User talk:Hfarmer/Archive 2

Autogynephilia (re-redirect)

Umm, okay. As I noted in the comment "no opinion on correctness of chging from redirect". I thought it interesting that User:216.89.21.28 had changed it to a sort of semi-disambiguation page. I kind of liked that, but then wasn't really reading their text for stance/correctness, either. They'd messed up the link, however, and I was fixing that part of their edit.

I'd thought momentarily that I should message one or two of the interested parties that User:216.89.21.28 had made this change, but didn't. I am surprised that as I look now I don't see you in the last 50 edits of Autogynephilia. Oh (!!!), you were User:Smartgirl62. That explains your reference to the amount of work you'd done. However, please do remember WP:OWN applies even after so much work.

Oh, and if you want to leave a similar (nicer?) message on User talk:216.89.21.28 that might be good.

P.S. You might want to go 'unfix' User:Spinfreeframer's chg to the lead of BBL theory. They could have just typed in the word and gotten to the article via your redirect. We're all still learning - spread the knowledge.

Shenme 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autogynephilia note vs. redirect (again)

Hi again. Another user changed/reverted the page back from the redirect to the "note then link" format. I've posted on their talk page and at the article's talk page asking for discussion first vs. simply changing to the note form.

I know you hoped this was settled. It is making me nervous that two new users recently popped up to make just this change. I'm hoping that a discussion can ensue rather than just people having to revert to the simpler 'normal' form of redirect. (No discussion means we end up having to revert to the redirect)

And I like the note plus link style, but as above I'm not willing to defend it just for liking it. (Do you know where I can find description of this idea? So far I've only found the rhetorical question "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" at WP:Redirect. (sigh - so much to learn)) Shenme 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a question at the help desk. If they can understand the question, maybe we'll find out some guidelines. Shenme 17:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your sources

If you wish to add non-BBL information to the article on transsexual sexuality, by all means do so. The BBL article requires that any additions be sourced with a citation. Jokestress 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Yes maam. --Hfarmer 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:BBLtheoryTMWWBQ.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BBLtheoryTMWWBQ.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just making sure...

You do realize what your "type" would be in BBL's two-type taxonomy, right? Ask your penpals at the "transkids" site if you are one of them. Tell them your age, occupation/major, and age at which you had SRS. Mention your detransition, and current legal name and sex, too. I don't think you'll be happy with their answer. Jokestress 01:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's no test-- Karen_A hates everyone (especially me). ;) And I am very relaxed. The "transkids" movement is Kiira Triea. No actual people who would be defined as such are out as "homosexual transsexuals," so it's pretty hard to consider anything on that site credible or reliable. Further, Triea exhibits many hallmarks of AGP: computer nerd, belligerent troll, into chicks, wannabe rocker. She oughtta just join Lipstick Conspiracy and get it over with...

PS: Labor Day through September is one of my favorite times in Chicago, so go have fun between classes! Jokestress 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha I thought so (about karen_A being rahter antisocial). But I have came across someone who fits the description of one of the transkids in another forum. One devoted solely to Generation x and Y transitioners. I dont know. I take things said on the internet as a whole as worth the weight of a flea anyway. Perhaps I will see you around town. :-) In particular if you are aroung UIC. --Hfarmer 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)edited--Hfarmer 05:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

License tagging for Image:Avatarwiki.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avatarwiki.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

Let me address a couple of your points. I have added references to the passage you cited. Eventually the whole thing will be closely sourced, but there's only so much I (we) can do each day. If you have specific concerns about POV, please raise the issues on the talk page for the respective article.

Regarding your comment that "This all seems to be geared to massage the ego of a certain audience," I am not interested in massaging any egos, but I am interested in putting everything in perspective. Like you, I have arbitrary distinctions I make regarding matters of trans identity. I believe a lot of people who claim they are transsexual are not, according to my definition. I too resent being lumped in with certain sorts of gender identity and expression that I consider distinct. However, I am not going to assert my own rights and authenticity at their expense. I am also going to do my best to keep my views out of articles here and present only what others say, per policy.

Many things you write on TS-ism come off as an attack on the young. I even recall your website on which you sell your matterials once said something like (below a picture of a young TS woman) "Passing, passing, passing, then she speaks." This was, I recall, once on the page where you sell your voice course matterials. Such may have been truthful but why do that? Why cast aspersions on such a person in such a public way?

I'd need to see what you are talking about to respond to this accusation. This sounds like something you've misremembered. Your interpretation that my writing is an "attack on the young" seems to stem from your investment in a binary in which you identify with "classical transsexualism," even though much of your self-reported history belies such an identity. Taking race as an analogy, there are Black people who are heavily invested in a light-skinned/dark-skinned binary, but in the end, they are really just participating in their own oppression with such distinctions. Same with gay/straight, early/late, primary/secondary, etc. What I have found over the years is that stuff like BBL appeals to certain groups of people, the largest of which are late-transitioning wannabes who identify as transsexual but probably would not be considered as such by most clinicians or most people in the community, and people in their 20s like you who strongly assert they are "true" or "classical" transsexual people but probably would not be considered as such by most clinicians or most people in the community. I understand the impulse to distance yourself from late-transitioning people who were married, had kids, are veterans, had ultra-masculine jobs, go to "gender conventions," are unable to assimilate, etc. Though I feel bad about it, I have the same impulse, since none of those things happened to me, either. Like you, I transitioned in my late 20s and finished everything around the time you will. Like you, I bought into a lot of this categorization at your age. However, the categories you endorse are designed to subordinate, not describe. In time there will be a paradigm shift in all of this, and these categories will be exposed for what they are: arbitrary distinctions that reflect clinician bias.

As I said before, you are doing a lot of good work here. I assume good faith in all your edits, and I expect you to do the same on mine. This is a very controversial subject and one in which we both have a lot of personal investment. You are getting much better about citing reliable sources, and I believe all of the articles in which you have been involved are slowly improving. One nice thing about Wikipedia is that it eliminates the anonymous kooks who often ruin other attempts at discussion. I respect and admire your efforts to provide free information to others through this project. I have spent my adult life doing just that, which is why I enjoy editing here, too. I am learning from you as I edit and think of ways to explain some of these issues, and I hope you are finding it rewarding as well. I tend to be pretty no-nonsense here just to spend more time editing, but don't misinterpret my laconic style as anger. Some people have spent a lot of time trying to paint me as some kind of folk demon, but that's pretty far from the truth, so don't believe the hype.

I look forward to continued work on these articles with you. Jokestress 17:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply on my talk page. It seems that both your religious views and your personality (as assessed by therapists) may contribute to your very demarcated binary thinking on trans-related identities and other matters. That's OK, of course. We all believe what we believe and experience the world from our own POV. I appreciate the time you took to explain some more of your background to me. As I said before, your work here is valuable and important. You asked why others don't get involved-- the oversimplified answer is that most people on the fringes making the loudest noises about this controversy have a difficult time cooperating with other people and reaching consensus. This kind of collaboration is far too frustrating for them. Some stop in for a while but quickly leave because they cannot play by the rules of civility required to contribute. One has to be of a certain mindset to keep cool while editing, especially when it requires working with people who hold different viewpoints. I'm glad you are able to stay positive and constructive, and look forward to more of your contributions. Jokestress 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal help

Thanks for your work here! As a Muslim transexual, I'm wondering if you could help out a transgendered Christian (me) with a personal issue regarding some of my interactions with Egyptian Muslims. I'd really appreciate it and haven't a clue who else to talk to. If you're willing, please email me at jbjjunk at gmail.com. It's pretty personal and not WP related, so I'd rather not discuss in "public." Salam alaikum --Ephilei 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I've expressed my concerns about that image at length. In summary: it is extremely tacky, and the use of the images is a blatant breach of copyright. If you want that article illustrated, the onus is on you to find a decent image that you can actually legally use. Rebecca 01:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, spare me the threats. I'm afraid that you simply do not understand fair use provisions. You cannot, absolutely cannot, take any image you like and claim fair use on the basis that you want to use it and it is for a non-profit site - especially for eight images. You may be able to get away with one or two legally, but even that is against Wikipedia's fair use policy, which discourages the use of fair use images except where there is absolutely no free alternative, even if this means that the article stays imageless. (This is why fair use images of celebrities in articles are slowly being removed by order of Jimmy Wales.) You can threaten me all you like, but this doesn't change the fact that you still can't use this image.

You've also done absolutely nothing to counter my objections about the choice of images being tacky and the final product looking lousy and unprofessional. If you want to get a particular thing done on Wikipedia, you need to attain consensus to make that change. You do not get to do so by making threats if you do not get your way. Furthermore, actually trying to carry out said threats will end up in you being promptly (and indefinitely) community banned for disrupting the project, so save your time and energy and either a) try to resolve this, or b) if you cannot handle that, find something else to do with your time. Rebecca 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca you are simply and unreasonable person using and abusing your position. You quite obviously do not want that article illustrated and simply will use your position to make sure that does not happen. Since you are going to be like that to hell with you. I will now go undreground. Vive la resistance! --Hfarmer 02:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the article being illustrated, as long as you find a freely licensed image, and preferably one that isn't also tacky. I explained above both why you cannot use the existing montage both legally and in terms of Wikipedia policy. It isn't personal, and if you can find such an image, I'm unlikely to object to it being added. Please be aware, however, that if you do decide to become abusive and disrupt the project, then you and any other accounts will be very promptly permanently banned. Rebecca 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca with no guideance and no suggestions for what would please you I cannot meet your demands. I would just be forever posting pictures and hoping that YOU like them. That is little more than a guessing game. What is tacky to one person looks good to others. So far you are the only person who finds that montage tacky. You also were the only one that found toe others sexual and creepy. Basically you are going by your emotional responses. I cannot reason with those. SO my emotional response since you are beyond fist reach is to simply get into a revert war with you. Since I am an expert in many fields and have contributed to many articles it would be the loss of the Wikipedia to frustrate me. People like you are the reason experts like me get frustrated with the wikipedia. --Hfarmer 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by getting a free use image, preferably one that is either in the public domain or licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license, or if worst comes to worst, one fair use image with a rock-solid usage claim. We can argue about aesthetics later. Please don't revert war with the current image, as for the reasons I've explained, we cannot use it on Wikipedia for copyright reasons, and it is likely to be deleted in the near future. Rebecca 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about I pick one single picture from one of the articles on a transsexual in the wikipedia? But then who. Which single picture would be representative of transsexualism? I have my own ideas. I would go with Buck Angel. That picture is already on the wikipedia and if it is ok to be used in his article then it sould be ok for the wikipedia. But am I willing to say that single image reflects all transsexuals? No not by a long shot. Or how about Miriam Rivera. Same problem. Many MtF TS's dont look remotely like her and many have not had any life expericnes like hers. How about Renee Richards, Same problem as with Miriam. I coudl go on like that.

My problem with what you say to this Rebeca is that there is no way one single picture any one single picture is ever going to represent transsexuals or transsexualism in a general way. It is too broad of a subject. It would take a gallery of pictures to achieve that. Which would not be very encyclopedic. Those are the very reasons why I think the pictue should be a montage.

Can you think of a better way to be fair to all the different angles of transsexualism? --Hfarmer 04:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, there's a couple of problems here. The first is that you can't make a legitimate fair use claim on the celebrity pictures; while we could probably make a legal fair use claim for the celebrity pictures in the articles on said celebrities, even that is now discouraged by Wikipedia policy, in the interests of promoting free-use images. If you want to talk about a montage, then you'll first need to get your hands on some free-use images, none of which existed in the current montage. Once you've done that, we can then talk about aesthetics. Rebecca 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca is right, in this instance. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Images licensed under fair use can be used to illustrate the subject in question when there is no free alternative. However, that license does not extend to use elsewhere and that includes being used in a montage like this. If they're GFDL or PD images or even Creative Commons, then well and good. But with this montage, this is not the case. Ultimately, that can lead to the image being speedy-deleted due to licensing issues. Free images, but not Fair Use ones - Alison ^✍ 05:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know what. Since it seems everybody is willing to be a critic and not offer up this one free image that will represent all transsexuals in the world I give up. I cannot think of any other way to do this which would make sense at all. --Hfarmer 11:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about your self portrait? Anomo 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image :-b

Answered on my talk page - Alison ^✍ 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Transiniran2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Transiniran2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Transiniran1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Transiniran1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of transsexualism

The sources are not the strongest. I would recommend using published sources rather than web links. I do like the female-to-male aspect getting good coverage, but it seems your time would be better spent adding to the existing article versus starting a new one from scratch. Jokestress 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hijiraatmuslimshrine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hijiraatmuslimshrine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam

I corresponded with Allanah and spoke directly by phone with Nikki (the original poster) yesterday. Awaiting independent confirmation by press/police. In the meantime, we can't put it in the article until there is a reliable source. Jokestress 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires sourced information for many important reasons. For instance, last week someone doing what you are doing added unsourced information that the actor Sinbad had died. If they had cited a source per policy, that would not have happened. This is a very clear policy, and this article needs to adhere to that. Jokestress 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I spoke with Nicole, nothing has been confirmed independently. No police report, no press coverage, no independent confirmation. I personally put her in touch with numerous New York resources by contacting them myself (AVP, NYAGRA, SRLP), but no one has been able to confirm any of it independently so any public announcement can be made. Nicole has been made aware of ways to get this story confirmed independently. I have done all I can from the west coast, but it's up to Nicole to follow through. I can't say whether it's true or false based on the information I have.

Now, as far as Wikipedia. That requires an even higher level of confirmation. The rules are very simple and clear. Unsourced photos get removed because of copyright problems. This has been explained to you many times above. And I still don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. The policies are not flexible. No information is better than wrong information, so if you do not have a published source for something, it should not be in the article. For instance, there were unsourced claims about her old name, yet she has stated in sourced articles that she refuses to reveal her old name. That kind of unsourced material had to go. If you have other articles like the Swain piece, that is excellent. We can cite those and add any new information. Otherwise, the article needs to reflect only sourced information per the policies I have already mentioned. If nothing else is ever written about her, we can only go with what we have. Those rules are all in place for very important reasons. Guessing about her age, old name, etc. undermine the entire project. We can only share what has already been published. If she writes a book, we can use it. If she does an interview, we can use it. Otherwise, it is likely in violation of Wikipedia policies. I hope this is clear, and if you have questions or concerns about the implementation of the policies, I can get some other editors involved. Thanks for your work on this, and let me know if you have any other published articles. Jokestress 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preresponse to the roughly 26 random administrators I have contacted.

If you are bothering to read this then I thank you for having clicked. I called on you all at random because by that means I can be sure that you are 100% neutral with respect to the subject matter at hand. I asked as many of you as I did because I needed to be sure that at least some of you would not be replused by the choices of the people involved. The subject of the biographical article in question is a transsexual and it is not a state secret that basically everyone involved in this dispute is a transsexual. If that offends you then please just leave us be. We are all well aware of the problems that some people have with us. That said all I ask is that you visit the talk page of the article Miriam Rivera. Take in the whole situation in particular the history of the article and the links and photos that were attached to it. --Hfarmer 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okaaay. You seem to be suggesting that I'm transsexual. Is this correct? What on earth would this have to do with my now four comments on the talk page??? - Alison^☺ 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned nothing. However the other administrators I am asking about this (at random to ensure neutrality) may potentailly have a problem with it. Also it raisses a potential conflcit of interest on the part of well you, longhair, jokestress, and perhaps myself. --Hfarmer 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. If other admins are now involved, my job is done. See my comment on the talk page. However, I kinda recommend you slow down petitioning so many admins. It kinda looks spammy. Just let a few of them get here and begin mediating - Alison^☺ 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine you and longhair both are clearly not neutral actors anyway. You have acted to gut what was once a pretty darn good article about a person who is typical of a segment of the population that does not get much coverage anywhere. Do you realize that I once had to use this page to convince a a thread worth of people on a message board that Miriam was real and that people like her actually exist (and are not just created with photoshop). :-? Come on. --Hfarmer 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "gutted" that article, considering I have never once edited it, nor commented on your pics (currently under licensing review). Nothing to do with me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal soapbox. Please step back for a minute and consider what you're doing and saying here. Frankly, you're overreacting. Ok - I'm done - Alison^☺ 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just agree with it's gutting and refuse to consider the new sources I found. Our conversation was in short.. Ok the old sources were not good enough they were a blog or whatever. here are more sources that are not blogs they are entertainment trade websites (such as IMDB), or her personal website (an archive thereof valid for a persons bio), or refrences to a reality TV show she was in (that can be checked by anyone via you tube...though there could be copyright problems with that.. I know of no other way to source that to something anyone could look up and check as of now). Basically you could not be reasoned with. Gave the impression that anything but a newspaper article (or other mainstreams source) would be considered unreliable.--Hfarmer 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that I do not expect any of you to "resolve" this conflict. All I seek is a truly neutral opinioin. I am taking this action before pressing for more drastic measures. --Hfarmer 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? What could be more drastic than requesting full protection [1] and petitioning 26 admins?? - Alison^☺ 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably also retract the comment that I am edit warring, considering that I've ... ummm .... never edited the article in question? - Alison^☺ 04:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for arbitration would be more severe. Your role in the edit war has been to give cover to deletion of content that I have tried my best, and succeded in resorucing to reliable webpages i.e. webpages that deal with the trades that Miriam is in or was is, Vogueing, Modeling, and a specifi niche market of entertainment. Just because words that you may find objectionable like "shemale" or t-girl appear does not make them invalid sources. --Hfarmer 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help Resolving a conflict

WP:RFC is likely to be helpful here, as is WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM. Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Same request, I think, so responding here also) I cannot see in what way the three editors have acted in any way differently or any more or less fairly as regards the article, and while I will investigate more closely tomorrow and in the next few days, do not believe it is likely that anything untoward is going on. Thank you for asking, however, Hfarmer. Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Have all of the individuals involved in this 'edit war' read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? I ask only because there are some rather specific guidelines on how to deal with bios on living persons. Normally I don't do a lot of bio articles, so I'm not an expert in this area. I'm assuming that the image deletions are not an issue. I'll try watching the article for a while and see what happens. I will note, that the first thing I did was to read the article. In my personal opinion, the article, as it is written, needs a good rewrite to pull it together better. Vegaswikian 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hfarmer, I hope I can be of some help since you requested it and I apologize for this long post and reiterating what you may have heard several times already. This seems like a very complicated debate but after stitching together several talk page edits on Talk:Miriam Rivera, personal exchanges between all the users and yourself, and browsing through the edit history of Miriam Rivera draws some conclusions. The biggest issue is the stern policies set forth relating to biographies of a living person. It is my firm belief that you, Alison, Jokestress, and Longhair are all remaining neutral on the matter. Alison argues a valid point that WP:BLP is rarely an area where IAR can step in. Biographical articles on Wikipedia are often liable to the scrutiny of their lack of verifiability and their reliance on problematic and inaccurate sources.

In this case however, there is a lack of the necessary published sources to provide better links to the info presented in the article. What you have found may be the only strong source of info to rely on. It has been the fault of the journalism entities and the media for not covering her life or gaining the details as accurately as they should. This forces information sources like Wikipedia to turn to the alternatives which you have found or avoid them all together. In the end, the latter is chosen and Wikipedia does not risk using an unpublished source even if it is the last source. Better to have an article with not enough information than an article with too much incorrect information. I commend your effort to find neutral stances on this issue but there are a few things which I believe you could have done better.

Your intention to avoid more serious measures were very noble but if you are convinced that this issue is serious enough to petition 10+ admins then more public forums are the smarter option. Chances are 10+ would answer to such a petition on places like WP:RFC, WP:AN/I, and WP:MEDCAB/WP:MEDCOM. Also, claiming that Alison or the others did not remain neutral on the matter seems a tad too far. They were merely firm on their position on the strength of the section referring to reliable sources on the BLP page (WP:BLP#Reliable sources) and the section referring to using the subject as a source (WP:BLP#Using the subject as a source); just as you are firm on your position that her personal website could possibly be one of the most best likely alternatives to use as a source. It does not exactly help this debate that you would refer to Alison as "out of [her] league...out of [her] area of experience." At the moment all the editors/people involved in this discussion are in the same boat. No matter what walk-of-life any of you are coming from, none are in any area of experience to determine what sources/information is verifiable and what is not. It also did not help that Alison claimed you to be soapboxing, which would be an error on her part. In the end, I do not think any of you did anything drastically wrong. You are all basically frustrated that accurate information is hard to obtain on the subject of this article at the moment.

I really wish you all the best in the future of editing/discussing how to improve the Miriam Rivera article. Hopefully the issue will not have to go to far in the dispute resolution process.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hfarmer, and I'm sorry I haven't responded to your query until now, but I have been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks, and have just recently returned. It looks like you are on the right path to resolution in this conflict. Sorry I couldn't be of help, but I hope what Persian Poet Gal said has helped you. I'm not sure how I can help at this stage, but if you do think of something, please leave me a note at my talk page, and I'll see what I can do. Good luck, and have a great day! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IQ

umm, 148??? 206.248.168.241 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the numbers I have gotten from various IQ test. The highest was 165 (administered in 6th grade) the lowest was about 130(online test). I know that one looks like flagrant bragging but it is accurate. I mean... Look at all my interest and academic pursuits. --Hfarmer 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam article

OK, I believe this is about as good as we can get it until we have more reliable sources avalable. Sorry the images and a lot of info had to go, but so much of it was improperly sourced. Perhaps down the road you can get some permissions for images. Let me know if you find a reliable source regarding the recent attack reports, and I will watch as well.

My main reason for sending a final note on this was your recent comment, "To be honest it seems as if Jokestress has problems with using hungangels as a source." That is absolutely correct. It's been widely established on Wikipedia that sex and porn sites (all of them, even big ones like Luke Ford, not just trans ones) are not reliable sources. They are in the business of selling fantasy. Further, even Allanah, owner of HA, will tell you that the version of Miriam's life out there is full of misinformation and lies, to the point it makes Allanah laugh. I have known many people who do this kind of work, and it's not uncommon for them to make up all kinds of things, especially when they want money or attention. And I know that you have strong feelings for Miriam, but people I know who know her personally say she has a very shady reputation. It appears most of that is getting censored off the HA site, which is their right, but it doesn't give the full story. I have no problem with porn and sex work and know people involved in both, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, sex and porn sites are just not reliable biographical information.

I know this process has been frustrating for you, but on these kinds of articles, this has to be done. They tend to be worked on by people who have an erotic fixation on the article's subject, which makes it difficult for them to be objective about content. They become more like fan pages than encyclopedia articles. As I said, if you want to set up an offsite worship page about her, like the old miriamssecret.com fan page, you can add anything you want there. I appreciate your questioning every change I made, since that process always leads to carefully sourced Wikipedia articles. Jokestress 17:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continually assert on Wikipedia that you have more street cred than other editors here regarding trans stuff, but many editors here are very well-versed on community matters. I was involved in all this when you were still in middle school. I was playing pool at El Gato (which was around the corner from my place) since the days they still frisked you at the door. I was going to Berlin when it was just a long narrow bar and then had a board game themed decor. Let's not play the name drop game. People here are not as clueless as you seem to think, and you don't have the market cornered any specific aspect of the community (nor do I). If you don't see why many inside and outside the community have a problem with Miriam's reality show, maybe you should step back and think about why for a second. Her appearances undermined the efforts of a lot of hard-working activists.

Now, regarding your other comment- Wikipedia is not the place to right great injustices. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, as mentioned a whole bunch of times. If you feel Izza Lopez warrants an article, then write it using reliable published sources. Plenty of important trans people have no Wikipedia articles, including far more important legal cases than the Stanton case (like Karen Ulane). If anything, trans porn stars and entertainers and contemporary incidents are overrepresented in Wikipedia, when people like Kim Iwamoto, Professor Marie-Pier Ysser and Sally Mursi don't have articles. I focus on entertainment and media articles myself because that's my field, and wherever possible I do work to counter systemic bias in Wikipedia. I encourage you to do the same, and if you ever want me to look something over, let me know. Nobody here is out to sabotage you or the articles you work on, but they need to align with policy. Rather than accusing other editors of this or that, you will find it far more enjoyable and productive to work starting from a place of respect, rather than the appeal to authority tack you often take. You have a lot to offer the project, and I hope our work together on this article has clarified why Wikipedia has certain policies. It's nothing personal, and taking it as such is just going to stress you out. Jokestress 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is not to start a personal "feud" in this case. In your place, I would politely ask Joketress to clarify what she means exactly by what she said (I would focus on the particular words as you did in my talk page), and I would underscore to her what WP policies say: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Nevertheless, reading her comments, I don't think that she has an offensive tone and I do not discern a clear intention to offend you; hence, I do not think that what she says qualifies as PA; she neither revealed any personal information about you. Her comment, however, could be regarded as disparaging depending on how one explains her words. I repeat that the easiest thing is to ask for clarifications, to underscore that you took her comment as disparaging, and to tell her that, even without our intention, sometimes we tell things that annoy others. And that sometimes an apology works even if we still believe that we did nothing wrong.
I believe that until now there is no room or ground in this (often intense indeed) dialogue between the two of you for administrative action. Nevertheless, If you disagree with me, you can post a comment in WP:ANI, exposing your arguments. You can also read carefully WP:RfC and the alternitives it offers, as well as WP:TINMC, where informal mediations are offered. In any case, you should both of you have in mind what I said above: try to focus on the article and not on the editors of the article! Cheers!--Yannismarou 13:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, apparently you have chosen to ignore the sage advice imparted by Yannismarou above. Activists had no problem with Nadia, but had huge problems with Miriam, as cited in the article. Nadia and Miriam had opposite effects. You can read the PFC complaints about TSAM and coverage, and their praise for Big Brother if you don't believe me. Most activists believe the GRA passed in spite of TSAM, not because of it. If you have citations to claim that people thought TSAM helped GRA pass or improved public perceptions, feel free to add them to the article.

If you wish to discuss Wikipedia article content, citations, and other Wikipedia-specific stuff, I will respond, but I am no longer going to respond to your attempts to feud with me about trans politics. Your idiosyncratic worldview and debating style make this back-and-forth a huge waste of my time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not have usenet-style arguments with you. I hope you can focus your energies on the project from here out. Jokestress 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not from PFC.
That doesn't appear to be a reliable published source.

Please make future comments on the appropriate article talk pages so others can respond. Jokestress 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Stymphalus

Hi I created an article about a lake in Greece called Lake Stymphalus. Would you mind looking at it and cleaning it or editing it? Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Stymphalus. Thanks! Neptunekh 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptain Jasper and Greek Agate

Hi! I created too small articles called Egyptian Jasper and Greek Agate. Here are the links to those page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_jasper Would you mind looking at them and cleaning or editing them. Thanks!

Andalusia

Arabic is not an official language. The presence of a significant North African migrant community does not change this fact (and Bosnian Muslims do not speak Arabic but Serbo-Croat as native language, by the way). Regards, --Asterion^talk 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT

Hey dude! I just wanted to say that I'm a straight man and I totally support the LGBT movement.
Keep going! Northern 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Too essayish

Here's my reasoning as to why the current version of Mukhannathun is too essayish. Maybe the "essay" tag was not the best choice, as I know it's not a personal reflection. My point was that it reads more like a school paper or such than like a Wikipedia article. Especially in the "Gender/Sexuality" section, there are large block quotes and rhetorical questions. The style just needs to be altered a bit, that's all. Thanks for your contributions to expanding the article, by the way. --Alynna 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBL Controversey

Hi there. I deleted the article above and moved it to BBL controversy as the spelling was incorrect and WP:MOS says to watch for capitalisation. I fixed the broken links already and will copyedit it for you in a little while. Just letting you know! - Alison ☺ 22:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a bit. There may be POV issues with it, as it seems a little unbalanced. There may also be questions re. WP:OR, but to be honest, I'm not familiar enough with the niche psychology of this subject to determine. I know who JMB is, all right! - Alison ☺ 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Agate

Ok I created and rewrote the Greek Agate article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate Can you please look at it and edit it? I change alot of the words. Thanks! Neptunekh 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Youngkhusra.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Youngkhusra.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autogynephilia

Hfarmer, your recent revert-the-anon action in autogynephilia took out rather more than just the anon's edits. For example, we're back to an inaccurate quote of Wyndzen's complaints, a broken link in a ref, and no mention of the fact that Dreger works at the same university as Bailey. Would you like to take a crack at repairing the problems you inadvertantly reintroduced? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Transman1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Transman1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual transsexual talk page

I've redacted some of your comments to remove what I view as baiting language and disclosing information about another editor. If someone chooses to self-disclose elsewhere that is their business and we should extend all users that same respect. If they cross a line we need to remain civil and deal with it appropriately. Benji boi 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress talk comment

I found this to be quite problematic. If intended as humor please note that many may not get the joke. If intended as something else please consider that wikipedia's WP:CIVILity policies are pretty clear and we all need to work at staying cool even when we disagree. Benji boi 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informing myself that I want something delted

Image:Iamnota45yearoldinvestmentbankernamedjamesmeadoraninternetfaker.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Iamnota45yearoldinvestmentbankernamedjamesmeadoraninternetfaker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hfarmer (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted

Hfarmer, I really don't need to tell you what's wrong with the name of this image nor this one , now both deleted. This is nothing less than a blatant personal attack on another editor. Please don't do that again. I've already deleted it - Alison ^❤ 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hfarmer, would you consider doing a favor for me? I haven't figured out how to upload images, and I'd like Image:Solar_tea_kettle.JPG to be cropped. It's a simple crop, just to lose the empty foreground, and maybe a similar amount of the empty space on the right. The image is linked at solar cooker, and as you can see, the actual relevant bit (the tea kettle on the solar cooker) is off on one side and isn't very prominent. There's no rush, and if you don't want to deal with it, that's fine -- I just thought I'd ask because you were the one editor that I knew could do this! Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry to hear that you haven't been feeling well. Yes, I'd still like the image cropped, if it's not difficult, but there's no rush. If it doesn't happen this month, then there's always next month. :-) I just thought if the picture centered on the solar device, instead of the (pots of beans?), then it might be better for the article. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed GA pass

I've noticed that you have not finished the correct procedure to pass Orion (spacecraft). I'd be happy to complete it for you... -MBK₀₀₄ 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll help you fix any problems, and also remember to use {{ArticleHistory}} since it is already established on the talk page of the particular article. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a few things that were not completed correctly, and in the interests of expediting the fix since the article is listed on WP:GA, I have implemented them, sorry if you were still reading the procedures. They are (for future reference): updating the GA count template, and implementing the article history template notation. I apologize for going ahead and doing this since this was your first GA review, but as I have stated, I did this in the interests of keeping the GA's talk page up to specs with regards to others so there isn't the chance for a bold delist. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cutie

Hi im a man in illinois i just wanted to tell you you look pretty in your picture and i hope we can get in touch sometime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughingman78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hi I have reviewed your article. You might wise to see the relevant talk page. Yours Realist2 (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to visit the relevant talk page again. Best of luck. Realist2 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem its a very good article, if you pass through me you know its good. :-) Realist2 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Avatarwiki.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Avatarwiki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+Rollbacker

Done per your request for the tool. Please read WP:ROLLBACK and apply what it says - feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSM Article and transgender

Court case. A TG individual was deferred for donating blood. They objected and went to court. The court found that they could not defer the individual for being MSM because they were TG. They provide a M and an F box, and I would mark the F mark. Grats. They complain? I point out that my medical records declare me as female, and they cannot call me a "man" for the purposes of statistics. Your source states that TG were specifically not MSM, but were "lumped in" just 'cause. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine... I'm talking to the CDC directly. You want to get all over this "TG women are MSM" and you're wrong, and I'll prove it by speaking with the CDC. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen this?

You seem to be interested in her. Look at video of "Silvia": http://www.ablongman.com/html/videoworkshop/disciplines/human_sexuality.html ProudAGP (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSM sandbox example

/sandbox

RE: MSM article

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
You have been spotted climbing the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man. At least one editor has reported this behavior as being in relation to a content dispute. As clearly stated in WP:NCR, you may not climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man in order to campaign over a content dispute. This is your last warning. If you climb any further up, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not erase this warning. Doing so is considered vandalism.

There is a content dispute, or if you will a POV controversy, not a conflict of interest, unless it is to promote a product or service. So calm down please. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Puellanivis#Block

Thank you for the alert. Please do not abuse the courtesy. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with other admins, as well as your note on my talk page, I unblocked her and gave her a warning, as noted on her talk page. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSM

Agreed

Every single source I have and Puellanivis has referred to has said that TG/TS women are considered MSM or "along side" MSM. The much vaunted CDC source made it sound even less ambigous. Her very own source backed me! That TG/TS women are for the CDC's and any other medical purpose biologically male, that the MSM category does not take into account any aspec of identity. Which would include gender identity. Case closed.

The rest of this has just been about Puella and her personal feelings. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my source states that gender identity is not tracked at all, so the assumption on their part is that everyone is reported as they "biological" sex. However, again, if a TS/TG were reported as female, since no gender identity information would be collected there would be no indication of which were which. Literally TS/TG information is entirely intermingled, in some indeterminable amount. The ambiguity of not collecting TS/TG information means that there is simply a blanket assumption about how the information is received from the CDC... the true answer is, because of the ambiguity no one knows how they're split up... the data is intermingled, and there is no way to separate the information. Again, the answer from the CDC and from your sources is that the assumption is that MTF TS/TG are reported as MSM, and FTM are just pretty much ignored... N.B. assumption... since gender identity information isn't collected no one can say what it is. Again, being that my medical records indicate me as female, and I continue to be asked "are you pregnant?" when getting x-rays indicates that I would not be reported as a male to the CDC. Without collecting gender identity information, no one can with certainty that all TS/TG are recorded as MSM. The answer is "it's inconsistent and no one knows", not "haha I'm right, you're wrong, TS/TG are always MSM". --Puellanivis (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "haha". The sources support me and that's that. Many uninterested editors have came to the same conclusion. Why do you have to take all of this so personally.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm fed up with your especially bizarre POV pushing - you don't even line up with any interest group I've ever heard of, but are rather just your own special brand of weird. I expect you may well, for once be right about this - but just slapping it with a disputed tag is in itself pretty POV. How about just finding the links yourself, as you were so rabidly keen to do with MSM? Rebecca (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit on Rebecca's talk: "Just find me one source that includes all transwomen (including those who have sex with men since that qualification isn't even in there) as being WSW." *ahem* The WSW article part in question states: "The term includes any woman who has sex with women including transwomen regardless of operative status." The requirement is set up immediately to state that the woman (trans or not) must have sex with women in order to qualify. You're hyper, and you insist on a viewpoint that is an exaggeration of available sources in the direction of your own unique viewpoint. If I could ask you to please settle down, take a viewpoint justified by sources (not just vaguely pointed at) and argue as a non-zealot... then your edits would be much more appreciated. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals on Template talk:Sexual orientation

Hi, you've contributed to past discussions on the Template talk:Sexual orientation page and we are now in the process of noting which of several proposals might help resolve some current content disputes. Your opinion to offer Support, Oppose, and Comment could help us see if there is consensus to approve any of these proposals. It's been suggested to only offer a Support on the one proposal you most favor but it's obviously to each editor's discretion to decide what works for them. Banjeboi 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you

Thanks for the barnstar; that's very kind of you.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on MSM

Hey,

You might want to take a look at Talk:Men_who_have_sex_with_men#Anal_sex_and_MSM_.28Josh.27s_blanked_section.29 - it's about JoshuaJohnson's section you took out - a discussion on whether it should be put back in, and with what.

Darimoma (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender vs Transsexual

You made a kind of huge edit out of the blue to the Transgender page. I put a lot of it back and started a discussion on the talk page. I wanted to let you know because you're obviously an interested party with something to say :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.176 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same talk page, again. I haven't changed the text of the actual page because I want to hash things out and coordinate with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.176 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Never try to push an editor to disclose a real life identity. People have been banned for trying to do that. Every editor has a right to anonymity, and to not be harassed about it. It does not matter how obvious it may be to people who may know them in real life, & it doesn't even matter if they may have been trying to do it to others. . DGG (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not see it as a "push" though. I simply asked why?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RS/N entry

For the record, I think that that might have been a touch premature, but I do have to say how much I like your chutzpah. Kudo's to you.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had to make a move. Anything specific the question does not address can be put into the RS/N entry. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual transsexual

Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous - it just has to be a compromise in the best interests of the article and the readers. I wouldn't be too worried about the reading grades - I plugged in homosexuality, lesbian and transsexual and they're all way off the scale, so perhaps the tests don't function well for LGBT sexology articles? I'm a bit concerned about how many different processes you've got going on the article atm - it could be construed to be a form of canvassing. --Malkinann (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like everyone who writes this article is very emotionally involved in the article - check out WP:TIGER and WP:ENEMY. They might be useful philosophies to put into practice in the article. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept itself, as I'm sure you can tell from my questions. We are getting there!!! --Malkinann (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Muslimhijra mukhannathun.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Muslimhijra mukhannathun.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Jokestress (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab request.

I have took you medcad request.Hereford 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i responded on the medcab request.Hereford 00:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i replied to you on your request.Hereford 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Whatihaveinmind.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Whatihaveinmind.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this collage contains a screenshot from a TV program http://www.geocities.com/leylasuhagi/hijradef.html and so cannot be licensed under the GFDL.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Whatihaveinmind.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well I thought that had been deleted a long time ago. Thanks. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really easy to see your image contributions by changing which namespace you view your contributions in - here's mine. If you have a look at yours, you'll be able to see which images you've uploaded and can tag them with {{db-author}} if you don't want them on WP any more. --Malkinann (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks for the tip. I didn't know I could do that. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AJ? on the homosexual transsexual talk page

Hfarmer, I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but I am trying to ignore the sniping that's going on in the homosexual transsexual article, and reminding people to refocus on improving the article. Please read more carefully when responding to others' comments. You have hurt Alice's feelings, as she did not know that AJ referred to Jokestress. Alice is exactly the sort of person that you want coming to the article and asking about it, as she is new to the topic and so can help you to clarify issues with the article. --Malkinann (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. I read peoples comments and get the jist of them. If I did not I could spend hours per day reading the comments on some of these articles. I assume that other people do the same. (That is why I use various kinds of emphasis to make certain text stand out.) see. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am bringing it up is to gently express my concerns, away from the main talk page. Although you may read the comments for hours a day, it does not appear that you put much thought into how you come off in your own comments. Wikipedia is a voluntary project - promoting the spirit of WikiLove can help keep people happily contributing. While I can understand that you may have become momentarily confused to confirm that Alice was the AJ you were referring to, implying that AJ is as famous as JFK was inappropriate, and may come off as callous, or implying that Alice is ignorant, when she is just new and got confused. We've all got a belly-button, after all. --Malkinann (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wans't implying that AJ is as world famous and historic as JFK. I was simply implying that it's perposterous for Alice J Markam to think I was using her initials. Clearly one person on that talk page has a real, legal, name which has those initials, has been involved with making TV shows and movies. The other is a fantasy name (look at AliceJMarkahams user page to see that). It was utterly unthinkable to my mind that anyone else in that room but jokestress could think that was a reference to her. Also note that None of what I wrote about her was a attack. She is a vocal critic of Blanchard's theory. It seems she can only see this term and pehnomena in terms of that theory of which she is very critical. She has taken to personally attacking me with things that could be called unsubstanitated enuendo, lible and slander. I have merely mentioned facts about AJ that are on one or more of her own websites.

I have been spreading wikilove. By not taking this internet BS seriously and suing her in the circuit court of cook county. People have done that over far less. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing when two people share the same initials or first name, even when one name is a person's legal name, and one name is an internet handle. Alice did not know that AJ referred to Jokestress, even though it was clear to you. It was even less clear to her when you responded to Alice as if she was Jokestress. I do not fully understand what's gone on between you and Jokestress, but it should not spill over into hurting Alice's feelings, and it should not get in the way of improving the article. I have made a suggestion in the bit where we are discussing the lead paragraph, and I would really appreciate your comments on it. Thank you. :) --Malkinann (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

Thanks :) You've done good in being able to answer my questions about the topic. I'm honestly not as passionate about the article as either you or Jokestress, but hopefully I'll be able to continue to provide input into the article. --Malkinann (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DCEETA

thanks for the observation, it's quite an edit war ain't it? Dogue (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in worse.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding notification of deletion discussion entry for Template:BBL sidebar

TfD nomination of Template:BBL sidebar

Template:BBL sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

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

Peer reviews

Thanks for your comments at peer review, here are a few things to please keep in mind for future reference. Please use level four headers ====Like this==== for your comments in peer reviews. You also mentioned in several places that you would not nominate the article at FAC or FLC - do you know that at FAC at least you have to be a major editor to the article to nominate it? Finally most of your comments seem to be more Assessment (this is A level, etc.) than actual peer reviews. Please read some other peer reviews with comments for ideas on things to comment on. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't help it if those articles had no major flaws and were basically 90%+ compliant with FAC criteria if no 100% of the way there IMO. Where there were flaws I told them. What those were. --Hfarmer (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the point of peer review is to point out specific examples from the 10% that does not meet the criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Reubens/archive1 or Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama too, Ruhrfisch User talk:Ruhrfisch 10:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on that articles FA page. I know what the point of peer review is. I found no problems that I thought were significant for the type of review I was doing. Looking at the FA criteria they all seemed to nearly meet if not fully meet those criteria. Many of the complaints on that articles FAR page are nitpicks. Color coding, and word choice complaints are a matter of personal taste and just amount to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Typo's was a valid complaint but I just checked and those are all gone now. Which demonstrates the trivial nature of those problems. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hfarmer, I left some specific comments on the FLC page. Hopefully they are more to your liking. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

Hfarmer, could you please refactor your comment on my talk page so that it is not rude towards Jonica? My impression is that she is fairly young, newish to Wikipedia and that English is not her first language. Being rude towards newcomers or to younger Wikipedians gives them the impression that Wikipedia is a rude place, and nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored this as much as I could but being true to my original assessment of her comment. I stand by it. Either the person who wrote it is terribly immature, like a 6 year old, or emotionally disturbed. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you think that that is more acceptable? She is a younger editor whose first language is not English. I have removed your comment on her in line with Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages and WP:BITE. Please do not reinstate it. --Malkinann (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI/N

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Comment, Mediation, Arbitration and other dispute escalations

If you guys seek to impose topic bans on various subjects, I don't see the point of our engaging in Mediation on one article within one of those topics at this time. You need to choose one option or the other. You are escalating a lot of disputes lately, rather than working with other editors. I would discourage you from taking that route whenever possible, as it could be construed as abuse of process and tendentious editing. Jokestress (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom request made.

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what you wrote to Jokestress, I suspect you think that ArbCom turned down the submission altogether. That's not quite correct: One of the arbitors (there are several) thinks we should continue to try other avenues (and one other has now said 'leaning towards' accepting the case). The arbitors post their votes one-by-one, the first decision reflected the first arbitor to give an opinion; it was not the decision of the whole ArbCom.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I was thinking about making some suggestions for the ArbCom page, when this is over, with practical information like this for editors making such submissions in the future. It was also unclear to me (and I suspect to others) that everyone writes an initial statement; there is no need for people to agree on a joint statement. The third thing I wish we knew ahead of time was that arbitors could/would read the statements and make decision before all the involved editors filed their statements. A few sentences about these procedural things would be useful, I think, to other WP editors who need to use ArbCom.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for mediation - The Man Who Would Be Queen

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are more kind than many of us deserve.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your amazing ability to remain good-natured in the nastiest of circumstances. You are a model to us all. — James Cantor (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bring it on Dick. All I did was use your own mother given first name. --Hfarmer (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you make more personal attacks like this one, I will. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go on ahead and start an RfC user. You and anyone else who would speak against me have done to me things that are just as bad or worse and would have sanctions placed on you. Once again calling you by your mother given first name is not an insult. Neither is pointing out that you are being a dick by insulting anyone who makes an editorial decsion you don't like. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hfarmer, I wonder if -- as a favor to me, if nothing else -- you'd mind avoiding anything that might be construed as an insulting pun on Dicklyon's name? If you couldn't manage to avoid trading insults, you could call him "an abrasive and inconsiderate person" per the definition at WP:DICK, or try jerk, instead of using a term that might be construed as an inappropriate comment on his name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire for mbeychok's sake

Howdy, I glanced through your contributions, and it seems to me you are a pretty reasonable person, but that something pretty nasty has escalated between you and Dicklyon. I think the mbeychok complaint is basically unrelated to your dispute, and I wondered if you would be willing to slow down the escalation or at least pull some punches for a few days while that complaint is worked through?

The mbeychok dispute looks like it started with a standard notability patrol, and Dicklyon appears to have behaved in a very reasonable way there; most pages I have seen that look like that are actually speedy deletion candidates. This one is an exception, but it is easy to misread exceptional cases while patrolling, which is why we have the whole discussion and consensus thing anyways.

Lots of your communication with Dicklyon has been very civil, and all of his communication with me (probably about fixing typos or something) has been civil as far as I recall, so I think it is likely you two can work this out, but I definitely agree if the two of you are editing on something you actually care about, then it might take some (more?) mediation.

At any rate, I think it is probably tempting to use the dispute with mbeychok as "ammo", but this might lengthen a dispute I think would otherwise be resolved in only a few days. The lengthening might also lose wikipedia an expert contributor like mbeychok, so I'd like to avoid that if possible.

Does this sound reasonable? JackSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Schmidt. My problem with Dicklyon has absolutely nothing to do with The complain to which you refer. However Dicklyon's constant confrontational, uncivil, actions with other users could support my claims against him. It demonstrates an enduring pattern of behaviors on his part which has not and will not change. In short it is too good to pass up such an opportuniutiy.

There is no chance of this being worked out. This wikipedia dispute is but a two dimensional hologram of a four dimensional dispute. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for considering it at least. While working through the dispute, please try and keep in mind what is best for wikipedia's interests, and try to avoid any collateral damage. We need experienced editors in chemistry, and we need patrollers who can interact peacefully, and we need cool heads who can make such polite comments as the first two paragraphs of this on controversial topics of wide interest. It is extremely difficult to have so many talented people working together when they have different ideas about what is best for wikipedia, and I appreciate your efforts at resolving the many problems that keep coming up. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Homosexual transsexual.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Reply

BTW, I replied at my user talk page earlier; if it's not on your watchlist, please feel free to take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [2] I know, I already gave you a final warning, but here's an official one on your talk page. As you've been told repeatedly, including now by your friend WhatamIdoing, you can just stop making fun of my name. Feel free to call me a jerk if that makes you feel better. Dicklyon (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested admin intervention at AN/I

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hfarmer_continued_incivility_after_final_warning. Dicklyon (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]