User talk:Cailil/Archive 3

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

NOR

Kudos again for your hard work on the Feminism article. given your skill with research, I would really appreciate it if you would comment on the current debates at Wikipedia talk:No original research. If you look at the actual policy, the second section is on the origins of the policy, and section 1 of the talk page is my proposed revision of that section - if you have an opinion I welcome it. But the real debate has to do with the policy's distinction between primary and secondary sources. You ought to read the latter third of the talk page and comment wherever you think it appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote. feel free to edit the proposed draft of the section for better style, clarity and concision, if you can, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're suggesting is very much needed at WP:NOR. BTW I'm finding the whole disagreement over WP:PSTS difficult to follow. I'll have a second read of it al later on--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A B Pepper

I haven't had to deal with someone as bad as User:A B Pepper before. I'm thinking of just filing a RfC if he/she isn't willing to stop the incivility soon, but am willing to help if you decide to take it to that step before I do. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you believe his talk page, he's left in a huff, bragging that he's whupped all us heretical sissies and girlies with his brilliant reasoning. --Orange Mike 03:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well he's blocked for 3 months now so he's got no choice in the matter. If he pops up again give me a shout--Cailil ^talk 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender Trouble

You suggest: "The largest departure from other branches of feminism, is the argument that both sex and gender are constructed through language." Which seems OK, but I would prefer to emphasize that the social construction of sex is particularly distinctive. Perhaps "The largest departure from other branches of feminism is the argument that sex as well as gender is constructed through language." ? BTW, I like your other clarifications of Butler, particularly mentioning race, class, and sexuality expliticly. VoluntarySlave 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

yup

i know what wikipedia is. i dont need to reminded that wikipedia is not a soapbox. i dont try to start trouble. i am trying to improve the article. i had an account then forgot the password and stuff and i was too lazy to make an other one. ill probably an other one eventually.

dont get my believes confused. i am not some oppressive fundamentalist. i kind of support abortion. but i believe that you should never call it a right. abortion is a terrible thing. to say that women have the right to get pregnant and destroy the life in development in their body is extremely distributing. i for making it a legal privilege. abortion is ok in some cases.

the way is worded is makes it still makes it seem like it says abortion is a right. it worded that way because they wanted to cited the whole thing correctly i know. but it should still be changed. maybe to something like "feminist fight for what the they believe is the right to have an abortion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.230.196 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

69.106.230.196 if you understand WP:SOAP then you should understand why comments like the above are not constructive. I will not debate with you on your opinion about whether abortion is or is not a right. Talk pages are for articles development, and articles are written from a verifiable sources. The current wording of the piece you dislike has multiple sources and can have more. Once again, I will state that the wording of the lead in Feminism describes the feminist campaign for the right to abortion. That is the feminist campaign as recorded in fact checked journals, books and news articles. BTW please sign your comments--Cailil ^talk 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

reminding me about the rules is not constructive sense i know what they are or relevant to the topic. i know that not everything it the above comment is constructive. it obvious you are hostile to my beliefs.

when you say "feminist campaign for the right to abortion" that means they are campaigning for a right. it does not say they are campaigning for what they think is a right.69.106.230.196 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

69.106.230.196, You need sources for your change. The current wording is well sourced. Also please do not speculate about the beliefs of another user. If you continue to use the talk space like a forum you will receive further & escalating warnings--Cailil ^talk 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

you did that to me!!!!!!! you know im right. there is no flaw in my reasoning. my indignation is not mindless jeering. i know talkspaces platforms for personal views but i thought it was acceptable thing to say anyways, sorry if it wasnt. i dont need a source to interpret the english language i know what it says. wheres the proof that says abortion is a natural right? i believe im right and if you cant disprove me you should just change it so everyone can agree.69.106.230.196 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

I'm out for a couple hours. Please issue a final warning with diffs and cite policy. Ask the IP not to post to your talk page again, too. This will be resolved soon. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

You are nice enough to AGF regarding me and Anacapa! However, it is impossible to dispute the checkuser. Therefore, if there is any scrutiny, I will be unable to shake the assertion that I am not Anacapa. So I might as well try to ignore it but if there is ever a dispute, I might have to say "I AM Anacapa" and anybody else is a copy cat.

Again, thank you for the welcome back! Chergles 19:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of feminism

Caesar is pushing his "more correct" POV redefinition into the lede again. I don't want to run afoul of the 3RR. Could you take a look at what's going on? --Orange Mike 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Women's Rights

Cailil, you're awesome.  : ) - Sasha Kopf 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you Sasha. It's really only a start that article needs work--Cailil ^talk 18:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandal on my user page. Greg Jones II 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all--Cailil ^talk 01:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: checkuser

Hi, sorry for my late reply and thanks for your suggestion. I am still considering filing a report of some kind about the suspected sock-puppeteer, but as Parsifal already pointed out on my talk page, the close IP relation behind all those edits is already quite clear, which leaves me wondering as well, how a checkuser procedure could help. But then again, I'm not that familiar with the process and what exactly it unearths. In that light, what would your next move be, still checkuser or rather a WP:SSP report? - Cyrus XIII 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathanson & Young

User:Alastair Haines/Misandry sources has a framework and some sources. I'm simply trying to systematically gather all publications citing N&Y via internet traces, linking to authors, publishers and text if I can get it. Interesting things pop up like the American Library Association best of the best award, and Canadian government funding (via the Marriage Institute site). Canada seems to be quite a progressive place, if the Canadian Children's Rights Council is anything to go by, I can imagine the government wanting investigation into this sort of thing.

If you want a methodology for investigating popular media regarding misandry, James Macnamara's PhD is the publication to look at. He is cited elsewhere as a rigorous version of N&Y.

Other trivia: the article by N&Y at the Mariage Institute notes that one of them is gay, although they offer arguments against gay marriage!

Canada and N&Y are rather interesting!

Glen Sacks shared the platform with them at a men's movement conference, but I'm not looking for political conferences, only academic and quasi academic conferences.

My own interest in the subject is also linguistic, as it turns out, I am researching for a postgrad award analysing love poetry. As you can easily imagine misandry (and misogyny) are relevant as a contrast. Hate is so often frustrated love too ... but I haven't got to psychology yet. ;) Alastair Haines 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine John Beynon (Welsh, 3 years of press data) and James Macnamara are the academic type treatments more useful to you. Nathanson and Young are definitely popular press - political - moral in their treatment and in who uses them. Even the journal articles that criticize them are political. I can agree with you on talk pages that many journals are political, even ones with substantial studies used to back political arguments; however, for article space, I'm content to present all learned peer-reviewed journals at the same level. Saves me trying to draw a line regarding where research is compromised by funding, rather than facilitated by it. It's a serious issue, but hard to judge even in my own field, let alone those outside my area.

By the way, I'm slowly learning respect for the men's movement. It's very diverse. I couldn't come at the tree-huggers; and I'm not the football watching, hard-hat wearing, back-shed type either. LoL, in that stubbornly persistent classification of masculinities as man's man or ladies man, I certainly fall into the latter, but I'm a failure there! I don't know what kind of masculinity I have, I just know I'm a man, and that I'm me!

I'm just wondering. Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia shows a complex of contradictory masculinity related issues I would have thought. Not a Rex Harrison or Yule Brenner cardboard cut-out. Hamlet and some other Shakespearean anti-heroes reveal a sophistication in exploring masculine character, I imagine. There are some gems in the Bible -- Samson the knucklehead, and Elijah the intense. Joshua, and his New Testament namesake, are too good to be true, unless, of course, they were! ;) he he.

There's a stream of consciousness for you as I try to think a bit into your world. People have done so much great thinking, and there's not enough time to share it with them all! :-( Alastair Haines 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very big thank you

I am not surprised that there has been a very appropriate process involved in this case. Thank you for taking the time to summarise it for me. It is very clear that everything has been conducted in a way any reasonable editor can understand and endorse. Your personal diligence in going to the trouble of "bringing me up to speed" is very much appreciated Calil.

I will note on the misandry page that my questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and that I have every reason to believe that anyone else interested in such things will find Wiki's conduct in this satisfactory.

I have sympathy for Anapaca's emotions, and am open to some of his views, however, one can be involved in emotional and controversial subjects without slander or threat. These are precisely the same allegations he makes regarding feminism, but it is hardly conducive to constructive discussion to imitate in one's own methodology what one alleges of others.

Again, thanks for your time and patience. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was little chance of trouble in this case, 'cause I know so many excellent people at Wiki, that it's usually just a matter of time before things are resolved, and reasonably. But, yes, it could be more confusing and uncertain for someone newer, or with fewer points of contact with the wider community.

LoL, it's a "baptism of fire" talking about sex, religion and politics at Wiki. But that's a good thing! More importantly, there is no conspiracy for or against men or women that I've detected.

Hope your server works out OK soon, and hope your research (and teaching?) in RL are going well also. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More excellent commentary from you Sir! :D I feel the sincerity of your discouraging infamy comment. So true! You put very concisely the logic of what is essentially a compassionate emotional instinct with me. I particularly appreciate people who are able to think and act (as well as feel) like this. It seems to me the essence of what good management and good government seek in those who determine discipline proceedures.

I'm taken up with RL deadlines atm, but rest assured, I wish to honour your excellent handling of my sincere questions, by raising some of the issues at the redlink you provided. The issue is important, but thankfully not urgent.

Between you and me, I think Wikipedia is potentially the ultimate in what the internet has to offer. It is not a democratisation of truth, but it has the potential to be a very substantial democritisation of knowledge, which is a very wonderful thing. It depends on a subtle management of interaction with users and editors (and administrators too). The strategy and sociology of Wiki fascinates me. I try to stick to generating reliable content, but in cases like the current one, I think there are some big picture things that are part of long term discussions for important abstract improvements to Wiki processes.

Thanks again, I hear you, and I intend to act according to your suggestion, please bear with me. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

individualist feminism

Dr. Presley:

I updated the individualist feminism page. I believe the page looks a lot cleaner now. Hopefully you'll agree that these are improvements.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Allixpeeke (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alex. I think you've confused me for someone else - I'm not Dr. Preseley. Your changes to individualist feminism are improvements but the article needs more sources to properly comply with WP:V--Cailil ^talk 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. When I saw "Sharon Presley [not afraid to be nonanonymous] --Cailil 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)" posted here, well...

Actually, can you explain that? Did you write that post, and if so, why does her name appear? Maybe I'm just not getting it.

Thanks,

Alex Peak

replied on user's talk page--Cailil ^talk 14:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

When you become a sysop you probably will have to use some confidential evidence sometime. If nothing else it may be an e-mail from someone who's been harassed and respects you enough to trust you. I'm glad the community is working out some parameters for that issue now because it really had no standards on the subject and I was feeling my way through the dark. I fully support that effort. Durova^Charge! 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize you were in uncharted territory and that you were acting with the very best of intentions but one has to be able to explain one's actions. I belive that when one's values are threatened by those who wish to subvert them then it is time to be most strict with one's self about what those values are.

Openness and "due process" are there for our protection from the system - secrecy exists only to protect the system from us. That is my belief. There was a time in my personal life when I had to faced some pretty dangerous people in court as a witness, at many levels I would have liked to use secrecy to have those people sent-down but that's just not how liberal society works. In the end I stood-up, I was counted, I was named and my evidence was presented for cross examination. And they were defeated fairly and openly.

We both know that there are people attempting to use this encyclopedia in order to make money; to promote their crackpot ideas and their non-notable organizations; etc., but we don't need to use secret methods to stop them - in fact we need these people not only to be defeated for attempting to usurp the poject, we need them to be seen to be defeated and defeated fairly.

All that said I do think you handled yourself admirably during the controversy and your unblock of !! should have been enough. There were a few users who attempted to (and succeeded in) causing drama - I wonder if they've heard the proverb: "people in glass houses...".

I'll see you in mainspace and as always you have my respect and support--Cailil ^talk 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminism

Nice work on your recent edits to feminism. I'm going to be really busy over the next few days, but I'll be bringing a little more ref'd content to the sex-positive section (and its main article) soon. Did I miss it again (my eyesight is actually terrible) or does the article not mention Audre Lorde, "the master's tools" or "poetry is not a luxury" (can't remember exact phrase), or intersectional analysis/birdcage theory? If not, I think these would be great additions (Audre Lorde is such a central figure, IMO). Also, what do you think about adding some context to the "personal is political" phrase? Conversely, are there any particular areas you'd like to see improved or expanded? Phyesalis (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions Lorde by name but that's all. I'm not all that well versed in her work so in the original re-write I wasn't able to do much more than that.

Intersectionality is dealt with in the Black feminism section. However, there is a section in the article called 'Issues in defining feminism' which is largely redundant and could be reduced and with that space we should add more about ideas of intersectionality from marxist, postcolonial, black and ethnic feminism since it is becoming more and more common for people to come across studies of "race, gender and location."

Context for "the personal is political" would be important - I've been so busy for the past 3 months that I haven't been able to address all the areas that Awadewit raised in their peer review (see it here) back in September.

It's great to see somebody else taking an interest in this article - we got it close to good article standard back in August and I'd be hopeful that we could get it through that test and up to featured status next year--Cailil ^talk 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, glad to be of service. I will make feminism (GA) a new personal priority. By the end of the year I should have a lot more time. I'd be happy to work on Lorde, sex-positive, and context for personal/political. I'll go back over the critique for other ideas. Phyesalis (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I love the edits you have done on the feminism article too. I hope to see more of your edits on the article in the future. --Grrrlriot (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Grrrlriot, I hope we can can all work together to make it a really great wikipedia article--Cailil ^talk 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be good to have a wiki on the web strictly on feminism and its many categories and sub-types. I think we would all contribute a lot to the wiki. I have some more information I would like to add about feminism and I am interested in feminisms all around the world. The feminism article on wikipedia keeps getting bigger and I think that's great, but with more and more information being added, It would be a huge article and it would be good to have a wiki strictly about feminism. What do you think? --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a really wonderful idea. I think something along those lines exists somewhere - I'll see if I can remember the name and put a link to it here.

There is actually a lot of stuff up on wikipedia throughout category:feminism. History of feminism is another article that could do with serious attention. Indeed everything in the category needs work. A lot of merging and sourcing is necessary to make them proper encyclopedia articles. Another area that needs to be addressed is the lack of copyleft images for feminists outside North America.--Cailil ^talk 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you think its a good idea. I know that LadyWiki used to exist, but it no longer exists. Let me know if you find the website. I have viewed and edited the category before. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pepper puppet?

Hey. If someone is using another IP to evade a block, that is serious. I think it is salient that the Pepper was suspected of sockpuppetry before. But I am afraid I am not really the right person to help you. The first thing is you need stronger evidence that this is a sockpuppet and I think the only way to do that (to go beyond what you have done) is via Checkuser, a process what only select admins have the knowledge or power to do. My advice is you petition a checkuser (go to someone other than Durovna at this stage). The next question is, what to do? It may not be possible or deirable to block the IP address. However, if you could establih a very strong case that this is a sockpuppet, if the IP address is the same as Pepper´s, you would have grounds to revert on site any edit )and this would free you and me and others from 3RR restrictions) so it is worth it. So I encourage you to do this. But if the anonymous user is just being a pain in the ass, just keep reverting, there isn´t much else one can do. If a revert war heats up let me know. Feminism is on my watchlist but I seldom check ever edit, but if something is going on that concerns you let me know and I will, Happy Hannuchristmakwaanza, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But wikipedia has never had a good mechanism for dealing with anonymous users. There are two issues, stalking ' you can go for an RfC now, but I am not sure what good will come of it. I think you need to find someone capable of doing a checkuser pronto, and have more information, then to to AN-I to see what action can be taken. Fin out whether it would be possible to block the IP address (without causing many other legitimate users problems).Slrubenstein | Talk 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert any silly edit, let me know if you need support in any sticky cases. Alas, Wikipedia is fill of irritants and many will never go away. Ever. Keep me posted when the problem gets serious, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was out of town at the time, but I can't say I was surprised to see A B Pepper's ham-handed attempt to harass various editors who had crossed him upon his return. From the look of things, he'll probably show up as an IP now and then, but I don't think he'll be difficult to identify. In retrospect, I'm certain he was the IP (75.132.86.220 that showed up over at Talk:Christian views about women#Regarding some recent additions and Talk:Christian views about women#Gratitude, though I gave the benefit of the doubt at the time.

Anyway, thanks for staying on top of things. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem Sxeptomaniac. At this point I find his posting kinda funny - disruptive but funny--Cailil ^talk 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

J Michael Clark

Thanks heaps for this reference. I will look it up. V close to my own field. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was delighted to find this myself, the piece on misandry is short but informative. And the article itself is really quite a good examination of the difficulties of men teaching feminism in academia. The only thing I find slightly dubious is his own idea that becuase he is homosexual and non-christian this, in his words, makes him an outsider and thus an acceptable Gender studies teacher. (Personally I've always found being a hetrosexual man involved in feminism and gender studies that I'm an "outsider".) The logic of his equation doesn't sit all that well with me, becuase in a way it compromises his own argument--Cailil ^talk 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in on Reproductive rights. I see the issue a little differently.

Asking that a basic fact be attributed beyond WP's requirement of in-line attribution is, in effect, an attempt to skew weight, in this cause for a Pro-life prospective). Particularly in a lead of an article which has many reliable sources to support the general statement of fact. There are no documented sources in the article or the talk page to support the assertion that a) the fact that certain reproductive rights have been established in international human rights treaties is somehow an opinion that needs contextualizing; b) that there is any opposing opinion on this matter; c) there is no Pro-life content in the body of the article, as such Pro-life content and POV in the lead is a lead violation with unique content in the lead that is not reflected in the body of the article. While both editors have spent a lot of time arguing over my contributions (as followed from FGC) neither have spent any time actually contributing a single piece of relevant ref'd content.

Now I am aware of the opposition to contraception and abortion as "rights", (and if I ever get a chance to move beyond the lead, I've already invited one of the users to help me write a balanced subsection in an attempt to bring this from stub to GA) but I am unaware of a general position that considers the category of (or all) reproductive rights to not be human rights. Thank you for your time. Please feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Phyesalis (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Phyesalis, believe me I understand. If you read the Talk:Feminism page you'll see that some people have tried to raise the issue of abortion as a right there as well - on that page its a red herring becuase the statements are all well sourced. I am missing how attribution skews the lede towards a pro-life angle. I think you're referring to Blackworm's points about abortion - could you be more specific about what is pov. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually missing it in the talk page convos because they are very long and slightly difficult to read.

This isn't my best area by any stretch of the imagination but I know women's rights activists have had to fight for a long time just to get to discuss reporductive rights as human rights. But I'm also aware of the strange bed-fellows that a) oppose that discussion and b) have prevented its clear and unambiguous inclusion within human rights charters - including CEDAW.

As I said this is not my strongest field and you may be aware of sources that I don't know of - please tell me if you are - but my understanding is that people are still struggling to have reproductive rights discussed explicitly as human rights.

I'm going to recommend you RFC this article so that the wider WP community can review it. Go to WP:RFC and have a read of how the process works. In short it will give the wider community an opportunity to review the situation and give an outside opinion like I did. It would help very much if each of you involved in the dispute could give a 3 line summary of their position and/or a proposed lede line so that everyone doesn't have to go through the last few sections of the talk page.

Alternatively you could ask someone like pigman to give an outside view. Make sure you state on the talk page that you have requested this "outside opinion" so that nobody can accuse you of canvassing. If you feel WP:WEIGHT is being gamed he might be able to help.

I must say that I avoid all pages related to reproduction and abortion on WP as much as I can, I have been given enough of a head-ache dealing with the less controversial pages. So I do realize how trying this process is and I realize how much hard work goes into writing a lede, not mention arguing for the inclusion of every word, line by line. Sometimes the only thing to do is become an incrementalist and plod along proving things line by line.

The reason I suggest attribution is that it is impossible to argue with. If reliable sources say something you need an extraordinary source to dispute it. Look at how the lede in Feminism is written - it's not a work of art but due to heavy trolling we proved/sourced it line by line. You all may have to do this th hard way and make it as indisputable as possible - which means using sources--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent advice. I apologize for letting my frustration show. And I do understand the reticence to get involved with reproductive articles. I'm fine with the typical WP process of line by line citation, but this issue is just silly. The weight problem is that additional contextualization is unnecessary as the sentence is a summary of content in the article and the statement itself has an inline citation asserting an easily verifiable fact - certain reproductive rights are established as human rights in various international documents. It is a lead sentence, should be as short and sweet as possible. Attributing it with "Amnesty International" unnecessarily lengthens the lead, makes the sentence longer and more cumbersome, and implies that it is an opinion (That would be the Pro-life POV, that this is an opinion, not a fact). Furthermore, acquiescing to unreasonable POV pushing encourages trolling. If there were reliable and relevant sources to contradict the factual assertions, there might be room to play around. I've asked for some (for weeks), but none have been provided. I'm going to think about your advice. It's a difficult call; I think much of the debate actually stems from one editor's displeasure over an RfC on another page. I appreciate your time. Phyesalis (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:disengage

Thank you. I agree that disengaging is important at this stage, that's why I've avoided the interesting discussion over at WP:WikiProject Gender Studies#Neutral Wikiproject?. This will be about the third time disengagement has been necessary, I'm thinking WP:WQA is the next step. But I really appreciate you taking the time to give me more advice. May I ask you a question - how well or badly did I handle his canvassing accusation? Do you think what I did was canvassing? I only ask because it was not my intention to break wiki policy in letter or spirit. Phyesalis (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking for advice/input from an uninvolved sysop is not canvassing - it's the same as requesting a third opinion - which is a lesser form of article RfC. The fact is you didn't ask for my input, and Pigman states quite clearly he has an independent position. Also it is acceptable to contact a small number of editors who would be interested in a dispute - that's what the policy says. Unless you contacted a large number of editors (who haven't edited the page) by some off-wiki means (and I am pretty sure you haven't), you didn't brake any policy in spirit or letter. Can I ask you a question, where and when did your interaction with Blackworm begin, was it Talk:Female genital cutting in November or somewhere else?--Cailil ^talk 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Oh thank you. I've had my account for over a year, but I've really only been editing for 4 months (I was living in a foreign country much of the time). I've read a lot of the policies and guidelines, but there's always more to learn! My interaction with Blackworm started here when I responded to his RfC in early November. When I started editing FGC (it was fairly inactive), I hadn't realized that Blackworm had previously worked on the page. When our conflict began on FGC, I thought it was rather opportune. I checked out his contributions and he looked like an SPA. But then I checked back through FGC and saw that he had been involved with the page prior and dismissed my suspicions. Then Coppertwig got involved (he had previously worked on both Circumcision and FGC). In another attempt to disengage from issues over there (there were several on my part), I moved on to the inactive stub of reproductive rights. I was moving things along when Blackworm showed up again. Shortly thereafter Coppertwig showed up again. This has been a growing issue, so I really appreciate your time and interest. Phyesalis (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

profeminism

Dear cailil,

I think a recent critical study of profeminism by a feminist is an important text both in academic and political terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coleencoleen (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on user's talk page[1]--Cailil ^talk 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

answering a question you asked

Yes I am the Sharon Presley who co-founded Laissez Faire Books

SPresley (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider withdrawing your accusation of bad faith.

Hello. I am here to ask that you please respond to my latest post on the WikiProject Gender Studies Talk (Section: Neutral Wikiproject?) page. In that discussion section, you first implied, and then openly accused me of violating Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith guideline. In my opinion, that accusation was unwarranted and unprovoked, and therefore was itself a violation of that policy, as well as a personal attack. I believe I may have now provided enough evidence and explanation to show that your accusation was completely misplaced, and would like to put this ugly matter behind us as soon as possible; therefore, I ask that you please review my latest post and consider withdrawing your accusation on that page, or striking out comments making the accusation. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mention of you on Administrator's Noticeboard.

Following established etiquette, this message serves to notify you that I have mentioned you in a discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, here. Blackworm (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)