User talk:Lgbt.history.ig

Albert Cashier
I've reverted your edit on Albert Cashier because the bulk of reliable sources refer to her as a woman. There are enough to justify adding a note that some authors describe her as a trans man, but it's "unthinkable that Wikipedia would" describe someone as a man because she did not conform to a restrictive female gender role, without the consensus of reliable sourcing to support it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What you refer to as reliable sources are pre-trans history resources and of course would not give Cashier the dignity of correctly gendering him. He lived and died as Albert Cashier, he was not "disguised as a man."  His fellow soldiers came to his aid at the end of his life to make sure that he was afforded the pension he deserved, neighbors and friends who knew of his birth sex did what they could to protect him, and the way he died (in a skirt furnished by the state mental institution) is a sad piece of queer history.  The fact that you somehow find it acceptable to rely on texts that, at best, come from a time and place when queer history simply did not include trans people or, at worst, actively erased queer identity, is sad.  The most reliable source is that Albert Cashier lived as Albert Cashier; this is not the case of someone not conforming to a restrictive gender role; you are part of the erasure.  Congrats on that. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your description of the sources is incorrect; sources referring to her as a woman not only post-date scholarly awareness of trans people in general but also post-date some of the sources which refer to her as a man. She is also referred to as a woman in some sources that focus on queer history specifically. As I pointed out, there's support in some sources for the idea that she was a trans man, so it definitely merits a mention in the article, but that's not the current consensus at this time. I must ask you again to respect the analysis of the bulk of reliable sources rather than substituting your own analysis. If you believe that the currently accepted view of Cashier's life is incorrect, the right course of action for you is to publish your analysis through a scholarly publisher and seek to change that view. Until such time as that takes place, please revert your edit in order to conform to the assessment of the sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to explain here or on the talk page why you continue to make this edit? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added even more citations to Cashier's page, all of which underscore the fact that reasonable people understand that he was a transgender man. Susan Stryker, the Department of Interior, academics, journalists, and the list goes on.  I continue--and will continue--to change any edit that misgenders Albert Cashier.  I would encourage you to take some time off from Wikipedia and perhaps read some Stryker, Moser, or just "Transgender 101" in order to gain a better understanding of the difficulties associated with being forced to "justify" trans existence in the face of a canon of "history" intent on erasing trans lives.  The bulk of current, reliable evidence on the matter is clear: Albert Cashier was a trans man. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not all of your sources are reliable or support your claim, and you are omitting the sources which contradict your claim. I suggest that you retract your statement that you intend to maintain an endless edit war; instead, consider opening a request for comment to achieve consensus for your proposed change. To bring other users around to your point of view, what you could do is assemble reliable sources that support your view and make a convincing case that they are better or more numerous than the sources which hold the opposing view. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Lgbt.history.ig, you are invited to the Teahouse!
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out to you that this edit was, in theory, enough to merit a block by itself, even without the abuse of multiple accounts. If you intend to continue editing Wikipedia after your block expires, I encourage you to retract your statement that you would request your Instagram followers to come to your aid. The relevant policies/guidelines are WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT. 106.171.73.133 (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above was meant as friendly advice for someone I was assuming had not understood our policies and would not make good on their threat if they knew that it was a violation. Now that I have finished reading the ANI thread it's clear that the threat has already been made good on (on a different website than the one specified). Lgbt.history.ig: I encourage you to stay away from Wikipedia for a few months, and then if you want to come back and edit constructively, sincerely promise that you will never engage in off-site canvassing again, and accept a broad TBAN from, say, pre-twentieth century history. If you were willing to edit under such a restriction, I think you would be allowed return at that point. 106.171.73.133 (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Due to off-wiki canvassing and with supportive comments at ANI I am increasing your block to indefinite duration. BethNaught (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the community would go for this, after what happened. I wouldn't be comfortable presenting a standard offer at the administrator's noticeboard myself without the topic ban part of it. I won't decline this request however as maybe others have a different view. SQL Query me!  01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)