User talk:Riverstones

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

Please leave a message for me. I will respond at this page.


Crossdressing template[edit]

When adding templates to pages, be sure to watch out for layout problems it may create. List of wartime crossdressers, for example, had a HUGE whitespace because of it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Much, much better - I hadn't even thought about a gallery, but in hindsight it's the perfect solution. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Turned out real purty, didn't it?  :) Riverstones (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup, although it would be interesting to see if there's any MtF crossdressers that could be included. J. Edgar Hoover, perhaps? :P 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Riverstone: your edit of the Autogynephilia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autogynephilia&action=historysubmit&diff=380407293&oldid=379296963
Revision as of 23:46, 22 August 2010 (edit) (undo)
Riverstones (talk | contribs)
(Remove sexual orientation template (seems less related), add crossdressing template)
I'm reverting your addition of the Crossdressing template to the Autogynephilia page... again. It would just confuse people who check out the page by leading them to believe that "autogynephilia" was some variety of crossdressing behavior.
I believe you don't really understand the nature and implications of the theory of "autogynephilia"; in fact, it's all about sexual orientation, and it only tangentially relates to cross-dressing. Here's Ray Blanchard, who originally developed the concept:
Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Aug;34(4):439-46.
Early history of the concept of autogynephilia.
Blanchard R.
Law and Mental Health Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health-College Street Site, 250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1R8, Canada. ::::Ray_Blanchard@camh.net
Abstract at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010466
"The definition of transvestism accepted by the end of the twentieth century, however, did not just fail to capture the wide range of erotically arousing cross-gender behaviors and fantasies in which women's garments per se play a small role or none at all; it actually directed attention away from them." [my italics] bonze blayk (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Methods of passing as female[edit]

Ambox notice.png

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Methods of passing as female. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Multiple articles. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Multiple articles - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected the article to Passing (gender), a previously existing article about the same subject. If you feel that there is information in your article that should be incorporated, please do so in that article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Riverstones. You have new messages at Talk:Methods of passing as female.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reversion of "Autogynephilia"/"Autogynephilia (paraphilia)" "disambiguation"[edit]

I've reverted your addition of a Disambiguation offering "Autogynephilia (paraphilia)" as an alternative to the BBL article. Please don't do this again; you should discuss changes you want to make to the recently merged, ultra-controversial BBL article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory; I've added a section for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blanchard,_Bailey,_and_Lawrence_theory#Reversion_of_Autogynephilia_.28paraphilia.29_.22disambiguation.22 to discuss precisely this point if you wish to continue editing on this topic in a collegial manner. Thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

==Your contributed article, Autogynephilia (paraphilia)==
Ambox notice.png

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Autogynephilia (paraphilia). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. bonze blayk (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Paraphilia dictdef articles and original research[edit]

You seem to have knack for creating stubs starting from an obscure scientific/sexology definition for a proposed paraphilia, which has been subjected to little if any scientific investigation besides passing mentions, to which you add your own original research on what the "afflicted" people do, and connect it with various other popular terms based on tenuous source like LiveJournal and so forth. Examples include [1], [2], [3]. Please don't do this; anyone reading a scientifically-titled article expects some minimal rigor, not some Wikipedian's musings about the topic.

If you can connect an obscure scientific definition to a well-known sexual activity, or to some other sexually-related popular term using reliable sources, then it's much more appropriate to redirect from the obscure scientific term to the other article and explain briefly that such-and-such term has been proposed by scientist/sexologists, but little else has been studied in the scientific/sexology community in relation to that issue. Also, there are over 500 proposed terms for various paraphilias, and as explained there, most of them have seen little or no scientific attention. Starting a stub on those that strike your fancy is not appropriate unless there's a significant, in-depth scientific literature about it. Padding the stub with tenuous material that wasn't written about that concept specifically is not a good substitute. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I... certainly don't consider such people "afflicted" with anything, provided that they are not harming others and are not personally distressed by their own leanings or behavior.
I'm very confused by your statement that the word autoandrophilia is a "typo" for autogynephilia. The prefixes "gyne-" and "andro-" are antonyms. Therefore, the terms "autogynephilia" and "autoandrophilia" therefore would refer to different meanings; one is not a "typo" of the other. (I'm also baffled as to why you would refer to this logic as "playing dumb", but I'm pretty sure that sort of rudeness is discouraged, here.)
It's clear that you and I have different editing styles. Due to the insults and denigrating ways you describe my edits, I am feeling attacked by you. I do not feel that I have said or done anything hostile to you. My edits are in an effort to try to increase Wikipedia's coverage of transgender-, crossdressing-, genderqueer-, and related topics. Editors are encouraged to work on articles on topics with which they are most familiar. I don't understand why you describe that in such a rude way: "starting a stub on those that strike your fancy". How about "starting an article on a topic which interests you and which you have some knowledge"?
Frankly, I feel ill-at-ease responding to your specific concerns, given the tone of your remarks. I would need some indication that you plan to respond without rudeness or snark before getting into any of it with you. Anything else would indicate to me that you don't care whether you burn the bridge with an editor who is in a rather small group of editors who have shown any interest in working on articles of these topics. I think these articles deserve better than that. Riverstones (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you seem to be on a campaign to get rid of the articles I have worked on. Autoandrophilia, Andromimetophilia, Gynemimetophilia. The way you're going about this seems needlessly caustic. Blanking and redirecting shows a disrespect for the efforts I have put in; you're basically throwing away the material. And suggesting articles for dicdef not only maximize the likelihood that the effort I have put in will be lost, but ensures that no article will grow in the place that I have planted (or watered) the seeds. Rather than throwing it all out (and insulting me, to boot!), it would be my hope that if you have a problem with the location of the material, that you would help identify what you consider to be better locations. Your approach is harmful. Please reconsider. Riverstones (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not a campaign against "your" articles. There are a bunch of paraphlia articles that have similar issues. I've tagged melolagnia as well, and you don't seem to have touched it. Previously, I redirected and covered sthenolagnia based on what reliable sources write about it, which is not much, just like for these other ones. I also moved cratolagnia to Wiktionary. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Andromimetophilia/Gynomimetophilia[edit]

If you do not like it that a entry is tagged because it is not much more than a dictionary definition, I suggest you expand the article to the point that it is actual a encyclopedic article, instead of removing the tag added properly because of the state of the article. Just removing the tag isn't going to make it encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)