User talk:Tgox1/Archive 1

(cur) (prev) 09:15, 25 October 2009 SashaMarievskaya (talk | contribs) (13,807 bytes) (Reverting edits inconsistent with MOS:IDENTITY. Please read that page before making edits to this article.) (undo)

MOS:IDENTITY states rather specifically:

"When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself."

The dispute is whether Teena Brandon was anatomically a female, or not. At autopsy Brandon was categorized biologically a female. Furthermore, Brandon never took male hormones nor underwent sex reassignment surgery. Teena Brandon was born, and passed away, a female, so to refer to her has "him, he or his" or any other derivative is factually inaccurate. Remember, the key qualifier to the MOS:IDENTITY citation is "WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE..." There IS dispute. She was a female PASSING herself off as male. The above referenced statute for the MOS:IDENTITY is more accurately employed in describing a race of people for instance, and not meant for individual exploitation for soapbox grandstanding.

Tgox1 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly learn the difference between sex and gender. Physical sex is determined by what's between your legs, while gender is determined by mental, emotional, social and presentational cues — and while it's not as common as people in whom they're the same, the two can be different from each other in a single individual. There has never been any sort of dispute about whether Brandon Teena was male or female anatomically — but that's not relevant to the question of pronouns at all. That question is determined by public presentation and identity, not by genitals — that is, it's determined by a person's gender, not necessarily by their physical sex.


 * And a person does not have to have completed sex reassignment surgery to be transgender — not everybody, for example, can afford to pay for it, and a person has to live as the target gender for a number of years before they're even allowed to have the surgery. There merely has to be a disparity between their birth sex and their brain gender. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY most certainly does apply to individuals as much as to groups. And not only is the page not going to be left in your preferred version, it's in a one-week lockdown. You can discuss your concerns on Talk:Brandon Teena if you wish — though trust me, you're not raising anything that hasn't been done to death there before — but simply claiming some sort of special right to have your version of things override a long-standing consensus isn't how things work around here. And incidentally, I have absolutely no agenda here other than making sure the rules are followed. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat,

The rules are the rules, and you are abusing them. It is not ME trying to override any consensus, but rather me being as true to the facts AS THEY ARE. So you pull the "Big Admin" card and lock the article, because you want YOUR agenda pushed. What happened to Teena was a tragedy, and for you, or others as you claim, to keep using her senseless murder to (what appears) to push an agenda, it's wrong! I don't care if you call her a male, she was a FEMALE! iF i CALLED MYSELF CHEWBACCA, IT DOESN'T MAKE ME SO. If I call myself an alien, it does not make me so. If I am born in Europe of Caucasian descent and I call myself a Native American, it does not make me so. But this time, THIS OCCASION, you can change whether you are a male to female or vice verse BECAUSE YOU SAY SO? I am sorry, but that is factually inaccurate! Which isn't doing Wikipedia justice. We should call it "Bearipedia" because that's what it appears you want it to be.

Tgox1 (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to think about the vast difference between "I am X just because I say I am, even if I'm not" and "Wikipedia can't arbitrarily decide that I'm not X, in defiance of what all the reliable sources say about me, just because one anonymous editor doesn't think I can be X". Not because anybody wants this to be "bearipedia" (never mind that I mostly edit articles about TV shows and rock bands!) — but because we have actual rules here about neutrality, verifiability and respect. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page of the article is the best place to discuss the issue. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)==Speedy deletion nomination of Chris Hock== A tag has been placed on Chris Hock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Chris Hock has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Anna Lincoln  10:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Hock
I can't delete this page. I attempted to, but it has an automatic reverter attached to it. So, if an administrator has some time, as the author of the page, I have no problems with you deleting it.

October 2009
Please do not remove content from the talkpage that is there specifically to help other editors. That you don't agree with our guidelines is obvious but no one has yet seen to side with your opinion or proposed edits. You are now being disruptive. Unless you can present new information on the subject from reliable sources that shows we should reconsider our approach you likely should drop the issue altogether. -- Banj e b oi   03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked for more eyes on this at WP:ANI. -- Banj e  b oi   03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Refactoring. Netalarm   talk  03:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brandon Teena
Hi! I noticed the WP:ANI discussion of this article, and reviewed your edits. It looks like you simply have views on gender that are different from Wikipedia's guidelines. That's fine; you're allowed to view gender as purely a matter of biology if you like, and no one will stop you. However, Wikipedia's rules are that, in cases like Brandon Teena, Billy Tipton, Chaz Bono, Angie Zapata, and scores of others, in which the subject lives as a gender other than the biological one, we'll use the pronouns corresponding to the gender with which they identify. That's the same pronoun-use guidelines that are used in the AP Stylebook, and by most newspapers. It's okay if, when you write your own private essays, you use the pronouns that seem right to you, but since Wikipedia's rule works pretty well, you'll need to follow it. Removing the links to the rule doesn't make the rule go away; it only means that new users aren't likely to see the rule, and may become confused. I am confident that, now that you've had a chance to think about it, you'll agree that we should follow the rules consistently, and that we shouldn't prevent new editors from seeing and understanding the rules, so I'm confident that you'll stop edit-warring to put your personal views ahead of the rules. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen

I have received and reviewed your message in regards to the gender issues concerning the Brandon Teena article. I want you to know I was not trying to push my personal views on the masses of the Wiki-world, but rather was trying to stay as true to the facts as they were/are, and my views have not changed. I was not trying to "edit war" anybody, I made what I honestly feel is good faith edits that were reversed in such a constant fashion that I just took to cutting and pasting the code of the page to re-do what I had already done, and for which people were undoing. I am fairly confident in believing what happened in that somewhere along the lines someone else added edits of whatever, and I missed adding them to the code I had saved. The only other thing I did was clean up an area that was redundant with the same information and links. However which way it played out, there was not the intention of sabotaging any links, edits or what have you.

With all that said, obviously this is a matter that some people feel very strongly about. I was trying to help Wikipedia be a credible online resource of information, and get away from issues such as what was happening on the Brandon article; issues that have unfortunately tarnished the image of Wikipedia to most of the public who see Wikipedia as nothing more then a hodgepodge of misinformation, and EXTREMELY biased. Sadly, I must now count myself among them.

You want the article to be unfair and inaccurate? Fine by me. Just know that when good people spend their time to try and help and get bullied for it, don't wonder when and why the resource YOU stand up for is and always will be considered second rate and a joke.Tgox1 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, not to throw fuel on the fire, but... didn't FisherQueen point out that it's standard journalistic practice to refer to a person as the gender they (not their family, the individual him/herself) identify as? If that is the case, then the only person introducing issues into the article is you, since Teena identified as male. For the most part, Wikipedia follows several journalistic guidelines, amongst which is referring to a person by their gender identification, not biological gender. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jeremy, for every source that you can show me where someone is referred to as the opposite gender because they identify with the opposite sex, I will show you two REPUTABLE sources that follow the rules of common sense.Tgox1 (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 'They' for singular would be grammatically incorrect. I believe the most recent version of the AP stylebook says the same thing as Wikipedia's manual of style; use the gender that the person identifies as.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, "They" for singular WOULD be incorrect. If I did that somewhere, I apologize.Tgox1 (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Talk: Brandon Teena
Although you understand the rule in question now, you have made two new comments at this talk page which do not contribute toward making that article better. Your edits have become too disruptive. They are not related to making the article better, but are more general complaints about Wikipedia's manual of style. If you want to start a serious conversation about changes to the manual of style, you may do so at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. But if you continue making non-relevant comments at Talk:Brandon Teena, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Consider this a final warning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen,

I was merely responding to what YOU wrote about me on the Brandon Teena talk page. So why are you going to come to my talk page and threaten me with blocking? Are you saying that because someone bestowed admin privileges on you that you are letting it go to your head? How fair is it that you can say anything YOU want, but I can't answer your charges? THIS makes my point exactly about the spirit of Wikipedia being diluted down to nothing because if someone doesn't see it your way, you will bully them out of town.

I thought I handled the situation quite well. I agreed to stop attempting to good faith edit the article. The talk pages were another story. What you are telling me is that I am not allowed to participate ANYWHERE. I was more then civil to you, and when talking things over with you I thought I did a good job at soothing things over. I even AGREED with you on certain key points. But that wasn't enough for you. Well, I have saved the relevant pages, both your threats to me and your condescending tone and stance you have taken with me, and I am fully ready to report YOU to the powers that be because while you may not be jumping over that fine line, you are certainly walking the tightrope.

For the last time, I will tell you that I am not going to touch the Teena Brandon article. When the hold on the edit expires I will not touch it. I promise to leave any and ALL articles alone as they pertain to transgender issues. Therefore, with that said, if you block me now, it will be for spite and you will be guilty of that which you (wrongfully I may add) accuse me of.Tgox1 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)