User talk:Samarkandas valdnieks

No personal attacks
Hello. Wikipedia has a policy of No personal attacks. Please refrain from attacking other editors. I have removed part of this comment per policy. Repeated personal attacks can result in your being blocked. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Thank you. Jokestress (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You might also like to read WP:PRIVACY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I guess... I can't automatically use terminology of a theory to refer to you even if you use that terminology to refer to other editors. There are more considerations involved. Now as to WhatamIdoing comment I'm completely puzzled why should I familiarize myself with WP:PRIVACY (which I'm already familiar with if you're implying the opposite). --Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Making unwanted comments about someone else's personal identity is generally taken as a violation of WP:PRIVACY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe if this is the case mentioning WP:PRIVACY could be relevant because otherwise I don't see how it would be relevant. --Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the personal attack in your comment above. This is your second warning. Please stop or you will be blocked. Jokestress (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PRIVACY already mentions it: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment...whether any such information is accurate or not [emphasis in the original]. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy..."   WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 11 March 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) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Article in the Toronto Star
Hello, Samarkandas valdnieks. I saw your note on the James Cantor talkpage about not having easy access to Carmichael's complete article in the Toronto Star. I have a copy and would be happy to backchannel it to you.

The idea I was expressing to the Star was that I am skeptical of the reasons people give for wanting to transition. (There are a great many conflicting pressures that trans folks face in making that decision, and simple reasons are rarely, if ever, the whole story.) I'm not quite sure how clearly the reporter conveyed that, but that was my intent.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be nice. I actually ended up creating an email address - samarkandas.valdnieks@gmail.com (in case it is an attachment.) Maybe there would be something more than in the version that can be found on the web. Then again the purpose of the medical (psychiatric) establishment is to treat something that causes "distress" or "impairment" as recognized by the person seeking help, whereas shemales have claimed a cultural space of their own (with paradoxes like being extremely marginalized yet earning a lot of money.) That is, they are not the intended audience of the establishment/it is not relevant to their priorities. In that sense both sides are kind of irrelevant to each other, but, yeah, the "skepticism" part should be quoted as exactly as possible so people wouldn't have to wonder what is a vague term like "skepticism" intended to mean... Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sent! Feel free to ask if there is anything else I can do to help.— James Cantor (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but unfortunately nothing more than the article I already read, just the two sentences from you without any more context. If I ever come around another news story dealing with this, that I cannot access in it's entirety, I will make sure to check whether you can help with full text. :) Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not editors
Please limit comments to article content, not other editors. Your statements regarding the sexual orientation of an editor who is not currently editing are in violation of multiple policies. I have removed them, and if you persist, I will take further remedial action. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just an example of WhatamIdoing being constructive... But I guess you are right! Mentioning that a Wikipedia user A is slandering Wikipedia user B on user A's website is breaching the privacy of the user A. (I'm not even being sarcastic. It really is breaching the user A's privacy to slander whomever they want on their personal website.) Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)