Talk page |
Admin |
Logs |
Awards |
Books |
Welcome!
Hello, Cailil, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Djegan 20:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This page, and the men's-rights advocates who are creating it, have me exhausted. Despite their insistence that any fool can determine the group's notability with a quick google search, though, I haven't managed to find anything that would indicate that they are notable to anyone but one another- and I've looked. Yes, I'd support an AfD at this point for the page, unless the folks who are so busy on this page can produce hard evidence for notability, which I haven't yet found. Thanks for the backup. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please give Newageindian a second (or third) chance. I think he doesn't understand at all about Wikipedia processes. I'm not defending what he has said, but rather that I'm hoping that he will realize that he can make his arguments without violating a number of rules of civility, etc.
What that means is that perhaps a bit more patience, per WP:BITE, would be in order. Specifically, it might be worth taking some time, on the talk page, to cite from WP:N guidelines, and to point out Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) guidelines (proposed, it's true). If there is a discussion about these, perhaps the editor will better understand why the issue of notability is being raised, and what has to be done to meet Wikipedia criteria.
I know this takes more effort and can delay the resolution of matters, but it might also lead to a much more productive discussion. Or not - you never know until you try. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Newageindian wants me to be Irish so badly, I'm thinking of moving. Do you have a guest room I can live in? I'm perfectly willing to learn to say 'begorrah,' if you think it would help. :) - FisherQueen ( Talk) 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Cailil,
Sorry for not responding until the fire is (mostly) out, but IMHO:
I appreciate how frustrating it is to be in the middle of one of these dust-ups, but I am a big believer that responding constructively (even to people who don't deserve it) actually has a good chance of helping the other side to cool down, leading to some positive encyclopedia-building, and, in the very worst case, at least positions you well for dispute resolution. I've got your talk page and Save Indian Family on my watchlists and will try to chime in if I notice things heating up. Thanks, TheronJ 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 16:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Cailil for getting that important discussion started. -- lquilter 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to my question. I found a page where one may post concerns about pages, but at this point I feel the real problem is that there are not enough users who are aware of these issues. Your response was helpful. -- futurebird 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
How are you?
My name is Giorgi and I'm from Georgia, from Tbilisi
Can you tell me how can I find main administratior, or any administrator?--
Gnome(G)
20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are concerned that other editors are pushing their own opinions rather than verifiable facts follow the dispute resolution process. 1) Suggest nicely (even if they do not deserve it) an alternative. 2) If the dispute persists request comment using the process at WP:RFC. 3) If the other users can't resolve the dispute seek an advocate at WP:AMA and request mediation. Disputes are not fun and require patience and a cool head, even if your opponents have insulted your country (which happened to me last week too). If you feel that an article is strongly disputable tag it with an appropiate template from here (but be careful - using templates that are too strong could be seen as vandalism). I will have a look at the Abkhazia article and make a comment on the talk page. As a first step I recommend you post your concerns about the article at the Georgia Portal's talk page here : )-- Cailil 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't make your break too long. You have engaged controversial subjects and editors very quickly (and very appropriately) in your Wikipedia career, but I know that it can be stressful too! But you are doing a great job keeping your cool, seeking advice and making Wikipedia sense. I will be glad to see you back in action when you are ready -- Slp1 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
When you get back, I'd love to know your thoughts on this new outline I've proposed for this highly problematic page. Any ideas or feedback? Thanks!
PS. don't stay away for too long. We need people like you.
futurebird
20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the post I wasn't surprised to see this. [1] Slp1 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a couple of new stub types. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.
In the case of your new stub type, it is already covered as part of {{ Sex-stub}}, which isn't really in need of splitting yet. Also, the name "gender-stub" is fairly ambiguous (mind you, so is sex-stub - see my comments on that at WP:WSS/D). Also it is far from clear that the new stub types would reach the standard threshold of 60 stubs for creation of new stub types. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir could you plz look at the concerns I have raised in the Gender Studies project page regarding three articles regarding Indian Feminism that IMHO are very biased and have a sexist POV? [2] India Rising 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
well, i'm trying to work out a way to respond to that rant from you know who. plus i actually have to work. sorry you're bearing the brunt of the attack. -- lquilter 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Always happy to give advice. In this case, I'm not sure what the problem is. Perhaps I'm missumarizing, but you're dealing with essentially a vandal IP attack. Repeatedly posting lengthy off-topic comments to talk pages is vandalism if the user has been told (and the posts removed with a useful edit summary). Messing with a "to-do" list is vandalism.
As to what you can do to stop the vandalism, there are three things: revert; warnings and (eventually) blocking the user; and semi-protection of pages. Offering "RfC" when you can't get an editor to even discuss what he/she is doing (and he/she continues to vandalize) is pointless; I personally wouldn't bother, and certainly you should worry about any failure to respond to that.
Similarly, you say I'd really like to know what can be done to solve some of their complaints. I think their complaint is that today's world isn't like it was 150 years ago, with women subservient. That's probably not a complaint you can - or really want to, obviously - help them with.
So, considering the three things you can do:
Hope that helps; if I've misread something in your posting, I apologize. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, i think that proposing it at WP:WSS/P would be the next logical move from here. Given that there's already been some discussion of it, I don't think there's likely to be any problems with it there. Mention the previous discussion so that anyone who sees it for the first time on the proposal page has some idea what's already been going on. Grutness... wha? 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Cailil. It might relieve your concerns somewhat to note that for all our many editorial disagreements, IZAK didn't oppose my RfA (which was ultimately unsuccessful). It might also be worth noting that of all the many comments made for and against, none questioned the appropriateness of my username. If there were a serious issue or cause of misunderstanding in the user community, perhaps someone might have mentioned it. Given that I've been editing for about a year and this is the first time the issue has been raised, perhaps it might be worth waiting a bit to see if someone else also objects before taking any sort of action. Does this seem reasonable? Best, -- Shirahadasha 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How are you doing? Since I know you are interested in gender issues, I thought you might be interested in a discussion related to the topic at Marc Lépine, and have some insights to share. -- Slp1 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Towsonu2003 I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.
I can see why you've decided to seperate
Criticisms of women's studies to work on this problematic section - but you should have used a
subpage not created a new article page.
I would recommend to you strongly that that page be merged with
Women's studies or be deleted. At present there is no need a) to sperate this from the Women's studies page because of that article's length or b) enough
reliable material in this section to constitute an article "in and of itself."
Please corect me if I'm wrong but your premise for creating the
Criticisms of women's studies page is that
summary style should be used for the women's studies criticism section. This implies that there is a "large" amount of criticism of the Women's Studies discipline and also that a large encyclopedic article could be written about it. I for one don't agree a) with this premise (as above '
Women's studies is not long') or b) that such criticisms are
notable enough for their own article. By notable I mean that in this case Patai and Koertge's book is a
primary source - you'd need to find enough secondary sources that talk about their book and the other's to show notablity rather than
undue weight . I did a search myself and I found two such sources
IMHO this is not enough for a separate article - I reiterate that you should copy this content to a sandbox and merge the existing page to
Women's studies otherwise it will be
Afd'd eventually. Some artciles just sit here on wikipedia in a sorry state, alá
Pop feminism. Putting unsourced material "out there" doesn't mean it will get sourced by other users.
I apologize if I sound aggressive - if I certainly don't mean to be - I know you are acting in good faith and are making postive contributions to developing the
Women's studies article (which needs a lot of work) but i disagree fundamentally with the approach taken. IMO even if there was enough material for a content fork such a change needs to be discussed on the Women' studies talk page. Drop me a line about this when you can I'd be happy to talk about this--
Cailil
01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that Pop Feminism is now a redirect into Feminism. Sorry, I have not been watching this issue too closely the last few days - could you tell me what prompted this action? Also, I'm not sure its a good thing to have 'pop feminism' redirected to feminism. If the term is indeed invalid then surely nobody would type it into the search box. It should be deleted completely. The pity is that various websites have not updated or deleted their copycat entries on it.-- ChrisJMoor 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the barnstar!-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, Send me an email from my talk page with your email address and I will forward you the two review articles I have so far. I have already sent them to Edgarde. It is disappointing but perhaps not surprising that the other editors have not showed any interest -- Slp1 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Legalizing Misandry is an exemplar of reaction and resistance to feminism as the turn of the twenty-first century.
I see the Anacapa thread was archived by the archive bot without anyone closing it. I'm not sure if there was enough feedback from different people to call it consensus for a ban. I would suggest that you hold on to the evidence page, and when that editor returns, we can bring the issue up again. There should me more feedback (enough for consensus) if the problem is immediate and ongoing (and if the subject header notes this). You've got my support on this; let me know when he returns. — coel acan — 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I would wait for him to pick up a little more steam first. — coel acan — 22:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the disruptive user. He wasn't the only reason I stopped progress on my rewrite of the misandry article, but he was part of it. -- SecondSight 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest in the recent debacle at Misandry. The anonymous user has shown some interest in collaborating and discussing, so I think there is still hope yet. However, the vandalism of my comments on the anon's talk page is quite appalling. This user is obvious worked up around this issue, and needs to learn that wikipedia is not a battle ground or soapbox. Anyway, while the one IP has been given a final warning, I'm not entirely sure it is the same user (yeah, the editing behavior is quite similar, but the topic of Misandry and men's rights often draws vandalism and polemics from both sides of the debate.) So, my course of action was to giving this anon a final warning and see what happens from there. If more negative editing behavior ensues, then I think it's time to report. But because there is a small amount of doubt in my mind that the 2 IP addresses are the same person, I'm going to play it safe. If you feel the editors actions warrant reporting, please be my guest to do so at anytime. Thanks again for taking up interest in this matter.- Andrew c 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Edgarde you've been doing some great work on the Misandry and Nathanson and Young articles. In respect to this work I'd like to invite you to Project Gender Studies. It'd be great to have some more editors with experience of working on Men's issues at the project but if you feel that it's not your thing don't worry.-- Cailil talk 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see you are so interested in me. Could you let me know What's the POV I've been pushing? Why I didn't edit articles with good faith? Shouldn't you also assume good faith before making false accusation of others? Miaers 00:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a story that I enjoy telling the children of my children...
Once when I was a wee lad, I sauntered over to the feminism room of Wikipedia. I came bearing two tiny words to hang. I peeked in, it seemed nobody was around, so all alone I waltzed in and hung up my two words there on the wall with pride for all to see.
I backed up from the finery therein contained, dusted off my hands and said to myself: "Self, well done! Job well done." Then I packed up my hammer, nails and started moved on to other rooms to hang some more words. Words words words, a wordhangers work is never done. Oh well, on my way!
"Not so fast!" said the room. "Who said that?" I thought I was alone, but no! I looked around, and saw to my amazement the walls were flexing and bending and shimmering in a brilliant fashion. Soon, I heard more voices, POV! POV! The walls then spit out the nail holding my wonderful words, they dropped on the floor and were being sucked into an unseen vacuume, I had to grab them quickly. The small hole I created was likewise eliminated, as if by magic from inside the wall.
I formed up my words, and using a larger nail and a bigger hammer, really wedged those words back into the wall. "There, that ought to do it." But, this time, the cacaphony was louder, and before I had sheathed my hammer, again my words were spit out on the floor! This time, the walls shimmered waxed and waned even more brillliantly, and started to close in around me. The exit was blocked, I found myself in a corner huddling there with my words. My hammer worthless against the shimmering walls, luckily I always carry my trusty wikipedia multi-tool. I started opening the gadgets... NPOV, ATT, NOR, MOS and the always handy OmniSource...
None of these were working for me, there I was stuck in the corner, walls having closed in, holding my pitiful words, when a breath of fresh air came into the room, making the walls take notice and taking the pressure off me long enough to make my apologies having offended the walls with my large hammer and nails. Noting the soothing effect of the breath of fresh air, I chose a different tact and tossed a few yellow sticky notes with suggestions, "more shimmer here" "less pulsing here" stuff like that. Soon the walls were talking amongst themselves, discussing the better shimmering, pulsing, waxing and waning tecniques, and I chose to make my exit.
Coming a few days later, I was satisfied to see the walls had re-aranged the decorations in a most pleasing manner. Well, perhaps not THE most pleasing manner, but it looked better than before. I resolved to come back every now and again to see what hath the walls wrought. In doing so, I found myself now a part of the supporting structure in that feminism room, also adept at ejecting coarsly hung words and even the dreaded graffiti.
Even though oft repeated, the children of my children never tire of hearing how, "I was a stud in the feminism room." ;-)
-- Altoids Man 03:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to get consensus yet. It looks like people would prefer to see evidence of dispute resolution being tried first, that or a long block log for widespread disruption. Maybe not immediately, but if the tide doesn't turn soon, you might want to withdraw the request. Then *sigh* start trying to engage the user again and see how it goes. ·· coel acan 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies. I haven't edited/moved the article as yet but I have put up a POV tag to engender some discussion. Your idea to create an alternate template for women's history is a good one. I shall add it to my to-do list. Thanks again. xx baby_ifritah 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC) btw, I like the your user page top navigation, can I copy it? xx baby_ifritah 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Cailil,
Your comment on the recent request to prevent pdelongchamp showed an ignorance of the people involved in the videoblogging movement and discussion. Outside of wikipedia, the discussion about definition and information is an important one for all videobloggers.
We've been having a VERY hot discussion about this over in the Yahoo! group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ That group, as well as the videoblog article's own public history page are why Michael Verdi (and for that matter, about a hundred of us actively engaging in the thread) is so knowledgeable about this issue. He created an account on wikipedia to support efforts to stop the sabotage of an article that has been heavily user-contributed and then whacked clean repeatedly. There are 2641 members of the videoblogging Yahoo! group, including the leaders in the field, authors of the very books and articles which, according to pdelongchamp, are the only acceptable sources of verification (is this true? We've discussed this and it seems very a short-sighted, not to mention unreliably applied rule when it comes to new media and citizen journalism).
Please carefully read the article and note the authors of the four books on Videoblogging. These include Michael Verdi, as well as myself, Stephanie Bryant (I don't have a wikipedia login). Verdi and Meiser are not sock puppets. I've met both of them. Actually, if you really doubt, you can see them in their own videos online; they are entirely different people. Michael's daughter Dylan was the youngest videoblogger last year and was heavily featured in the mainstream press as a result (verifiable). Meiser has been a major force in developing many important technologies used in videoblogging, but he is a fairly quiet guy when it comes to the limelight-- I researched my book heavily and never knew the extent of his behind-the-scenes work.
I found it very disheartening to see the reaction from the wikipedia administration was to deride the request and not even look carefully to see how important an issue this is. Did no one notice that pdelongchamp routinely not only flags as unverified, but massively removes almost the entire post? At one point, he was even removing the list of books, published by mainstream publishers, as being "unverified." If Wiley Press isn't a verification, what, pray tell, is?
Also, I note that the tag at the bottom here says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Does that mean Wikipedia articles can be something other than encyclopedic? If so, can we recategorize the videoblogging article such that it no longer depends on the mainstream media's definitions to legitimize it?
Thank you for your time, Stephanie Bryant Videoblogging for Dummies http://www.mortaine.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.128.40.14 ( talk) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
I noticed your subpage related to Miaers, and while I suppose I may have to get more involved in the contents eventually, I thought I would try to clear up one thing. When Miaers filed his request for arbitration on the University of Wisconsin redirect, he listed me as a party. I replied to him on my user page to the effect that the request for arbitration was likely to be rejected because we hadn't gone through the intermediate stages of mediation, including RfC (and it soon was, partially on those grounds). I don't like the way the RfC turned out, at all, but I may have prompted his initation of it through that response. Dekimasu よ! 05:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, in a recent edit on Community sanction noticeboard, you used a lot of three-letter acronyms as shorthand for policy. Intending to improve the readability, I expanded them into the English phrases by which the pages of our policies are known. Someone has reverted this because they thought I was merely expressing a personal preference. Please look at my edit and, if you agree with me, consider reverting to my version. I'm sure you'll agree that using English phrases to describe policies is much more communicative, especially to people who may not be familiar with the acronyms. -- Tony Sidaway 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Spielberg. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)