User talk:Cailil/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page To leave me a new message, please click here.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Talk archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Welcome

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)[reply]

Thanks Djegan. I hope my contributions help wikipedia develop.--Cailil 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Indian Family

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)[reply]

Your note on my page

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)[reply]

Thanks John, I have no problem giving Newageindian another chance. I have disengaged from the article's talk page for the moment. When I return to it I may seek mediation if behaviour is not modified. Thank you for your time and effort :)--Cailil 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it nice in Ireland?

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)[reply]

Top a the mornin' to ya FisherQueen. If ya were comin to the emerald Isle you'd have to dye your hair red, bring your own pot a gold and buy a green suit to get past immigration ; )--Cailil 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Cailil,

Sorry for not responding until the fire is (mostly) out, but IMHO:

you were right that the personal attacks were out of line on Save Indian Family;
congratulations to John Broughton for some cool outside advice;
big congratulations to you and FisherQueen for trying to reengage with Newageindian.

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)[reply]

Thanks TheronJ, I hope there'll be no more personal invective thrown around at anyone on that page. You're right, it is hard to keep cool about such things but Wikipedia is a community and it's the community spirit that keeps it from becoming a battle ground. Thanks again for your response :)--Cailil 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

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)[reply]

Gender Studies

Thanks Cailil for getting that important discussion started. --lquilter 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem lquilter, which ever way the debate goes I hope the project(s) come out the better. Some of the sniping at WP:GS has left it idle. When I found WP:LGBT I was impressed by its vigour and I hope WP:GS could be a bit more like that in the future : )--Cailil 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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)[reply]

No problem, it's an interesting debate. I did a ISTOR search and I'm just in the middle of refernecing a series of objections to Snyderman and Rothman's book. I seriously believ the page fails the WP:V test.--Cailil 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hail from Gergia

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)[reply]

I'm newbie on English wikipedia, on Georgian wikipedia all rules are deferent...please, if u have time help me, I need deleting and replacing administrators, for deleting, or replacing misinformation about Georgia. this misinformation is insult for Georgian nation( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Abkhazia )--Gnome(G) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks...I'll post tomorrow...bye--Gnome(G) 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

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)[reply]

Race and intelligence

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!

0 Intro

1 History

1.1 Race

1.2 Intelligence testing

1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race

2 Contemporary questions

2.1 Race

2.1.1 Genetic hypothesis

2.1.2 Validity of "race"

2.2 Intelligence testing

2.2.1 The psychometric approach

2.2.2 Multiple forms of intelligence

2.2.3 Cultural variation

2.2.4 Developmental progressions

2.3 Average gaps among races

2.4 Explanations

2.4.1 Environmental factors

2.4.1.1 Test bias

2.4.1.2 Characteristics of tests

2.4.1.3 Socioeconomic factors

2.4.1.4 Culture factors

2.4.1.5 Public debate and policy implications

2.4.2 Genetic factors/Groups and intelligence

2.4.3 Intelligence as a function of race, contemporary views

2.4.3.1 Significance of group IQ differences

2.4.3.2 Public debate and policy implications

PS. don't stay away for too long. We need people like you. futurebird 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As expected

Given the post I wasn't surprised to see this. [1]Slp1 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a man of his word Slp1. I'm sure that we will find it on 12 major men's rights websites soon. BTW don't get drawn into a fight with these people - wikipedia is not a battleground, stay calm always assume good faith, even when it seems like they don't deserve it. Thanks for the heads up.--Cailil 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It looks like appropriate steps have been taken, and I have learnt yet more policy stuff as a result. I have no intention of getting too involved with this one, partly because I know almost nothing about the subject! Save Indian Family has been quite enough, sourcing wise, in this area. In any case, I have been toughened by my recent experience of an epic WP conflict (or at least it seemed epic to me) on another page and know that it is true that, as I was told at the time, "this too will pass". And it will. --Slp1 02:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-stub/Masc-stub

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)[reply]

Hi Grutness, apologies for that I didn't raed the policy. Sorry again I didn't know that stubs were restricted. I'll make a comment on the deletion page expressing why sex-stub doesn't cover these two areas. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I'm sorry for causing any bother at your end--Cailil 01:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sexist bias on wikipedia

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)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I was hoping for a more active participation from gender studies people in those articles, particularly the one about NCW, which I feel still contains some pretty mysogynistic biases, trying to portray a notable and respectable feminist organization with the "militant hairy-armed feminist" stereotype propogated by the American Christian right.I hope that more knowledgeable people will investigate this matter further. India Rising 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm

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)[reply]

thanks lquilter, I've decided to disengage for a while I can't deal with this person's complaints/comments its too frustrating. At this stage I'm used to being attacked its water off a duck's back for me : )--Cailil 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Gender Studies

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:

Revert. This isn't futile, really, though it's irritating. Consider it the price of being an editor here. Reverting is like picking up other trash left by other people at a beach - you can wish the world were different, but unfortunately there are a lot of thoughtless, petty, mean, ignorant folks out there. And always will be, in all probability.

Warnings and blocks - if the editor continues to change IP addresses, warnings are pointless; I normally ignore the first vandalism from an IP account, not posting a warning unless there is evidence that it is being used on a more-or-less continuing basis. Of course it's easier to get a user blocked if there have been warnings; I suggest, given the history here, you start with {{subst:blatantvandal}}, a level 3 warning. (See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Grid of warnings for the full range of stuff.) But don't expect much payback here - someone with a dial-up account, for example, will always get a new IP address each time.

Get semi-protection: you say that you'd like to have the page safe enough to be unprotected. The norm here is for an admin to come along (at an unpredictable interval) and unprotect the page to see what happens; if vandalism doesn't start up again, it stays unprotected. I personally don't think that having a page semi-protected is that bad a thing (fully protected, on the other hand - yes, that is unfortunate), particularly a project page - I don't think anonymous editors really are likely to be serious contributors to a WikiProject (if they understand what one is, and are serious, they can always register, or post something to the talk page, or even just do what wikiproject members do without formally signing up). And, again, this isn't something you really can fix - as long as there are IP vandals out there, the choice is either revert them manually or protect against them; each has advantages and disadvantages, but the underlying cause - the ill intentions of others - is something that Wikipedia editors really can't fix.

Hope that helps; if I've misread something in your posting, I apologize. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't misunderstood at all. I wasn't sure if ordinary editors could use warnings and I didn't just want to delete the user's comments/additions unilaterally. Thanks for your advice.--Cailil 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-studies-stub

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)[reply]

User:Shirahadasha

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)[reply]

Hi Cailil

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)[reply]

Criticisms of women's studies

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

Anne-Marie Kinahan in Published in Canadian Review of American Studies - Issue 31:1, 2001 [3] which critiques René Denfeld's The New Victorians: A Young Woman's Challenge to the Old Feminist Order (New York: Warner, 1995)
and a wider look at women's studies including its critics in Kim Chuppa-Cornell's "The Scholarly Arm of the Women's Movement: A Look Back at the Journey." WILLA, Volume 11, p. 3-10.

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)[reply]

Pls see [[4]] for my reasons. I don't care too much about the criticism within the article except that it kills the item by making it hostile to itself (which makes it looks ridiculous, to say the least). Those who want to talk about the "bad stuff" women's studies did should take their anti-feminist backlash to a new page and play there. Towsonu2003 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Towsonu2003. I 100% agree with you about the undue balance given to criticisms of Women's studies but there are more approriate ways of dealing with this. I may not have been clear about my point. The Criticisms of women's studies page should have been created as a temporary rather than permanent subpage. As it stands the article (and I realize it doesn't reflect your opinions) is unsourced, POV and of dubious notability. The backlashers as well as encyclopedic editors would be able to develop the page in a temporary subpage just as well as they could in the current one. I'm sorry to be nit-picking but a POV Fork is quite a problem. I would be happy to host the temporary subpage for the criticism or for the rewrite of the whole Women's studies article if you're not able to. Such a page could be listed at the 3 most pertinent WikiProjects (Project Gender Studies, WikiProject LGBT studies and the Sociology WikiProject). This way even as a subpage it would get quite a lot of attention and not be a POV fork. Please consider this approach--Cailil 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Towsonu2003. I'm just dropping by to ask if you've had a chance to think about the above. As mentioned I have a free sandbox which could be used as a temorary subpage if required.--Cailil 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the point really. But if you want, I don't have any problems with making that page a temporary page. Towsonu2003 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Feminism made into a redirect

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)[reply]

Hi ChrisJMoor, I understand your point - it was an admin or sysop decision to merge rather than delete the article. Black Falcon merged the pages on the 11th of March. They were going to try to develop the page but after a week of searching could find nothing. I support the decision to merge but I see your point as well. Between the 3 editors (yourself, myself and Black falcon) none of us can source a definition for the term, 'pop feminism,' but at the same time we all know 'pop feminism' exists. I have proposed that a section: Feminism & Popular Culture could be created (initially as a temp. sub-page so that it can be properly sourced etc) in the Feminism article - I'm happy to provide a temp subpage myself if neccessary. In this way the redirect would have a purpose--Cailil 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:barnstar

WikiThanks

Thanks so much for the barnstar!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

articles

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)[reply]

In fairness, it's not naturally that interesting, but these first two reviews look very useful.

One from Men's Studies Press is highly favorable; another from Canadian Journal Of Family Law is well-cited and generally what User:66.65.58.133 requests, and tears Spreading to bits.

Legalizing Misandry is an exemplar of reaction and resistance to feminism as the turn of the twenty-first century.

I'm writing down various criticisms and concurrences, but including these at length will make an unmanageably long (and tangential) Criticism section, and we don't have permission to publish, or links (that I can find) to an online source. / edgarde 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message edgarde, I haven't had a chance to read the papers yet but I hope to tomorrow. I think you're right a long critique wouldn't be helpful; all the article needs is a concise, well sourced summary of the criticisms and counter-criticisms of the book--Cailil 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misunderstanding you, Edgarde, but an online source is not required for WP citations. Citing journals in the good old-fashioned way, with journal name, page numbers etc is perfectly fine. Slp1 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CN

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)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the situation Coelacan. I'll hang on to that page for the moment. Thanks again for your support--Cailil ^talk 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I would wait for him to pick up a little more steam first. — coel acan — 22:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop in editor

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)[reply]

re:Misandry

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)[reply]

Re: Invitation to join Project Gender studies

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)[reply]

Thanks Cailil but I'll have to pass. I'm really not interested in Men's issues, or knowledgeable about Gender Studies, so I don't think I'd be a good fit. / edgarde 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

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)[reply]

Cailil, feel free to do whatever you think is appropriate--honestly, I find collecting diffs and such rather tedious, and it looks like you've already put in a lot of the work (thanks!) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walls come alive...

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)[reply]

Thanks for that Altoids Man, I enjoyed reading it. I hope we can bring that page back up to GA sometime. BTW well done on the wage stats. I'd love to know if there was research into stats like that for other countries. I worry that that page is a bit America-centric sometimes--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi Cailil

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)[reply]

Women and History

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)[reply]

No prob baby_ifritah, I hadn't seen the pages you were discussion until you mentioned them. And go ahead the source for my nav bar is User:Cailil/header--Cailil ^talk 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vlogging article discussion

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).[reply]

You know WP:MEAT is not an accusation of sock puppets. Its a simple rule - you can't bring friends into Wikipedia who are just going to agree with a position you've taken in a dispute or on a controvertial topic. That's what this looks like. However if Michael Verdi has editted the pages as an IP then there's no problem. Its been determined by other users that the CSN Michael Meiser lodged wasn't in good faith. This may just be a mistake by them, I was just pointing out the policy in case it wasn't known by all the users involved. I will have a look the page tonight and I will get back to you. BUt to answer your last can "Wikipedia articles can be something other than encyclopedic?" - in short no. There 5 types of pages on Wikipedia, articles, talk pages, project pages, user pages and navigation pages (categories, portals etc). All articles must be encyclopedic - wikiepdia is not a promotional site for thing, any view, or anyone (please see WP:NOT for fuller explanation) nor is it an opinion site or blog space. All efforts to use Wikipedia like this will meet with responses along the lines of Pdelongchamp's and these actions will be seen as appropriate and responsible by admins. I also support this position--Cailil ^talk 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin RfC

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)[reply]

Thanks Dekimasu, I'm concerned that there was more than just RfCs used by Miaers to try to push their point. The number of AN and AN3RR reports they filled as well as the AfD don't look good. I will add this history to the report page. Thanks Dekimasu--Cailil ^talk 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent response on Community sanction noticeboard

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)[reply]

Hi Tony, no problem I understand your edits and I'm totally fine with them, I should have use the full -English- names for policy. I think User:Nick has already re-reverted. BTW I hope you don't take any offence at the reinstatemnts I made today - I started a discussion on the talk page about it. I think we should hold off removing notices until the MfD is over or at least supending/temp withdrawing them until the uncertainty is over - if the page is killed removing them will make no difference anyway--Cailil 21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Tony Sidaway 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Spielberg

Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Spielberg. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]