User talk:RichLow

Um
I realize that you think adding tags to Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory was helpful, but the fact is that all of the regular editors at the article already know that Jokestress (Andrea James) was a major player in the Bailey scandal, and that Dicklyon says he's a personal friend and former colleague of one of the other leaders in the scandal. Jokestress and Dicklyon are the only editors with a significant conflict of interest who have refused to pledge to never edit the article again -- although they have actually done very little editing in the last year or two, so I don't think that COI's message is appropriate.

James Cantor's "COI", by the way, appears to be little more than being a professional sexologist who hasn't denounced Blanchard and Bailey (in other words, working with the people in his very small field, and holding the same views as the majority of professional sexologists). The other editor's "COI" appears to be being a transwoman who disagrees with Jokestress about the nature of transsexuality.

The actual, long-term 'problem' with the article is that the beliefs and conversation that part of the trans community apparently holds about the Blanchard idea can't be supported by very many high-quality reliable sources. (Blog posts and chat room stuff don't really count, after all.) So we get a lot of new editors who "know" something to be true (in the same way that some people "know" something to be true because they heard it on radical talk radio), but they can't WP:PROVEIT with a reliable source, so we can't really include it. The article is not in very good shape, but it does, overall, reflect what the relatively recent, published reliable sources say.

This is, I'm sure, a frustration to people who want the article to reflect what they personally believe instead of what's been published, but Wikipedia is stuck with what we can verify in reliable sources, even if we "know" that the reliable sources are "wrong". As a practical matter, if you want to help, I suggest reading the sources listed, and finding other high-quality (ideally scientific or academic) sources that you think should be included. And perhaps, if, after you've read the sources we've got, you decide that the article isn't wildly misrepresenting the state of mainstream/scientific beliefs about this idea, you might choose to remove the tags you placed today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish to second WhatmIdoing's emotion. Please see the talk page at Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory where I have commented why that should be so. Since you are someone who just dropped in everyone will trust you to be fair.  Many of the sources she says were left and and are the reason the article is unbalanced are not up to snuff. They just aren't WP:RS.  What in the heck should I have done put blog post, personal websites, and self published books as sources when WP:SOURCES explicitly excludes them from consideration?


 * Personally I think that this policy has left a important voice out of this article and an exception should be made. There just aren't that many transsexuals that study transsexualism and have the kind of academic credentials to go with that.  It's not fair! However rules are rules.  I didn't make them.  Those rules dictated what was in this article.  For that reason calling this article biased, more biased towards an academics POV than anything else in WP is also wrong.  --Hfarmer (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ochre (musician)
Hello RichLow. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ochre (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Released albums on label notable enough for it's own article. PROD or take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)