User talk:Roux/Archives/2012/June

Christina Aguilera Vocal Ability Section

"lying in edit summaries is a bad idea. I checked the first quotation and it is accurate."- I haven't found any reliable sources for the quotations, so if you have, would you mind sharing? NBJames (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said in response to your email: the source states what the quote says. Period. You may disagree with what the source says, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. → ROUX ₪ 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was is "do you have any visual evidence as proof to this source?" As in a link or a picture of the page describing Christina's vocals? Because as I said, people can attribute false quotes to sources, so if the source actually states what's written on Wiki, then would you mind sharing the proof? NBJames (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Do... do you not understand how to click on links in references? Seriously? There is a citation. That citation includes a link to the page being cited. On that page, astonishingly, you will find the exact words which are quoted in the article here. → ROUX ₪ 15:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And here is the link: [1]. When you click that, you will find the article that is being cited. If you bother actually bloody reading it instead of mindlessly removing things without any apparent attempt to pay attention to anything the citations say, you will find the quoted text. → ROUX ₪ 16:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL you have absolutely NO idea what "source" I'm talking about, do you? I'm not talking about the LA Times source (I didn't even delete that in my edit), I'm talking about the source that supposedly quotes vocal coaches Phyllis Fulford and Michael Mailler about Christina Aguilera: "Describing Aguilera's voice, singing teachers Phyllis Fulford and Michael Mailler said, "The low register is light and tired, the belting register is ample and full, but very scratchy because she screams; and head voice as well as whistle register are light, pure and bright. Her vocal range extends from G below middle C to C♯ one octave above soprano high C (G3 – C♯7). She can belt to F one octave and a third above middle C (F5). She possesses a good-sized technical arsenal. Her trill is solid, she has a big mastery of melismas, and can sustain very long notes."

THAT is why I came here asking you for proof of the quotes from the source, because you accused me of lying, but obviously you thought I was talking about something else. I didn't even TOUCH that LA Times quotation in my edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Aguilera&oldid=494560064). I deleted the false quotes from the vocal coaches and the false quote from the opera singer. So why don't YOU bother "bloody reading" next time instead of mindlessly accusing people of lying without paying attention to what they actually deleted? NBJames (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidentally reverting a bit too much?

With this edit did you mean to also remove Nobody Ent's comment? a13ean (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

R&N Userbox

Hello, Roux! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, {{User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility}}, to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Danceking again.

May be of interest. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Prettifying pages....

Ok, never mind about my page, but Wikipedia:The Core Contest needs some zhuzh (waves hands around in air) to look nice. If you wanna have a play, be my guest. Just looks a bit..err...messy and I am a bit of a slob...anything you can do to it or daughter pages would be insanely appreciated. If too busy don't sweat it as I am sure there are some other formatters about.Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally forgot, sorry. I'll see what I can do.. if I don't do anything within a week, poke me again. → ROUX ₪ 14:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=498850864&oldid=498850153 This] is a personal attack as well. I suggest you revert your undo of my actions, before I am forced to block both of you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is not. It was a statement about what he said (content) and not who said it (contributor). And I will absolutely not revert myself; the discussion is highly relevant to the topic at hand. → ROUX ₪ 16:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, another admin has reverted you... And I'm heading out, so if I don't reply in a timely fashion, it's not out of indifference. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the person who reverted is an admin or not. BRD would have indicated that hatting shouldn't have been redone after the first time I undid it. → ROUX ₪ 16:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out on ANI. I was thinking for a moment that I was the one of the few people who knew what the fuck they were talking about. I think most people have their hearts in the right place, but they've never spent considerable time with trans people, so they probably don't get how harmful to a person misgendering them as cis is... Sceptre ^(talk) 11:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an uphill battle. The ... there's no word I can use to describe them that won't get me blocked... people here are utterly blind to their own privilege. → ROUX ₪ 14:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. It's weird how wanting to refer to someone who's gender issues are as pronounced as Manning's as the gender she wished to be remembered (Lamo) as is "POV pushing". I'm pretty sure most medical professionals, academics, and journalists agree on the idea that if someone is a trans woman, you should refer to her as "she"/"her"/etc. The Lamo chat logs, in particular, read very much like every trans person's dysphoria ever. The whole "he" argument rests on that Washington Blade story that prior to her arrest, "Manning had not asked people to refer to him [sic] with a female pronoun". However, when compared to the fact she was in contact with a doctor to get hormones and eventually undergo surgery (New Yorker), was planning on getting discharged and transitioning (Lamo), had spent her shore leave as a woman (Lamo), and had informed her doctor of her GID (which would lead to a discharge on mental health grounds, New Yorker), it reads very much like a person who had simply not come out prior to her arrest instead of someone who had briefly but no longer has gender identity issues. It shifts the ethical debate to where we should put her: as a trans woman, as she wished to be remembered, or as a cis man, as she was outed by Lamo. I don't believe, given how much the gender issues have been brought up especially during the Article 32 hearing, it's "tabloid gossip". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hooray for hetero and cis privilege, I guess. Sigh. It's also highly educational that Darkness Shines' repeated personal attacks were completely ignored. Just more proof that people are allowed to say whatever the fuck they want to/about me, but I get blocked as soon as I say something similar. I really am sick and fucking tired of this fucking place and the... people who inhabit it. → ROUX ₪ 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's always worked on that cronyistic attitude that if you are a) known to be a dickhead and b) known to be persuasive at general BLP enforcement, then you get a free pass for a). Even though there are plenty of people willing to enforce BLP without being dickheads. At least Giano was a damn good article writer on semi-obscure subjects... Sceptre ^(talk) 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I believe that people really do overlook their privilege, especially on Wikipedia. WP:CSB exists for a reason... Sceptre ^(talk) 17:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If I may, although the discussion was hatted, I would like to voluntarily answer your question from the AN/I discussion. I am a heterosexual cismale. No one in my immediate family is trans, but I have three good friends (as opposed to friendly acquaintances) who are, and a great many other friends who are homosexual or bisexual (and/or poly), and the biological father of one of my closest friends is a trans woman. If this seems unusual to you, there is an underlying reason why I have so many friends in the GLBT community besides my general friendliness to the community: as my userpage reveals, I'm an alumnus of Oberlin College, one of the most GLBTQ-friendly colleges or universities in the US. I say this, and then I also say that Manning's gender in the article is not as urgent a matter as you think it is. Manning's self-referred as male for a long time, and it's not going to hurt if Wikipedia continues that reference for a few more months. Basically, my advice is to simply wait until the court-martial starts, possibly until the defense starts presenting evidence. I expect that you'll get all the reliable sources you need then. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with a good discussion, and that's all I was doing. I myself am also well acquainted with several trans people, and I'm acutely aware of the harm that misgendering can cause, even if in good faith. If I'm discussing Manning off-wiki (which does come up in political conversations), I do the same gender correcting I do if someone misgenders my friends. While I may not have the full perspective my trans friends have, I still have a perspective better most editors in the topic ban discussion. Roux makes the salient point that you need to know what you're talking about before editing in such areas: to the layman, "he had not asked to be referred by female pronouns" seems like deliberate rejection of the female gender; to someone who knows what they're talking about, it seems like someone who hasn't yet come out (for good reason, being trans results in a discharge). Who would we trust on Talk:Evolution more: Richard Dawkins or Joe Public? Sadly, it does seem like a certain segment of the community are intent on censoring any discussion of Manning's gender (see [2]) whatsoever. Oh, and by the way, Manning's gender identity disorder and female identification, among other things, came up in the Article 32 hearing back in November. The content alluding to Manning's gender issues dates back to before that. I really can't see how the sources used at length become "tabloid gossip" when it comes to changing the pronouns. Though, thank you for answering the question. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So in your view, for a hypothetical person in a similar case (so we don't have to stick to the exact details), what would the line actually be? That they had indicated they were transitioning? That they had indicated that they did not want to be referred to by male pronouns any longer? I'm curious. My understanding has always been that if the person is transitioning but has not publicly stated whether they're transitioning within the binary or outside of it, you should use gender neutral pronouns (zhe, xe, or similar) until they or someone in the know corrects you; conversely, the transitioning person should endeavor to not be offended by use of gender-neutral pronouns unless they've specifically requested to be referred to by a different pronoun set. I was taught at Oberlin that "What pronouns would you prefer?" is never a rude question. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The pronoun question is always a good one, and I would be fine with more gender-neutral language on Wikipedia (in the form of "they"). But of course, there are some times when you can't ask that question, so you go on cues such as statements like "I'm seeing a doctor for my gender issues" or "I don't want to be a boy" or gender expression. As I've said, the whole thing in the Washington Blade story has the "not" in the wrong place; if it was "he had asked not to be referred...", then it'd be male pronouns, obviously. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)