User talk:MishMich/Archive 4

halperin quote
Give me a sec, I'll fix up that citation nice.

Done--me and the IP-numbered editor are stepping on each other but there is a good cite (even two?:) there now. (This is at Queer theory --Joe Decker (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, is it the same quote in two places, two quotes merged from two places, or what? A quotes usually has a single source, not two... Mish (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Same author, so it's not impossible, but I was only able to personally confirm (and I only added) the second reference. (the one with the Google Books link.) The first of the two references doesn't give a precise page number, and the while the paper it refers to  is available in full on-line, it's not available on-line in a searchable form. A quick scan of it's 30-some pages didn't make the quote apparent to me, but I certainly haven't looked hard enough to be sure it's not in there somewhere. On the other hand, I have no doubt it's in the second reference, clicking on the title will take you to the Google Books scan of the appropriate part of the appropriate page. Maybe just dump the first reference and call it done? (I'd look further in the first reference but I need to run, back this evening PDT.) --Joe Decker (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Back--looks like you have it covered. Thank you! --Joe Decker (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Help in watching Gender article
Hey, MishMich. I noticed that you have also had to deal with Masculinity's tendency to significantly change sourced leads and other portions of articles without consensus (often with unsourced weasel-wording about "the West's bias," as on the Homosexuality article). I was just wondering if you would not mind helping me keep an eye on the Gender article, especially in regards to Masculinity. Talk:Gender shows what he did to the Gender article's lead, and why I reverted it. If you would like to weigh in on the talk page there, I encourage it. I have already addressed Masculinity on his talk page about this, and have asked another editor (Darkfrog24) who helped format the lead to weigh in as well. The article is not heavy with vandalism, but every now and then we get unhelpful changes to its lead or other parts of it (such as with Masculinity's edits). Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks, I have added the page to my watchlist. I will watch what happens, and get a feel for the page before making any contributions, and if I see any vandalism or questionable edits then I'll revert if/as/when necessary.  However, if I notice something that is not accurate, neutral or verifiable, is undue, or something obviously missing (doubtful in this case) then I will feel compelled to try and address that. Mish (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Mish. Extra eyes are always helpful and often needed, especially in cases of articles on sexuality, gender, science, political stuff. I greatly appreciate your help. Any tweaks you feel the article needs are more than welcomed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, just let me know if there's any others need keeping an eye on (I watch over quite a few already).Mish (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say good job in helping out with the Gender article. If I have time, I will also see what I can do for the Gender role article. I only cleaned it up a bit, but have never heavily edited it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers
Mish, I apologize for being difficult to work with. I'm not trying to be obstructionist. I'm on Central European Time, so this is it for me this evening.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is OK, I'm not easy to work with, and my reasoning is not always obvious. But I do think it is important to locate Reker's work as a psychologist quite firmly in his ministerial ideology.  There are different aspects to this BLP - the man as a psychologist, the man as a minister, and the man's actions.  The tree and the fuit springs to mind. Mish (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look at PG's talk page, you'll see that he has been blocked on the admin's view that PG's post was a violation of BLP. I'm not saying I endorse that position, but if an admin has already taken the view that it was a violation of BLP, it might be worth reconsidering the reversion of the deletion. I hope it's clear this isn't meant to be antagonistic towards you -- quite the contrary, in fact. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't appreciate this was an admin, nor that he had blocked him. Would help if he'd explained this.  Not a mind reader.Mish (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert to neutral in Circumcision
Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.204.241 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Foxconn factory conditions
Can you discuss this on the iPad talk page? I don't think it should be included in the article. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have - it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. What is important are Wikipedia policies on accuracy, reliability and verifiability. Mish (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the Good Article review it has been requested by the reviewer that this content is removed from iPad I've suggested moving it to Apple Inc. where it is more suitable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Terrillja talk  07:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, please
Hi! I hit the revert button because the skype highlighting you added showed up in my anti-vandal tool. It seems that you added some, deleted some other, and my revert reverted both. I'd ask you to read WP:KETTLE, but we're both acting in good faith here.

In the circumstances, I'm happy to let you sort it out. Cheers. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I assumed this was good faith, but re-did before I got your message - I was trying to get rid of the Skype stuff, and am unsure how it is getting in there. It may be because when I tried to get rid of it the first time, it activated skype on my PC, which then tried to insert itself again.  Skype seems to act weird on Windows 7...

Thanks.


 * Skype installs an add-on to certain browsers, IE8 and Firefox at least. It's there to highlight what it thinks (hah!) are 'phone numbers and link them to Skype, but, since Wikipedia editing is done via the browser, it changes the wikitext of an edit, and the results you are familiar with.  It's possible to disable the add-on, without losing Skype, but of course you then don't get the highlighting. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did figure this out and disabled it before I re-edited - only installed Skype on this PC the other day, didn't realised it had embedded itself into Firefox. Hope it hasn't done it elsewhere without noticing... Mish (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Hi,

I would like to form a group for the revision of the article on Homosexuality as discussed in Talk:Homosexuality. I would appreciate your participation.

Thanks,

Pdorion (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring/removing other editors' comments
I assume you're going to let know that you've removed a comment of theirs? ;-) TFOWR 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure - I got caught up in responding to somebody else. It was in the wrong place, right? -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it makes sense to me to keep the two summaries as short as possible, to make life easier for the folk at NPOVN. I'd have suggested moving it, rather than removing it, but so long as you let the editor know I'm not too concerned either way. TFOWR 16:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been restored, so I have moved it to the other section, as it falls under that section. I have tried to explain the problem to the editor.  If this happens again, I would appreciate it if you could deal with it.  Thanks. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 18:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actively
Hello MishMich, in the article about Magnus Hirschfeld you added to the introduction that he was actively homosexual. Do you mean with 'actively' that he had a homosexual sex life? Why do you put that in the introduction, or in the article at all? Glatisant (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because somebody removed 'openly'. He was both active and openly homosexual.  Unlike many in his time, who tended to be covert about being homosexual.  The comment made when 'openly' was removed was that he would not have had a career had he be open.  This was the point of stating he was open - he did have a career, was open, and this did not work well for him, especially when the Nazi Party took control of Germany.  His life ended without being able to pursue his career actively.  It was in part due to the work of Verne Bullough, who had translated & published important volumes of his work in English, that we now know as much about him as we do.  I am happy for it be reverted back to 'openly'. So, what actively means is not that he was an active homosexual, but that he was active - going to parties, having relationship(s), all the stuff gay folk today take for granted. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 16:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But I don't think he was openly gay, as people nowadays are. Maybe he was, in his last few years in France, but earlier on I don't think he allowed the public to know he was homosexual. Do you have a source that he did? There are several biographies of Hirschfeld (Wolff, Herzer, Kotowski), but I don't think he ever stated he was homosexual or that he had a relationship with a man. Going to homosexual parties, yes, but not as a participant, only as an onlooker, showing other doctors how homosexuals lived, as he did with Aletrino, who reports this in 1908. Glatisant (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was 'gay' in the sense we use the word today, but my understanding was that he was open about his being homosexual. It is a long time since I read it, but my recollection is that this is mentioned in the Bullough translation of 'Transvestites'.  I don't have the book, but will have a look around and see if I can find a source. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 22:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Undoubtedly influenced by his own homosexuality, he did not pretend, at least at first, to be the dispassionate reporter of the varieties of human sexuality as Krafft-Ebing claimed to be. Instead he seemed, particularly in his early years, to have had an almost missionary zeal to bring the "truth" about sexuality to everyone. Though Hirschfeld started out as a political propagandist for homosexuality, he eventually became a significant researcher into human sexuality. A major reason for his comparative neglect, however, is that many of his contemporaries never forgot the fact that he had been a strong advocate for homosexuality and that sometimes, in his zeal, he tended to go to excess'. Science in the Bedroom, A History of Sex Research, VERN L. BULLOUGH, 1994, BasicBooks (HarperCollins), New York, N.Y.
 * I am not sure there needs to be mention of his sexual orientation in the first paragraph. The sources I have looked at suggest he saw this as a private matter, and while he was known to have engaged in transvestism and had homosexual relationships, there is disagreement over whether he was homosexual or bisexual.  If there is enough information from WP:RS, this information could appear in the body of the text, under his personal life - but I see no more reason for stating something that is contested in the lead, than that he was Jewish (which it seems is deemed unnecessary). -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 22:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with your removal of Hirschfeld's sexual orientation from the lead. Not much is known about his personal life, although some of his personal belongings from the thirties have come to light in the last few years. I think you are wrong to believe that Hirschfeld himself engaged in transvestism. That is a common legend based on his nickname 'Tante Magnesia', 'Aunt Magnesia'. It is addressed here: Talk:Magnus Hirschfeld (in 2007-2008 I used 'Soczyczi' as Wikipedia name). Glatisant (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC) By the way, should we copy this talk section to the Hirschfeld talk?
 * I don't think we need to - but you can if you like, or start a new section discussing the change, if you like. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Page Homosexuality/Sandbox

 * Following a request in my user talk page, I have moved the scratch page Homosexuality/Sandbox to User:MishMich/Homosexuality, and its talk page with it, for a reason stated in WP:SUB.
 * Since page Homosexuality/Sandbox was started, page Homosexuality has been edited 12 times, so causing WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine, I was not the one who set that page up, and the individual who did seems to have lost interest in it now. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 12:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Random thought
This edit edit summary came across my watchlist and was totally legit. Just wanted to let you know ex-communication is the Church letting a Catholic know that they have committed a sin so grave that the have, for now, separated them selves from the Church. If you were never part of the Church you can't be separated from it (non-Catholics, are not considered to be in a state of ex-communication). Likewise with that sentence about Heresy is off. One is allowed to question whether or not a policy of the Church is wise and lobby for a chance, but as far as I know it is only when one has proclaimed the Church is wrong, that they are smarter than the Church and that they will now disobey the Church that they're in theological trouble. - Schrandit (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.-  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 00:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus sourcing
Not sure if you've seen these: and Noloop (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd not. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Mediation
Noloop (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Adolescent age
I also stated this to Legitimus: A certain IP/editor keeps changing the age range in the Ephebophilia article, insisting on my talk page that adolescence ends at age 14. I am not sure where he got his information, but he cannot keeping changing the definition simply because he disagrees with it. I explained at User talk:Flyer22, but this may not be the end of it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a WP:RS that gives the age, can we not cite that, using quotes for the age? I think the confusion is to do with age of consent - but ephebophilic interest is not governed by the legal age of consent (which varies), rather psychiatric taxonomy.  So, somebody can be interested in adolescents over 16, even though they are over the age of consent? -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 21:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All the age ranges are cited, though, Mish (including the sexual ethics aspect you added some time ago). I mean, for the initial lead, we say, "generally adolescents 15-19." The problem is that this editor feels that adolescence generally ends at age 14, and that the lead should generalize ephebophilia as ranging from 14-16. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Thanks
I appreciate you deflecting me from having to argue with Noloop as you are a lot more stimulating to argue with.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not my intention to participate in any argument, only discussion - the purpose is to improve the encyclopedia by ensuring logical consistency, accuracy, reliability and verifiability, etc. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 18:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol, I was trying to discuss how to improve the article by just stating that the scientific method has not proven or disproven the existence of God before you slapped the "you need a reference for that" on me.:PWikiposter0123 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you wonderfully for your edit of the 31st at 6:04p. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

RFCU for Slrubenstein
This requires a "second". Maybe you support it...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein Noloop (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

late comment.
Hello. Regarding a statement you made in Talk:circumcision: "From what I can tell, there was no obvious mention of female circumcision in the OED 40 years ago. That suggests such usage emerged since then, and unless somebody can provide a more accurate source that contradicts this, I have to accept that."  You can have a look at 187 online journal articles and other scholarly sources that discuss the circumcision of females before the year 1971 here. Also note the following sources:
 * "Circumcision is also practis'd on Women, by cutting off the Fore-skin of the Clitoris; which bears a near resemblance, and analogy to the Praeputium of the Male Penis." Cyclopeaedia, 1728. Circumcision
 * "Most probably, however, circumcision (which in many tribes is performed on both sexes) was connected with marriage, and was a preparation for connubium." Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1911. Circumcision
 * A 1910 Journal of the American Medical association article: "Rapid bloodless circumcision of male and female and its technic."

Of course, one should also base arguments on current accepted usage and meaning:


 * circumcise Pronunciation: \ˈsər-kəm-ˌsīz\. Etymology: Middle English, from Latin circumcisus, past participle of circumcidere, from circum- + caedere to cut. Date: 13th century. 1 : to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the prepuce of (a female);  2 : to cut off all or part of the external genitalia and especially the clitoris and labia minora of (a female).   Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2010

It's unfortunate that you were not aware of this, but it doesn't really matter. The proposed move has similarly resulted in no consensus before, with many editors opposing the change arguing on the basis that the term "female circumcision" is a neologism, in direct contradiction to all those sources. No one bat an eyelash, and those arguments were considered valid. It seems that non-neutral POV is so pervasive in this instance that debunked, disproved nonsense is given weight and respect in assessing disputed content. Blackworm (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
''You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia.'' -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia
As one of the designers of the previous lead, your take on this matter is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MishMich/Gay sexual practices
Move to main page? C T J F 8 3 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I haven't worked on it for a while, and think it will need sources.

Ruth Gledhill
Thank you for your comment. I have replied on my talk page.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I have again replied on my talk page.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  22:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - to which I've replied. I stopped and had a look at your User page today, and was interested to see that we have a lot in common - being both dog-loving Anglicans, with a strong interest in LGBT issues, who studied at Roehampton (I was at Whitelands). As the priest of an 'inclusive' parish church, the issues on which you regularly edit are of interest to me. My dog's a German Shepherd though, much as I love lurchers! Interesting, too, that you contribute via Ubuntu, as I preached on that subject this morning - though the African phrase, not the computer system...  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  13:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Anglican navbox colour discussion
Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. DBD 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

extended break
I have popped in and made minor additions where necessary, mainly trying to avoid conflict. But, following a heart attack three weeks ago, I don't expect to returning to actively editing for some time. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 06:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender
An article that you have been involved in editing, Genderqueer, has been proposed for a merge with the article Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --April Arcus (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014
Hi MM. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Brainy J ~ ✿  ~ (talk ) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
 * Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
 * Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
 * Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!
RachelWex 16:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!
RachelWex 16:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)