User talk:JanetWand

Talk

Here we can talk about what is said on the user page.

Your submission at Articles for creation

Mbari (art), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mbari (art), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Male-to-female

I understand the difference between gender and sex, and I have one question:

Which is Wikipedia supposed to use terms based on how it refers to people with gender-specific terms?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the context. In the context presented, Christine Jorgensen transitioned from male to female. Her body (sex) was changed. I explained more on the article talk page. JanetWand (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen carefully

Let me review what you have been telling me:

You're saying that "male" and "female" are different from "man" and "woman", aren't you?? Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're implying that the terms male and female unambiguously talk about sex, not gender. (I do recall the statement that gender and sex are not the same.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: quit focusing on what you think I am implying and guide your nose towards what I am actually saying. What I am saying is, to repeat to you for the 6th time, that in the convention of the AMA and other medical authorities, the condition of transsexuality is referred to in those terms, male to female, when a person who is male bodied changes to become female bodied in order to correct the disparity between the mind and body. You are attempting to use male and female in the most general sense, but in this "ology", I will now coin a phrase as you have, what I will term transology, is a legitimate field of study that already exists and that is the term that IT uses, male to female. You are not an authority, and neither am I, but I am citing THE authority and you are citing a lot of jibber jabber inuendo and spooky language like unambiguously. Stop and use your brain just for a second. JanetWand (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny the fact that the term "male-to-female" is commonly used. However, you must notice why it is used. It is based on thinking of trans women the way people commonly do so; this is that they actually were men before their bodies were changed with surgery. If this statement is wrong, please explain why, and I really do hope another Wikipedian besides the two of us reveals their thoughts on this discussion, most especially User:Picture of a Sunny Day. Georgia guy (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we are having in our communication is that you want to keep referring to what you think most people think about transsexuals. We run into problems if we bastardize the terminology commonly used to cater to ignorant and bigoted people. Most people are actually not bigoted against transgender individuals. There are but a few who magnify their hatred through unwitting shills. However, the truth is that transgender individuals do exist and there is nothing wrong with them. They are oppressed and discriminated against, but that does not mean that we should pander to their oppressors. If you want to continue to go that route, I will bring in the LGBT to discuss this. JanetWand (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already contacted User:Picture of a Sunny Day to let her know about this discussion, so that I might find her thoughts on it. But I haven't gotten any response. Georgia guy (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Weaver's comments have been removed unread after I noticed that she used the f-word more than six times. Also, for the record, I am a transsexual, Ms. Weaver's accusations about me are baseless. Her views are her views and do not have a place in an academic setting where we have learned to express ourselves without profanity. Perhaps Ms. Weaver will learn that if she wants to be heard she should formulate what she is going to say in a nice elegant package as opposed to a seething rant that attacks others and leaves no room to build a bride. JanetWand (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm Coffeepusher. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Erica Andrews that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you didn't feel it was civil. However, you bullied lightspeed who built the Erica Andrews page and spent months doing so. I began the article after someone deleted it. I take offense to transphobic individuals masquerading as allies. Judging by your actions on the Erica Andrews page (fighting a meaningless fight that you have no stake in), you are exactly that. JanetWand (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you use "transphobic" to produce a chilling effect in a conversation. This is considered a personal attack and against wikipedia policy. Further, tracking down an individual editor and engaging in personal attacks which are not tied to any content discussion is a WP:BATTLEFIELD tactic and again against policy. Threatening to "wreck me" is a personal threat, and against policy. Please review wikipedia policy and correct your behavior in the future. Please consider this your second warning regarding personal attacks. I understand that you are a new editor and are unaware of wikipedia's rules in regard to personal attacks and battlefield tactics, I am happy to help guide you through these policies, but if you continue your battlefield mentality and personal attacks we will not be able to establish a collaborative environment.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, okay? You hijacked Erica Andrews for some strange agenda. Don't play innocent or tout your years of experience with me, sir. I never stalked you, I was the one who started the page to begin with. Lightspeed made the article what it is, and you came along and ruined it, removing important information for no reason. I have the right to express my opinion about the way you dealt with the situation. You act like a bully and want to hide behind vague rules that don't apply. I also disagree that I made a personal attack against you. I never called you transphobic, I am sorry that you took it that way and I noticed that you did not take the opportunity to deny it. It does give me the chills. Now, enough of your little game, leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, that is the end of it. You can go ahead and reply if it makes you feel better but I will delete it without reading. JanetWand (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The message you put on Georgia guy's user page

Belongs on the talk page. Hence my removal. As you may have noticed, it is now on the talk page where it belongs.--Laun chba ller 15:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

">User:Launchballer, so you are GeorgiaGuy's messenger boy? Why don't you let GeorgiaGuy take care of his own page? If you are going to talk for him, can you tell me why he is on this campaign to revise the terms in Christine Jorgensen? Where is he getting his information from? I am in the transgender community and I have never heard of such notions that he has put forth, that male-to-female is offensive or that transwoman must be two words. In the past, he was determined to inappropriately place [sic] inside every quote that referred to a former male aspect of Christine Jorgensen. Can you reason with him? I am happy with how things are now, and I am done arguing with him. But he is drawing a hard line without any backing from the community. I feel that he is a cisgender who wants to define transgender. It doesn't work, it never works. We define our own community. So that is where I am coming from. JanetWand (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with Georgia guy and in fact I have no idea why I received an eMail saying you had edited his user page - the notifications should have moved from User:Georgia guy to User:Georgia guy/Archive 2 when he archived his talk page. What I will say is this; trans-gender is one of about 6,000 words that used to be double-barrelled before the chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary decided we couldn't be bothered to type the - and excised it from about 6,000 words. As far as I'm concerned, I can; I still use the -, and so I am probably not the best bloke to ask. Put in a request for comment and tag the both of us in it.--Laun chba ller 16:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ENDA

I am currently in the process of editing biased opinions against Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the article. At the very least, I want them to be "tagged", so to speak, as being biased opinions. I don't mind reporting them because it is what some are saying about it (although there is a question as to what is considered notable because my neighbor thinks that pineapples are awful and worthless. If I quote him on it in a wiki article, I am willing to bet that most folks would disagree that he is noteworthy. Even if he started up his own grassroots campaign against pineapples and the pineapple industry, and opened up webpages, and got thousands of people to support him, his opinion about pineapples would be still considered meh besides being biased and in violation of good sense. Who doesn't love a pina-colada? JanetWand (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critiquing articles -- section and inline templates

I thought the following templates might be more descriptive when critiquing articles in the future.

A detailed list of article, inline and section templates can also be found here. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles

Thanks for your help 009o9 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF

Not engaging in personal attacks and being civil are both Wikipedia policies, and they apply whether or not you believe the other person is acting in bad faith or is a transphobic misogynist. If you are not already familiar with them, I highly recommend you read them both as well as what it means to assume good faith. Beyond that, telling another user to leave Wikipedia and threatening to blindly edit-war any response that said user might make is absolutely unacceptable. Please re-word your comment and remove or strike out the portions that violate policy. And keep in mind that these sorts of policy violations can very easily get you blocked. I would also like to draw your attention to this comment made three weeks before yours. -- Irn (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CIreland (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JanetWand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am responsible for the post because it was made from my account. However, it was not my edit. I am not aware who did it. I will take steps to secure my system in the future, and I want to make it clear that I have never nor would I ever purposefully vandalize any wiki article. Thanks for your consideration.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, we do not unblock compromised accounts. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Compromised_accounts Yamla (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.