User:RyanFreisling/Archive 7

Third opinion
I responded to your request at the administrator's noticeboard by joining the discussion at Talk:Shemale. Sancho 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's not a problem, but it seems that maybe Requests for comments or Third opinion is the place to make these types of requests in the future. The administrator's noticeboard is supposed to be for the coordination and discussing administrative tasks. Sometimes they don't respond quickly to misplaced requests. Sancho 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - and I do appreciate your helping out and trying to aid us in reaching a resolution of the dispute. Thank you! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryan, I just noticed on the admin noticeboard that you asked me to add some more to the discussion. Maybe it wasn't clear, or maybe it looked like it was Patrick offering a suggestion, but I did respond at the discussion page to your comment about the ordering of the sentences with a couple of suggestions and indicated my preference. What do you think? (We can continue the discussion at the talk page) Sancho 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded there - I found the indenting made it unclear to me what you were responding to. In any case, thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Arriving here a little late, Ryan, sorry. Looking over it now, it looks a whole lot less POV than it's been in ages. And yes, it's derogatory - no question. Yourself and Sancho have done an excellent job in coming to some sort of consensus - Alison ☺ 06:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey there - glad to see you. Thanks for the compliment! I'm heading to bed and staying off the article for a spell to avoid appearing 'edit-war-willing' (revert wars, etc., are not my thing). Note the latest version proposed by Fixer as a 'compromise'... there's no citation so far that establishes a non-derogatory use of the term so I don't see a reason to 'compromise' between a cited fact and an uncited viewpoint. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and it looks like Sancho has endorsed that version, from the talk page. Reverted first line. - Alison ☺ 06:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shemale article
I made some changes to the shemale article. I hope the text works as a compromise. I thought I'd let you know since you seemed very tied to the wording of the article. If it doesn't suit feel free to revert (of course). Just thought I might be able to help as a third party. Best Fixer1234 06:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer the prior version. I'm not tied to the wording, the wording is important and the idea that the term isn't pejorative is so far little more than 'uncited personal opinion'. Please see more of my rationale above. Basically, I don't think there's a reason to weasel word the derogatory nature of the term, without any cites to establish that the term has a valid, non-derogatory use. However, I'll avoid 3RR and continue to work for improvements to the article. Would you mind reverting it yourself? Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixer inadvertently stepped over my cite fixes. I left in their ref from Andrea James' site but reverted the first line. Ryan's rationale for that first line is pretty persuasive - Alison ☺ 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Ryan! for my second barnstar. Sancho 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please Help
Ryan, are you an administrator? I need help with a disruptive editor. This guy has accused me and 8 editors in the past 24 hours either with vandalizing Wikipedia or creating nonsense articles. He has threatened us with blocking. It seems that everyone he disagrees with gets threatened with a blocking notice. I have received four 3RR warnings on [my disussion page] in the last 10 minutes. This guy has also threatened the following editors in the past two hours with being blocked from editing:
 * MKnight998
 * Spence69
 * Cherlrenae
 * Jon6810
 * Stagedives
 * 158.59,214.157
 * Rlhockey203
 * Dwartam

This guy is clearly a bully. Can you do anything about this? MiFeinberg 17:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that, if you had looked into the reasons, maybe you would have seen Spence69 wanted to tell us all he was gay and liked "cock" in his "ass" Or perhaps you'd know that StageDives wanted everyone to know that Chad was gay and so on. There is a LONG talk about you on the admin incident board, I'd suggest you go read it MiFeinberg


 * MiFeinberg Has finally been blocked from Wikipedia by an administrator for personal attacks, vandalism, wikistalking and various other reasons.

CINEGroup 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi folks. No, I'm not an admin. While I'd be glad to help if I can, it looks like this issue is resolving itself... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that User:CINEGroup has now been blocked for disruptive behaviour. This matter came up on WP:AN/I earlier ... - Alison ☺ 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alison! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Teena
This one's going to run and run, because every time a noob sans clue stumbles on the article, they think the same thing. I'm for not allowing it to be chiselled bit by bit towards that POV, so I don't think we should allow too much latitude for notes on names, discussion of what to address Brandon by in the article or any of that sort of thing. Grace Note 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the cite that the anon added back in was kinnnnnda okay (the bit about the names confusion). We'd kinda reached consensus on that on the talk page until the AfD hit & things went weird again. But yeah, run and run esp. now that it's spilled over onto WT:MOS - A l is o n  ☺ 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
I am not sure why you are so intent on taking offense at my words, but it is clear you are upset. Please know that I did not intend offense. I think if you read my words carefully, without prejudice, you would not see anything offensive in them. I had no offensive intent nor do I see anything offensive in them. I was using examples to make the point regarding self identification. That the examples were of people who are abnormal, hardly makes the examples offensive, at least to me. Indeed, everyone who would be used as an example of such identity shifts, (gender or not) would not be normal. Perhaps it is that you see this abnormality and think that I am describing transgendered people as equivalently abnormal. I was not. Clearly, transgendered people are also abnormal, but not equivalently so. None of these people I used in the examples are equivalent in their abnormality. But they all have a self-identity issue that is subject to the style guideline.

Again, I did not mean to offend and I hope your future responses will take that in mind so any discussion would be on the issues and not on how offended you are or how much you dislike the examples I used. Such discussions are just not helpful. For example, if you were to say that my examples did not apply to the area I was commenting on, that would be more appropriate (though I do not know how they would not apply) than to just be upset with the examples I used. Having said that, I take responsibility for failure to communicate in a way that helped you understand me. But I hope you will also try to understand me before taking offense. --Blue Tie 14:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not upset, and I've already apologized once for giving you the impression I was. I disagree vociferously to your examples based on their lack of merit, not personal offense. I do appreciate your post nonetheless. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You said:
 * Once again, you are factually misstating what gender identity disorder and sex reassignment are, by stating 'a person was born under some particular gender identity and then, at some age, determined a different identity.'. As I said already, that does not describe the majority of transgendered individuals, and we should have clear self-verifiable info on which to base article content and pronoun usage for those whom it does apply.
 * Question: How is what I said factually incorrect?  By "factually", I mean something that can be verified by respected scientific authority that reflects a consensus view on the matter.  Maybe you mean something different. --Blue Tie 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is in a nutshell - the 'fact' is that for those experiencing gender identity disorder the 'sex', not 'gender', is what is changed. That's the fact, not an ostensible change in 'gender'. I'm hopeful that this clears a lot up. --
 * Actually no, it does not. It looks like an opinion rather than a fact.  For example, notice on wikipedia that Gender reassignment surgery reassigns to Sex reassignment surgery.  And that doctors refer to Sex Change Surgery as Gender Reassignment Surgery.  For example this site says : " Sex Change Surgery, Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) (is) also called Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS).  For some reason you seem to think that they are different things.  And the same goes for Identity disorders -- both sexual and gender.  And finally, notice that even your own sentence confuses the two. You say that in GENDER identity disorder, it is the SEX that is changed.  Somehow you do not think it is the gender that is changed even though that is the named identity disorder.
 * So once again, you have a "fact" that is not really a fact. Yet you have used these "facts" to contest my view.  It is ok with me if it is your OPINION that I am wrong, but it is misleading to describe your opinion as a fact and then use that as ammo to ignore what I am saying and to shoot my ideas down without addressing their substance. I would really appreciate a more substantive discussion. --Blue Tie 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sex and gender are indeed different. I did not confuse the two terms at all in that sentence. In Gender Identity Disorder, it is the sex that is changed. That statement was not confused or in error. When using the specific meaning of each, 'sex reassignment' (not 'gender reassignment') is the correct term.
 * From the Sex_reassignment_therapy WP article itself:
 * Sex reassignment therapy (SRT) is an umbrella term for all medical procedures regarding sex reassignment of both transgender and intersexual people. Sometimes SRT is also called gender reassignment, even though many people consider this term inaccurate as SRT alters physical sexual characteristics to more accurately reflect the individual's psychological/social gender identity, rather than vice versa as is implied by the term "gender reassignment."
 * Hence the redirect to the correct term ('sex reassignment').
 * These 'are' facts. They are not opinion, and they are not personal. Please similarly assume AGF and try to consider the numerous points I've made thus far, and I'll be available for a 'more substantive discussion' later in the month after school is complete. In the meantime I'd appreciate if you also observed 'WP:AGF', and would go back and re-read my arguments and the underlying facts (without interchanging words like 'sex' and 'gender'). Last, please refrain from posting more 'back and forth' here while I'm away on wikibreak - thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!
Woohoo ... :-) - A l is o n  ☺ 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alison, thanks *tons* for the kind word, and the flower. Good to see you! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: FYI
Ouch. I hadn't seen the legal threats. I knew when said user reverted my neutralizing of the language that there was probably some POV-pushing going on. Hence my comment on his talk page about not going there, the editors of the article have already been there—then I saw the Talk page archive and realized he'd been there before. Not that I'd have done anything differently, but thanks for the heads-up about how this played out. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries - I didn't mean to imply you did anything wrong at all, just thought you'd want to see that link given your interaction with that editor. Cheers! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:RedDawn(McDonalds).gif
Hello RyanFreisling, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:RedDawn(McDonalds).gif) was found at the following location: User:RyanFreisling/Archive 3. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)