| Revision as of 22:57, 13 January 2009 editHfarmer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,062 edits →COI/N and Arb COM. The mediation of phenom v term.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:08, 14 January 2009 edit undoJames Cantor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,721 edits →ArbCom request made.: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| In speaking of thrid ways in re ] on it's talk page, I made the suggestion that instead of looking at this as phenomena V. Term we look at this as being about a phenomena and a term that sexologist, and others have coined to describe it. Sort of along the lines of what you said about false dichotomies, Phenomena Vs term is such. Would you be agreeable to looking at this article as being about both a phenomena and the term which it has been named? If so I make the following proposal. I need to look for quotations that I can include in the controversy section which are from transsexuals, who speak personally about how much they dislike the term homosexual transsexual. We should not require that the person in question either be self described, or described by any one else as a homosexual transsexual. Just any ol transsexual(s) who has some academic credentials would do. The rest of the article would remain basically unchanged. Could you agree to this?--] (]) 11:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | In speaking of thrid ways in re ] on it's talk page, I made the suggestion that instead of looking at this as phenomena V. Term we look at this as being about a phenomena and a term that sexologist, and others have coined to describe it. Sort of along the lines of what you said about false dichotomies, Phenomena Vs term is such. Would you be agreeable to looking at this article as being about both a phenomena and the term which it has been named? If so I make the following proposal. I need to look for quotations that I can include in the controversy section which are from transsexuals, who speak personally about how much they dislike the term homosexual transsexual. We should not require that the person in question either be self described, or described by any one else as a homosexual transsexual. Just any ol transsexual(s) who has some academic credentials would do. The rest of the article would remain basically unchanged. Could you agree to this?--] (]) 11:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::The topic banning is not my idea. However if that's is all the men in our group (well who knows about ProudAGP? Frankly...uhhh...I agree with an assesment you once voiced of who they likely are) are willing to go along with. Just thought you should know what they were talking about doing. --] (]) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | ::The topic banning is not my idea. However if that's is all the men in our group (well who knows about ProudAGP? Frankly...uhhh...I agree with an assesment you once voiced of who they likely are) are willing to go along with. Just thought you should know what they were talking about doing. --] (]) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == ArbCom request made. == | |||
| I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom .<br> | |||
| ] (]) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:08, 14 January 2009
Leave a message here.Talk archive
- 2004 talk archives
- 2005 talk archives
- 2006 talk archives
- 2007 talk archives
- 2008 talk archives
- Please use the "new section" tab at the top of the page for adding comments, and give your comment a title. Thanks!
AfD nomination of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Thank you. Hfarmer (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I am confused by your message. Your edits to the dab left entries with no links, which isn't allowed per WP:MOSDAB. There should be one blue link per line, as there was under my version (I think one mistakenly had two, but the rest were necessary.) Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Mediation of Phenomena Vs. Term and NPOV in re Homosexual transsexual
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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Homosexual transsexual, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages: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, Hfarmer (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have taken this step because it is the next logical step in the dispute resolution process. We have tried resolving this amongst ourselves. We have tried...
- Discussion on the talk page with two third parties who agreed this is about a phenomena.
- A survey of the involevd editors which asked the question term or phenomena to which no one responded.
- Requested comment on the NPOV dispute in which phenomena V term was raised again.
As well as our informal mediation. Which seems to have been more or less inconclusive. (They concluded that the article was about the term, it's history, and how it has been used. But that the whole disagreement was based on WP:Idontlikeit vs Ilikeit or something. More or less dismissing the whole issue.)
I want you to either be satisfied with the article or to accept that you may be mistaken on this point. Sure we could write an article as if it were just about a term "Homosexual transsexual" verbatim. But that would exclude much information both critical and not critical.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Loves Art
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).
I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Misplaced Pages articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.
If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!
If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.
Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
See COI/N.
I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding you, me, and user:Dicklyon here.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
COI/N and Arb COM. The mediation of phenom v term.
Hello, I thought it would be wise to drop you a line regarding Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#user:Dicklyon.2C user:Jokestress.2C and user:James Cantor at The Man Who Would Be Queen. It seems that this is going to be refered to the Arbitration committee and that you are going to be named as a party. I noted for James Cantor that you have basically said, that this does not invovle you. It is between him and Dick Lyon. I think it likely that is why you have paid that proceeding no mind since your first reply. Perhaps you can suggest some sort of a thrid way? A way to settle this and avoid the Arb COM.
In speaking of thrid ways in re Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Homosexual transsexual on it's talk page, I made the suggestion that instead of looking at this as phenomena V. Term we look at this as being about a phenomena and a term that sexologist, and others have coined to describe it. Sort of along the lines of what you said about false dichotomies, Phenomena Vs term is such. Would you be agreeable to looking at this article as being about both a phenomena and the term which it has been named? If so I make the following proposal. I need to look for quotations that I can include in the controversy section which are from transsexuals, who speak personally about how much they dislike the term homosexual transsexual. We should not require that the person in question either be self described, or described by any one else as a homosexual transsexual. Just any ol transsexual(s) who has some academic credentials would do. The rest of the article would remain basically unchanged. Could you agree to this?--Hfarmer (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- The topic banning is not my idea. However if that's is all the men in our group (well who knows about ProudAGP? Frankly...uhhh...I agree with an assesment you once voiced of who they likely are) are willing to go along with. Just thought you should know what they were talking about doing. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom request made.
I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)