User talk:Riverstones

I... certainly don't consider such people "afflicted" with anything, provided that they are not harming others and are not personally distressed by their own leanings or behavior.

I'm very confused by your statement that the word autoandrophilia is a "typo" for autogynephilia. The prefixes "gyne-" and "andro-" are antonyms. Therefore, the terms "autogynephilia" and "autoandrophilia" therefore would refer to different meanings; one is not a "typo" of the other. (I'm also baffled as to why you would refer to this logic as "playing dumb", but I'm pretty sure that sort of rudeness is discouraged, here.)

It's clear that you and I have different editing styles. Due to the insults and denigrating ways you describe my edits, I am feeling attacked by you. I do not feel that I have said or done anything hostile to you. My edits are in an effort to try to increase Wikipedia's coverage of transgender-, crossdressing-, genderqueer-, and related topics. Editors are encouraged to work on articles on topics with which they are most familiar. I don't understand why you describe that in such a rude way: "starting a stub on those that strike your fancy". How about "starting an article on a topic which interests you and which you have some knowledge"?

Frankly, I feel ill-at-ease responding to your specific concerns, given the tone of your remarks. I would need some indication that you plan to respond without rudeness or snark before getting into any of it with you. Anything else would indicate to me that you don't care whether you burn the bridge with an editor who is in a rather small group of editors who have shown any interest in working on articles of these topics. I think these articles deserve better than that. Riverstones (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you seem to be on a campaign to get rid of the articles I have worked on.

Gynemimetophilia. The way you're going about this seems needlessly caustic. Blanking and redirecting shows a disrespect for the efforts I have put in; you're basically throwing away the material. And suggesting articles for dicdef not only maximize the likelihood that the effort I have put in will be lost, but ensures that no article will grow in the place that I have planted (or watered) the seeds. Rather than throwing it all out (and insulting me, to boot!), it would be my hope that if you have a problem with the location of the material, that you would help identify what you consider to be better locations. Your approach is harmful. Please reconsider. Riverstones (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not a campaign against "your" articles. There are a bunch of paraphlia articles that have similar issues. I've tagged

cratolagnia to Wiktionary. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If you do not like it that a entry is tagged because it is not much more than a dictionary definition, I suggest you expand the article to the point that it is actual a encyclopedic article, instead of removing the tag added properly because of the state of the article. Just removing the tag isn't going to make it encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methods of passing as female until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methods of passing as male until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]