User talk:Puellanivis

Welcome to Wikipedia. Feel free to jump in and work on the estrogen-related articles....they need attention. In particular, we need to list many more references. --JWSchmidt 22:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For proteins see protbox usage and Infoboxes. For small molecules you can use info boxes like the one at Estradiol. --JWSchmidt 00:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OI and osteoporosis

Hi Puellanivis,

The hereditary osteoporosis you were talking about may or may not be OI. OI is a specific disease caused by collagen mutations that lead to collagen of decreased quantity or quality. What you describe could be best called idiopathic osteoporosis. There are many genes that can result in decreased bone formation or increased bone resorption (usually by causing an overabundance of osteoclasts.

Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is a marker of bone formation, which does usually go up with increased resorption, creating a high bone turnover state. High bone turnover is also seen in Paget's disease of the Bone (which can be genetic/inherited or idiopathic). In most cases, these conditions can be helped with bisphosphonates, by either preventing excessive resorption (if this is the root cause), or by retaining the little amount of bone formed (if poor bone formation is the cause).

The genetic cause of a family disorder is idenfied using family tree analysis and positional cloning to work out what chromosomal region is shared between affected family members. Many genes affecting bone and other systems have been identified is this way. Usually, this method is only effective with large family trees with multiple affected and unaffected individuals.

I hope this is helpful. Dr Aaron 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It helps to sign your postings with four tildes.

Gilbert's Syndrome

I posed a question for you on the talk page of Gilbert's Syndrome. Heathhunnicutt 00:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've replied on your user page. By the way, estrogen is called a C18 hormone because it contains 18 carbons, I thought.

Ooo... thanks, I was just going off memory when I called it a C16, but I have corrected that on my page. --Puellanivis 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your hypogonadism and low testosterone levels -- I wonder if you have considered that this may be an effect of GS in your case? The increased levels of estrogen (the estrogen is not broken down by the UGT as rapidly) affect the regulation of testosterone and leutenizing hormone during puberty. It is interesting to note that one of the few other body tissues which express the UGT1A1 gene (and thus produce UGT) are cells which line the bladder. Heathhunnicutt 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at it, GS likely wouldn't explain the low LH and FSH, my estradiol levels were not unusually high 19 pg/ml in a reference range of 8~43 for a male. (13~498 for a premenopausal female) My FSH levels were 1.8 MIU/ML in a reference range of 2~18 for males, and 2~10 for females, so my FSH is low despite presumed gender, and the same for my LH, 1.5 MIU/ML out of a reference range of 2~9 for males, and 2~13 for females. My testosterone levels were 231 ng/dl total, and 31.9 pg/ml free, out of reference ranges listed by my healthcare professionals of 250~1100 and 35~155 respectively.

It's fairly clear to me that my hypogonadism is secondary, as the LH and FSH are both low, thus it does not appear that my gonads are incapable of producing hormones (as also attested by size of my gonads and primary sexual organ) they just never seem to have been told to produce enough androgens to have a significant impact anywhere else in my body. I have little more body hair than a female (armpits, sparse arm hair, sparse upper thigh, although with a full goatee area, but sparsish side beard growth), most of the other effects I've already discussed, although, I still look fairly boy-like, I have noticed. The virilization of my jaw and brow seem essentially only close to what eventually occurs in older women. I had also remembered that while thinking I was a guy, I always tried to wear a beard, because I looked fairly sexually-undeveloped without one.

I'll be sure to post information on my user page when I get the second round of lab tests, and we can see what kind of effect the estrogen has had so far. Oh, another odd hepatic process that seems to work very well in me, is the processing of alcohol. While I become drunk fairly quickly, I then kind of plateau, then seem to process it fairly quickly, and rarely have I ever had a hangover. Never a pounding one that would make me question if there is a God, rather at worst it has only ever been an icky feeling. Normally, I even wake up earlier than usual, and seem unusually prepared for the day. (Especially compared to other people, who were less drunk than I was.) --Puellanivis 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize for putting something on the linguistics talk page. You do have a very impressive profile page.--Filll 02:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSM copyedit

Nice work on this one. I think you've managed to cover the topic of trans issues more clearly than I could possibly have. It certainly makes the categorisation a more logical one. Hopefully this will be the end of the matter. Rebecca 03:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certanly hope so, also. No doubt some dork will come n and "fix" it, but I'm watching the article and will try and make sure that the article doesn't degrade into baseless illogical name calling. :) --Puellanivis 03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saluton!

Vi shajnas tre interesa kaj inteligenta virino! Kie mi povas legi pri IoVeb?

--Sonjaaa 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (www.kisa.ca)[reply]

Bedauxrinde mi ne skribis multon pri IoVeb. Mi klopodis una tempo iniciati Viki, sed neniu kontribuis. Sed al http://snowgirl.dnsalias.net/~cfoesch/IoViki/doku.php mi havas la Viki. Vi povas tie sercxi kaj kontribui, si vi volas. --Puellanivis 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anaesthetic Dream

In reference to the page on Transsexualism, I am curious why you referred to this link as dubious - there is nothing being sold there - it is about a person who made transsexual history in Australia by obtaining the first birth certificate and passport - although the book is in per-publishing - I am told excerpts from the book will appear on this link soon - yet you doubt it's authenticity? I noted that there were too many external links and so I made it an internal link and still it was removed. Why? Dont you think this book is relevant to transsexualism? Sincerely Pamela. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pammylove (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

First, I thnk User:Rebecca put it perhaps best: (this isn't dmoz - it's not a directory of all links relevant to transsexualism, and the list is too long already)

Your link even when it was inside of the text was still linking to an outside webpage, that is an external link. External vs. internal has nothing to do if it is in the body of the text or not, rather it has to do with if the page housing that information is external or not. My concern about the link is that it is to a promotional page about an autobiographical book. We don't have a link to a self-promotional page for "She's Not There", or anything like that. In an effort to compromise, I changed the link so that it is internally pointing to a wikipedia article about the book. If it's relevant to transsexualism, and sufficiently notable, then it should have a wikipedia article, that deals with it in a neutral encyclopedic tone, rather than a self-promotional page. --Puellanivis 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apology

Dear Madame, as I've already told to Mr. Thatcher131 I used a bad judgement when I tried to discuss with cs: here on en: and I apologize for that. But, I asked for a change of my username on Meta. No reaction. I asked for a change of my username on cs: via a sysop Vrba. It was conditioned by unknown prerequisites. What should I do? How should I communicate with people from Meta and cs:? Can you give me any advice?

I don't think I committed any personal attacs. I asked -jkb- to stop using my real name. He did not. I warned him I would ask to block him, if he would not stop. He did not. Finally, I asked his blocking. What have I done wrongly? Please, let me know.

He is finally respecting your wishes, why are you now assaulting him more? I am not. Mike Rosoft discuss with me problems of the article reconcilee. Maybe my talk page is a wrong place for doing that but I did not chose it. He accused me that a year ago I had committed a wikicrime. I try to explain to him that I did not. I am sorry that I include Mr. -jkb- in that discussion with Mike Rosoft, but he is a subject of it and that's why it cannot be done other way.

-- Zacheus 12:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more so the issue is that both you and -jkb- were being very harassing of each other. Your opinion of what "Right to Vanish" means, seems to be a very central issue to me. Your actions following you invoking yor Right to Vanish essentially left a huge swath in history that you were attached to your real name. I think a good saying of what happened is WP:BEANS, namely, by trying to hide your name so much, you ended up only drawing attention to yourself. :( It's sad that those things happen, but in many ways, if you had entirely let the issue pass, and ignored your previous posts under your real name, no one would really have reason to suspect or investigate that you are in fact that person. I actually have envoked the Right to Vanish myself, and as far as I know, no one has really tracked my original contributions down. It's not that it's hard, but one would have to know what they're looking for, and be able to make a connection to two users that is non-transparent.

Honestly, the best thing to have done, is that once -jkb- started complying with not using your full name, that you thank him, and bow out of the discussion, and not continue to demand his blocking. Of course, if you had avoided your previous account, specifically editing out your name under the name Zacheus, then you would have avoided all of this issue in the first place. You could have used the other account to edit out your name asking for people to respect your privacy and not include your full name. This would have avoided the confusion of tangling the two accounts together. --Puellanivis 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to send you an e-mail with a response. -- Zacheus 07:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your interest in contacting me privately, I will not however divulge my email address onto wikipedia. Sorry :( --Puellanivis 09:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It wouldn't be useful to publicize my text. You can accept only the e-mails and not reply to them in order to keep your e-mail address private, or you can arrange the special e-mail address only for the Wikipedia. -- Zacheus 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage and the transgendered

Thank you so much for having a go at the new section of Same-sex marriage. That's just what i was hoping someone would do when I broke the paragraph out as its own section. DanB†DanD 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China/Taiwan

How is Taiwan run by China ..?, asfaik, China wants and tries to pressure Taiwan into conformity. But Taiwan is still selfgovern. Althought some considerations is taken to not upset China too much. I'm I wrong on this? If so how? Last time I heard USA said it will backup Taiwan militarly should China try invasion. Electron9 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at User_talk:Electron9#People's Republic of China vs Republic of China --Puellanivis 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husband and Wife Terminology

Hi! I added some explanation of this edit at Talk:Marriage#Adding_back_.22usually_a_man_and_a_woman.22. I hope we can work together to find an acceptable way to handle this. Respectfully, Sdsds 02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I see a good point there. It's kind of unfortunate that some people so strictly hold that marriage should be "one man and one woman" only, such that an ambiguous statement, or definition of marriage can result in them flying off the handle. (Even though, legally, most states still have ambiguous legal definitions of marriage, with only traditional inertia holding them from activistly applying marriage to same-sex unions.) --Puellanivis 03:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puellanivis, i just stumbled here (to ask you something else) and just noticed this. i respectfully suggest that you check your facts. most states do not have ambigious language regarding legal definitions of marriage. you go to the state govt. websites and find their statutes. not even Massachusetts has ambiguous language, it is a state supreme court ruling that says that the statutes are unconstitutionally discriminative. states have all sorts of statutes about who is elible to get a marriage license (usually close relatives can't as well as underage) and what other classes of marriage is legally recognized (common law, new residents, immigrants) and every state bans polygamy. are you suggesting that even with those restriction, there is no mention of gender of spouses? r b-j 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico had a county official of I believe Sandoval county, that began issuing marriage licenses for gay couples. The reason for this, was that New Mexico law never stated in exclusive terms that a marriage was between a man and a woman. The Federal Government passed DOMA in order to ensure that it could not be construed that Federal Law was permitting same-sex marriage, because it did not explicitly deny it. Like it or not, if you work from a definition that the term "marriage" is only satisfied by one man, and one woman (as the majority of law-makers felt, and continue to believe) then people are going to pass laws without regard to explicitly saying that that a marriage may only be composed of a man and a woman. True, since this issue became such a boiling point for so many people, because "OH MY GOD! WORDS DON'T CHANGE MEANING!", that states began to pass laws explicitly prohibiting same-sex couples. But before this was such a horribly torrential flamewar, there was no need to explicitly state that a marriage could only be between a man and a woman, because only heterosexual couples sought recognition, and homosexuals "knew well-enough to keep shut". It's my personal belief that homosexuals deserve all the privileges that a heterosexual couple do, and this applies to legal recognition of their union with all the rights and privileges afforded heterosexual unions. As for the issue of marriage being applied to them, as a linguist, I can only rely upon the documented fact of Semantic drift, that words change meaning, and yelling and screaming and crying that "marriage" doesn't mean a homosexual couple is ridiculous. As for "marriage" being a religious term afforded rights only within the context of allowance by Christians, the word for marriage according to the English Wiktionary [1] stems from Old French, from Latin "maritare" which is no doubt attested in documents before Christ, and as it has an identifiable Proto-Indo-European root *mari-, it was likely in use before Abraham was even born.

As for "checking my facts", first this is my personal Talk page, and thus statements and assertions made here are at my whim. If I choose to charactarize a situation as "most", then that is so my right. I also feel that denying homosexual marriage is a fundamental affront to civil human dignity, and that anyone who would deny two people from being married in at least a civil sense, are bigots, and I do not tolerate their opinion on the matter. The same as I would not tolerate the opinion of the American slave-owners that black people were not in fact human, and thus this justified their exploitation of these people. As such, I feel that such laws are against simple human dignity, and I reject them. And some day, we're going to look back on this whole issue the same as we look back now on cross-racial marriages, and regard people who feel uncomfortable able it as bigotted people, and unfairly seeking to prohibit an action of a different group, because they are different, and they have not taken the time or effort in order to truely learn about these differences, and in fact, what the people are in truth actually about. There will be a time when public opinion on this matter shifts, and the conservatives will be left in the cold in opposition to the vast middle ground in America, and it will give us simply one more reason to view them as bigots. --Puellanivis 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can do what you want with your talk page. i just thought that i might point something out since your (or my) talk page is public. BTW, check out this (some unabiguous discussion of "husband" and "wife") and this. it is the official form for an application for a marriage license in NM and has provisions for "Male Applicant" and "Female Applicant". dunno what they do in Sandoval County. maybe make their own application, but i am not sure from the statute, that a county is authorized to do that. dunno. we'll let NM deal with it. (but, although you're right about NM being ambiguous elsewhere, NM and the few other states you might find are not "most states")

BTW, i don't have a problem with gays gaining equal rights. even in the U.S. I only have a problem with any group, inc. gay rights groups or the religious right, using Wikipedia to assist such a group in gaining such equal rights or any other goals (but i don't have a problem with these folks or any other reflecting or documenting such in Wikipedia). even though he is a bit partisan for my tastes, i think User: Nkras is right in saying that this is about the "... control of ideas, definitions and language." i also don't have a problem with the concept of semantic drift (this might be a blue link), but i do have a problem with infering that such drift has occurred without lexigraphical authority. the English language dictionaries are clear about their primary definition of marraige just as they are also clear that SSM is also an alternative definition. i tried to include both in the lead sentence and such a NPOV edit was still not tolerated. i can't imagine that you're happier with the current result. r b-j 04:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see, and I hope you see along with me the problem with weasel words. My use of "most of" was never intended to be taken literally. It was simply an expression of my personal intuition (this s a talk page, and not only that, it's a user talk page, and not only that MY talk page... my opinion is not only relevant here, but is primarily the subject at issue) as to the number of states that have ambiguous criteria for the conditions upon the sex of the married party. While you point out article 40-2 of New Mexico Statues, which does clearly present language of "husband and wife", you will notice in article 40-1, that no mention at all is made stipulating that a couple must be composed of a man and a woman (excepting solely in the form of application, which can be said to be superceded by other laws, in that no other law states that a marriage must be composed of a man and a woman). Section 4-1-11 says, "Before any county clerk issues any marriage license, each applicant for a marriage license shall file with the county clerk a certificate from a physician licensed to practice medicine", section 4-1-1 which defines marriage as a civil contract states: "Marriage is contemplated by the law as a civil contract, for which the consent of the contracting parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential.", in fact section 4-1-4 says: "All marriages celebrated beyond the limits of this state, which are valid according to the laws of the country wherein they were celebrated or contracted, shall be likewise valid in this state, and shall have the same force as if they had been celebrated in accordance with the laws in force in this state." which certainly would mean to me that it would override DOMA (or more accurately, place the position of New Mexico regarding DOMA clearly in place, that they would recognize a Massachusetts marriage of a same-sex couple.) I do find it interesting that you would present a article that heavily supports your position, but not link to the article that heavily supports my position. A better NPOV presentation of the information would be to link to both articles and say that one article is quite ambiguous, while the other is not. I would assure you that the Sandoval county clerk did not change the marriage license, as it is state law that provides the criteria and requirements for marriage, and not county law. Thus, if they had used altered licenses, those licenses would be trivially dismissed as invalid in court. As such was not the situation.

Have I bothered to go through each of the 50 states and read their statutes in order to determine exactly how many have ambiguous language, and then performed the necessary math required to see if it satisfies the criteria of "most"? No, I've not done that. But the mere evidence that DOMA was required to disambiguate federal law, and that states were scrambling to re-enforce that marriage was only between a man and a woman, (Hawai'i, New Mexico, Massachusetts in particular are the trivial examples that I can think of where ambiguous language lead to at least attempted issuances of licences, in the case of New Mexico actual issuance of licenses, only to have them annulled later, and finally in Massachussets where such licenses are still in effect.) It just creates a feeling (at least for me, you're free to disagree) that many states have had ambiguous language regarding the paricipants of a marriage contract. The passing of a number of referenda, and state-constitutional amendements likely says to me that at least more than one state was concerned that their statues were ambiguous, and on legally shaky ground. Otherwise, why did it require action?

"i also don't have a problem with the concept of semantic drift (this might be a blue link), but i do have a problem with infering that such drift has occurred without lexigraphical authority." How do you think "spam: unsolicited email" made it into the OED? Did the OED's decision to include it suddenly make it valid and authoritive as a word to use in law? I do believe that the CAN-SPAM act came out with a legal definition of spam, before "lexigraphical authority" was placed upon the word. Seriously, as a linguist, I cannot understand why people feel that dictionaries carry any authority at all in English. Again, English has no Standards Authority (unlike French) and as such, no word can be declared as "not-a-word" simply because it fails to appear in a dictionary. That can only be done in a language where a specific dictionary is given the authority to define and perscribe proper language by a sovereign jurisdiction. Semantic drift does not accur only under the auspice of an ivory tower, no, semantic drift has occured since the existence of language, and certainly well before the existance of a "lexigraphical authority". The rooting of "the dictionary doesn't say that is a valid use of the word" is very much a conservative standpoint, which ignores fundamental linguistic evidence. English "lexigraphical authorities" are only there to document usage, as clearly presented by the purpose of the Oxford English Dictionary in their own terms, which are paraphrased on their Wikipedia page as: "The policy of the OED is to attempt to record most known uses and variants of a word in all varieties of English, worldwide, past and present."

Words change meaning without consent of authority all the time. I certainly think the church would have liked to have prevented the change of meaning of "bead" from "to pray" to "a small frivalous object often with a whole through it, such that it can be strung together with others of its kind". But semantic drift is a powerful force, and makes a position stating "dictionary XY doesn't say that word can be used with that meanng" amount exactly to fighting the tide. You may stop maybe a 8 million molocules, but there's a vast number of molocules passing right around and don't give you a second heed. Of course all those lovely grammarians and perscriptivists demand from their students in grade school a subset of English that is governed by a concensus of a tighter, more conservative (and in some cases entirely reactionary) group of people... grammarians and perscriptivists. Having had this information pounded into your head by them since grade school, I have no difficulty understanding why you might think that dictionaries somehow have a "lexigraphical authority", instead of simply documenting usage of the language. --Puellanivis 07:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My use of "most of" was never intended to be taken literally." the normal and generally honest use of the word "most of" means a majority or at least a plurality. to say "most" when it really is a minority is to use the word "most" when the reality is "not most". i really do have problems with the way you understand words to mean and how you expect them to be used (as i also did with your use of "concensus" - sp. was fixed). in a discussion, especially when making a rhetorical point, i cannot understand, outside of exaggeration, why someone would say "most" if they didn't mean at least a plurality. and since this is a binary issue (states either are or are not ambiguous about their language concerning the inclusion of "husband and wife") then plurality is the same as majority and "most" means more state are ambiguous about it than states that are not and that is a factual issue that can be checked and has an answer. now in rhetoric, some exaggeration is okay, when the exaggeration is so extreme that everyone knows that you are exaggerating (ostensibly to make a point). but exaggeration of a quantity to something that is plausible, but not true, is IMO deceptive if you know it, and just "talking through one's hat" if you don't know it. r b-j 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God, I'm sick of arguing about this... this is why I'm not even tracking the changes to the Marriage article anymore, because people like you feel that they can just sit there and critic their opponents endlessly, without ever acknowledging any truthful statement of the opposing side.

I've already granted that my use of "most states" was in poor taste (WP:WEASEL). That's exactly the problem with weasel words... they don't really mean anything but a person's personal assertion as to the prevailance of an issue. To my personal indications, the massive work of people to define marriage as "one man and one woman" says to me that they had to have had an ambiguous legal definition of marriage at some point. Now, I want to get off of this point, and I've already told you that I disagree with my own use of that word. I've moved on.

Your position is that a dictionary is an authority on language, and word use outside of the range of a dictionary is invalid, and wrong. My position is that any language but a standardized literary is defined by a social consensus[2] of the speakers of that language. This is why "ain't" is a word, and why pronouncing "nuclear" as "noo-kyuh-lur" is valid. Because the vast majority of speakers of American English accept and use these forms of language. Artificial attempts to define a word, even in a language with a defined legitimate authority, against this social consensus is typically treated with ridicule in countries with no language authority. This is documented by the French use of the word "aborre" for the "@" symbol[3], and the dictation that "email" is no longer "email", but "courriel"[4].

Do you really think that it works to just spontaneously introduce a new word because it has "lexigraphical authority"? Does anyone call "French fries" "freedom fries"? Did anyone ever call a "French kiss" a "freedom kiss"? These sort of abitrary "from on high" dictations as to the use of language don't typically work, and when they do work (like changing "frankfurter" to "hot dog"), they only work because people actually liked the new suggestion, and got behind it. However I'm certain that it's fairly clear that "salsbury steak" did not catch on when refering to a "hamburger".

Please, address your reasoning as to why a dictionary is an absolutive authority on the English language. --Puellanivis 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'll try to answer at the Talk:Marriage page. r b-j 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Puellanivis—I would like to thank you for your edits to the marriage talk page. I accidentally came upon this page some months ago—though I must admit that I had no interest in the subject matter of marriage. The reason I entered the discussion was because I thought the “definition argument” against same-sex marriage was ridiculous and if I explained what dictionaries do the argument would change and address more relevant matters—I was very wrong. To one editor in particular I pointed out that “primary definition” is a meaningless term as it is used on the marriage talk page. I have no idea how he reconciles that the first (primary) definition in his beloved OED is often listed as archaic?
I also cited OED editors who disagreed with his assertion about what their definition implies "It's not so much a redefinition, because our definition did not specify marriage had to be between a man and woman in the first place," said editor Jesse Sheidlower from OED's New York headquarters.” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040524-103201-1169r.htm). I tried to explain that dictionaries describe only how a word has been used in print not what a word means.
I foolishly have reviewed citations that he provided on the talk page, only to find that they not only did not support his assertions, but they could be used to refute his assertions. I have multiple times asked him to add citations for his assertions to the article. I thought that if he tried to document his assertions he might realize that it was impossible. I now believe he can not differentiate between what he desires to be true from fact.
You will not convince him and he will not allow edits that differ from his own opinion to be added to the page. Still I want to thank you because I could never have spoken as eloquently as you did about how the word is linguistically used. I am sure that you would have convinced any reasonable person, and when it comes right down to it the nuts rule what is written in Wikipedia, but they can not control the references. I know I don’t trust what is written on Wikipedia, but I have found the citations to be a valuable.--Riferimento 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really the whole thing is that some people hold so strongly to their Common Wisdom that they just can't readjust to new data. It seems like he is incredibly conflicted about wanting to recognize same-sex unions and give them some sort of recognition, but for some reason has so much emotion laid into the word "marriage", that he just don't want to recognize such a union as "marriage". Really, this wouldn't be a problem, if like in Germany, we had a distinct civil and religious marriage system, where most people end up getting two marriage ceremonies, because one is for civil recognition, and the other is for religious recognition. Plus, I think it would help with the seperation of church and state sort of thing. (Having a religious leader validate a civil matter? But yet we can't even ask what religion people are on the census?) --Puellanivis 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

estradiol/lordosis behavior in male mammals

male lordosis behavior is normal in bighorn sheep. [[5]] [[6]] There are better descriptions of the bighorn sexuality/gender system in Biological Exuberance and Evolution's Rainbow if your interested, I believe the one in the former is more detailed, but its been awhile since I've had my hands on a copy.Velps 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ru-sib

Just a quick question: is the deletion of the ru-sib wikipedia a foregone conclusion, or do you think another vote will help out? I feel like weighing in on the controversy, but I'm also weighing the risk of being the target of sophomoric e-mail spam attacks by people who might disagree with me. Btw, keep up the languages. Way cool. I'm reaching the point where I don't really know what counts anymore. :) Cbdorsett 12:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation.

Hello! I saw your edit to Same-sex marriage and would like to invite you to join Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. I hope you will accept! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really would be an asset to the project, I think. I recently read your incredibly lengthy comments on talk:Men who have sex with men and I respect your thoughtfulness. Sure you won't join? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your invitation, and I've looked at the project page. I'm currently a little busy right now. I may likely join soon. --Puellanivis 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning maintenance

Hi Puellanivis. Thanks for the clear message about maintaining meaning on the linguistics article. [7]. I am not an expert on linguistics but its my habit to make articles comply with NPOV policies on neutrality and to collaborate with others in doing so [8]. I suggest this version:

"Many linguists would agree that the divisions overlap considerably. Though the independent significance of each of these areas is not universally acknowledged, area has core concepts that foster significant scholarly inquiry and research".

Does this still maintain the meaning? Other suggestions are welcome AlanBarnet 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, so far, all of the edits I have seen seeking to enforce WP:WTA on the Linguistics article have, through a mechanical process of applying policy, mangled the sentences that the edits were attempting to fix. Instead of properly applying a policy in a meaningful way, the policy is thrust upon an article for the sake of complying with WP:WTA.

In particular, I would not have had to copy-edit so many of the fixes, if they had simply been re-read after dropping the "Words to Avoid". This is becaus the sentences either lacked proper structure, form, or in the particular case of this suggestion, are not even grammatically correct.

I ask you to please, re-read this sentence: "Though the independent significance of each of these areas is not universally acknowledged, area has core concepts that foster significant scholarly inquiry and research." I personally cannot see any reason to permit that sentence in the article, as it is non-grammatical, and even nonsensical, all simply in a mechanical attempt to avoid the phrase "Regardless of ...", which you will note, is not part of WP:WTA.

As for WP:NPOV, I feel that my edits represent all linguists equally. Notable from the only changes you proposing being replacing "A, but B" with "A. Though B". Regarding this change, such a change could not represent any change in NPOV, as it is semantically equivalent, but does introduce a break in the flow of the paragraph.

Also proposed is the removal of "Regardless of any particular linguist's position", which I feel, could not possibly represent a POV statement, as it refers to an arbitrary linguist, and thus all linguists. POV asside, in order to produce beautiful prose for this paragraph, the second statement, must tie in to the meaning of the first statement.

The idea with my edit, is that it doesn't matter which of the two equal independent clauses mentioned previous are the case, the third clause will applies. As such, I do not see how a logical form of "P, but Q. Regardless of P or Q, R." Could be interpreted as anything but NPOV, but I am entirely open to discussing how you feel that this statement would be a POV statement, so that something appropriate, meaningful, and attractive is put onto the page. --Puellanivis 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. This is not an easy problem to solve in this particular case. I'm going to give it some more thought. Oh I did present you with a grammatically incorrect version and here is my correction: "Though the independent significance of each of these areas is not universally acknowledged, each has core concepts that foster significant scholarly inquiry and research". I'll consider more alternatives though. AlanBarnet 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a still a break from removing the "but"... the two sentences are directly related showing a contrast. I don't see any reason to seperate them. "But" is not a WP:WTA. In fact, I made careful to ensure that my edit did not contain any Words to Avoid. Now, one thing I would like to ask, are you actually objecting over the NPOV status of the sentence, or are you just bothered by the actual words being used? --Puellanivis 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article. I'm actually just trying to fit WTA suggestions to articles. I will be reporting on any instances where suggestions make the writing impossible. Unless we come up with a solution here - this may be a case for mentioning on the WP:WTA article. AlanBarnet 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help protect vandalized woman article

Women are increasingly taking an active role in many societies. I thought that you might be interested that User:TRFA is stripping out a section on women's advances and is stripping out a list of women premiers and other political leaders such as Tansu Ciller, Condoleezza Rice and Nancy Pelosi from the woman article. Dogru144 13:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Jag såg av din infobox att du har lärt dig svenska och det gjorde mig så nyfiken att jag måste fråga, varför? Aaker 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, det är litet lustig. Jag hat en vän till mig, och hon är från Sverige. Hon har vet att jag kann tala tysk, och japansk, och hon har slåt vad att jag kunne inte lerne svenska i en månad. Jag har inte försöka på 2 månader, mar i en vecka har jag lernt svenska. Jag behöver dock en lexicon/ordbok på många ord, mar jag kann förstå mig på svenska bra. :) --Puellanivis 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vad kul! Det är alltid roligt när andra vill lära sig ens språk! Aaker 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch!

I saw that you reverted the Linguistics page after a huge anonymous edit. I was taking the slower route, as I explained on the talk page. However, your sharp eyes detected that this "new" version appeared to be resurrected out of an ancient history page. Good work. Cbdorsett 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring woman after vandalism

Thank you for restoring the article after User:TRFA's vandalism.

Three edits such as the gutting/vandalism by User:TRFA violates the three revert rule and will get him blocked from editing. Dogru144 02:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. The rule that he is violating is the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Dogru144 02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't violated the 3RR, that only applies within one 24 hour period. The letter of the 3RR does not agree with the spirit though. The spirit is to avoid edit wars. That means working with people to explain edits and try to reach a concensus, rather than a bunch of people quickly editing back and forth over perhaps as silly a thing as what color an invisible unicorn has. --Puellanivis 08:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]