worries which led to your block. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is the new reality in the post Barrack Hussien Obama world. (I voted for Barrack H. Obama for Senate and President by the way.) I really truly want some guidance about this. What shoudl I do in the future? --Hfarmer (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama (note correct spelling) has bugger all to do with your bad behaviour: such kinds of juvenile taunting is and always has been subject to administrative correction. The fact is, you knew what you were doing and the meaning and impact of your words, and relying upon legalistic arguments to avoid responsibility for your actions really isn't going to obscure that. Your own behaviour is the only issue here, and you should reflect upon it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the future, in a community-centred environment, and taking all things into consideration, when you're asked to stop doing something that is unnecessary, you should, uh...stop being a dick. :) Seriously, the issue here isn't the specific thing you've done, but the fact that you don't appear to understand what it is you've done wrong - I'd take the block time to think that over - Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I truly wasn't clear enough. You played word games with an editor's name and the name of an old essay on meta to make a string of personal attacks, for which you were blocked. You have carried on doing this in your unblock requests. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was very clear in my unblock request that I was not playing any word games in that request. I said it quite clearly that I was not calling Dicklyon by anything other than his user name. You read into what I wrote something that was not there. I cannot be responsible for your own misperception of my words. For that I am not sorry because your thought processes are your responsibility not mine. I can only write that I will not use any name other than his screen name and that I regeret the confusion.

Oh by the way buddy up there who used the word "bugger" You had best apologise to me for your thinly veiled homophobic remark. That word certainly is NOT in my name or screen name or any such thing.

As for Fritz. I never told him "he was being a dick" I simply addressed a man by his known an given on his userpage first name. And cited a policy as you just did. How can citing a policy be an insult? It's perhaps a not nice thing to do but we cannot always be nice. Part of showing good faith means being unapologetically honest. If Dicklyon decides that this blocking has given him cover to make snide remarks in the future I will reprot it to you all and I expect the same harsh response.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You revised that second unblock request, I was talking about the wording of the second unblock request, 13 minutes before you revised it. You should be aware that page histories make it difficult to mislead editors about this kind of thing. That essay has never been policy, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugger all is mossy UK slang. In the above context it means fuck all, which means nothing. I don't use the expression myself, but it's not homophobic.

You keep talking about another editor and my take is, you are not acknowledging that the word game you played with the editor's name was a personal attack on that editor. I find it hard to believe you didn't mean it that way and so do others, which is why you were blocked and why your unblock requests have been declined. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You should look up the word right here on wikipedia. "The British English term 'Buggery' is very close in meaning to the term sodomy, and is often used interchangeably in law and popular speech. It is also a specific criminal offense under the English common law."

Rest assured I will file a proper complaint on this in the morning. Like I said below. have a nice day.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Again you are reading into even that version something that is not there. User:Dicklyons screen name is a contraction of his real life name as it says on his userpage... "Dick Lyon" He basically says before I am blocked that I could call him by his first name as long as I did not make fun of it. He even says I can call him a Jerk. Does this sound like a highly insulted delicate flower? Again I cannot be responsible for the fact that someone looking to derail a mediation that would not have gone his way wanted to cook up something like this. I could not sit by and ignore being personally attacked by him. Yet on my RfC user regarding him that is what so many told me I should do. Yet this petty stuff is treated like I posted nazi propoganda up here or something.

I no longer care about being unblocked. I accept that I have been blocked, but withdraw any admission of guilt. I am gald to take a vacation from a website full of people who are all to eager to enforce white heterosexual male privillage. Have a nice res of the day.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had posted neo-Nazi propaganda you would have been blocked indefinitely straight off. You're making a lame personal attack much worse by going on about it. As for "white heterosexual male privillage" [sic], it means "fuck all" aught to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You know administrators are not above the rules here either.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What rule are you talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well not to mention your use of profanity...there is by what you wrote your implied resuse of the word "Bugger" which as I explained above to us here in the USA has only one meaning... As it is written in the wikipedia.

"The British English term 'Buggery' is very close in meaning to the term sodomy, and is often used interchangeably in law and popular speech. It is also a specific criminal offense under the English common law."

You see from that that use of the word bugger buggery (the act of being buggered) is basically the same as if you had called me a sodomite. Which would be inappropriate because A. I am a transsexual woman and not a man there is a difference, and B. It is inherently homophobic to call a homosexual male a sodomite (if you wish to view me as being a homosexual male). No interpretation needed.

If the perception of a word game can get one blocked then I wonder what your comments here would get if I were that kind of a person? Relax I generally have a high threshold for insult and realize that you did not know what that meant over here so I forgive you. I will also let go of what the original person said. It's not a big deal. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Buggery may have been a criminal offence back in the day, but using the word is not. I'm sorry if you found my usage example uncivil and given this, I've swapped in another word, which I hope will also further show the harmless intended meaning. The pith of this thread is, please don't make personal attacks but rather, comment on edits and sources in a neutral way. Name calling and taunting aren't allowed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement to Mediate Withdrawn

I hereby withdraw my agreement to mediate the dispute Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. It cannot go forward in good faith. Mediation is a arrangement agreed to among equals. Since the actions of the greater wikipedia community have made clear my feelings, and thoughts are to be disregarded then I cannot participate in a mediation. I have not been treated as an equal when blatantly homophobic and transphobic or just plain rude remarks made against me are ignore and my hurt feelings ridiculed or made to be invalid. Whatever I say will be ignored and the words of another who has white, heterosexual male privilege (or some combinations of those) will be more valued. I will not subject myself to this. I say that it was farcical to try to mediate this in the first place. Deep down we all knew that this would not work in the end, so why prolong the suffering?

This matter should again be remanded for arbitration.

As of this notification on my talk page I consider my disagreement to the mediation registered.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Could one of you nice oh so concerned people please go to the above mediation and change my agree to disagree. I truly do not want to mediate with a group of people who could think it ok for Dicklyon to insult me and for a ton of bricks to be dropped on me for a little jab at him. I am tired of being a good girl.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hontas: I more than appreciate how frustrating this all is. Although I can't speak for anyone else, I do not at all condone how Dicklyon has treated you or has treated many other people. Applying the amount of patience it requires to deal with him and with the situation we are all in is Herculean. I think that you were correct that the RfC route would have been the more appropriate way to deal with him. However, the community at large, and Arbcom specifically, appear to believe that attempting mediation is the appropriate action. Moreover, I think the greatest good will come from addressing the whole problem, not just Dicklyon's specific role in it.

Let me share with you a mindset from my professional life that I have found useful in dealing with Dicklyon. I put myself in the same frame of mind I use when dealing with somebody with Asperger's Syndrome. (No: I am not saying that I know anything about Dicklyon's actual psychiatric status; nor am I saying anything pejoritive about people who are indeed living with Asperger's Syndrome; nor do I mean the comparison to be a personal attack on him.) I am saying only that the frame of mind I use with folks with Asperger's is useful when working with Dicklyon.

People with Asperger's, for reasons we do not know, appear to have a biologically-based disorder that renders them genuinely incapable of typical social interaction. They lack whatever ability it is that the human brain uses to understand the internal workings of other people. (Think of it as social tone-deafness or a diluted form of autism.) As you have pointed out previously, Dicklyon frequently lumps all other editors into a single camp rather than appreciate the complexities of where we all agree and disagree. His actions and reactions are out of proportion with the actual social stimuli. To repeat myself, I do not mean this as an insult of him. I mean only to point out to you that it is helpful to think of his actions and interaction style as if they are not actually his fault (although they remain his responsibility).

I have the greatest respect for you and your contributions to WP, and I hope quite sincerely that you reconsider withdrawing from mediation. Give my mental trick a try and see if it helps. One would not get angry at someone in a wheel-chair for moving slowly, and there is little point (in my mind-frame) for getting angry at someone with Asperger's for being unable to measure his own social behavior.
— James Cantor (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

James, that's good advice. I do sometimes come up a bit short on empathy with respect to the way my written comments will be perceived, especially in such heated debates as we've been having. I don't mean to be harsh, but I accept responsibility for my tone and will try to moderate it.

Hontas, you said to Gwen above that "I cannot be responsible for your own misperception of my words." In consideration of what James has written above, we might benefit if we try to be more responsible for how our words are interpreted. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you picked that particular condition. Since my family has Autistic people in it, and I was treated for an unspecified developmental disorder for the longest time by various school district psychologist. I have learned how to cope with whatever my problem was. I will try to apply that same kind of thinking to Dicklyon.

If you promise never to denigrate me for daring to disagree with you and the supposed majority of transsexuals ever again. We will have no problems. I will never start anything with you at all, ever. Simply disagree and use logic and if your logic is logical, I will likely agree with it. If I had the power to based on your comment above I would remove the RfC/U

There is still a fundamental issue though. Some people felt it appropriate to on my RfC page tell me how inappropriate it was for me to report Dicklyon's bad behavior there. Which I interpreted as saying. "look tranny your feelings matter less than the straight white guys". It is not logical but that's how I feel. I don't see mediation being any better. It'll be oh well Hfarmer is a tranny, (or a horrible terrible internet faker or some other slanderous libel), who will either take crap, or can be crapped on becase that's what those people are good for.

Let just say my disagreement is on hold. But if it looks like this is going to be as stressful for me and utterly pointless for everyone I will not continue. Honestly I expect an impasse. I expect "Dicklyon, Jamescantor, and Jokestress have COI and should refrain from editing the articles," To be replied to with a long debate about weather or not I have a COI. To which I would say I don't. Since I am not tied to anyone in real life in this in any meaningful way. Perhaps the other users who felt my feelings were so worthless will sell me down the river in a illogical deal just to get a deal done. No sirs. I'm not going to take that laying down.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

By context, I am interpreting that your first paragraph above was meant for me, the second and third for Dicklyon, and the fourth for everybody. (Please correct me, if I am wrong.)

I think that it is indeed wise to call your disagreement "on hold." Indeed, for all we know, a good mediation might even make that portion of our problem moot. (Yes, I know that that might sound unrealistically optimistic.) Exactly who should be topic-banned or topic-self-banned will indeed be a difficult conversation, and it is certainly possible that we will reach am impasse exactly as you predict. At the risk of sounding cliche, Ghandi once said "Anything you do will make very little difference...but it is of great importance that you do it."

I cannot speak for any of the other users here, but I personally believe that your feelings and input are worthwhile, and I have no intent to trample either in order to get any deal done. I sincerely apologize if anything I did or said seemed otherwise.

I appreciate that much is being asked of you. Over the course of resolving this dispute, I expect that enormous patience and sacrifice will be asked of each of us. I am sorry that it is being asked of you first, but we need you.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the second paragraph was meant for Cantor. If for me, please clarify what it means. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes James you are correct. As for him, I have decided that since some doe eyed fool admins could think that by way of "framing" :-? I was calling him "a dick" apparently even while using his effing screen name. Since none of them would tell me just what the hell I could call him, I will just rely on context to refer to him henceforth. Such is the danger when one becomes offended by the sound of the own name. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

On second thought what really cheesed me off yesterday was the attitude of the people below this line, and the opinions of the barely invovled editors who thought it cute to endorse the POV that I should just shut up and take crap. I will not let their either lack of feeling, or being able to look deep into this matter stop us from setteling this. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

You're still on the edge of personal attack and I think you know what you're doing. If you link the editors name with that noun again, as you've done above, I'll block you again. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Which Is why I said I would not use his name at all in the future just so such confusion could never again occur.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You can safely use his username and you know it. Pointily not using his name is not the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No because you with your "framing" and such could call practically any use of his name or username an attack. Above even discussing what was allegedly done gets you to respond. Here is what I think you should be less sensitive and mind your own business. We have a big mediation that I need to decide If I am going to get on with it. Any further hinderance by you of me actaully effects the wikiactivities of 8 other people. Is whatever you get out of this worth it. I think not. Go find some people who are vandaliszing and block them. I have work to do here. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only guess that when you were a child, Hfarmer, you were the sort who would ride in the back-seat of the family car, holding your finger an inch away from your little brother, saying, 'I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm still not touching you. Not touching you! Still not touching you!" and would complain when your mother told you to stop. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No and that's not what I am doing here either. I am simply pointing out that according to you people I can't even use his name so I will not. The idea of "framing" it some way or the other.  :-? That's in your heads don't you seee that?--Hfarmer (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

'Your Homophobic Remark of yesterday'

I cannot be held responsible for your lack of knowledge regarding English usage nor for your strained and self-serving attempt to read meaning where none exists. Suffice to say, you're wrong--factually--and continuing to attempt wikilawyering and self-serving justifications will help ensure a fairly short, entirely self-inflicted, future editing career. You're already dug a fairly good-sized hole for yourself in public, and wielding the shovel further is not helpful, productive, or even interesting. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no meaning where none exist. You could look up the word right here on wikipedia to see what I meant.

"The British English term 'Buggery' is very close in meaning to the term sodomy, and is often used interchangeably in law and popular speech. It is also a specific criminal offense under the English common law."

It still has the same meaning now. I made nothing up.

Only so you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No Duhh. So what does a dictionary say? How about it's main meaning in websters dictionary.

; Main Entry:

¹bug·ger [javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?bugger02.wav=bugger')

[[ Image:audio.gif|Listen to the pronunciation of 1bugger]]] [javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?bugger01.wav=bugger')

[[ Image:audio.gif|Listen to the pronunciation of 1bugger]]]

Pronunciation

\ˈbə-gər, ˈbu̇-gər\

Function

noun

Etymology

Middle English bougre heretic, from Anglo-French bugre, from Medieval Latin Bulgarus, literally, Bulgarian; from the association of Bulgaria with the Bogomils, who were accused of sodomy

Date

1555

1: sodomite

2 a: a worthless person : rascal b: fellow , chap

3: a small or annoying thing <put down my keys and now I can't find the bugger's>

The dictionary mentions a meaning simmilar to what you said for the word "bugger off" but if that basically means eff off then that's not a much better thing to say at all. It is a word that should never be used. Understand?--Hfarmer (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to watch this for current usage of the word bugger (its an ad for toyota): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-Y3AsZ19Hc Viridae^Talk 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a counter argument. The word gay is used casually now Yes if you read thisGay#Pejorative_non-sexualized_usage and it's sources you will see that such use is seen as homophobic. i.e. describing something you don't like, or reject, or think is "rubbish" as being "gay". Describing a bad situation as bugger is in that same vein. Also where is that commercial from Australlia? I don't think that was made for the USA.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC) In this video a grade school teacher will explain it for you.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK since you have now gone to ANI over this I am going to be brutally honest. Being a princess about this issue is not going to help you in the slightest.Gwen Gale is apparently British (or using British english) and I am Australian. We both have vastly different slang language usage to that of Americans. Wikipedia is quite multicultural, you will run into that different language usage frequently and should try not to get offended at something that was not meant to insult. You appear to have a chip on your shoulder about your sexuality (judging by your userpage and your recent comments), well fine if thats how you want to be but get this: On wikipedia nobody cares. If you hadn't brought it up it would have been a non issue. Now I would suggest dropping it entirely, its a waste of time. Viridae^Talk 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not being a princess I am offended because you are defending the use of something that to be brutally honest has as it's principal meaning "sodomite". It's as bad as a racial slur. One has to consider not only what a word or sentence means to them, but must also consider what that means to others. I made it clear over and again that it's meaning is offensive. The most respected dictionary in the Anglophone world agree's. Just don't use it towards a person and your arguement holds. Use it towards a queer person and it's just a very bad insult. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out it's secondary meaning that's not any beter in fact it's much worse. Used in that way it is just plainly an insult. Let me make it clear, she did not use the word. She defended it's use, for whatever reason. This is not as serious. I just think it would be best for someone, to make it clear that the word is not acceptable at all.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get offended the word's seondary meaning makes what I am saying even more plain. "1usually vulgar : to commit sodomy with".--Hfarmer (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well again my concerns don't matter and I see homophobia is alive well acceptable and defended here on wikipedia, at least among it's self righteous UK users

Nuff said.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are excerpts from the OED definition for "bugger":

1. In low language a coarse term of abuse or insult; often, however, simply = ‘chap’, ‘customer’, ‘fellow’.
2. Something unpleasant or undesirable; a great nuisance. coarse slang
3. = DAMN n. 2. coarse slang
4. bugger-all, nothing. coarse slang

This word is almost never used in its sodomy sense any more. Around 1999 or 2000 it was ruled to be inoffensive and allowable on Australian television commercials. I don't know any gay people who find the term 'bugger' to be offensive. - Mark 13:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I explained and cited an American Dictionary which tells you plainly and upfront what that word means to us on this side of the pond. As a noun it's principal meaning is "sodomite", as a transitive verb it is almost always used pejoratively. The only slang meaning I knew of was in reference to an insect (i.e. Squash that bugger). However it is not something an american would ever use towards another human being. For you to not be able to take that is has a different meaning over here and accept that, once I back it up with citing a US dictionary is self righteous. And I feel that my socioeconomic status, as the transsexual daughter of a black American doctor plays a role in the overall dismissive tone of this, and what has been wrote of my prosecutin the abve complainer, for their verbal abuse of me.

I expect better from fellow Americans. In hindsight, I should not have expected equal treatment from a culture where they still have, lords, ladies, knights, etc. even if their titles mean almost nothing. The fact that they still have them says allot. On a deep seated level the British believe it is possible for one person of one status, to be better than someone of a lower status. Part an parcel of that is that it' is ok for a higher status person to abuse a lower status person. Basically I am just writing off the British. I now know to never expect to be treated with respect by them. Because by who and what I am I would in their minds eye be of permanently lower status.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither British nor American. So you got offended by a misunderstanding of someone's meaning. Now you have been set straight that it is not used in a homophobic manner in most of the world. You are not going to change language patterns in the wider population, so the best response is to harden up and move on. - Mark 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but GwenGale is and in my own mind I see little difference between an Irish person and anyone else from the British Isles.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to get me to happily accept the unacceptable. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What do the Irish have to do with anything? - Mark 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the context of what you are commenting on then ask me that again. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm still lost. Are you talking about Gwen Gale? His user page would suggest to me he's Scottish or English. Or Swiss. - Mark 14:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say as an uninvolved third party is considering the reason you were recently blocked, and the manner you tried to defend yourself against that block, it seems very disingenuous for you to go on and on about a word that was obviouly not intended to have anything to do with sexaulity, sexual orientation, etc. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Really. Do you know why i was block, and another block was threatened again today. For mostly totally innocent use of someone's screen name. As I said the greater socioeconomic status of the people I am disputing with along with the attitudes I have seen displayed here, combine to ensure that my POV will not be heard. So to heck with it. I am not going to try to change your minds. I'm wrong. I'm always wrong, and everything I do is horrible. Are you happy now?--Hfarmer (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for personal attacks like this and this. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hfarmer_continued_incivility_after_final_warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanchardian gender theory

Hi, Hfarmer. I am very glad you have come through for the mediation. I recognize that it was a difficult decision.

On a side note, on your user page, you wrote, "Do I think it is correct or one of the best theories? No. I personally think that transsexualism and sexual orientation are controlled in one's brain." I think you should know that Blanchard also believes that both transsexualism and sexual orientation are neurological. His idea about types of transsexuality do not contradict that. He believes that both types are neurological, but that each has its own, independent set of neurological correlates.

On another note again, that was the first time I heard how physics uses the term "entagled." Very interesting. In neurosciences, they say "dissociable" to mean related but not redundant.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where that is obscured is with statements that Blanchard makes in reference to the feminine essence narrative. Basically that one type really does have a brain that is partly feminized, homosexual transsexuals. The other does not have such a brain. It is hard for me to imagine just how someone could feel that they are a woman without having a brain that was in some small way, feminized, regardless of sexual orientation.

Which is what I am saying. Even the non-homosexual transsexuals have a brain that is on some level, feminized. Perhaps not in exactly the same way. Perhaps whatever is different in them is the same as what makes a lesbian different from a straight woman.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What I wanted to make totally clear on my user page was that I did not think that Blancahrd's theory was a final answer. That it is right up to a certain point. The things he observed are true, two types exist no one can really dispute that based on any study published to date. I will not tell a person who studies the brain how it works, but I find it hard to belive that sexual orientation is what it's all about. Some other part(s) of the brain must play a role. Parts that are less susceptible to whatver makes one gay or lesbian. If not then there should be many more TS/TG people out there than we see. To use an astronomical term the relative abundance of say homosexual V.s. Homosexual transsexual, says that there is something else going on. Just MHO (Which I tried to back up with math and the science I know). --Hfarmer (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand better what you are saying. I don't think Blanchard has said (or would say) that sexual orientation is the entire story either. He says only that sexual orientation is the most salient characteristic that allows us to disinguish the groups in some meaningful way. He sees homosexual transsexuality as an extreme form of regular homosexuality (which is consistent with there being so many more gay/lesbians than homosexual transsexuals). Blanchard also believes that the brains of nonhomosexual transsexuals are different, but not feminized. His way of thinking would predict that the brains of nonhomosexual transsexuals would resemble the brains of erotic cross-dressers (with the nonhomosexual transsexuals being more extreme on whatever brain differences that cross-dressers have).

Blanchard's view would not predict that nonhomosexual transsexuals would be shifted in a "lesbian direction": To the extent that any neuropsychological data have been published on the topic, there is no lesbian direction; lesbians' brains differ from heterosexual females' brains by being shifted in the "male direction". So, any shift among nonhomosexual transsexuals would necessarily be undetectable: Because nonhomosexual transsexuals start life as biologically male, there is no way to "see" a shift in a lesbian direction (i.e., a male direction). Patterns of neurological differences (Blanchard's view would predict) would be in a direction altogether different from the male-female continuum.

Anyway, despite the complicated story above, my original point was only a simple one. Your page (and I like the idea of your having all this on it), describes neurological theories as opposing Blanchard's taxonomy, and I'm pointing out only that these theories do not oppose each other. One can believe both.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Bugger-all

Saw your post on AN. I'm not sure what part of the country you're in but, around here, most folks would either have no idea what "bugger" meant or would just assume the speaker is British. Most Americans just use "fuck-all" the same way, so I don't know how you're getting that connotation that Gwen Gale meant it as a direct insult to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting again, another editor used the phrase, not me, but I later told Hfarmer what the phrase meant and that it was not untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bugger-all is an absolutely standard colloquialism in Britain and the former colonies, meaning "nothing". It has pretty much lost any sexual connotations it might ever have had. Those of a literary bent will be well aware that the town in Under Milk Wood by Dylan Thomas is called Llareggub, which is buggerall spelt backwards. Incidentally, my use of the word bent was not homophobic either; one must tread gingerly in such cases. Oh, and the word ginger was not homophobic either, despite it's Cockney rhyming slang meaning. Cockney rhyming slang is a queer kind of thing anyway. Oh, and queer was not homophobic there either, but you will notice that one can toss out such words with gay abandon; it's actually a bit of a fag avoiding any language with any connection to homosexuality - and if one were to try it would not be long before one disappeared in a puff of smoke. Now, on a serious note Hfarmer, please tell me that you've got the point by now and don't make me try to work in any more abuse of our fine language eh? So, I'd like to suggest that you have a quick read of WP:SPIDER and then do a *facepalm* because I think you're better than this; you seem to have become overheated but I hope you can calm down. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you do you think that would mke me clam down. Honestly? How about this. Why dont you write one about how I should not be offended by the slang use of the word nigga (as opposed to nigger) do it with as much gay abandon and I will calm down. What you wrote above just makes you look totally lame. Oh and by the by that "your better tahn this rise above it crapola is one of my all time biggest annoyances. Trust me I am not above anything. Including having my feelings hurt. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hfarmer, writing "Why dont you write one about how I should not be offended by the slang use of the word nigga..." also nudges the edge of personal attack. I understand what you are trying to say but nevertheless, JzG never brought up that word, you brought up that word and linking his username to it through your response could be taken as untowards by some editors. I find it very worrisome that you were blocked (by another admin) for personal attacks through word games like this and this and are now carrying on, trying to smear other editors with words and unsupported usages which only you have brought into the discussion. I know there is some likelihood you'll answer me with yet more weary sarcasm, but nonetheless, if you keep doing this, someone is going to block you for personal attacks, not assuming good faith and soapboxing. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope what I am about to say is not lost on you. Do you not see the point I was making what that. The word nigga is said and spelled differently and in current US slang it is used among friends affectionately by young black people. Or even by young white people who have very good black friends. While the word nigger is always pejorative. Much like what you said to me about bugger. If the same standards do not apply then that proves to any reasonable person that the disparate treatment I allege is infact real. (Read the article and it's sources. The word nigga in the slang I and most other black people use is NOT offensive,... just as the word bugger is to you.)--Hfarmer (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You really, really are reaching here. And you've shown a penchant for taking things as deeply personal insults where they were not (recalling a previous incident over calling your behavior "dramatic"). We're just recommending you relax and try not to assume the worst of every situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 08:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I show others here the treatment I am shown. I am not reaching in fact. She calims that the word bugger is just good ol english slang now. Never mind that websters dictionary defines it as being a synonym for sodomite. Which I have cited and linked to a dozen times. Because some other dictionary which does not have currency in the USA's version of english says it's harmless. Well in the USA the word nigga is considered harmless, yet people who are unfamilliar with it's use, as I was unfamillar with the word bugger act as if it is a big insult just to use it, not even in reference to anyone. In the USA it is a sort of unwritten rule a black person, like me, can use that word with "gay abandon". It is African American slang. Right now I feel that a double standard is being applied and I will not cool down until people get that through their heads. If bugger, a synonym for sodomite can be harmless then so is nigga. If nigga is harmful then so is bugger. If not then a double standard applies. Your emotional reaction is more valid than mine, my words are less worthy and in such a situation the treat of a ban is almost academic. It is far worse to be someplace where people are too high and mighty to actually listen to you. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your reference to the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for "bugger" holds little currency because it also contains a definition for "bugger all" which makes no reference to sodomy. - Mark 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But mark do you understand that i was not aware of that use of the word? That I only saw a word who to myself, and others that I have told about this in real life simply means sodomite. That perhaps it is a word that should be avaoided on an internaioanlly read place like wikipedia. Slang, any slang, is not appropriate here. "Bugger all" if it's Uk slang that does not make it better. Catch my drift? Compredi?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If one want's to talk about the slang meanings of words in US English, in particular African American Vernacular English the best source is the Urbain Dictionary "Nigga Please". Or how about it's definiton for nigga. Some of those community generated def's are cleary jokes, some are serious, if you read them you get the gist of the words status. Now to reiterate for the final time IF bugger is ok good olly ol English slang that does not mean what Websters says it does (sodomite) then so is this word. If it still offends you inspite of my informing you of it's slang meaning, then you know exactly how I feel. You should now understand why I felt as I did about bugger. If not, I don't know what to say. You are either incapeable of empathy or only reserve it for people fo your same culture and hue. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As a UK person, I confirm that "nigga" does not occur to me as an offensive word, since all words are context dependent (that is, dependent on the person using it), and you have made it clear that based on your particular culture/background, you would not be using this in a manner designed to cause offence. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh so you get what I meant and where I was going with this line of conversation. All I needed to hear was that I reached one person. My wikistress just went down two points. :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in fairness to the others, what I think I'm also suggesting is that you took offence rather quickly at the phrase "bugger all". Semantically, it wasn't referring to you, and in my dealings with people from around the internet, if I see phrases like that, which look odd (even possibly offensive to me), I tend to just open up a new tab/browser window and type it into Google to find out what it means. I'm sure this escalated way out of control in a needless way for everyone here: might I suggest to both sides a dose of assuming that noone is out to offend you and a nice cup of a nice drink stereotypically consumed in the UK? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Well it's early morning here that does not sound so bad.  :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I am putting the kettle on as I hit enter to save this edit.... Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia.

Freud was actually a psychiatrist, not a psychologist.— James Cantor (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops Thanks :-) I get those all confused sometimes.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure Kelley Winters is a psychologist?

On the webpage to her self-published collection of blog posts, Kelly Winters indicates that, professionally, she is a retired engineer, not a psychologist. (http://gendermadness.com/madauthor.html) (Note that she spells her name "Kelley", not "Kelly.")

On her self-description on GID Reform Advocates (the advocacy group she founded), she gives PhD as her credential, but does not say what field (http://www.transgender.org/gidr/). Similarly, http://www.gendermadness.com/ says PhD, but not in what.

The Colorado state Division of Registrations (https://www.doradls.state.co.us/alison.php) contains no entry for license to practice psychology for a "Kelley Winters."

I am posting this on your talk page because I think it is premature for going into it within our mediation; we don't even have opening statements from everyone yet.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I had just assumed that she was a psychologist. Just because she was an engineer at one point would not mean that she could not have gone back to school to get a PhD in psychology. I don't think that was an unreasonable assumption since, on her pages she's writing about psychology. There is also a counter argument, a valid one, which is the fact that she was able to coauthor a academic paper on an allied topic is what should matter more than an academic degree. Everyone makes mistakes. (An edit conflcit occurred.)--Hfarmer (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. On her blog here, she writes, "In the spring of 2003, I sat at a long table in the Grand Ballroom of the San Francisco Marriott with six men in suits and ties. The only woman, the only transperson, the only scholar not a M.D. or mental health professional, I felt like the emissary from the dark side of the moon" (emphasis added). So, she's apparently an engineer, not a psychologist.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes she says "not a mental health professional". :-? I suppose that is something to consider. But still she did publish something on the topic. Is that enough to make one an expert? IMHO, it makes them an expert only on what they published and very closely related topics. I.e. if she wrote in her paper about general GID reform and didn't say much if anything about Blanchard her book ought not be used in relation to Blanchard. If she did write in her paper about Blanchard then it should be used. That's MHO. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New subpage

The new subpage is here. :-) It's a bit long for the main page, and I'm not sure it's a key issue. You could call it a concept and that solves the dilemma, I think. But we can discuss it when we move into talking about the substantive content issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ED

Hi HF, I've removed your recent post about ED from Talk:Andrea James, as posting them on WP gives them wider coverage. Perhaps you could e-mail it to her if you think she doesn't already know about it? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ED... oh that ripp off encyclopedia. I just wanted her to know what people were saying there. I had nothing to do with any of that and think it is childish. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual "on hold"

Just a tip - {{GAReview}} and the on hold parameter of {{GA nominee}} are intended to be used only by the assessor of the article, not by the nominator. As such, it will appear to potential assessors that you are assessing Homosexual transsexual and so it won't gain any attention from them. --Malkinann (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I have seen it used by a nominator in a situation like this. Jokestress's is pointing out issues with the article which I did not notice until it was already nominated. So I placed it on hold to settle all of those accounts then I will take it off hold. The first time it was made a good article it kinda went like that. Thanks for the tip though. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, the queue at GAN is long enough so that issues can be quickly fixed before the article is assessed. Did you raise the possibility of renominating for GA status on the talk page before you nominated? As I learned in my own faux pas, it's a good idea to raise the possibility of GAN so that you can get regulars' opinions on the article before actually nominating it.--Malkinann (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yest I have raised the issue of nominating this for good article status many times. Check the Archive. I know Jokestress will object and say the article is not NPOV. But you have to consider the source for that. She read the sentence "Homosexual transsexual is a term used in sexology and psychology." As being biased, as if it said the word was widely used. Then suggested that we specify without a source to verify this that it is rarely used, in order to make it less POV. :-/ She has such an entrenched opinion that neutral wording looks slanted to her. Understand?--Hfarmer (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

homosexual transsexual

I've opened the official GA review of homosexual transsexual. I'm a very relaxed reviewer and my reviews can take lots of time, but I don't let bad articles pass and I don't like tricks. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I worked through Jokestress's criticism and altered the article structure. The first section is about the introduction of the term, the next about results of investigations with this classification and the last about criticism of the term. Jokestress seem very interested in the last section while I'll ask you to rewrite the introduction of the term mentioning who invented it and how it got popular. Afterwards you can write the next section about research results achieved with this classification. The lead is the last thing you have to worry about. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a message when you've finished editing. There are currently some content holes that will prevent GA. It must be clear by whom and when this term was coined based on what ideas and it must be made evident why it was adopted and who was influential in its spread. All research must be dated in order that the reader can assess whether this is an archaic term. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of credit for our readers. The intention is only to give a general picture, so you're totally free to not date everything. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with the current article structure and content or do you intend to make changes to it. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I worked on the style in the lead. You had two times senetences stating:"Researches say that homo..." Please tell me that there's no other way in the English language to express that. I would kindly ask you to work through the article and eliminate similar or identical sentence structures.

I don't understand the following statement in the lead: "are unlikely to take sexual pleasure in feminization" When you point out in the article that quite a lot of them are crossdressing. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm working with everybody and don't ignore any input. A second opinion has been requested for the GA. Let's wait and see. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You take the whole issue very personal. That there's possibly an aggressive selection of "representative" members doesn't change what an individual is, with or without represenatives. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hontas: Don't take Jokestress' bait. Anyone reading the discussion can see very clearly what is going on already. — James Cantor (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of hacking when I was younger, but exposing people like this is on a whole new scale. Well, you mustn't trust everything on the web. The interesting thing is that the revealers don't really reveal their own structure (that's the best aim for a counterattack and how they violate privacy) and who they are. That's an issue I nailed Jokestress on for reliability of her claims about the community. At least these revelations possitively support that transnet.us is an organization by some persons who want to be women and one of them even had surgery for that purpose. That makes transnet.us a reliable source for a small group. Intersex on the other hand can't be used as a reliable source because it mustn't be transsexuals who are posting there (leading to my doubts about that great lot of TS hackers or TS knowing hackers...). Wandalstouring (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am going in tomorrow for cosmetic surgery. Breast Augmentation. After this I anticipate great pain when moving my arms, like to use a computer. So I will be on at least a partial wikibreak. It depends on how bad the pain is,... and what effect the pain medication has on me. I will be back in no more than a week. Please bear with me.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

You are at perfect liberty to nominate again, but you should not have started the review page, that should be left to the reviewer. The comments there would have been better placed on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells is right, according to the quick fail criteria the article will fail every GA review because of the ongoing disputes. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse

Yes, I saw that Mattisse had started working on that article, and I deliberately ignored it. Mattisse is fragile, difficult, and unaware of the limits of her knowledge. I don't have the energy for it.

This might be one of the times when it all works out, but, candidly, I suggest that you consider the efficiency of letting Mattisse do whatever she wants, with the occasional formal protest on the talk page, and cleaning it up when she loses interest and moves on to the next target (probably in about a month or so). It will be less stressful for you, and cause fewer tears for Mattisse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Hfarmer. You have new messages at Mattisse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I answered you again on my talkpage. Basically, I am glad you feel as you do and am willing to try to help with copy editing etc. if you would like. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Inactive

I am going to be significantly less active on WP in the following days because I have just had oral surgery. It was not originally planned that way, but I am getting braces. When teeth are braced some are removed. These teeth were abnormally big, and the way the Dr. had to removed them basically became full blown oral surgery. It took three hours, and I have stiches in my gums. Did you hear me stiches in my effing gums. Suffice it to say I don't really give a damm about much but being zonked out on vicodin. I am just going to try and enjoy watching episodes of "House" on Hulu now...--Hfarmer (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Montagenumber2.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Montagenumber2.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Malkinann (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns

I'm also a bit concerned about your headshot image, which you say should only be used on your Wikipedia user page, with your permission, (these stipulations could also be understood to be under the speedy deleteable criterion F3) and File:IamnotainternetfakeroranyofthethingsIhavebeenaccusedof.jpg, which isn't named something short and pertinent to the image's contents. (not to mention its current name being rather WP:POINTy) You can delete these items yourself by using the speedy deletion criterion G7 - main author requests deletion. --Malkinann (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Androphilia and Gynephilia

Do you have any thoughts about an AfD for Androphilia and Gynephilia? The page is entirely unreferenced, except for a passing and non-specific mention to an encyclopedia, and does not contain any information of any value that is not already better covered in more logical places on WP.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Read

I think you should read this before you post any further messages about taking a wikibreak. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Exposé by intersexualite.org

Dear Hfarmer: I've come across this exposé [3], which raises some questions regarding your ability and/or bias in editing articles concerning LGBT issues. I was wondering if you are the same person as, and if so, if you have any comment on this. Cheers! 87.196.186.123 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That so called expose is merely the whining of people who, if they applied themselves, could come here to wikipedia and write about LGBT issues too. My response is that it is filled with half truth's. For example they talk of me being accused of plotting a school shooting, during the era of high paranoia, but they do not talk about that charge being dropped. They talk of me "wearing a burka covering my face to the TG day of rememberance last year, but they confuse that with a picture of me taken by a news crew at a community meeting several weeks earlier. They also fail to mention that those dates coincided with Muslim holy periods. One of the pictures is from a school board meeting, in which they confuse a regular shadow...from being lit from above, with 5 Oclock shadow. Etc etc. That whole page really comes down to one Curtis Hinkle being unable to handle that I called his number when he said that transgender children don't extist.... when plainly they do (i.e. Jazz as see on 20/20). No one in Chicago no one I know takes that seriously in the least.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I called Mr. Hinkel's number on this statement"Since as we have discussed, transsexualism cannot be identified in childhood, it’s abusive that this change of transsexualism in adulthood to GID of adulthood uses homosexual boys to pathologize adult transsexuals."[4]. I wrote this blog and called him out for what he said and he just can't handle that.[5] His statement is a capital FAIL in the face of video's like this [6] of the kid I told you about...Jazz. If that's not a transsexual child then who is?

As for my so called bias I have none. I don't think that psychology defines who a person is. The psychologist will have their terms and opinions and it is folley to attach self identity to this or that scientific finding. Science deals in experimental results which can conflict and the accepted facts can change. I just don't give enough of a damm about it to act in a biased way. So many TG people on this issue are so far on one side that actual neutrality looks like being on the other side to them.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least some of the facts are serious, not deniable, and are bound to influence your ability to edit. I am not suggesting that that might be actual case, but given the facts in the page, and if one were to believe most of them, the first thing I'd think would be that this person is a case of madness and not transsexuality. 87.196.179.113 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the page to make me look bad. It's not a "news report" or any such thing by any means. Heck, that page would not even satisfy Wikipedia's reliability criterion.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why havent you sued them? If anyone ever put up a webpage about me like that, and even if only part of it were false, for sure Id sue them into oblivion, as itd be some serious, legally sanctionable, defamation of character... --87.196.179.113 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My initial instict was to sue them. However by suing them I would be giving them more attention than they deserve. People who know me in Chicago, even in the TG community, have told me they read that website and think it's BS. No one I know has taken that non-sense seriously.

As for it's allegations of me being part of some kind of a conspiracy to doctor what WP says about blanchard and his ideas. That's false on the face of it. Because anyone at all can write on WP....but not anything anyone writes will stay on wikipedia. The rules and policies agreed upon by the wikipedia community and the wikimedia foundation are what dictate what must be here. Mainly that means it has to be neutral and verifiable above all else. Neutral and verifiable is not block quoteing what is essentialy an op-ed by this r that TG/TS commentator, for example. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, sueing them, wouldn't shut them up for good, restore your credibility, and give you some nice compensation money too? If we go by wiki standards, you haven't provided any verifiable sources to invalidate their claims, whereas they have, and some of them are pretty darn solid. The photo thing I saw there, besides honestly a bit creepy, also seemed to me like pretty atypical for a transsexual woman, and that among others. From the present appearances, looks like they're potencially more credible than you. Again, sueing them would stop making people believing that, no?... --87.196.167.236 (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. The laws on defamation, slander, and libel here in the USA are such that verifiable truth is a perfect defense. The fact that they have not in one case told the whole truth (regarding the accusations made against me 11 years ago) would likely not be libel. I could sue them for using my image, and copyrighted photographs of me. But to get money I would have to prove a financial harm.

My best defense is to have my own webpage up, to have my myspace, and my youtube, and my blog, and even my adult site out there showing the world first hand who I am and what I am about. So far noone who matters in my life here in Chicago has looked at that page as anything but a absurd joke, which is laughed at, not with. Damm what people else where in Australia or Spain , or portugal etc think. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rifqa Bary

FYI, Rifqa Bary has been re-created. See Talk:Rifqa Bary for justification. I am just a messenger, I am neutral in this matter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Copypasta

Hi, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views on Talk:Colorado balloon incident, but please don't copy and paste the same exact, duplicate content into different threads as you did here:[7][8] It's generally considered spamming. Instead, simply use a link to point to one or the other comments. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting your input

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I just saw your new photo for graduation. Kudos! — James Cantor (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou James. I thought I would be disappointed in myself for not having a PhD by now. I guess I had just had my head down in the books so long, slogging through. I didn't hit me that I was nearly done until I got the regalia. :-) I hope everything has been fine on your end.

Notice that for all the sound and furry noone who complained about the articles we worked on has done anything to change them. lol. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The one year pledge has been full filled

I have stayed away from the article Homosexual Transsexual for one calendar year as I pleged and no one has made any of the changes that so many TG bloggers thought they would want. We'll I'm back on the case. I want that article to be a good article. I want to have unbiased no bull articles on WP dealing with this issue. There are websites galore where the TG perspective can be found. Their are tons of articles where the BBL perspective can be found. I want this to have no perspective. I don't give a flying fuck who it pisses off because I won't kiss their ass. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Request some assistance on the Maclean article

Could you please give some assistance on the Norbert Basil MacLean III article. The article was stable for more than a year after your GA review. However, the same week a U.S. Congressional Report was issued concerning the Equal Justice for Our Military Act and placed on the Union Calendar of the U.S. House of Representative the article has come under scrutiny from another editor. I'd like to have some balance and this is why I'm asking you to give another look at the article. Thank you (Mattwashdc (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)) FYI the Congressional report (which also references MacLean) can be found at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:hr547.111.pdf

I'll take a look latter in the week. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hfarmer. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NickCT (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BBL Theory

By the way -- I just wanted to apologize to you for having such a strong response to your post (as well as WhatamIdoing's). I'd just spent the past week or so trying to get WhatamIdoing to understand that WP:V and WP:OR mean that it doesn't matter what you think of a researcher's research -- only whether it passed review -- and I kind of took that out on you. Personally, I'm not 100% onboard with all of Moser's equivalent questions (although I think most of them are fair, and it's important to note that Blanchard's standard was a "have you ever" standard -- Moser's most minimal category). But my view of Moser's questions doesn't matter, because that's not Wikipedia's policy. Anyway, I think Veale's data is also valuable in this regard. Have you had a chance to review that paper yet? It's not as absolutist as Moser 2009, although it still argues against BBL. They do another "equivalent questions" survey to test autogynephilia in women and compare it to M2Fs.

BTW, there's a really interesting thing Moser brings up in Moser 2010, if you've had a chance to read it yet -- "autoandrophobia". It's used as an alternative explanation to explain why so many M2Fs like the effects of androgen blockers while most paraphilics don't, and why most M2Fs seem to relish in things that reduce their "male-ness" without increasing their "female-ness". I'd be interested in seeing more research on that front. For example, from my experience with M2Fs, I would say that most pre-ops would gladly get an orchiectomy if offered to them and be very happy about it. That's really hard to explain from the premise of autogynephilia, but really easy to explain from a premise of autoandrophobia. Overall, I suspect that neither term really explains the whole gamut of motivations, and that the primary causes of transsexualism can vary significantly among different individuals -- but I think they're illuminating concepts nonetheless. Anyway, what I think doesn't matter; all that matters is what the research says.  :)

Anyway, to sum up -- I'm really looking forward to working with you on this, and just wanted to let you know that I probably was too harsh in my wording in my first reply to you. If so, I apologize.  :) -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with Dr. Mosers literature. I would strongly suggest that you register. It has privillages.

Request for mediation

HFarmer,

I am providing you with appropriate notification that I have sought outside input for our editing dispute here. I don't want you to be blindsided by it. I think it will help. Let's get through this and then get on with productive discussion on the articles in question. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your post on the conflict of interest noticeboard

Hello Hfarmer. I have removed the entire section you've added to WP:COIN. What you posted is a perfect textbook example of a violation of our WP:OUTING policy. It is strongly forbidden to track down a person's personal identity and reveal it on Wikipedia when they wish to remain private. In addition, because you are in a dispute with this person, it can be seen as an attempt to harass another editor and force them into silence. This behavior isn't tolerated and is routinely met with an indefinite block. I've chosen to give you an only warning in this case, but if you pursue this I won't hesitate to impose an indefinite block on your account. If the IP is being disruptive, comment on their actions, don't speculate and attempt to reveal their identity. We only work with self-disclosed information when dealing with conflicts of interest, so if and when the IP reveals their own identity or other affiliations on Wikipedia, that is when you can comment on such things. Until then, leave it alone. -- Atama頭 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me emphasise that, having just spent a large block of time on the Talk:Autogynephilia page going through the history removing your attempted outing there, I am in no mood to give you any leeway on this at all. If I had got to this page before Atama you would be blocked now. If there is even the slightest suspicion that you intend to this again, I will block you instantly and without warning. SpinningSpark 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mybestheadshotformyuserpage.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mybestheadshotformyuserpage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

to clarify per User_talk:Hfarmer#Image_concerns CC licensed images on Wikipedia cannot be for restricted use. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked.

I have blocked this account indefinitely because of egregious violations of our policies on outing and harassment. Please contact the Arbitration Committee directly if you wish to appeal this ban or need further information. — Coren ^(talk) 15:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• An attempt to respond to your email to the Committee has failed: the email address you wrote from does not appear to be valid. Please contact the Committee from a currently valid email address. — Coren ^(talk) 17:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

After our email exchange, I am unblocking your account under the following conditions:

• You refrain from posting any personal details of any editor on- or off-wiki; and
• You edit no article relating to autogynephilia, though you may contribute constructively on talk pages.

Please be careful to not edit in topics with which you are personally involved. — Coren ^(talk) 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I will not discuss other Wikipedians personal details anywhere else. No one who is editing wikipedia needs to worry about me saying anything about them off wiki. Further I will not edit the article on Autogynephilia. I will still contribute on the talk page and try to keep it from becoming a list of grievance and quotes from the paper of the month.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Koran/sexuality question

Hello, I wanted to ask you as a Wikipedian with the most background in these matters would you agree that the term/cultural category "mukhannathun" in modern day parlance would be best described as "effeminate gay men and androphilic transwomen" instead of the very broad "transgender women" which excludes male-identified mukhannathun (which there have been mentioned in Koran as far a s I understand) at the same time including "transsexual lesbians" to whom "mukhannathun" does not apply. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This sort of institution cannot be easily translated. In the modern western world a mukhannathun would have been considered either a very efeminate, most likely gay male or transgender woman (sexual orientation not withstanding).--Hfarmer (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

African American transsexuality listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect African American transsexuality. Since you had some involvement with the African American transsexuality redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)