User talk:Naif

First ever comment

You, sir, are a genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.232.59 (talk • contribs)

Comment of unknown provenance

What on Earth? Not wikilinking the word god is not a POV. -- Ec5618 23:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi and Naif's Great Debate

Erm, please go to school. Before making a statement about gender, please learn what the word means. You could start with the Wikipedia article or, should you not believe that, look at some journal articles, books, or something else involving actually learning something. You may, on the other hand, be referring to sex. And on that very issue, there are many institutions that would disagree with you - from professional bodies in the United States and elsewhere, to the AP Stylebook, the world's foremost guide for journalism on issues such as pronouns, to a significant number of courts worldwide. What you think of or call Brandon Teena is irrelevant. Ambi 11:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I went to a very good school, one whose name you know. But I don't boast. Professional bodies and the AP stylebook are irrelevant. Sex and gender are biological facts. I know this truth is painful, but part of life is accepting painful truths. Peace to you, fellow human being. -Naif 11:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facts according to who? Just because you assert something does not make it so. We have many neutral articles on Wikipedia which make quite clear where science stands, where the APA stands, where religious organisations stand, where the courts stand and where governments stand. Where you personally stand, however, really isn't important to anyone. Please cease breaking Wikipedia naming conventions, and find somewhere else to push your mysognist agenda. Ambi 12:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm a misogynist now? That's news to me considering I have been nothing but a gentleman to every woman I have ever met. APA is irrelevant. (You will note that it even includes the name of ONE culture in its title.) What you and your confused allies have managed to get courts and governments to declare is also irrelevant. Simple observation of the way animals treat each other based on gender shows that there is a simple biological fact in operation that all the spinny thinking in the world will never get around. -Naif 12:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in Wikipedia, you cannot just declare something "fact"; you have to cite sources for them. We know by your userpage that you have strongly-held minority views and quite an agenda; I understand you must find transsexualism quite threatening, but this is not the place to push your views. Perhaps you might try a blog? Ambi 12:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who the devil is "we?" Last time I checked I was having a chat with a very intelligent if confused individual. My views, alas, are not minority-views, but majority. The majority of the human race does not participate on wikipedia, however, and therefore any conclusions you might have drawn as to widespread opinion may reflect systematic bias. If we transcend specism as well, we will discover that just about every animal as well recognizes the concept of gender. In any case, I don't find "transexualism" threatening; I deny the legitimacy of its existence. Ambi, I don't know if we're going to resolve this issue between the two of us. All I can ask is that you start speaking with people outside your normal intellectual orbit. A few working-class truckers and farmers might be able to sort things out for ya. Thank you (quite sincerely) for your very quick replies and spirited defense of your opinions. Once again, peace, fellow Wikipedian, and good night.-Naif 12:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your views may be the majority in a small town in Texas, but that's really not of much concern; we're interested in being neutral here, and the general international consensus of what is appropriate in these circumstances is to refer to transgendered people by their actual pronouns - which is why you will so rarely find the opposite done in any reputable publication. We are not dictated to by the tyranny of the majority, particularly by those who have no inclination to study the evidence for either side at all.

I think you seem to be misunderstood about both what transsexualism and gender are. I don't for a minute dispute the existence of distinct sexes; that is as evident in the animal community as it is in humans. Neither, for that matter, do most people. That, however, has nothing to do with transsexualism; it does not dispute that sex exists, but rather that chromosomes can in rare cases "get it wrong", as such, and people apparently one sex at birth can indeed prove to be the other. There's a litany of scientific evidence to back the case, which is why it is accepted by courts, journalism manuals, and the like. I think it says something that you rely on the opinions of people who, by their very nature, are unlikely to know anything at all about this area. Ambi 13:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I know you have strong opinions, but please try to keep them in check. It's obvious that there is someone from the other side pushing a quite extreme agenda in street harrassment, and I've tried to deal with this by reverting to your version from a week or two ago where you'd tried to clean most of it up, and attempting to remove the POV material from both sides. Just because one party is doing it does not give you an excuse to do it too. Ambi 11:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. This is considered wikistalking (c.f. Wikipedia:Harassment) and is grounds for ultimately getting banned from Wikipedia. This is particularly clear when the edits are done without looking into the situation at all, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Rose Day, a vote which appears to have been made without even reading the article simply because I voted there. Ambi 04:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I've responded on your Talk page as per wikitteque, I happen to not like unchallenged name calling on my talk page, so I'll point out that any wikistalking has started on your end, and that on three votes we're "battling" on, I've disagreed with you on two, and agreed with you on one. Hardly voting "without looking into the situation at all." - Naif 05:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not specifically checking your articles. I just have a lot of pages in this area on my watchlist (for the record, I'm a gender studies major). I responded here because you had stated that you would and I quote "check all my edits" because you disagreed with some of my views. This is the very definition of wikistalking. As to your comment on my talk page, for the record, there is no such thing as a "moderator", and I have no special powers over the article.

Nor am I taking sides over the article, as there are clearly two extremes, and I've spent the last couple of weeks trying to keep either of them from slanting the article their particular way. The present draft of the article stems from a revert I made to one of your (previously reverted by someone else) versions from several weeks ago, as it was the most neutral version I could find in the history. I then tried to chop the bias of both sides out of the article, and while it may not be perfect, is a damned sight better than it was when I first saw the article.

Finally, I really must urge you to take heed of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I've mentioned this to you a few times, but a great many of your edits in this area continue to be quite definitely biased. I know a lot of these articles aren't brilliant to begin with, but instead of fixing them, you tend to try to fill them with your own bias instead. All of us have topics we're particularly passionate about, and sometimes it can be hard to edit neutrally on those topics. That means that we either need to be very careful that our bias isn't creeping in there, or if we can't write neutrally - even if that means "writing for the other side", as such" - then seriously considering whether we should be editing that particular topic. There are several topics which I just won't edit because they rile me too much; though it would be better if you could learn to write neutrally, if you cannot, perhaps you should think about doing the same thing here. Ambi 05:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For Chrissakes, wikistalking is specifically defined to "not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." But shucks, if you do it, it's fine; if somebody checks your work, it must be the "definition of wikistalking." But I'm willing to compromise. Back off on stalking me, and I won't muck around with your edits, even when they include such concepts as defining "David and Goliath" as a clothing line rather than a Biblical legend. - Naif 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking you. As I've told you before, I major in this area, so I unsurprisingly have many articles in it on my watchlist. Moreover, it is hardly surprising that I'm likely to revert biased edits to them - from either extreme. Please don't make this personal. I'm not going to let you have free reign in exchange for your stopping wikistalking me; all I'm asking is that you work on your editing and try to do so neutrally. Ambi 05:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love the "your stopping wikistalking me." Reminds me of the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" Unfortunately for that sly little charge, the edit record clearly shows you following me around Wikipedia and not the reverse. And again, 2 disagreements and 1 agreements on 3 of your recent votes does not a wikistalking make. I will point out that "majoring" in an area is part of the activism. There is so "masculinist studies," after all, so by definition "feminist studies" is an activist major. I'll ask you for your own part to try to see things from all POVs and not just repeat verbatim the same cant you learned from extremist professors. - Naif 05:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, reverting some (not all) of your edits to street harassment and Holla Back NYC does not make wikistalking. Threatening to follow me around and "check my edits" to unrelated articles does. Moreover, I take umbrage at your comments above. I've been trying to keep the extremist rubbish out of the article as well, such as getting rid of that terrorism hyperbole - yet you continue to accuse me of "repeating verbatim material from extremist professors." All I want is a genuinely neutral article on this topic, and I'm getting pretty damned tired of being attacked for trying to keep both sides from getting carried away with their biases. Ambi 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And for the umpteenth time, "checking your edits" is explicitly declared in the wikipedia wikistalker page to NOT be wikistalking. Nowhere do I threaten to follow you around. That said, sorry if my comments offend you, but in case you haven't noticed, I seem to have picked up my own stalker from a misguided "white knight" by the name of Calton... and he's been editing all MY edited pages. Who's the one getting stalked and creeped out?? -Naif 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Rose Day

Some Wikipedia policies you need to reacquaint yourself with:

Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Vanity
- Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

If you want to wikistalk User:Ambi, I personally can't stop you, but don't violate WP:POINT conducting your vendetta. I mean, at least take the time to make your edits halfway plausible, so ArbCom's future case against you will be less open-and-shut. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So the big-bad name-calling "wikistalker" comes out... but instead of just allying with your political friends, perhaps check the reversion histories... you'll notice this curious pattern of Ambi checking and deleting my edits for more than two weeks now... I'll respond more to your specific comments shortly. --Naif 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Ambi from Adam: what I *do* know I found out after investigating your obviously nonsensical vote on the AfD, when I checked to see whether you were a sockpuppet of one of the HLS clowns. No, but examination of your edit history -- including your antics on Sadness and its AfD -- pretty much told me what level of sincerity you bring to this project.

You may have noted that motto at the top of my talk page: It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. Members of those groups, unsurprisingly enough, have a problem with that. If you're not a member of any of those groups, you shouldn't have a problem with that either, now should you? --Calton | Talk 05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Calton, it's a little scary how you've jumped into my editing history the way you have. But fine, I'll assume good faith. That said, your Talk page speaks for itself. Clearly I'm not the only one who's a little creeped out by your editing decisions. Ever heard of this guy called Nietzsche? He said something about those who hunt monsters. -Naif 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...fine, I'll assume good faith It's good to know that you've decided to start, considering that you began by sayin that I was "allying with [my] political friends"

it's a little scary how you've jumped into my editing history the way you have You mean doing research before acting? Yeah, I'm crazy that way.

Oh, and name-dropping stuff you picked up from philosophy class doesn't impress me, so don't bother. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my userpage. #wikipedia-en-vandalism on irc.freenode.net is a good place to monitor vandals. See: Wikipedia:IRC channels. Cheers! Jacoplane 09:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Out of curiosity, why the latest change to your userpage? Ambi 09:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that my proposals to add content are unwelcome, so I will probably focus on counter-vandalism for the time-being. Cheers, - Naif 09:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not unwelcome. Just like all of us, you need to watch your edits for neutrality. We have some people who hold some very extreme views, yet have few issues working on articles because they've mastered keeping their biases out of their writing. If you get the hang of that, there really isn't much of an issue. Ambi 10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Cheers. --Lee Hunter 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes sir

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.111.203 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the props!

Thanks for the appreciation. It's hard to be sure what approach is best - believe me, I am no sympathizer to Aidan Work's political or religious beliefs! At the same time, I know we can't and shouldn't make this Left-Wing-Pedia. Best, FreplySpang (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Affect

I noticed your edit to Affect and thought I'd ask. Do you think there is room/need for the article Affect (psychology)?--Commander Keane 07:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks + question

I wanted to say thanks for removing the annoying vandalism from the vegetarianism page. But when I received that message about gratuitous profanity, I got a little worried. Surely I'm not getting blamed for them, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.68.15 (talk • contribs)

Homosexuality

For the umpteenth time, please familiarise yourself with the policy against original research. You hold some minority views, and while these may warrant mentioning in the article depending on their prevalance, you cannot state them as definitive fact. Moreso, you absolutely cannot do so without providing any sources.

Thirdly, if you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously, please stop making threats - especially ones that are utterly toothless. If you make biased edits, they will be reverted. If you make neutral edits, they will be happily supported. I'm not going to disappear and let you push your ideological views in articles because of some random threat or rant. Instead, please try to familiarise yourself with the way things work around here.

We've had many people with some extreme views - heck, Jimmy Wales has some - but those people have learned to write neutrally (even if that means "writing for the enemy"), rather than dedicating all their efforts towards pushing an agenda. If you do the former, you'll find yourself getting a vastly warmer reception. Ambi 10:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia

From User_talk:Haiduc: "Age disparity in sexual relationships Nice work on this article. I'd appreciate your keeping an eye on ephebophilia and pedophilia as well for attempts by pedophiles to legitimize their behavior. Cheers, -Naif 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Um, just so you know, think you probably misdirected that kind of comment. He is very much a pedophile trying to legitimize pedophilia: Look at User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle#Pedophilia.2FPederasty. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

a goodbye of sorts

I don't know if you're going to accept this, but that wasn't about you. Still, when I saw the response, I figured out why you reacted the way you did. Thanks (sincerely). Anyway, this is still a goodbye of sorts b/c I'm busy now with some very important projects--things that are going to make an impact, on me if nobody else (and what better things can we aspire to?). Maybe we can talk later. In fact, I bet it will happen.

Look, friend (I never use that word lightly), there's something about thought itself that I've come to realize--and it didn't come about through thought, because that's an impossibility. It only came about through sheer terror. Have you ever considered not thinking a problem through to completion but wondering why you thought that original thought? You can control the direction of your thought, make it come to a logical conclusion, but can you control the initial thought to begin with? Spun out, yeah, I know. But trust me on this: there's definitely something below free will and above karma. There's just no word for that concept, that's all.

Final concept (I know I'm rambling): those people (there had to be more than one) who gave you the initial thought are clowns. I met one of them lately, and his life is just on slow, slow decline. I showed him a Japanese art house film, and said, "yo, Dick take a look at this five minute scene--it's considered groundbreaking in cinematics." He looked for like three seconds, and then turned back to the internet pornsites he wanted to look at and the J he was smoking. Mind, this is a guy I've had plenty of good times with and who trusts/likes me. It's just that he has no curiosity whatsoever. Those people in your past--I guarantee you, they're exactly the same. Complete clowns. They could never have a conversation like this.

gender =! sex

gender is in fact a social construct, it is sex that is the biological fact. and with that you must also understand there are more than xx and xy (i.e. x, xxx, xyy) but, even those "normal" people will occasionally have physical or hormonal irregularities.

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Affect is under attack

The APA dictionary (2006) labels the concept you called "Affect" as "Affect display". Accordingly, I have created a new article with that name, copied your text to it, and have begun editing it. Affect will become difficult to distinguish from "feeling", IMHO, but that's the way the APA wants it and I can't find good sources for the use of the term "affect" as you had defined it. DCDuring 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research survey invitation

Greetings Naif-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2011 (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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]