ProudAGP

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ProudAGP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Bailey article

ProudAGP: regarding your edits to the Michael Bailey article, I suggest that it might have been better to remove the 'Scientific misconduct' and 'Academic scandals' categories, since they could be read as implying that Bailey is in the wrong and his critics are right. I've started a discussion about this on the talk page. Skoojal (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't sign in the articles!

Please do not sign your edits to articles. It is not needed. Furthermore it is a good idea to discuss such changes on the talk page before hand. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

Hello ProudAGP--

You may find this gives helpful guidance on Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I hope we can find a way to work on articles together where you can remain calm and productive. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Identifying yourself

It was obvious from the onset who User:James Cantor was from his idiosyncratic writing style and POV. I applaud his decision to be open and honest and hope you will consider doing the same. You are of course under no obligation to do so. I feel it would be helpful for you to identify yourself, since you are engaged in editing articles in which you have a personal stake. It would allow disinterested editors to make better judgments regarding your potential conflict of interest in editing certain topics. Jokestress (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It may have been obvious to you, but I only learned about when he sent me email from the wrong account, the one with his name on it; it took a long time after that to convince him to decide to be "open and honest"; actually, I think he's not there yet, but at least he admits who he is now, and that makes it easier to discuss things. I agree that ProudAGP should do something like that if indeed he/she has a conflict of interest; it is not necessary to say one's name or identity, but one should at least not hide a conflict and pretend it does not exist. Having ProudAGP's conflict situation out in the open would make it a lot more straightforward to deal with his/her strong POV on transsexual matters. Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That video.

So your telling me that's the book that the video was attached to. The one with "Juanita".  :-/ I'd rather not watch that. It is interesting though to have that reference so that people who are interested could watch it.

Don't really know what it could tell me that I don't know myself already. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Correction) I clicked the link you gave. That stuff is on the internet! LOL! OMFG! Seriously this is terrible. It may be futile but I think I should do the best I can to let her know this if she does not already. All I can do is send an email and pray. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Being open and honest

I again urge you to be open and honest about your identity here. Your editing of these articles needs to be above-board in terms of involvement; otherwise it contravenes the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. Jokestress (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy is that anyone can edit without identifying themselves. That said, it sometimes does clarify discussion; I follow my own advice and identify myself. DGG (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to The Man Who Would Be Queen. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lynn Conway. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Esp. note that adding negative statements of "some feel that", and adding content from controversial negative sources like Dreger is explicitly BLP violation. But beyond that, please respect previous agreement to limit the controversy section to a small balanced section, rather than having it dominate the bio. As a supporter of the AGP idea, your POV is probably too explicit for you to be edting this section at all. Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to be intimidated by these official-sounding but meaningless threats by Lynn Conway's friend and unofficial biographer, Dicklyon.ProudAGP (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a friend of Lynn Conway, and have been working to improve her biography. I also work on about 3000 other wikipedia articles, according to my watch list. The warning template I used is the typical way to call the attention of new editors to policy issues that they may be on the wrong side of. No intimidation is intended. But since I'd been through a long struggle to prevent your buddy User:MarionTheLibrarian from trashing Conway with violations of WP:BLP, perhaps I was being less patient that usual. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As Andrea mentioned, a lot edit conflict can be avoided if you will be more open about your affiliations and intentions. Staying in denial of your conflict of interst will just keep things going poorly. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

comment

You are correct on usertalk:BrownHornet21 to note that you (nor anyone else) was a party to user:Dicklyon's and my agreement.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABrownHornet21&diff=230220982&oldid=230206968] That is, his and my agreement does not bind anyone other than the two of us.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

AGP, you may possibly be right, but you should not be the person to revert them. Dick, you may possibly be right, but you should not have been the person to make the edit in the first place. Do not either of you do so further. If either of you do as you said, you will certainly be blocked to prevent further edit warring. I will review it later today and, probably, find a median.. DGG (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not come clean

Please tell use who you are. Everyone know's who I am. Where to find me/how to contact me. No one has. So why not step into the light? --Hfarmer (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine many reasons for a trans people to avoid publicizing their identities, from not telling friends and family to concerns about discrimination at work or school. ProudAGP gets to make the choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrea James has ended, for the most part, folks' freedom to do so. By posting on her webpages collections of personal misinformation about whoever disagrees with her, she has cast a chill on open discussion.

— James Cantor (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Never use a Wikipedia talk page to push an editor to disclose a real life identity. People have been banned for trying to do that. Every editor has a right to anonymity, and to not be harassed about it. DGG (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to take this opportunity to say I'm Sorry if you thought I was harassing her. I simply saw what I was asking as a question of why be anonymous. Not saying that she should not be or badgering her. I asked because some people (not me) are begining to speculate about who she is. This is because there could be a WP:COI conflict of interest issue if one of those accusations is correct. I will not ask again but the above is just my reason for asking.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: The question has been posted on the RS noticeboard.

Hello. I have decided that at long last we have a good enough question to ask the notice board and posted it. here The question has been negotiated and all parties have had input. It is possible to comment further on the notice board so any other questions or concerns can be raised there. I think that the question that I posted which is evolved from drafts of mine, Jokestress's and James_Cantor's is a good framing for the issue and gives all the information that the uninterested RS editors will need to make a determination.

I took this action because we could end up negotiating the content of this question and have about as much success as we have had with the article itself. Someone had to say enough. So I say enough already. I hope that we can resolve this question and move on to more productive editing of the article in the near future. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good article status review:Homosexual transsexual

Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Hello I have requested a good article status review on this article. I have done this because the article needed a big rewrite and reorganization in order to make the article more accessible to the uninitiated. From a Featured article candidacy review I was informed that the articles prose was too dense and that it may not be comprehensive enough. The changes were enough in my mind to warrant reassessment of the articles good article status. As a courtesy as a big contributor I am notifying you of this.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again

Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Thank you. Hfarmer (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James Cantor at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request made.

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation - The Man Who Would Be Queen

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC Vs. Dicklyon

I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh

I don't suppose that you're aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProudAGP? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but perhaps that, too, should be included in the formal mediation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess she got mad at me for calling attention to some egregious edits. It is difficult for me to assume good faith with her, not only because she is Andrea James (with that history) but even more so that she is Jokestress with a long history of terribly biased, intellectually dishonest, edits. But if you believe I cross the line with my comments to her, please tell me. ProudAGP (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have heard from two unrelated editors that Jokestress does really good work in areas unrelated to TS/TG work. I therefore don't think that the "long history" is accurately summarized as biased and dishonest edits. And most of the TS/TG work is actually on talk pages, not article edits, which I think shows a level of restraint. (But I agree, of course, that James treated the innocent members of Bailey's family horribly.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can describe only my own experiences with Jokestress. Her edits and talk-page comments are biased/dishonest (in my opinion) more covertly than overtly. That is, she will tell halves of stories rather than whole stories. From the point of view of WP, the half of the story she tells meets WP:V and so on, but from the point of view of anyone who (through whatever means) knows the information she hides, she is being no less dishonest. Because I do not follow her behavior on other pages, I have no opinion about how she edits those or how her edits would appear to someone who knows more than she does about those topics.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2009 (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#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

straw Poll on the merger proposals. Since you have shown some active interest in this recently I am notifying you of this. Sincerely, have a nice weekend. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)