| Revision as of 13:59, 27 August 2009 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:44, 7 September 2009 edit undoVanisheduser5965 (talk | contribs)608 edits →Talk:The Man Who Would Be QueenNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| There is a template on the top of the page in question advising all parties to confine their discussion to the material of the article. Your commentary has rather frequently been in violation of those talk page guidelines, and I believe your comments would be much better received if you were to actually follow the rules of talk pages, as per ]. I look forward to seeing your future comments more in keeping with the existing guidelines. Thank you. ] (]) 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | There is a template on the top of the page in question advising all parties to confine their discussion to the material of the article. Your commentary has rather frequently been in violation of those talk page guidelines, and I believe your comments would be much better received if you were to actually follow the rules of talk pages, as per ]. I look forward to seeing your future comments more in keeping with the existing guidelines. Thank you. ] (]) 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| I appreciate your concern over my ability to contribute to TMWWBQ. In normal circumstances I would agree and continue but I'm afraid this article being edited by Dr Bailey's co-workers and supporters degrades it beyond being worth working on . It's no more than a sham set up to try and clear the good doctor of charges that have left his career in a shambles. My editing is against that sacred purpose and as such no matter what I did to improve the article and it will be removed . It is filled with false facts ( probably put back in by now ) , lies and blatant exclusions and manipulation of truth . When I came on there were no less than five full references to Dreger under different names trying to hid that she said it , misidentifying gay magazines as LGBT, Bailey sources writing reviews of the same book that they appear in ! Unqualified reviewers who were Baileys collaborators . This article will never be honest or properly constructed. It should be about the book, not an apologists version of how Dr Bailey and his sainthood . Entire sections babbling on about Dregers "theories on the injustice to Bailey " and nothing on the book, or even to explain the IRB or what it meant to Dr Baileys approach to the research. After two years of trying to be neutral I totally lost neutrality so what's the point ? These aren't editors, they are Baileys sycophants and employees. Let them try to rewrite the truth, it will only delay the truth coming . Misplaced Pages is just a bunch of people enforcing their sourced point of view , it has nothing to do with fact. Thanks though. ] (]) 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:44, 7 September 2009
Welcome!
Hello, Vanisheduser5965, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
- 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
ENDA
Sorry DarlieB. Trans folks have been left at the curb nearly every step by nearly every LGBT group at one point or another. The ENDA was just a mess to begin with and a last ditch effort, IMHO, to get anything on the books. Why they though it would work is really beyond me but Frank is quite the genius at getting things done so I credit him for trying. I suggest working on the ENDA article itself if that's where your interest lies or pick other articles especially about people and subject you really enjoy. It will be a little bit more pleasant for you and you can get more familiar with how Misplaced Pages works while researching subjects that aren't as stressful. -- Banjeboi 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen
There is a template on the top of the page in question advising all parties to confine their discussion to the material of the article. Your commentary has rather frequently been in violation of those talk page guidelines, and I believe your comments would be much better received if you were to actually follow the rules of talk pages, as per WP:TPG. I look forward to seeing your future comments more in keeping with the existing guidelines. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern over my ability to contribute to TMWWBQ. In normal circumstances I would agree and continue but I'm afraid this article being edited by Dr Bailey's co-workers and supporters degrades it beyond being worth working on . It's no more than a sham set up to try and clear the good doctor of charges that have left his career in a shambles. My editing is against that sacred purpose and as such no matter what I did to improve the article and it will be removed . It is filled with false facts ( probably put back in by now ) , lies and blatant exclusions and manipulation of truth . When I came on there were no less than five full references to Dreger under different names trying to hid that she said it , misidentifying gay magazines as LGBT, Bailey sources writing reviews of the same book that they appear in ! Unqualified reviewers who were Baileys collaborators . This article will never be honest or properly constructed. It should be about the book, not an apologists version of how Dr Bailey and his sainthood . Entire sections babbling on about Dregers "theories on the injustice to Bailey " and nothing on the book, or even to explain the IRB or what it meant to Dr Baileys approach to the research. After two years of trying to be neutral I totally lost neutrality so what's the point ? These aren't editors, they are Baileys sycophants and employees. Let them try to rewrite the truth, it will only delay the truth coming . Misplaced Pages is just a bunch of people enforcing their sourced point of view , it has nothing to do with fact. Thanks though. DarlieB (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)