User talk:Cailil/archive12

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

Michel Foucault ‎- 'Criticism' section

I think you have made a number of valid observations on the shortcomings of this section. Will respond there when time permits, hopefully later today. Am I correct in assuming that a 'Criticism section' by some name and format should be included or are you seeking its removal entirely. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rashers. WRT the section, well it depends. The philosophical arguments bit should have its own section but I think 'criticisms' is the wrong title for that. I'd prefer to see specific critiques of ideas being integrated into other sections (per NPOV) where relevant, but if there are wider criticisms like Midelfort's is currently presented as, then maybe there could be a criticism section if the info was due and didn't become a coatrack--Cailil ^talk 20:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in Wikipedia survey

Hello, Cailil! We would like to know what you think of Wikipedia in your day-to-day editing. That's why we've created a survey here where you can answer all the questions about what you do here anonymously. What's more, the results will be used to make the editing experience better for all. Thank you.

Sent by Rcsprinter123 (talk) at 16:59, 20 November 2024 UTC [refresh] on behalf of Wikimedia Surveys using AWB.

Block of IP

Is a two week block really warranted for this? Per WP:BLOCK persistent personal attacks are what are needed to result in a block not a fairly innocent response to being accused of being a block evading editor. Mo ainm~Talk 21:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Patterns of personal abuse, harassment, tag team editing, canvassing, and (ab)use of multiple ips - yes blocking is appropriate to prevent further disruption. BTW that diff was just the last straw the rest of the actions by this editor/s across multiple IPs is the haystack. Besides they can be unblocked immediately if they agree to stop--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I retired but I could not help noticing you blocked the user that Mo Ainm mentiond after multiple obvious false allegations by GoodDay, if you think if it is one editor using all these IP addresses, than you are very mistaken and obviously know nothing about IP addressing so I suggest you aquaint yourslf with the basics here [[1]] , and the fact that you used the "personal attack" on GoodDay as a justification is ridiculous in contrast to eveything GoodDay has done, I fail to see what disruptions the IP made besides trying to bring to attention GoodDay's behaviour, I was also wrongfuly blockd by BlackKite for GoodDay's false accusations of being a sock, and it is this behaviour by admins such as yourself and BlackKite that hav led me to more or lss abandon wikipdia, the fact that nothing has been done to deter GoodDay from disruptive and intentional inflammatory and provocative behaviour is astounding.Sheodred (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred, if you read my comment to GoodDay you'll see I told him to stop accusing others (you) of socking and file an SPI if he has concerns. Furthermore I know a fair bit more about Ips than you think Sheodred. There's apparently 1 vodafone user using dynamic Ips to avoid scrutiny working in concert (tag teaming) with somebody in ucc - but I haven't finished checking if there's any proxies or TORs involved.
You have site dispute resolution processes open to you if you wish to resolve your issue with GoodDay--Cailil ^talk 00:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm following Cailil's advice on this, Sheodred. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But what evidence is there to say that this IP has done any of that? GoodDay has even retracted his unfounded accusation as he has no proof to back it up. Mo ainm~Talk 10:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to User:Snowded/GoodNight by new users with an obvious ax to grind is a red flag Mo anim. These Ips are focussed on GD personally[2][3]. Whether they are 1 or 17 different ppl makes 0 difference - they're working together (violating WP:MEAT and/or WP:TAGTEAM). IPs are required to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:5 just as much as everyone else. And everyone is required to be on their best behaviour in topics where there are multiple ArbCom and/or community rulings.
If GD's, or anyone else's, comments are not constructive then editors (and IPs) should seek dispute resolution - not use dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny (as the above 2 sets of Ip blocs in Australia and UCC have done), evade blocks (as another set of vodafone Ips has done) and make personal comments (as all 3 blocs have done). Wikipedia is a colaborative environment & we have processes to resolve disagreement - what the IPs are doing is neither constructive nor colaborative--Cailil ^talk 13:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I no longer suspect (or have proof) that Sheodred is any of those IPs. There was some sorta tag teaming going on between IPs from within Ireland, though. GoodDay (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing what article you are talking about I have no opinion on the tag teaming claim you are making, but AGF, maybe they all disagree with you. Mo ainm~Talk 11:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis & Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles

Howdy Cailil. I just wanted to let you know, I'm not looking to create drama. I'm genuinely concerned about what I preceive as a breach of NPoV at the MoS-in-queston. It's also a well known fact, that I detest political correctness & the "it might offend somebdoy" cries. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

However, if you think I should 'not' persue these concerns, on the MOS & Lewis article? then I'll cease. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got no opinion on whether you should pursue this or not, but if you are going to pursue anything please do so in a way that:
a) invites others to be constructive rather than defensive/unnecessarily contradictory.
b) takes account of prior consensus and how it was reached.
c) assumes that those who reached that consensus acted in good faith.
Your remark ("That's not NPoV") was more of a quip than a constructive policy based invitation to collaboratively revise a manual of style guideline effecting hundreds of (or more) articles. This kind of post is far more likely to encounter flaming than to generate consensus for change. (But I see you've fixed that[4] and think this approach is far better) Please bear this in mind especially in contentious areas.
Also I might add that I am not sure that this issue (Name & context of place of birth in biographies) is actually a NPOV issue and may be more of a WikiProject Biography or WP:UKNATIONALS issue (see William Gladstone for instance)--Cailil ^talk 19:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed my post to a proposal & will AGF on those who reached the current guideline. Also, I 'll add my proposal to WP:BIO. As for WP:UKNAT? it's only an essay. My reason for checking with you, is so that I won't have any editors showing up & labelling me a 'disturber' - a type of harassment, that has occured in the past. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I actually wasn't adding those templates in response to your remarks either btw - I hope it didn't seems like I was--Cailil ^talk 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It didnt. I remembered that you were the Administrator who helped me, when last I got alot of heat over the British & Irish articles. I realized that proposing a change to the guidelines concerning the British Isles bios 'might be' rough & so I needed assurance that I wasn't in the wrong. As you can see (at WP:BIO), I've already had mud slung at me by 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note there re the ad hominem. Please also try to see why they made these comments. As RA pointed out your proposal from a guideline and policy point of view would be more logical if it was about all people born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
That said there is an issue with biographies about this kind of thing generally and I would suggest that if you approach this from a macro perspective people might be better able to see your point of view (and thus avoid the flaming that happens around disputed regions/names/issues). For example if you look at Hans Bethe you'll see he was born in Strasbourg (now part of France) in [[German Empire|Germany]] in 1906. However Jean Arp is noted as being born in "Strasbourg, France" in 1886 when in fact at this time this was part of the German Empire (Alsace the region of which Strasbourg is capital became annexed by the German Empire in 1871 and was only reincorporated into France in 1918).
My point is that there is a general inconsistency about the historical context of the place of birth in biographies (and their info boxes) and it may need to be approached from that general level rather than on a very specific point about biographies of people born in Ireland between 1801-1922--Cailil ^talk 17:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"GoodDay , that hs come across as point blank POV , racist and discriminatory . I praised the editing you done yesterday but this is horrific . Surely if it goes for one in the greater view of Wiki , it should go for all , we cant pick and choose to ignore issues that are the same just because the involve different sub-entities" is not mud slinging or a personal attack it is a comment on his previous comment .As you alluded to "there is a general inconsistency about the historical context of the place of birth in biographies " his example was only on Ireland and my comment was based on his .I did not sling mud, that accusation is in an ad hominem manner . When can I see the warning you are going to give for such a comment in the same manner to the other editor ? Murry1975 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think we're having communication problems. Would I be correct, in assuming that english isn't your first language? GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What info I have given on myself I give any .I didnt mud sling as you accuse. I made a comment on your comment I mentioned your previous editing(which I praised) I never personally accused ,I stated "that has come across" as that being in normal English language referring to the article i.e. your comment not you.Murry1975 (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your posts. But, I can tell you meant no harm, so no prob. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Murry1975 please take a moment to preview your edits in order to make sure that your communication with others is clear. Also btw when commenting on policy proposals please dial down the rhetoric. Attributing racism to a proposal is not the most collegial of remarks one could make. Please try to AGF about other peoples' ideas--Cailil ^talk 19:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I read what I type , others did not . If I didnt assume good faith I would have reported the remark for racism not replied to it , as a racist remark SHOULD be reported immediately. On a continued note , I was accused of mud slinging , I am not AGF on this as you mentioned this on the project bio page emphisising myself and another editor , yet this acquisition is a breach of WP:NPA , also an attempt of outing on your page.Murry1975 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Murry dial own the rhetoric. There is not a WP:Outing issue here (which is btw a VERY serious accusation to make and I am strongly suggesting you redact it immediately) - you are "digging a hole for yourself here" I suggest you stop--Cailil ^talk 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
      • You are failing to treat all editors the same .Murry1975 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
        • "Would I be correct, in assuming that english isn't your first language?" is trying to gain information on an editor is it not?Murry1975 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking you, by asking that queston. PS: I don't even know what we're arguing about, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to garner information that the other editors dont put forward about themselves .Murry1975 (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter to Cailil

A textbook example of trolling from User:Van Speijk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Cailil, You are an ass. I note the abrupt and harsh warning you've placed on my Talk page and compare it with the friendly advice offered to Bjmullan on his Talk page concerning the same matter: Bjmullan's page - "Bj, please be aware that .." My page - "This is a formal warning .." Bjmullan's page - ".. but I'm afraid I must warn you too .." My page - ".. will result in restrictions being placed on this account" Bjmullan's page - "PS, I do realize the length of time (3 weeks) since you made that post .." My page - nothing Overall, your tone on Bjmullan's page is a world away from that on my page and yet arguably both of us have descended to the same level of incivility. I wonder why your tone is so different? I notice another editor (User:Murry1975) has made similar observations above. What is of particular concern to me, and should be to others as well, is that three weeks ago Bjmullan and I had a disagreement and we've now moved on. However, you have now belatedly muck-raked over the whole issue again. What do you hope to gain from doing this? Maybe you are trying to provoke me especially into delivering this type of response, so that you can then take the opportunity to eliminate yet another user, as you seem to have done with several others who have attempted to stand up to the anti-British POV we find on Wikipedia. Well congratulations, you're successful again, so carry on. I've pretty much given up with Wikipedia anyway, given its unreliability and consequent uselessness as a primary source (just try using Wikipedia as a reference in some academic writing). It's bad enough dealing with the POV pushing of editors like Bjmullan and HighKing, but at least they do make useful contributions as well, unlike you. Your primary objective seems to be to boss others around and issue ridiculous, untimely and unnecessary warnings. I can only assume you get some satisfaction from doing this - most strange. Finally let me point out another nasty little trait of yours, which again betrays your own bias in these matters; when referring to users who you by and large support, you address them by name, but for users like me it's the impersonal "this account". How objectionable that is. Yours sincerely, Van Speijk. Van Speijk (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonchapple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jonchapple <- This is a personal attack on everyone who disagrees with him if I am not mistaken, he just generalised an entire section of editors as people who sympathise with murderers. Sheodred (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've forwarded this to Mkativerata[5] who recently blocked Jonchapple as they're more familiar with that particular case history. I'll keep an eye on it too but I would expect a response from Mkativerata in the next few days.--Cailil ^talk 16:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is escalating from the usual trolling. These, just in the last 12 hours: deleting reliably sourced, verified text from National emblem (as well as POV trolling on the talkpage); deleting reliably sourced, verified text from Peter O'Toole (and a technical breach of edit war re 1RR restrictions – again); deleting 'Scottish' from Robert Burns intro, adding UK to places of birth and death in infobox, and deleting 'Scottish' from nationality field in infobox. This is his apparent admission of disruptive, pointy editing - if he had wanted just to see how it looked he should have used a sandbox, or at least self-reverted. And you already know about the disruptive proposal here. This is not going to stop. A preventative block is necessary. Can you do this, or does it have to go to AN/I? Daicaregos (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree pointy disruptive edits. Mo ainm~Talk 12:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's sooo terrible, the stress I bring into the lives of these certain editors. Ohhh, the vandalizing & edit warring I'm alleged to have done. Thank goodness, these wounded editors-in-question, haven't been attacking me & my motives on main-space. Oh wait, they do harrass me on main space. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"he only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases" just about sums up the motivation here, its not an attempt to improve things. He's taken voluntary bans before, but keeps coming back with minor low level provocation. I suspect he wants it to go to ANI and an RfC as it will give him time in the limelight and will also flush out a whole bunch of the normal warfare between editors who use him as a gadfly. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

At the very least there should be a warning that the next time anything similar happens, there will be a block - then follow through with the block. Because there will be a next time. That would be preventative, not punative. It may even change his behaviour, which is all any of us want. Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your petty attempts to have me topic banned, are becoming pathetic, Dai. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Quebec is not a nation. The Canadian government only recognzied the French Quebecers (the majority in the province, ie Quebecois) as a nation within Canada. The province itself, isn't recognized as a nation. Daicaregos is merely seeking to continue a fight with me, in order to try & have me topic banned. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's is the source [6], showing that it's the Francophones of Quebec, who are recognized as a nation within Canada -- not the province. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right Dai. If nothing is done about this now he will think he has permission to continue his disruption unabated. Snowded is also correct in that the more attention he gets the happier he is. Cailil, I'm not here to demand anything, but I believe something has to be done about his behaviour sooner rather than later. I recommend you have a look at this diff from my talk page where you can see where he got the idea for the change to the Robert Burns article. A little bit of payback I fear. As for his request below, you'll probably remember that he requested the same thing on your talk page after he finally confessed to looking for a fight with Dai. Carson101 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What a coincidence, that you're all devolutionists. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well Dai, wrt to the 1rr restriction he self reverted[7], and while I understand your POV I don't see this[8] as an admission of anything but a good faith attempt at editing.
  However GD this kind of comment[9] is unnecessary and not helpful (or in line with AGF).
  Content wise this is truly a question of a poisonous atmosphere (in the widest sense) because there seem to be entrenched good faith attitudes on all sides - which makes things very complicated and IMHO inappropriate to use blocks to resolve. From an outside perspective this should be engaged with via our structures for dispute resolution. I've seen you make the point before Snowded, that forms of dispute resolution will not work here but I disagree. If you don't believe that RFC will help then I would indeed suggest going up to ANI or across to WP:MEDCAB. As this issue stands it is a content dispute (in a wide sense) and I don't see a reason to block for that.
  But if you want to take the time to evidence (in long form) a pattern of disruption then RFC, ANi or RFAR are your best options. If you want to sort this in teh medium to short term then I'd suggest the med-cab. I'm neither defending nor condemning GoodDay's actions here and I will reiterate that if you can show, with neutrally recorded evidence, that there is a serious long running issue with anyone then take it to RFC or ANI (or RFAR).--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think he wants the drama Cailil and its a balance of effort really. On the one hand forcing him to the talk page every time he starts one of these little campaigns is tedious. Especially the three (maybe more) attempts he has made to disrupt the long standing consensus on Derry/Londonderry. On the other hand ANI, RfC etc which just crete drama, flush out both sides of a long standing debate using GoodDay as a proxy and feeding the need for attention. I'm reluctantly coming to the view that the former strategy, if tedious is probably the most effective and will either curtail the behaviour or result in escalating provocations from GoodDay (as has happened in the past) which might then create a case. The ideal is the GoodDay just stops making changes to articles that he knows will be controversial and proposes such changes on the talk page first. --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The ideal is GoodDay just stops making changes to articles that he knows will be controversial and propose such changes on the talk page first". I did this at the article England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland - concerning the inserted maps. What feedback did I get from you there? You kept repeating that I was just stirring trouble & so you posssibly damaged my argument by questioning my motives. Again - be careful of the stones you throw. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's other editors that create the drama, not me. There'd be no controversy, if editors would merely control their political PoVs & tempers. I don't vandalize articles, I don't edit war over them & I don't use foul language in a questionable manner at those article talkpages. At Derry/Londonderry, I didn't bring up the name issue (the last time), someone else did & I responded to their question. So, before you & others continue to point your fingers at me - take a look at yourselves. You guys, are the dramatists. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, there was an editor (quite awhile back), who tried to force the Welsh version of United Kingdom into the infobox heading of United Kingdom, via the reasoning that Welsh was an official language of the UK. After many editors (including me) explained many times that Welsh was only the official language of Wales, this editor finally gave in & ended his redicules argument. Yes, that editor-in-question caused quite a bit of un-needed drama. PS: To the editor-in-question, be careful of the stones you throw. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply, although obviously I am less than pleased with its content. You will recall having officially warned GoodDay previously about 1RR restrictions, and that he was well aware of them anyway. The only reason he self-reverted was because he was warned he had breached 1RR. And you will note that his pointy edits were not restricted to Robert Burns. I am at a loss to understand how you would conclude that changing Robert Burns' nationality from Scottish to British could be a good faith attempt at editing. I'm sure you have your reasons. That you seem to believe deleting reliably sourced, verified text, as he did at National emblem is a content dispute, I find truly worrying: your understanding of WP:NPOV seems to be completely at odds to mine. Carson101's warning that if nothing is done about this now he will think he has permission to continue his disruption unabated has come to pass already - see: here and here (continuing to edit war); and here (inappropriate canvassing). By the way another respected editor said on Talk:National emblem “I for one am thoroughly sick and tired of the years of disruptive editing by the Canadian nationalist.” It is obvious that I have wasted your time by bringing this here. I thought you were better than that. I was wrong. Daicaregos (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dai it remains like this if you have an issue with GD or any one else try dispute resolution - there is no workaround that bypasses it in this kind of case. We work here based on consensus - consensus is developed by discussion. Sometimes people suggest things we don't like or agree with (or that are incorrect) - that's why we have policies (WP:V & WP:NOR - which IMHO should be the ones you're all working from in this instance not necessarily just NPOV) as well as WP:RFC and WP:TO so that wider input can be sought for constructive discussion. If you want to sort out your differences with GD do it properly through MedCab, if you want to report GD for disruption do it at ANI or through an RFC--Cailil ^talk 14:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Recommend you reveiw Daicaregos's 'diffs' closely. Particluarly his charge of canvassing, as I asked for help from that WikiProject in a neutral way. Also, as for my changes at National emblem, I did revert back to Dai's version & am waiting input from the WikiProject-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can see the post to wikiproject is neither canvassing nor inappropriate - hence my response above.
GD this cuts both ways if you want to deal with the obviously personal issues between you and Dai I suggest you undertake some for of dispute resolution (ie MedCab or RFC). He is raising a concern that your edits are inflammatory. I've made the point to you above that you should approach issues in a more open manner that gives others something to work with rather than just poking them with a stick. I would suggest also that you should resist the urge to talk about other users (even indirectly as you did in Carson's diff above), and again as I mentioned wrt the biographies matter a macro level suggestion to issues rather than a micro one (ie Quebec, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, UK, etc etc etc) will be more likely to be constructive and less prone to hot-button editing/comments. Finally I would suggest that seeking consensus for edits that will be (or that you think will be) controversial, however tedious that might seem, is a far better approach. Lay out proposals in a full, detailed manner with reference to policy and see if people can help refine them--Cailil ^talk 16:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to give more respect to other editors sensativities, around these articles. I do wish 'however', that Dai & Carson would stop hounding you & accusing you of being biased in my favour. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am astonished Cailil that you have come to the conclusion that GoodDays editing has been done in good faith. You must be looking at something different from me and numerous other editors. You appear to be defending GoodDay to the hilt on this matter for reasons I can't quite fathom. He can now point to your comments here and go on his merry way at the thought that he can continue his disruption. One question Cailil. Do you really think that his edit to the Robert Burns article was in good faith after I showed you the diff from my talk page? Not to mention all the diffs that Dai showed you. If I can ever be bothered trying to fight GoodDay's disruption again I don't imagine I'll be going to you with any of the evidence again. Cheers. Carson101 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Carson sysops will not be press-ganged into action against an account (they are far more likely to refuse if they start to feel such a situation is emerging). Besides the diff you presented shows nothing of what you suggest. I agree that perhaps it is snarky and therefore not the best attitude but it does not show anything else and that isn't blockable.
I'm not defending GD, I'm assuming good faith as we're all required to do. And I see a serious lack of AGF in your comment to me because I didn't take action against GD.
On the matter of Burns, Lewis & O'Toole biogs - I have no opinion on the content and no uninvolved admin will. You shouldn't be trying to "fight GoodDay's disruption" you should be trying to constructively engage with him. If you can't do that open an RFC--Cailil ^talk 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Carson, editors get blocked or banned if they're commiting vandalism, making threats, outing editors etc etc. I haven't done these things. You & I are usually in 'content' disputes. Also, I did not make my change to the Burns article, in order to get back at Daicaregos. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to me again. I didn't expect it and wasn't waiting for it. The only reason I returned here was because I saw from Carson101's contribution history that he'd posted here before placing a 'Retired' template on his page. I am constantly amazed at your responses – this time you cite WP:NOR as one of the policies we should strive to achieve. Have you ever read any of GoodDay's posts? I challenge you to find any of his talk page posts that comply with that policy. That is one of the main issues I have with him – all his comments are unsupported POV or OR. Further, your interpretation of WP:CANVASS to exclude GoodDay's votestacking/inappropriate post to a partisan audience (i.e. to WP:CANBOARD here) is astonishing. WP:CANBOARD is not noted as an interested/relevant project on that article. And it is inappropriate to ask only WP:CANBOARD to comment on the inclusion of “Quebec, England, Scotland & Wales” (or even just Quebec) on the article, or whether “We should limit this article to sovereign states” - the article's inclusion criteria, which was the subject of GoodDay's talk page post. Again, I'm sure you have your reasons. By the way, you should be aware that your name has been mentioned here. I shan't be taking up any more of your valuable time. Daicaregos (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dai you're in dodgy territory claiming that a wikiproject is a cabal ("partisan audience"). It is not canvassing to post to a related wikiproject directly related to the topic under discussion and it is really pushing it to claim that by not posting elsewhere GD was acting in bad faith.
If you want to discuss editting that feel is breaching NOR we have a board for that - WP:NORN--Cailil ^talk 02:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Again Cailil, upon reading Dai's 21:19 post, I see no chance of reconcilation between he & I. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A request

Cailil, I'm tired of the constant harrassment from these editors & their political motivations. It's clear that I'm out-numbered by these devolutionists & so you're gonna have to issue me a topic-ban from the British & Irish articles - because, I'm not gonna back down from their attempts to stop me from bringing a NPoV to those articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence of their wolf-pack behaviour, is their 'piling on', here at your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Either topic ban me or tell them to get off my back. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• GD try stepping back for a while. But I would strongly suggest that if you have issues with others that you try mediation or bring it up on ANi in order to resolve it. Also I would recommend thinking about what i said above (a few days ago) about how you approach things - if you want to generate consensus for change find ways to phrase things so that ppl can agree rather than disagree. You know the old saying about a spoonful of honey and a spoonful of vinegar--Cailil ^talk 17:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's not easy, due to the unreasonable emotionalisms around those articles. I'll try to get along with the others, but there's no hope for myself & Daicaregos, we simply don't like each other as Wikipedians. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  PS thanks for striking above--Cailil ^talk 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  No prob. But one can understand why I'd believe that. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  You have a noticeable habit of making inappropriate remarks on pages, and then striking those comments (although they're still readable and accessible). I'd keep an eye on that. (Commenting as per "agreement" to save you from yourself). --HighKing (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  Other editors have made worst comments towards me & they don't strike them out. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  GoodDay is constantly rounded upon by the same cliq of editors. Whilst many of GoodDay's edits do seem either out of place or unneeded, the reaction of the same cliq of editors each and everytime to the slightest little thing GoodDay does is getting really tedious and disgraceful. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MoS

Howdy Cailil. I was considering seeking changes to the MoS concerning biographies, before this year was out. But, given the rough treatment & thumbs down results at WP:BIOG, aswell as the commotion above, I think I'll put that consideration on hold. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

I didn't know if I should just revert the inappropriate edit on the Misandry talk page. Thanks for showing me the way. In the future, is it okay for me to just revert? Or should I wait for an admin? Ebikeguy (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally with something that's obviously trollish from drive-by/throwaway IPs it's ok to remove it as along as the removal is in line with the talkpage guidelines (border line stuff is probably better to leave). And just so you know I operate in gender studies articles as an ordinary editor so there's no need to be a sysop to do things like that. Good call on warning the ip too btw--Cailil ^talk 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order

Kudos to you for this! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SonicYouth - it was a team effort =) --Cailil ^talk 02:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Cailil for helping to promote Feminism to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Cailil ^talk 02:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

congratulations for a large chunk of work that worked

Congratulations on feminism becoming a Good Article. I wish I could have done more. I'm glad you and SusanLesch did it. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick - but you deserve a lot of the credit too. It's taken years to get the article into shape and then a stable, collegial, consensus driven discourse going around it and that's down in no small part to your good self--Cailil ^talk 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

Howdy Cailil. How does one go about obtaining a mentor? GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no direct process but I suppose asking at WP:AN is an option. It's regularly patrolled by admins & ppl interested in dispute resolution. Otherwise maybe have a word with Steven Zhang - he's an excellent mediator and has a history in resolving conflict and thus might know who's open to these things--Cailil ^talk 00:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept a mentor, if it'll satisfy my critics. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An award for you!

		Mind the Gap Award
		I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Cailil, with the Mind the Gap award for your excellent work pertaining to women's history and feminism on Wikipedia. Thank you for your hard work at succeeding to make Feminism a good article! Congratulations and thanks for all you do.

Thanks Sarah!--Cailil ^talk 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Article probation

Hey Cailil, could you please take a look at the comments by User:Rogerfgay on Talk:Fathers' rights movement [10] [11] [12]? The topic probation for Men's rights seems to extend to Fathers' rights movement. I also left a message on KillerChihuahua's talk page but s/he seems to be taking a wikibreak. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It'd be better to go to ANi about this Sonicyouth - I don't operate as a sysop in that area (except in emergency cases). This looks like a question of how wp:coi should be applied and thus I think ANi would be a better venue then any single sysop's page--Cailil ^talk 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I meant. You have notified a few users about the article probation and I thought that one of your friendly notifications might help Rogerfgay avoid potential sanctions. I don't want you to take any admin action against Rogerfgay because I don't think that the situation requires it, among other reasons. If he continues to assume bad faith and attack Ebikeguy, I'll just let him know myself about the article probation. I apologize for the misunderstanding! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I'd wait to see how the WP:COIN thread ends up as this should sort everything out. I think that forum should resolve the issue (hopefully amicably)--Cailil ^talk 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		To Cailil for making Feminism reach Good Article. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So happy this happened! Excellent job on finding categories of movements and ideologies. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Susan - and thank you for all the hard work on the article :)--Cailil ^talk 18:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed's involvement on appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think you are incorrect as it concerns WP:INVOLVED's application in the case of the appeal. The article on WP:INVOLVED only specifically mentions administrator actions regarding disputes over edits, not disputes over administrative actions. Obviously, a different standard of WP:INVOLVED applies in that case as administrative action is the source of dispute. As I stated on my appeal the procedural notes included in the appeal template provide a clear standard for what constitutes involvement as it concerns an appeal of administrative actions:

"To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED)."

That has an obvious basis in the idea that an admin who has previously ruled a block as valid should not be able to repeatedly shut down future unblock requests. In this case Ed was clearly involved in the dispute over my block before the appeal and cannot claim to be uninvolved for the purpose of providing his input on the appeal of that block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Except he didn't respond to an unblock request. He didn't "rule on a block". He explained community norms and procedures (ie what a topic ban covers). None of the 4 diffs you listed as demonstrating Ed's involvement do[13][14][15][16]. "Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved" - Ed wasn't/isn't "involved" under any criteria of WP:AE or WP:INVOLVED. Let it go. Persisting in this form of argumentation is a cul de sac--Cailil ^talk 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the procedural notes does not require that the admin previously made a formal ruling. It only refers to taking part in a dispute related to the action. Determinations of involvement are meant to be broadly construed, but even without that any reading of the standard indicates Ed was an involved editor. He clearly did take part in a dispute related to the action, even explicitly endorsing the block at one point, and as such he could not be described as uninvolved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A little more careful next time...

Hello. Please be a little more careful when speedy-deleting pages. I just restored a userpage that was deleted for marketing spam, which clearly was a sandbox article, not marketing of any sort. Thanks, Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bob - I see that. Will take better care in future--Cailil ^talk 21:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I am appealing the topic ban that WG issued on November 30th and thought you might want to comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)