User talk:MarionTheLibrarian

Welcome!

Hello, MarionTheLibrarian, 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:

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! VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Would be Queen

Hi Marion,

I haven't been back to the article but I wanted to give you this rather tardy reply to my talk page. Thank you , I think it was balance but I have this feeling Avruch will go in and unbalance it again. I suggested that if he cannot balance the article that he to remove Dr Baileys accusations of a conspiracy. He makes pointed allegations at individuals that in my opinion violates the "do no harm " rule. Without both sides it becomes less enlightening and more sensationalist. Ok, to what you were saying :

" First is whether the two-types-of-transsexualism/autogynephilia theory has been discredited. Whether any theory is discredited or not is an opinion. There are still people on both sides of the issue. Perhaps we should just call it controversial?"

Controversial is fine , I agree . This theory was never adopted by any institution as fact or premise for treatment. From what I know in talking to a friend who is a cultural anthropologist who is doing her Phd on transsexualism at UCLA is that Bailey's mistake was only his promotion of the book. It was a severely limited study done in one gay bar with only six subjects. Yes, he references Blanchard but his conclusions are more absolutes and he applies it across an entire community. Basically he went to a sex bar to find exactly what he wanted to find. A slim sample to make a sweeping statement , even with reference Blanchard's work.

"Second is Baily's intent: Was he trying to >describe< autogynephilia (etc.) or do science (i.e., test an hypothesis)? In the book, he says he wants to describe it...at least, if he had an hypothesis he was trying to prove, no one (not even he) has said what it was."


Unfortunately he promoted it as science fact rather than a book posing a hypothesis. That seems to be the crux of his troubles.


"Thoughout the book, although he did not provide the references to Blanchard's journal articles, he describe the content of Blanchard's articles and why Bailey was convinced by them"


As I remember , he doesn't use the actual data but summations. Obviously he got what he wanted, a controversy to promote a popular soft science book . I think it would be worth someone redoing his work in a hard science fashion to either verify or invalidate his findings. that would end any argument over accuracy.


(DarlieB (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Andrea James

Hi Marion, and thank you for your contributions to the Wikipedia. I see that you reverted all of my edits to the Andrea James article and I would like to avoid an edit war, so I would like to talk to you some.

I re-reverted some of your edits but I left the word "controversial" in the lead section of the article. I do not think the lead section needs to state any more explicitly that some of her activism has been controversial, as most activism is at least a little controversial. I moved some of your statements from the lead section to the "Transsexual Activism" section. The fact that "some" (Alice Dreger according to the source you cited) think Andrea James is more like Al Sharpton than Martin Luther King Jr. does not seem particularly encyclopedic to me, but if you feel this should be included, it belongs in the "Transsexual activism" section, not in the lead section. In general, you should try to avoid weasel words in Wikipedia articles. And your addition to the lead section about Andrea James' later removed personal attacks on Bailey's children was redundant as there was already a mention of that in the "Transsexual activism" section.

To say it again in a nutshell, while some of Andrea James' work is undoubtedly controversial, the lead section need not explicitly say so as it did after you edited it. I am trying to compromise with you and I hope you will do the same.

Andrea Parton (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the Lynn Conway article, in which you put mostly the same, including forgetting to change the name James to Conway at first, except that I took out "controversial" as clearly an unneeded interpretation in the lead sentence. Dreger has become a principal in these debates, through her blog and her very one-side analysis, and is therefore not a suitable sendonary source per WP:BLP. And Marion, as you are new to wikipedia and have obviously a single purpose with strong POV in your edits, it would be wise to learn sooner, rather than later, how collaborative encyclopedia writing works. You'll just create a lot of grief for yourself and others if you keep up the way you've started. Dicklyon (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently edited pedophilia...

Did you notice that there's a RfC at Talk:Pedophilia#What_is_neutrality.3F? I and others would be grateful for outside input. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to List of paraphilias has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Nn123645 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I have added a specific comment to indicate why each change was warranted. I provide them as individual edits so that other editors could comment on specific issues, since each entry has its own eccentricity.—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi Marion,

You're being too aggressive with reverts at the Pedophilia article. You added a lot of OR to the article, and now you need to discuss on talk instead of revert-warring with Squeakbox to keep your changes in. Thanks, -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my newness, but what's "OR"?
Secondly, I am not sure what I might have done that is improper. I proposed the new text, nearly verbatim, on the talk page, and it was endorsed by everyone who cared to say anything. So, after waiting for everyone to have their say (about two days), I put in the new text, precisely as advertized. Then it got reverted without any discussion at all. It would seem (to me) that going back to the agreed-upon text and asking that we all talk about it first is exactly the proper thing (on my part) to have done. What netiquette have I not followed?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
original research--the paragraph you wrote on cognitive distortions is almost entirely OR, and didn't get consensus. You were a little hasty to add it. And if someone reverts you on a big chunk of drastic changes that have less than 2 days discussion, go to the talkpage, don't immediately start revert warring, ok? -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the old dog here. I may have more of the references at my disposal, but I'm still just a newbie.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding your edits at Pedophilia

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excessive warning. The editor's behaviour does not come into conflict with the 3RR (as yours has in the past), and does not exceed your own tendency to revert.
I therefore urge calm in the relationship between you two, and complaint only when it is justified. J-Lambton T/C 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, Marion's last revert restored only the material supported by a consensus on the discussion page, not the original research that Petra objected to. She wasn't edit warring. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. However, the three revert rule does not apply to reverting of any one statement on an article, it applies to multiple reverts on any one article in one day. Also, there was no consensus on the talk page at the time that the reverts were done. There was an ongoing content dispute that had not been resolved. As you know, edit-warring is not an effective method of resolving content disputes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I thought I was losing my mind. Tough crowd.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarionTheLibrarian, the warning I posted on your page was not intended to convey anything other than information. It's a bit funny that User:Jovin Lambton urged calm. I don't need to tell you why it's funny, you'll see that for yourself as you get to know more about that user.

I posted the warning because you had already reverted three times on that page today. Since you have written several times that you are a new editor, I thought you might not be aware of the three revert rule. If no-one warned you, you might exceed 3RR without realizing it. It's a good idea to read the whole rule so you understand the way it works.

It's also a good idea to read the other main Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here's a starting page that lists the important ones:

Now that I've reviewed your talk page further, I see that you had previously received a similar warning, so the one I posted was probably not necessary. You are aware of the rule and of the idea of edit-warring, so nothing further need be written about that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on,folk. Marion is a brand new user with 8 days here and a 3RR template is entirely appropriate for a newbie. You are treating her like she is an experienced user. The rest of us are experienced enough to know 3RR and such a template would thus be inappropriate but Marion has just started and for an 8 day old user a template warmning is entirely standard, hence I find Jovin and AS's comments reflecting their own lack of real wikipedia experience, because otherwise I would have to assume bad faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am having trouble counting to three. I commited an undo at 21:23, and what might be considered a partial undo at 22:06 to reinstate the agreed-upon text. What were my other 1-1/2 undo's?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marion, the idea is to give you the 3RR warning before you go over 3rr, not afterwards. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Rough crowd. Personally, I would warn someone at three not to do any more, but as you've pointed out, I'm new to wiki culture. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd comment. Three is not a right, and the sooner you knew about 3rr the better. But you are right, due to a plethora (50 or so) poisonous sockpuppets the atmosphere is seriously poisoned re pedophilia at wikipedia. But there are many other calmer places on the encyclopedia where you might be advised to gain some editing experience before coming back to the rough world of the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not discouraged from editing Pedophilia. We really need more editors who are familiar with the literature. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I may be a bookworm, but I have quite a thick skin, and I'm not planning on going anywhere.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Freund images

Thanks for uploading Image:Freund, Dr Kurt, 1914-1996 ~CIP 66.jpg and Image:Compressed freund cropped.jpg. You didn't specify the source of these photographs, though, which means User:OrphanBot will soon remove them from the article. Could you edit the source into the fair use justifications just added? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll add the source.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alternate accounts

Thank you for accepting my suggestion at the checkuser report talk page and posting disclosure of your alternate accounts on your user pages of this account and your former account, User:WriteMakesRight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. All I ever needed was instructions on how.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Conway

Relocated to Lynn Conway talk page.

Lynn Conway Mediation

Hi, I've accepted the 2008-06-01 Lynn Conway mediation case. Please feel welcome to participate and comment. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)== Ephebophilia ==[reply]

I could do with your help at Ephebophilia, which you edited recently. A couple of editors seem to be completely unaware of referencing guidelines and are deleting reliable sources because they find an online copy offensive and unreliable. They are deleting all of the pub data (which is enough in itself) because of this. forestPIG 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always happy to help out by improving sources. But I'm having trouble locating this one. I does not appear in the Library of Congress catalog. Where did you find it?

advice

It would be very highly advisable to use the information you have to improve e Dreager article, which is pretty much of a disgrace at this point. Doesn't show the key points of notability very well, doesnt seem objective, and looks like a copyvio. It would make it much easier to use him as a source. 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I'm not following you...to improve which article? Using who as a source?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You reverted my edit to Archives of Sexual Behavior thrice already, instead of making constructive suggestions for how to improve it; you've said you have no objection to the mention, so please help fix it if the way I've done it is not to your liking. You will violate WP:3RR if you revert again, putting you at risk of being blocked. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marion, it will not be necessary for you to remove it again. Dickylon is already in clear violation of 3RR himself, as well as WP:BLP, and I will do what is needed to protect the article. DGG (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have stopped the edit war for the moment, but as , I think it better to leave it to the mediator to follow up on this one as well. I'll give advice, but I dont intend to take any admin action except in urgent situations, like last night. DGG (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and thanks.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic asphyxiation

[Barnstar relocated to my new user page, James Cantor.

Sorry about apotemnophilia, but I know little about the various paraphilias and our local library doesn't even get as far as spanking in its sexuality books (I think they have a copy of the Hite Report). You can put your barnstars on your userpage if you like, or set up a page for them (people with a lot do this and some just delete them). --Simon Speed (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not native English ...

Some of my cryptic language might come off wrong as I'm not in full control of subtle stuff. My tone is probably more unfriendly than I intend it. In any case, I really didn't even mean to hint that you had done anything wrong. Not in the least. I hope that now, at least, this much is completely clear. :) Merzul (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Archives of Sexual Behavior

Hi, I noticed you seem to be in an edit war with Dicklyon on Archives of Sexual Behavior. I did not block you, but please remember that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't technically violate the three revert rule. I know you do good work with RS, etc. and don't want to see you caught up in anything. Please be more careful. --Selket Talk 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I tried as best I could in the diffs to indicate that there was leniency in the 3RR in order to remove violations of BLP, which was what I was perceiving.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on J Michael Bailey

This is the second 3RR warning on your page, one right after the other apparently. Please do not engage in edit warring on any article - this warning is specific to the article J Michael Bailey. Use the talkpage to engage VanTucky and others about your concerns, particularly relative to BLP. As a side note, I have removed this article from the list of Good Articles based on its instability and my belief that it no longer meets basic standards of neutrality. Avruch 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the warning, and I have already opened a conversation with VanTucky on the J Michael Bailey talk page. If you investigate the above warning to me more closely, however, you will see that I was reverting text that violated BLP. As I understand WP:BLP (and please correct me if I am in error), good faith efforts to keep a page within BLP is a legitimate reason for reverting text more than three times. The reversions you are noting on the J Michael Bailey page are for exactly the same reason. Please read the note I left on the talk page there, and let me know if I at all seem to be acting inappropriately.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your intention, and your belief that its acceptable under the BLP policy, but I submit that the exemption is intended to permit reversion of serious and clear BLP-vio insertions and not debatable violations where an administrator (in this VanTucky) disagrees with you. I think you should take care to not approach the 3RR line even when you believe that there may be a BLP reason for your reverts, to ensure that you don't end up blocked unnecessarily. Avruch 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; thanks for the feedback.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your addition to homosexual transsexual

I like what you added that Dr. Benjamin said. I am not going to delete it or anything. I am just going to try and condense it, then weave it into the article. Since this is a good article it's integrity must be maintained. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. I've seen Benjamin quoted so many times, but I never actually had the chance to read the complete original until now.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

Marion, I've just made some changes to the article on homosexuality. This included undoing one of your edits. You may want to look it over. Skoojal (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not going to get my panties in a twist about it, but 2-4% really is the more accurate range. There was a re-analysis of the Kinsey data that showed that the original estimates were way too high, and neither the Hite Report nor the Janus report used representative sampling. The refs I put in the header include every major representative sampling study ever conducted. (At least, if I've left one out, it was by accident.) I'll write more on the talk page when I can pull out that re-analysis of the Kinsey data. We can work it out there with whomever else is interested.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI noticeboard

I have filed a brief start to a COI case against you at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MarionTheLibrarian. Depending on the responses there, I may add support for the case, or drop it. Let's see. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy

Marion, thank you very much for your recent edit to conversion therapy. You're being a voice for common sense there. And while I'm at it, thank you also for your edit to Simon LeVay; I've tried to point out that that article needs the attention of someone who knows more than I do. Skoojal (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's nice to hear.
You might be interested to hear that another brain anatomy study of sexual orientation has just come out. The author is Sandra Witelson, a well-known researcher, and the brain area is the corpus callosum.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the conversion therapy article, Jokestress is continuing to make suggestions on the talk page; I wish you would comment on these. Skoojal (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved note from User:Tyciol to my current talk page at User:James Cantor

Neil Goldschmidt

I see that you're a reliable NPOV editor. I am requesting your help with the Neil Goldschmidt article. SqueakBox and Jack-A-Roe have been engaging in a revert war with me without consulting the talk page, as well as removing the neutrality tags I placed. I may need your assistance to maintain nonbias in this article. An administrator was already brought in previously and stopped the edit war temporarily. Several months later, I made my fist entry into the affair, and posted a detailed summary on the talk page regarding the invalidity of the previous POV edits. SqueakBox and Jack-A-Roe ignored my comments on the talk page, and continued reverting my edits, thus placing them in violation of basic WP guidelines regarding conflict resolution. I've suggested to SqueakBox on his talk page that mediation might be necessary; he deleted my message. Unless we can establish some consensus, we may be headed on the long, hard road down to ArbCom. Agnapostate (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Compressed freund cropped.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Compressed freund cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]