Why not !

I thank you for changing cisman on that page, I've done so repeatedly. There's an editor, however, who will rudely change it back (and probably insult you in the bargain). Be warned! Czolgolz 22:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to understand about WP Policy.

In Voice Feminization AlexR has been making repeated reverts (4 in less than 24 hours on 22 May 2006. These revisions revolve around two words ciswoman and woman (see Talk:Voice_feminization#RFC for summary of changes.)

I believe the content of cisgender was modified reprehensibly just to prove a point. Which I believe is against quoted policy. And the same policy states to act Civility but AlexR is rude, judgmental and is constantly belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice plus using profanity (see history[1] 17:55, 22 May 2006 )

My question is, as a new user can I use the Templates in Template_messages/Disputes to get the offending and untrue entries looked at in cisgender and bring AlexR's dishonorable actions to light? I know I can be bold and just remove them, but I don't want to start another edit war with this individual. I want the constant reverts to stop and the arguments to cease. I hope that if I act rationally and civilly, even though I am less than a week and AlexR has been here since 26 Dec 2006, that I should be treated fairly.

And finally, there are also templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. As a new user am I allowed to use them? Are there any guidelines for their use?

Thank you,

Yes anyone can add a Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes to a page. Yes anyone can add a Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to a user's talk page (although a personal message would be better, templates like that are generally reserved for vandalism and there isn't any vandalism going on in this case).

The article RfC that has been filed is just about content. Don't make it personal, on the article's talk page only discuss content not editors.

About the civility and things, I think the user is being generally reasonable, just let it go (forget it) and try to work on the article. I will post a short message on AlexR's talk page, I think that's all that is required.--Commander Keane 11:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "You were using the term ciswoman as interchangeable with woman". That is such a mischaracterisation that it is insulting. I made those changes precisely because you wrote "women" and obviously meant "ciswomen". And btw, I changed it to "cisgender" women, not that abominal "cisgendered". Same as with transgendered that is not a word, that is an abomination, since transgender -- and therefore, cisgender -- are already both nouns and adjectives. Also, ciswoman and cismen are not neologisms, they are analogously coined. I also can't really take your "that is what I wanted" serious, since if that had been what you wanted, you could have done so yourself. As for your civil-substs, you can put as many of them on my talk page as you want, I will just delete them.

You were insulting, both to me and to all transpeople, you have filled talkpages with mindless rants, you say I have done things that are the precise opposite I have done, you insulted me and lied about me, and you reverted the article several times just out of spite, with no arguments whatsover, to an incorrect and insulting version. And that is not even mentioning what you did in your previous incarnation. So if you claim that I have been incivil, that was at the very least a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Unlike you, though, I did not, while on the talk page claiming otherwise, state that transwomen were no "women" and transmen therefore are.

So you can cut the crap about agreeing with my work, because I sincerely doubt you understood anything about it. You at least did not understand what I said on the talk page. And regarding the welcome message -- I have never put one of those on any talk page, and I would certainly not put it on the talk page of a person who, just because she did it, claims to be an expert, and writes articles that ignore both transmen and non-transsexual transgender people, and then whines for days over edits to "her" articles. Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, you have shown no reason whatsoever that would make me welcome you here. Maybe that will change, but that would require some serious improvements in your manners and style. Until that admittedly highly unlikely event, I sure hope we don't run into each other again. -- AlexR 16:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I agree with Comander Keen, we should just let it go. Alex is obviously not interested in discussion, at least not without insults. I'm going to set my sights on my favorite articles, such as Pachuca, Mexico. Hope to see more articles from you. Czolgolz 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be interesting to see how Alex responds to this. Hey, are you the same as Voice of One, or different? 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that VOO dropped wiki, she wrote a good article. Alex tends to think discussion means being abusive to those who don't agree with him. Give my love to VOO and I hope to see more from you. PS If you read Alex's talk pages, it's funny to see him repeatedly warned by the administration (before he deletes them) Czolgolz 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like Alex took his bat and ball and went home. He's trying to make it look like it was you, but in reality, several editors warned him they were going to block him if he didn't watch it. So good for you for helping make wikipedia a kinder place. Czolgolz 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

I did look at the comments on Voice feminization before, actually, and though I don't agree with everything you said here, I think it's pretty clear that "cisman" and "ciswoman" aren't well-accepted enough, yet, to be mentioned in an encyclopedia entry. I was originally in favor of including the terms because I've heard people use them, but of course, I've heard people use a lot of terms that don't merit inclusion here. Catamorphism 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm insatiably curious, what can I say? The original article seemed reasonable enough, but the "1995" assertion is clearly false; that's why it's important for people to question unsourced assertions, as you're doing. Catamorphism 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

honestum tāle est ut vel sī ignōrarent id hominēs suā tamen pulchritūdine laudābile esset

FemVoice 00:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about learning German? Your comments don't even make sense. And I don't want them on my talk page, so I delete them immediately. So stop bothering. And you might try to understand what you read, too -- your references to the reference guidelines don't exactly sound as if you understand them. Which is hardly surprising. And BTW, your article on Voice feminization still is very short on your precious references, too. So what exactly are you complaing about? -- AlexR 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FemVoice, thanks for your comment on my talk page. It does look like a problem. I think if a high density of someone's edits are personal attacks, and if they've been warned enough times, someone can make a request to an admin to block them, at least for a while. I may try to do that if things don't get better. --Allen 01:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...So I modified it per your request. Thank you for giving me a chance to do it however. Chooserr 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I revert your "comments" on my talk page without reading, you can stop wasting my time and yours by staying away. I might also add that you have no idea whatsover why I left the German WP, so stop making up slandering stories. -- AlexR 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may add your comments if you'd like. Catamorphism 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered this as a mediator, I'm not sure there is much debate remaining, but I hope we can find some form of agreement where everyone is, well, at least non-combative... Are you happy with the page in its current state? With the definitions of cisman and ciswoman included? I understand and share a concern with regard to the need for sources but like you said earlier on Talk:Cisgender removing this would probably make it a suitable idea to remove the redirect pages for cisman and ciswoman as well. Usrnme h8er 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since AlexR has chosen not to partake in the mediation, I'm going to have to consider the mediation to have reached a consensus... Do you feel that you and User:Catamorphism can agree about page content on the talk page? Or do you want the mediation to remain open? --Usrnme h8er 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that AlexR will be back, but for now, would you like to clean help clean up cisgender, or would you trust me to start and you see if you would agree, given that I would support each of my changes in the talk section of the article? And, if I thought controversial, would defer to you since you seem to be the more open of our two minds.

Feel free to do what you can; I'll do what I can, as well, which may not include overhauling the whole article, as (contrary to appearances) I do have other responsibilities :-) Catamorphism 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whom do you think you can fool with your odd mixture of threats and your dishones compliments?

• You have said that I slandered (Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.) you. How? I read your few examples and I guess that they could be misconstrued by someone. But are nothing compared to your blatant attacks and vulgarities.

• • Oh, so whatever you did to provoke the behavoir you are complaining about (and to which I admitted that I was not exactly at my best aver being provoked like this) do count nothing compated to my slips? Funny idea ... [AR]

[AR] And who gives you the right to delete content from my talk page, and fill it yet again with your insincere rants?

• Sorry, I just thought you wouldn't mind, since you deleted mediation cabal and called me a bitch in the process. You did after all say on Revision as of 15:13, 6 June 2006(Go to hell, all of you ... and see whether that bitch will do as much work as I do).

• • Removing somebodies lies and slanders from a mediation case (as I have already said elsewhere, too, not my best idea) is obviously different from removing something from somebody elses talk page after having been told countless times that I don't want your rants there. [AR]

[AR] Do you seriously expect me to just forget the lies you told about me and the slander you spread around?

• No, I figure that you will keep on trying to invent some imaginary case that others are out to get you. The poor guy (User:Usrnme_h8er ) saw someone blanking a page which is against wikipedia policy (Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking,...) and responds. That is not a lie, and not slander. It is what you did.

• • I did - but I still consider it not appropriate for this guy then to act as if he had been elected by both sides as mediator, which he was definitely not. And as for vandalism - lies and slander are constantly deleted from WP; I should have, I admitt, only removed those, not the rest of the page. Nevertheless, vandalism is something different. [AR]

• You imagine insults were none exist, and have to take minute pieces to create the implied insult and when others look, they don't see the imagined slights that you do.

• • What others see and what not we should leave to them, shouldn't we? [AR]

[AR] You don't even bother to appologise for them and your harassment.

• I can not apologize for something I didn't do or something that you imagined that I did. I am sorry that I hurt you feelings and "I feel terrible that I upset you". And since you have made your case, I will no longer put anything on your user talk page.

• • Uhm, isn't that nice? But lying and slandering is not just something that personally upsets people (of course it sure does), it is meant to obliterate a person. Which does not go exactly well with your constant professions of how much you respect me. Oh, and nice that you will leave my talk page alone, after I asked for that for weeks now. [AR]

[AR] Mind you, I may not have been at my best myself, but I didn't get completely hysterical over two minor changes in "your" article and went out to harass anybody.

• No, with words like asshole, Bullshit, Go to hell, all of you, bitch and or course I must not forget the slander
  • "Especially by nuts who are too stupid or too dense to use Google",
  • "Both are obviously nutcases and vandals",
  • "And you can shove it where the moon don't shine",
  • "(revert - corrupt and lying admins I don't want to see here, either)",
  • "Of course, you may be too stupid to see that",
  • "you obviously would not recognise truthfullness if it jumped on you and bit you"

• • As I already said, after being harassed by you for two weeks, I was not at my best. Unlike you, I took a step back and decided it was time to get my blood pressure down. [AR]

[AR] I can easily understand why you are hard to work with, after having been harassed by you for weeks.

• It is my attention to detail that makes me hard to work with, my exactness when others are lazy. I don't harass people at work or anyplace else that I can think of. Only in your imagination.

• • Yeah, and harassing people who dare make minor corrections to "your" article for weeks has nothing to do with it. Right. [AR]

[AR] I also intend to neither work "with you" not "against you".

• That sounds fair.

[AR] You do not seem to understand that some people are here because they care about Wikipedia, not their egos, which must be your motivation here, judging from this remark.

• What remark? I have no ego here, I know I am a slow methodical person. I know that by the rules here, that they will go with me instead of you, even though you have thousands of biased edits.

• • How about "If you work with me, you can guide my energy. If you work against me, you will be working against my energy." and similar from [3]. Oh, of course, I will just have misunderstood you again. My bad. [AR]

[AR] I couldn't care less about you personaly, all I care about is whether you improve Wikipedia or not. (And, given your recent behaviour, whether you stop harassing me.)

• From the number of complaints and posts that you should behave on your talk page, it shows.

• • Yeah, right. The comments by you and your stooges after provoking me for weeks is a perfect indicator for the work I have done in the past 2 1/2 years. [AR]

[AR] Which means your edit will not be judged by the fact that they are yours, but by their content.

• Catamorphism judged them, and you ignored that and started calling her names. You didn't judge my edits, you erased them out of hand and even admitted it later.

[AR] Should you, however, just because I refuse your offer of "working together" (something I sincerely doubt you would be able to anyway; and I certainly do not wish to have anything to do with you in the future), you start working against me, you will find yourself on the receiving end of of a dispute resolution, and in places where no would-be moderator can close cases just as he likes, either.

• Alex, if you want to take me to a real dispute, go right ahead. With your imagination, it will take a little work, but after blanking pages, adding content to make a point, confusing Catamorphism and Czolgolz in an argument, removing warnings from your talk page, violating the three revert rule, and general hostility to everyone that trys to talk to you about this, you will certainly loose. You have been here long enough, you should know better. Arguments like "Understandably angry, I blanked the page twice completely, wishing to obliterate this slander and lies" will not fly with them, and you should know that.

[AR] The same goes for other threads, like putting up Cisgender for deletion -- that has already been tried, and there is no reason you are going to be any more successfull.

• I wish you could read english and understand what you read. Which brings up a subject that I would like you to understand up front, I WILL NOT DO. Where did I make a threat to get it deleted? I said " I considered putting cisgender up for Afd because it does not fit the criteria that Wikipedia has for articles. I know I could defend its removal, but I don't want to do that." - THERE IS NO THREAT! I stated my opinion. I said I wanted it to stay, even though I know the rules say it should go. How did you ever confuse that? (shaking head)

• • I am perfectly capable of reading English, and that sure sounds like a thread to me. "If you don't behave I will ...". Maybe you should read your own texts better?

[AR] The thread does show, however, that it is certainly not the improvement of Wikipedia you have in mind.

• Since it was not a threat, you are obviously creating some kind of delusion in your mind. You need to learn to read with understanding. See previous.

• • Then maybe you should learn how to write without those seeming threads. Might be difficult, though. [AR]

[AR] I really don't wish to spend more time on this nutcase case, but if you force me, then you - and you alone - are responsible for the result.

• Bring it on. The result will be that in your imagination everyone is against you with lies and slander. Are you comfortable with every edit you have made here? Including blanking pages? I am new here, and you bit me on my first day. I have been trying to be nice, and it does not seem to be working at all. So, bring it on and you can then believe that the people that you asked to berate me are liars and my stooges.

• • I did not, but hey, who cares about facts. And where exactly have you tried to be nice? I cannot recall a single instance, unless you wish to count your thoroughly insincere compliements which always where coupled with threats, lies, and insults, as being "nice". And whom exactly have I "berated"? [AR]

[AR] So kindly leave me in peace and stop harassing me. (That includes further deletions and/or comments on my talk page.)

• I never brought the mediation case up, Catamorphism did. She included me in it, and you freaked when I responded. She would not have brought it up, except you were reverting without thought because you saw an edit I made. You did not read my research, or even consider that I have anything valid to offer here. You need to grow up!

• • Oh yeah, I am the one that needs to grow up? I have a hint for you: Lying and slandering won't work forever for you, either. [AR]

[AR] It will probably be inevitable that we meet again, but I would very much appreciate if you would try to stick to the issued at hand, and not get personal.

• pfft! Who got personal with words like asshole, Bullshit, Go to hell, all of you, bitch and or course I must not forget the slander
  • "Especially by nuts who are too stupid or too dense to use Google",
  • "Both are obviously nutcases and vandals",
  • "And you can shove it where the moon don't shine",
  • "(revert - corrupt and lying admins I don't want to see here, either)",
  • "Of course, you may be too stupid to see that",
  • "you obviously would not recognise truthfullness if it jumped on you and bit you"

• • For which I already appologied. Well most of it. Particularly the last comment is still perfectly appropriate. [AR]

[AR] I am definitely not interested in any personal communication with you. Neither now, nor in the future.

• From every revert with comment of rvv you have made, you show that you have no interest in actually reading and understanding that my edits have had merit. Some of the user talk? Not so much, but my edits are not biased and are based off of verifiable information and not your opinion.

• • Right. That goes particilarly for those in which you personally attacked me. Perfectly unbiased, that. [AR]

[AR] -- AlexR 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FemVoice 04:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, nice try, but I think I will let the readers jusge by the link you did provide about whether you did slander and harass me and lied about me. It is so bloody obvious that you did that not even your try with the less-than-perfect remarks, which I made in reaction to your behaviour (and for which I, unlike you, appologised) will change anybodies mind about that. But, this is dragging into a non-communication which I am not even interested in, and it is just another obvious example of your behaviour, so how about an EOD? Means you can delete that page you made extra for me as well ... obviously, you are not trying to quite your lies, slander, and harassment, but I am tired of trying to communicate with somebody who keeps going on and on and on with such behaviour. What you want is an acknowledgement that I am the worst person who ever walked this planet and a complete surrender to your imagined superioritiy. You are not going to get it, neither with further lies and attacks, not with insincere compliments. And frankly, the WP has seen so many nutcases in the past, I am quite sure that people are capable of making up their own minds about this case. And, trusting in this, I think it is really time for an EDO. -- AlexR 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]