User talk:Cailil/archive8

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

Muller

I appreciate the suggestion. I saw the description of the book at Amazon.com and wondered whether his argument may be too specific for my needs. I am interested in those things that can be considered meaningful but that do not enter the symbolic. For Pierce, indexical or iconic signifiers might be examples. For Lacan, the register of the imaginary. I think Wittgenstein grapples with this issue and I am just as interesated in his thoughts, although I do not know if anyone has devised a strictly "Wittgensteinian" demiotic (or related his work to Pierce's). Anyway, this is why I asked. I have way more to read than I have time for, so I am trying to be very careful about what I add to my list. Am I better off just reading more/about Pierce, Wittgenstein, and Lacan and just thinking it through, or is there a real payoff to reading Muller's book? Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS can I ever get you to cobble up a few paragraphs on the meaning of "culture" within "cultural studies"/how people in Cultural Studies study "culture" for the Culture article?

Hm, you might be better off doing the other readings - but I personally like Muller's book because it links the strands of psychoanalysis, textuality and cultural studies - it's interesting after having read everything else just becuase it makes the connections in quite a concise manner. I've started to get back into Pierce simply becuase I taught semiotics to first year and third year undergrads this semester and it's a bit easier for people with no theory to access the indexical and iconic (even if I prefer the signfier/signifed/sign model). As regards Culture I'll have a look - I'm trying to rewrite gender discrimination too so I'll see if I can make some time. I'll do something for the community studies / cultural studies section - actually should these two discourses be conflated? I know there's been moves toward 'ethno-cultural studies' but the history of the frankfurt school and the CCCS might deserve its own section as opposed to anthropolically influenced cultural theories?--Cailil ^talk 22:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to say - what I'll do for Culture will be a) write a summary of cultural studies and b) incorporate a section on the meaning and approach to culture within cultural studies in that summary. I've started work on it here--Cailil ^talk 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. SOme people have complained that the Culture article as it stands is Americancentric because of the focus on anthropology - this would create some balance. To answer your questions, I think as always it is part folowing policy (just say what the significant views from reliable sources saay) but bear in mind that it is the article on "culture," what is important is not all of "cultural studies" but what they assumed or concluded about "culture" as such and why they felt "culture" was best studied a particular way. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The cultural studies article needs a lot of work - but that's another job. Give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can do for culture--Cailil ^talk 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! It is this term that has entered popular discourse, and is used in so many ways, I think it is important that people know that it is also an object of scholarly research, or a concept used by scholars, and that it has specific meanings and uses in scholarly contexts. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just in case you haven't looked or I faied to mention it, when I did my rewrite I left a section on cultural studies/community studies ... but frankly I do not think it is very good. I think it is the result of the process that had led to a wreck of an article, the accretion of many uncoordinated edits by ill-informed people. I have no objection to your replacing it entirely. Of course, if you see anything of value in it, I hope you can incorporate it into your rewrite. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

TheThankful

This user has resumed his disruptive activities following his unblock. In particular when I warned him that if he continued arguing on the talk page of Europe (I suppose the same point but it was essentially trolling because he had no edit to suggest), he reported simultaneously on WP:WQA and WP:ANI without informing me. I filed a separate report on WP:ANI. Please can some oreder be restored here? TheThankful is continuing to be disruptive and is harrassing me by this forum shopping. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And how is this not "forum shopping" ;-) --TheThankful (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Cailil said he'd keep an eye on you in the last WP:ANIreport you generated. [1] How is this a forum? Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If he's keeping an eye on me, he'd already be aware of my posts. This is I'm afraid, the pot calling the kettle black Mathsci. ;-) --TheThankful (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be far more careful what you write. BTW the same message has been copied to User talk:rootology and User talk:VirtualSteve, who both participated in the previous WP:ANI thread on you, in case you're interested. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied at ANI[2]--Cailil ^talk 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So this is what's called "Ganging Up"? What's it called in Wikipedia language. Just so I can tell other new users what to expect from the clique.

Cailil did you even read the exchanges before taking Mathsci's side? Did you read his personal insults (confused etc) and threats to me? Did you notice I have not made any edits to Europe since being blocked? --TheThankful (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:AGF and please TheThankful follow the advice both I and Dreamguy gave both you and Mathsci - disenage. Also re: WP:KETTLE above, your tone and comments are just as insulting as Mathsci. Take some time to cool off. Anyway who said I took 'Mathsci's side' I agree with what Dreamguy said at ANI. Also please be aware that the above post violates WP:CIVIL - please consider the advice that's been given to you and have a good night--Cailil ^talk 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cailil I hear you, but with all respect, your communication to me does not in any way seem inpartial. I posted on ANI asking for help. Does this statement from Mathsci contravene WP:Civil or not? If you cannot distinguish between the cradle of civilization and Western culture, I don't think there's anybody here that can help you. You seem extremely confused. Until you find some way to come to terms with classical antiquity and how it is represented on wikipedia, you are probably best off not trying to edit here. At the moment you just seem to be trolling on this page. Please go somewhere else.

No I'm not entirely being civil, and my apologies, but this is because my endeavors to involve some impartial assistance has been met with your criticisms of me, and support of Mathscis belligerence. I'm very frustrated by what I see as double standards and a refusal from anyone to READ MY SOURCES!!!!. I do not understand what is so difficult to fathom. I'm not making POV pushes, adding unsourced content etc. A quick perusal of my sources makes that obvious. Instead I feel bullied.--TheThankful (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

TheThankful the manner of your posts is a very large part of the problem - please disengage for the time being and post again when you don't feel the need to use screaming caps, excessive mark-up and make accusations of bias - these are all against talk page usage policy. Please take a break and come back again. I am not involving myself in your content dispute and neither will any sysop at ANI - we will only comment on behaviour and I've given you the best advice - please follow it--Cailil ^talk 01:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To address your question the remark is borderline ad hominem but it is not a personal attack. Now I recommend you centralize this conversation and post further questions at the ANI thread rather than both here and there--Cailil ^talk 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

Hello, Is there any reason to revert my edits? It´s a total neutral point of view. Jackiestud (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just left you a note explaining everything on Talk:Feminism. It's actually a problem of weighting here - also I think such information would be better in an article on Feminism and Religion. It is far too specific for the summary article on all of feminism to have so much information Campbell's ideas. What you added was good - but it needed sources and it needs to be given 'due weight'. I'd be happy to help with a Feminism and Religion or Feminism and Culture article - they've been on my to do list for a while-Cailil ^talk 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did read yr mesg. But the material has no personal point of view at all. It´s Bible, etimology and Campbell and Campbell is already cited in Feminins_and_Neopaganism. The very same chapter. I will provide the references, pages, etc. The paragraph on Adam and Even under feminist views IS TOO SHORT to say the least. Pls I would appreciate if you leave the contribution there. Jackiestud (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Three LINES (??) is not enough to describe a feninist point of view abt this issue. I will provide teh citations.

This is the article whre Campbell is already cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess#Feminism_and_Neopaganism Jackiestud (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Jackie. Please use full English in communication with other editors. Not everyone on this site is a native English speaker and using shorthand only complicates communication. Also please be aware that in many places BOLD ALL CAPS is offensive - please avoid excessive mark-up.
Secondly, please don't 'revert out of hand' just because you disagree with the points being made. The issues raised are site policy and have nothing to do with 'personal point of view' - I never raised this concern. It's about 'due weight'. And I repeat to you Feminism is a summary of all concepts related to the subject. It is a breach of NPOV to accord more weight than is due to an aspect of a subject relative to the coverage of other aspects. Campbell's work is minor in comparison to bell hook's - but we don't give bell hooks a section of her own because that would be undue in comparison to other topics. Please acquaint yourself with the site policies you've been pointed to by multiple editors--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said, CAmpbell´s book is already cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess#Feminism_and_Neopaganism. And this is an artcile of Feminism. Explaining to the reader the inner relation of the Pre histocir Goddess and the Holy Mary, Adam´s etimology, Campbell are very good sources on feminism and religion. Thsi is history, nothing else. How can I have a third opinion? Jackiestud (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie what has that got to do with WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY? I've removed the material again. Please conduct an request for comment if you want input on its reinstatement. To be clear I don't think this info should not be in the encyclopedia I just think you're putting it in the wrong place and giving it too much emphasis there--Cailil ^talk 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Studies

What you wrote in your sandbox looks great - do you want to add it into the article, or do you want to wait? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to finish sourcing it asap - as soon as that's done I'll add it - hopefully I'll get to that before I go on break-Cailil ^talk 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom / council

I understand where you're coming from. Frankly, I think AC started this because although the need is there, any proposal is likely to wind up mired in the usual wrangling over comma placement that besets every proposal that would better the community. Were I slightly more conspiracy-minded, I would suggest that the AC proposal was intended to fail as a way of jumpstarting the community into creating its own body.

In any case, this may be of interest to you as an alternate proposal, built from the ground up by the community, with the initial members appointed by ArbCom left in place for a few months to set it up. → ROUX ₪ 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Roux - will have a look now--Cailil ^talk 00:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Third-wave feminism

Hi – I'm not sure if you are still on your Wikibreak or are following the Feminism Task Force talk page or not, but I just left a note here about the recent NPOV tagging of the Third-wave feminism article by an anonymous IP editor. I'm not sure how warranted some of the tags were, but I was hoping somebody could POV-check the article. You seem quite knowledgeable about the topic, so I was hoping you could have a look at it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Iamcuriousblue. I had a look and replied on the talk pages. I am still on wikibreak and will be incommunicado for a while during August - but do feel free to drop me a line and if I do get online I'll try to address it promptly--Cailil ^talk 00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I'd really appreeciate it if you could parse this discussion: [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SLR I had a look and I think you're right to remove that text. I've left a comment that I hope is helpful. Unfortunately I really am going to be away from computers for about 50 days (give or take) so I probably wont get to follow this for a while. Good luck with everything and I hope all is going well for you in real life. Best wishes --Cailil ^talk 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Cailil Good to see you back and thanks for your comments on those various pages that almost cause me to go bonkers with frustration. I have a very different request for you, however, with your M. Litt and all. I was wondering if you would care to review Olivia Manning, that I am trying to get up for peer review and then FA if possible. She's a 20th Century writer with an Irish connection, if that will tempt you. I'll have to warn you, that as a person she's quite annoying!! Anyway, I would be especially grateful if you could take a look at the literary assessment part and give your comments, questions.... or even better just improve it! --Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Slp1, sure thing I'll give it a read either tomorrow night or on Saturday. Happy new year--Cailil ^talk 22:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. Actually I'm feeling a bit depressed since I've just reread the further improvements at the Good Article review [4], and the suggestion to look at Stephen Crane and I realize that the literary summing up section still needs a lot of help, though I've done a hell of a lot of getting journal articles etc since September. If you have any suggestions about how best to organize things I would love it. There's a bit more material here on my subpage, and I'm sure I can rustle stuff up about the short stories; not sure there's much about the poetry though. Anyway, I hope you had a good New Year's Eve. I'll be going skating on Mount Royal at midnight! --Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply on my talkpage

Hello, Cailil. You have new messages at WLU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Cailil/archive8! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply re: abuse reporting

In general, serious abuse should be reported to the Internet service provider so appropriate action may be taken against the abusive user. From what I understand, it sounds like this editor fits the abuse response criteria and should be reported there for contact. Feel free to report him there =D. However, I should warn you that WP:ABUSE is undergoing some major revamping to become more effective in the future, so reports aren't being processed at a fast rate right now. The reports will still be processed (moved to the new toolserver interface in the future). Also, if the user meets WP:LTA criteria, he could also be reported there and then deferred to abuse response for contact with the ISP in the future. Sorry if this is a bit complicated; we're taking many steps to revive the project and making it more user friendly. Thanks & if you have any more questions, feel free to message me. Netalarmwelcome to 2010! 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Netalarm - that's very clear. I'll have a look at WP:LTA and if that doesn't fit I'll submit to WP:ABUSE. Thanks again--Cailil ^talk 17:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Explaination

Sorry for any trouble. I just saw the comment & I just instinctivly deleted it.--Jastcaan (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG. We only delete other user's comments in exceptional circumstances--Cailil ^talk 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jastcaan, nice work. See WP:IAR. You were being WP:BOLD. Don't let people bully you with their WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you don't like something, change it. And don't feel the need to apologize to anybody for anything. DegenFarang (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope they were removing other people's comments in violation of WP:TPG--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to violate this: "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" - see those parts about 'attempt' and 'common sense' and 'exceptions'. He didn't violate anything, he did what he thought was right and you disagreed with him. DegenFarang (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let it go Degen. And FYI removing other people's post from the talkspace is not acceptable behaviour.--Cailil ^talk 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:IAR is a much better summation of what I was trying to explain to you before. And it happens to have been the first rule of Wikipedia, and the only one I care about. I'm very happy I found it - I'm going to cite it every single time somebody like you tries to bully me with WP:WIKILAWYERING. I just want to improve the encyclopedia, I don't care about the rules. And according to Jimbo Wales, I shouldn't, because Wikipedia has no firm rules. DegenFarang (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Degen this is your last warning for disruptive behaviour - civility is a non negotiable aspect of communication on wikipedia. Your posts to multiple users including myself have been in breach of this. I've pointed you towards our rules, our policies and our etiquette - these are the basic requirements for working on this project. WP:CIVIL spells it all out quite neatly. And no IAR doesn't trump WP:CIVIL, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:NOR or WP:V (see WP:WIARM). Not caring about the rules is your problem nobody else's. This is a collaborative project that's why we need rules. If you can't/wont/don't follow them, you will be prevented from breaking them and thus disrupting the project and its editing environment. You've had fair warning--Cailil talk 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I find it hilarious that you responded to that with a string of WP:THIS and WP:THAT. As I said, I only care about one rule. WP:IAR. "Rules have zero importance compared with that goal (creating a free encyclopedia). If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated." The rules constantly interfere with my ability to improve Wikipedia because in 90% of instances they are used as WP:WIKILAWYERING - just as you are using them now. DegenFarang (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Degen I'm going to advise you to "stop digging". Our core policies are non-negotiable and if you can't (or don't want to) work within them, or indeed work with other people in a civil, collegial and appropriately measured fashion you will be prevented from disrupting other users who do. WP:IAR does not grant you permission to use talk space in this manner--Cailil talk 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I can assist you. You say that the core policies are 'non-negotiable' yet all of them say they should be used under 'normal' conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense#Use_common_sense - I absolutely love the title they gave the section that 'normal' links to 'use common sense'. So, no, you are wrong, the core principles are absolutely negotiable if common sense dictates they are not applicable, see WP:IAR. What appears to be non negotiable are the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, to keep it free, to be neutral, that it is an encyclopedia and that wikipedia does not have firm rules. Oh yes, the other one, about treating each other with respect and civility - of all of the points you have attempted to make, this is the only one which has any merit. I will attempt to adhere to this pillar of Wikipedia more prudently. I will not, however, stop using my common sense and become a robot to every policy and guideline I read or have quoted to me. DegenFarang (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Degen nobody is asking you to do anything other than use common sense. And if you read our core policies (which make up those 5 pillars - the green and the blue ones) you'll see that WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE and WP:V are non-negotiable. I'm not here to debate policy with you - these are the standards we expect of all editors using this project and that's all--Cailil talk 22:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) You are flat wrong. I don't think you or the other editors and administrators who agree with you are lying, I think you are just blinded by the normal way of doing things and have failed to recognize the truly awesome way that Wikipedia was setup - to empower each of us to break every rule and use our own common sense when making changes. You say that WP:NOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOTE and WP:V are all "non-negotiable". I submit: From WP:NOR: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow From WP:NOV (does not exist, I assume you mean WP:NPOV). From WP:NPOV: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow From WP:NOTE:This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply From WP:V:This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow As you can see each contains clear instructions to use them only under normal conditions, defined as "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective (!! my entire point !!), so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? If you need to be told that this is a rule, you've missed the point entirely. (!!!) DegenFarang (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Degen of course using common sense is always appropriate but no IAR never trumps our core policy on neutrality, verification or original research, period. It also never trumps or policy on the biography of living persons. I've also told you already that I'm not here to debate policy with you. You must have missed that point so please refrain from making this kind of post. If you have a specific issue I can help you with feel free to post here again--Cailil talk 13:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Part of WP:V and WP:NOR is that you are allowed to use WP:IAR to override them if common sense dictates they do not apply (This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow). So it is therefore impossible to factually state that WP:IAR never trumps WP:V or WP:NOR. (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC). Degen I've politely asked you to stop posting to my talk page in order to debate policy. You've been corrected not just by myself but also on WT:V. No IAR does not permit use of inadequate sources or original research, period. Now please if you don't have another matter to discuss stop posting here-Cailil talk 17:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I don't have anything else to discuss and I'd love to stop posting here but you are wrong. If you can direct me to a place on Wikipedia where it says that IAR does not apply to WP:V and WP:NOR, I will give you $10,000. Otherwise, please admit that you are wrong - or at least stop telling me I am wrong, because I clearly am not. DegenFarang (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Degen here's a perfect example of when IAR does not apply - when you have been asked to stop posting on another person's talk page. This is tendentious editing. WP:WIARM spells out that ""Ignore all rules" does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule." If you want more help with this ask at WP:NORN. But be extremely clear, IAR is not a trump card on any core policy at any time, ever, anywhere on wikipedia. We work by consensus in creating articles through the neutral recording of verifiable sources without advancing an opinion or taking sides in a debate. When someone makes a bold move (or a move ignoring rules) it is still subject to discussion in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Finally, part of common sense is understanding the spirit of the rule rather than obeying the letter. You are doing the reverse and that, ironically, is rules-lawyering. This conversation is at an end - let it go and do not post on this page again. If you need administrator assistance please contact someone else. If you want to talk to me do it through WP:ANI. I've also seen you be helpful to other users. Don't spoil that by engaging in tendentious posting--Cailil talk 20:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols

Hi Cailil. Thanks for your two cents in the Gender Studies talk page on Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols' name. Much appreciated, and a good point. If one initially explicates the full name (using anaesthetic of course - I mean it does sound painful), one could then trim down to what looks like the established "Mary Gove Nichols" usage, using "she" and "her" for readability where possible, interspersed with "Mary Gove Nichols" at key points. Money well spent!

P.s. I've also copied your reply and mine to the Feminism Task Force discussion page, as the Gender studies talkpage has automated archiving after 30 days, which I note at the bottom of another discussion section is probably too frequent for a page with low-frequency discussion turnover (logic dictates high frequency archiving for high frequency turnover and vice versa). The Feminism Task Force page has automated archiving after 45 days, so any discussion on a Mary Gove Nichols article can also continue there if need be. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang

Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. He violeted 3RR today, and absused another BLP. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U

All to angst has become moot since Michael H 34 has returned to editing. I have posted the RFC/U here [5], in case you care to comment/endorse. --Slp1 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre Newsletter - February 2010

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter (Febrauary 2010)

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter! Issue 5 - February 2010 Welcome to the latest WikiProject Theatre newsletter (the first in quite a while!) bringing you news of what's going on in the project, what progress we're making, and how you can get involved. Latest News All theatre articles currently tagged with a project banner have now been assessed for quality. There are still plenty to assess for importance, though - see the article assessment page for details. There is now a News section on the main project page, updated automatically to keep us informed of developments in theatre articles. Collaboration of the Month Theatre has been nominated as the next project collaboration. This could be an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of one of our most important articles - listed as one of Wikipedia's top 1000 most vital articles - but it needs a lot of work before it can be considered for even good article nomination! Stop by the collaboration page for tips on how to improve an article, to add your support, or to suggest alternative or future collaborations. Jobs you can do Any and all improvements to theatre-related articles will help the project, but if you're looking for something to do, have a look at the to-do list. Some current areas of priority are: Improving top-importance articles Prioritisation of unknown-importance articles Creation of requested article stubs If you are currently working on a particular topic or area of the project, and would like to muster some support from other editors, feel free to add tasks to the to-do list. Or even think about setting up an informal working group - create a project subpage to organise tasks in a central location. Remember you can always discuss ideas with others at the project talk page. New members The past month has seen Poisonborz, 15lsoucy, LaNaranja and Phaeton23 join us - welcome to you all! If you've been editing a theatre-related article recently and noticed another user helping you who also appears to have an interest for the subject of theatre, why not drop them a line and invite them over to the project? And finally... Don't forget to add the {{User WPTheatre}} userbox to your userpage, and {{WikiProject Theatre}} banner to article talk pages to spread the word about the project! You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Members on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the list, or click here to stop receiving it. If you have any news or announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.

Feminist movement article

I've been attempting to tidy up this article, which seems to have suffered some malicious tweaks and blankings since your excellent attempt to overhaul it early in 2008. I thought I would drop you a note since I'm sure you know a lot more about the subject than I do (I've only been able to work on it as a sub-editor with no specialist information to hand), and might be interested in helping to pull the article back into shape. Best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alfietucker I'll have a look at it--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Þjóðólfr

Since even I'd agree the block for what he did isn't necessarily deserving an indef block, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1 has been filed. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I yeah it's worth double checking--Cailil ^talk 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, his indef-block wasn't for evasion. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I though Aatomic1 had been indef blocked. He just disappeared - will refactor--Cailil ^talk 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was blocked for harrassment, not sockery. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well actually: "LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs | block) blocked Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: "Don't I know you?" nevermind)". Þjóðólfr was blocked for harassment conforming to another account's, rather unique, pattern of harassment of a recently unbanned editor. That's a duck sockpuppet block - and rather common form of socking unfotunately. But if the CU says that that's not the case I'll happily refactor again--Cailil ^talk 17:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No checkuser is going to be performed on the sockpuppet case, as the other accounts are too old to be checked. The case will be judged on things like the timeline of accounts and comparison of editing, you may find this comparison interesting, particularly in terms of the diverse range of obscure articles the accounts have in common. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I had had a look using wikistalk between Aatomic1 and Þjóðólfr earlier. That and the unique style of trolling are to mind indicative of a duck sockpuppet. However it'll be good to get wider input--Cailil ^talk 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The ANI thread has been archived. Has the issue been dealt with? Were any sanctions decided upon? --HighKing (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue has gone without consensus. Besides myself there was no outside input. 2over0 agreed with me but they started the thread, and I asked SirFozzie to comment. In all fairness this is not enough for a community sanction. I suggest you continue editing as normal but attempt to avoid Mister Flash as much as possible. If he seeks meaningful discussion engage with him in line with AGF & WP:CIVIL. Don't edit-war with him, even if you are correct - use article RFC.
If further problems arise anoter thread will be opened, on ANi or elsewhere. I would also suggest, for future reference, that if you want to progress your guideline changes that you keep that seperate from any and all behavioural issues with Flash. Part of the reason nobody outside commented was becuase the issue was blurred by the ideas about the task force and the guideline proposals. ANi just isn't the place for that sort of complexity.
Your other option would be RfAr--Cailil ^talk 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil. In fairness, it's a common tactic whenever one of the disruptive editors gets put under the microscope, they blur the lines by widening the issue and trying to turn it into a content issue. It's frustrating, but I'm pretty used to it by now. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan

Please can you take a look at the recent editing pattern of User:MidnightBlueMan if you get half a chance please? Appears to be putting "British Isles" into articles even when they've been discussed on the SE page, etc. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the notice on his Talk page. It has had the desired affect, to a point, in that he is now engaging on the SE page. But further reminders are needed regarding 1RR (which he has breached) and civility. His 1RR breach is here at Scottish Blackface and his civility breaches are when he comments on motives and not on content, and reinstates the struck out comment and reminder to remain civil. I'm also suspicious that this editing pattern is very like a previous editing pattern we may have seen, especially since this editor has a history of being a sock. --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Blackface. I reverted the removal of British Isles, and you reverted my edit - so you are at fault. As for being a sock, I'll be filing a sock report against you in the near future. I'm collating evidence at the moment. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally reject being a sock and I strongly suggest you strike your comment immediately. You've stepped over the line. --HighKing (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For your information I will be filing a SPI report soon. I don't have the time right now. I have not stepped over the line any more than you have with your comment above, in fact less so. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ok gentlemen. That's enough. If you can't engage civilly then disengage.
  MidnightBlue you've just broken WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I suggest you reconsider your remarks.
  HK, it's ok to bring something to my attention but please even if MidnightBlue has a history of socking please don't cast aspersions without evidence (this is not a request for evidence btw).
  I will say this only once - this page is not to be used to continue your disputes. If you want to communicate with me or bring something to my attention fine - but please don't use this space to attack or flamebait one another - that goes for other users not present but involved in the topic area-Cailil ^talk 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely which remarks do you think I should reconsider? MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you are going to file an SPI or RfAr or WQA etc is considered a threat. Even if you are going to do it. Also accusing someone of socking (even if you are correct) without evidence or going through a process is assuming bad faith and/or casting aspersions. It's best to keep such things to oneself and present SPIs or WQA if and when one has evidence and then inform the user when the thread is opened--Cailil ^talk 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Breach of 1RR on List of former sovereign states --HighKing (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• 3 points HK.
  First to show a 1RR violation you need to show a) the original edit by said user. b)The first revert by same. And c) their subsequent ones. Reverting once isn't in and of itself a breach of 1RR. And I am not convinced that the informal agreement to 'not revert a revert' is enforcable.
  Second I have not said that I WILL enforce Black Kite's remedies yet. I wish to speak to BK and assess whether I agree or not and find out if they have a policy basis at community level to my satisfaction. This doesn't mean I wont enforce 1RRs just that I am investigating the remedy system at the BI topic.
  Third, relating to your second post here. You cannot strike another user's comments even if uncivil, or if you consider them to be uncivil.
  Finally to both of you- have you considered mediation--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Cailil. Black Kite appears to have retired so I'm not sure if you'll get much joy there. Also the 1RR interpretation was "no revert of a revert", not simply "more than one revert". It's currently in force on "The Troubles" also, which I suppose is where the inspiration came from. If it's not going to be enforced, then experience tells me that rightly or wrongly, the line will just get pushed to 3RR since MBM doesn't engage in meaningful discussion as you can clearly see from the SE page. Regarding the "strike off" - it concerns and puzzles me greatly that a core wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL is ignored by all concerned and breaches are so frequent that they rarely merit any notice, but striking an off-topic ad hominen comment merits a warning from you. Regarding the "disengage" instruction - please note exactly who engaged and who made threats, etc. This is a very common tactic which I notice shared among a handful of users here.

The SE page is desperate for someone like yourself to keep an eye on it, and I sincerely hope you won't be bullied or cowed as has happened to other well-meaning admins in the past. Even though I have the impression (rightly or wrongly) from you that you believe the debate over using (or not using) "British Isles" is a nonesense, I hope you have the time to at least focus on behaviour and core policies, and if you have the time and inclination to also provide a common sense view on the core content dispute, all the better. --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent activity by User:MidnightBlueMan shows that they're in breach of 1RR and clearly not bothering with the SE page for discussing any changes they may have concerns or doubts about. For example The Ferns of Great Britain and Ireland has been a recent edit war with reverts by MBM here, here, with a summary in breach of civility, and here. --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying I'm still waiting for Black Kite to reply but as I see things the 1rr agreement for those participating on the BI SE page is not enforceable at an administrative level. There is no basis in policy to block a user for their non-acceptance of another group's internal agreement. Either you all need to enter mediation and all formally adopt a 1RR for those of you who are involved in that.
I'm concerned that those of you working at the BI SE page (on both 'sides') are displaying a WP:OWN attitude. I would recommend stepping back for a while to gain perspective. I would recommend this for everyone involved.
All that said, MBM is allowed to revert up to 3 times, per WP:3RR & WP:BRD as long as he is not edit warring. It should be noted that Fionnsci's reasons for altering & reverting the page are not sourced based and can be challenged - so frankly neither of them should have been reverting. So as it stands at 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC) this is a non-issue - however I will keep an eye on it as further reverts (by either user) may be considered a breach of WP:EDITWAR.
As regards this it is not a glowing example of AGF but it is not a breach of civility - strictly speaking - it is however an AGF issue. With this in mind please try to understate and/or record with strict neutrality the actions of other editors when you go about reporting them - other users might not have the same view as yourself--Cailil ^talk 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand what you've just said. The 1RR "agreement" is not enforcable (even though it was put in place by an admin. Also, the Task Force, while trying to resolve this issue, cannot impose any "rules" on editors that (may participate, but) decide not to agree. You are also concerned that all editors on the Task Force are displaying WP:OWN behaviour (diffs would help). And you recommend that we just stop and get perspective. But you'll keep an eye for further reverts.

Sounds very one-sided to me. --HighKing (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of my reply but allow me to clarify HighKing, there is no policy for that 1RR because there is no ruling or dispute resolution that can be reviewed and enforced by multiple outside admins. This is down to Black Kite - who left without instructing anyone in how to carry on, or with the what where and why of his remedy. Because BK did not formalize that remedy nobody knows how to enforce it or when to. Thus I consider enforcing it unsafe. (In other words any other admin would have the right to reverse such a block immediately and query the conduct of the blocking admin - unless it was BK.) Thus I think other avenues should be explored. I have also said that I have not agreed to enforce BK's measures.
I have stated my recommendation a number of times that all involved should try formal mediation. That way a formal remedy could be reached and imposed. It might also resolve some of the personal antipathy that seems to exist between some volunteers.

The issue re: WP:OWN is also simple. The BI task force and it's SE page are a forum for reaching consensus on how to improve and manage articles relating to, or containing, the phrase "British Isles". It can (and has) been used to formulate a policy as well - but at some point you have to bring that to the village pump and or WP:MOS. You need to understand that due to WP:BOLD nobody is, or can be, forced to use the BI SE page - until it has a standing in policy or through dispute resolution. For it to have such a standing a formal system of dispute resolution would need to be attempted (ie mediation, or ArbCom).
Be clear HK I am not against the SE page at all in fact I think it's an excellent idea - but you don't seem to be clear about its limits in, or its relationship to, policy. The fact that you and others are willing to discuss and propose ideas at the BI SE page in order to find consensus is a very positive thing. Also the fact that others are obviously acting contrary to that consensus (while being aware of it) speaks volumes. If in future there is an RfAr the activity of users on the page will be noted.

FYI I am reviewing the activity of a number of users in relation to this issue and I can see a pattern of disruption. I have long experience of this and I will follow my own council and site policy on when, where and how to act. My best advice for the time being is that there are at least 3 ways in which the task force can try to resolve this.

1. ) Formal mediation.
2. ) Going ahead with the WP:MOS proposal (thus removing any and all ambiguity about usage and having a enforceable policy to back it up).
3. ) Go to ArbCom.

Unfortunately I believe this will end up in ArbCom unless all involved go to mediation or the MOS issue is cleared up. ArbCom would probably not be an enjoyable process nor one that will end to any of your satisfactions.
Also re: "Sounds very one-sided to me" I'm going to let that slide HK, but I wont in future - I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Saying you should all disengage is a basic dispute resolution suggestion.
Apropos this, here on this site I work within its core policies and through its internal processes. I set aside my personal feelings, allegiances and opinions - acting as "coldly" and neutrally as possible towards an issue. If I err on the side of caution that is because I have found it best practice to do so. Sometimes volunteers who are in the thick of a dispute can misinterpret my coldness for disinterest or negativity. It is neither. I am merely being neutral, and thus my perspective on a dispute will be different to those involved - please bear that in mind when I disagree with your view on an edit or on another user's behaviour--Cailil ^talk 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, my "one-sided" comment was inappropriate - what I was trying to convey was a sense of frustration around the inaction to a new round of disruptive behaviour, and I didn't understand why you believed BK's ruling to be unenforcable, and I believed you were also threatening that if I reverted, you'd block take action - thus allowing one editor to "get away" while punishing the other. But thank you for your excellent clarification and I now understand (and agree) with your stance and position. Perhaps I'm not good at making assumptions and need the dots joined up for me, but I appreciate you've spent considerable time providing me with a response and I am grateful. --HighKing (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mister Flash

Hi. This comment is the latest in a series which I believe you are aware of. I'd appreciate, if you get a chance, to examine this editors contributions and behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left Mister Flash a note about AGF. I'll keep an eye on this. BTW have any of you mooted or attempted meditaion?--Cailil ^talk 10:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well thank-you Cailil, for your stern warning on my talk page. I am already very clear about the situation. At the risk of my not AGF yet again please read on (maybe you could exempt me on this one occasion?) Unfortunately your assessment of the situation is poor. First off, the two remarks you identified are not in breach of WP:CIVIL. If I'd said something like "that twat HighKing .. and so on", then yes, that would be a breach, but I didn't, I merely expressed a point-of-view. Next, WP:AGF. Well yes, I'm not assuming good faith here, but see para 2 of the guideline; I quote: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively". Is this the case here; I think so. How long must GF be assumed? There comes a point when to continue to do so becomes naive, and we are well past that point with HighKing. His primary interest in editing Wikipedia is to junk the BI term. OK, he does a few other edits, but essentially he's a SPA. Given that fact, what are we to make of it when he prods an article that also includes the words British Isles? To assume good faith under those circumstances is just asking too much of any editor, especially those that are fully cognisant of his tactics and edit history. Other tactics he employs to ditch BI include fact tagging instances of BI and returning at a later date to delete, rejecting virtually all references, renaming articles, canvassing other editors and citing non-existent rules and guidelines. He policy shops. He has a long history of these actions and has, over time, significantly reduced the usage of BI at Wikipedia - and in many cases errors have been introduced as a result. So yes, by all means admonish me for not AFG, but please look at the bigger picture. Ask yourself what is the real problem here; I suggest it's HighKing's desire to remove British Isles, nothing more, nothing less.

As a footnote, it looks as though he may have been correct in proding Colin Rivas, but surely his motive was to remove BI. Maybe in another case this could have resulted in an article being incorrectly deleted. Mister Flash (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash commenting in any way at all about the motives of an editor is a failure to use the talk space of this project appropriately. It is a prima facia assumption of bad faith (see WP:AGF "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence"). This will not be tolerated further as it disrupts the project by creating contention and ill feeling. In short if you can't AGF of HighKing stay away from him and his edits (and vice versa for HK of you). Furthermore it is appropriate to fact tag anything that is unsourced on wikipedia; and again attributing malice to policy based edits like that is assuming bad faith. Please review site policy and address your behaviour appropriately - you have already been adequately warned--Cailil ^talk 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

It may be a can of worms for you (or hornet's nest) but perhaps you might review this discussion and consider editing the article when you are ready next to take on an important and somewhat controversial project. Hope things have settled down at 4th wall, I was never sure how I could contribute constructively.Slrubenstein | Talk 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreoiate the moral support, but actually my hope was to raise the level of the intellectual discussion. I realize it would take more time on your part (and energy) but I think the page takes a very narrow approach ... Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slr. I do see the need for input here and will try to make time. I think there is a pressing need to enforce simple AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG first however (Phoenix_of9 seems to be behaving in the same vein across the project) and feel it necessary to stay out of content till that is done--Cailil ^talk 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is my attempt to resolve this issue with you before I bring it to ANI. As an involved admin, can you stop making threats to me like "I'm warning you" [6] and "Further disruption anywhere on wikipedia will not be tolerated" [7]? Can you stop accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia [8]? Also again, you ignored Slrubenstein behaviour when he said "some pretty stupid (or hysterical) rhetoric" when you were threatening me. Phoenix of9 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to ANI. And for the record I am not involved - you claim that I am involved but I have expressed no opinion on the content issue nor made any edit to the article see WP:UNINVOLVED. My only involvement was too warn you about your behaviour - something Slrubenstein had not mentioned to me to be problematic - that was my assessment and you have been warned accordingly. Furthermore making threats as you have done above is incompatible with WP:DR (resolve or I go to ANI). If you wish to go to go WP:Ani or elsewhere just do it and inform the editor in question appropriately. Site fora and policies are not leverage in arguments. Wikipedia is not battleground do not treat it as such--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned ANI was to explain why I wrote in your talk page. Given the tone of your replies, I did not want to write in your talk page without explaining why. The reason I think you are involved now because an involved editor notified you in your talk page, you expressed your future intent (you said: "I do see the need for input here and will try to make time. I think there is a pressing need to enforce simple AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG first however"). Also note that Slrubenstein is still violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines by misrepresent other people, with by saying things like 'That does not mean that the way people represent their sexual orientation is "superstitious" or "religious."', altho noone made such claims, and then calling his own misrepresents "incivil and ignorant" [9]. Phoenix of9 23:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope Phoenix that doesn't make me involved. My points about your behaviour have nothing to do with content, and being contacted by an involved editor doesn't make one involved. Secondly I was not contacted visa vie you. I, as a Sysop, after reviewing the discussion find/found your behaviour on that talk page to contravene our site policies. I see you repeating the same behaviour elsewhere and being warned for doing so. I see you flamebaiting others and on top of that after being warned by me you assume bad faith. None of this action on your part fits within the 5 pillars of wikipedia and you're not hearing it. You are free to contact WP:ANI as and if you wish but I will not be scared off Phoenix_of9 - the only way to get rid of me is to start behaving within the parameters of site policy and guidelines. Unless you start getting what the problem is and taking measures to correct it we (sysops) will have to step in. And FYI posts like this on the page of a sysop who's just warned you about violating WP:TPG aren't helping you--Cailil ^talk 23:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is where Atomaton characterizes other people's views as superstitions. Here is where Atomaton suggests that if a view is not scientific it is religious. Just so you know what I was responding to, if this helps you follow Phoenix's rant. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Phoenix's rant"? The thing is you made those claims while responding to me [10] [11]. One minute you are talking about my points and then you are talking about "some pretty stupid (or hysterical) rhetoric". Phoenix of9 23:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No he made them after you - look at the indentation (the colons) they 'string' it beneath Atom's comment. It is an easy mistake to think Slrubenstein was responding to you. But that's also why we "assume good faith"--Cailil ^talk 23:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is Slrubenstein made disparaging remarks towards another editor (Atomaton in this case). And you still keep ignoring that, while continuing to threaten me. This discussion is over, I dont see any point. Phoenix of9 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to restore some reason to the discussion - but I think what the page needs most is just more, informed, editors getting involved. Any thoughts as to how? Surely there must be more than two or three Wikipedia editors who know about various discussions on/debates over different disourses concerning sexual orientation. But I do not know how to find such editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You could try WikiProject Gender Studies, the LGBT project and project philosophy for some help in the non-biology areas and project psychology for the psychoanalysts and psychologists. It would be good idea if we had a functioning project for sociology (one exists but AFAIK is dormant) and/or antropology where this kind of thing could be raised--Cailil ^talk 23:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth.

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost two sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SLR will have a look--Cailil ^talk 22:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair

Cailil -- thanks so much for your note. I had come to the same conclusion a few hours ago while reflecting on a walk.

Stepping beyond Alastair, I do sense that there needs to be a policy improvement (even granting that the Arbcom were 100% correct in the conclusion, there could still be potential for policy improvement).

If there is a way to aid the project without dragging Alastair into it, I would be grateful for any ideas.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to amend a policy (on its page) in a specific way, is always the best move towards improving the project. If you have a submission about a specific policy research it and build consensus for a change--Cailil ^talk 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is less of a policy change than an organizational one. We need a risk management process.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this Tim. If I understand you correctly (and I may not) some would argue that our policies are there precisely to prevent any and all forms of interpersonal interaction that would lead to anyone being blocked or banned?--Cailil ^talk 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchy

I know your time is limited, and you have other commitments, but if you can - I sure hope you can - could you review my recent talk on the talk page of this article (all within the last week or ten days) and my recent edits to the article (all today) and make whatever comments you believe in, if you have anything to say? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm only seeing this now SLR. The matter seems, at least temporarily in hand. But I'll have a look at the content of the page anyway in the next couple of days--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hammy's been blocked and is threatening to leave Wikipedia which ends the immediate threat. But as Maunus points out, this article is a toal mess. On the talk page I propose a new way to structure it and I would really like your input although it certainly does not have to be today. Most literature on patriarchy comes from anthropology and feminist theory so I think people knowledgable in these areas should work out the basic structure of the article and identify key sources. I hope soe time in the next week you can give it a look over. The current article is a mess and the more you read the more bizarre it gets. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

AN/I unblock request

Can you weigh in here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Had a look - I think it's time to move to escalate that to a ban. The block was 100% fine IMHO--Cailil ^talk 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Question re: talk:patriarchy

Hi, Cailil. Nope, the only email was on the talk page, from "Steven Goldberg" (who I was writing to the talk page to say couldn't be "the" expert). Thanks for your concern. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Susan. Sorry for my confusion - I'm a bit bewildered by the post - I'll ask User:Brandon about it--Cailil ^talk 03:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)