Jump to content

User talk:Lost Angel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Lost Angel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Runcorn 22:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Hi

[edit]

Hi Lost Angel, thanks for your comments and points on Feminism. I really don't think you should be so concerned about edit wars that you wouldn't edit an article at all. If you feel that an edit you want to make might be contentious, I'd recommend that you propose th edit on the talk page before making it. This way you'll be able to see what consensus is.
As long as the edit is NPOV sourced and given due weight I can't see people having a problem with any contributions. The worst that could happen is a revert and if that were to happen as long as parties abide by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL there should be no problem at all - if parties don't abide by these policies they will be dealt with through the appropraite processes.
I don't like seeing people who are worried about editting certain articles, the purpose of wikipedia is that everyone can contribute so be BOLD. And when you do get some time I hope you'll have a look at how Feminism is progressing =)--Cailil talk 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cailil, thanks for your encouraging words. I've had really bad experience with editing articles dealing with ideology/politics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politkovskaya - so since then I'm trying to keep away from articles where fanatics may roam wild. I am convinced that wikipedia should 1 - follow the use of words as in reality and for controversial topics pros and cons have to be present (see pov of sources when either coverage is pov, not pov of editor), 2 - I believe sources even if official need to present evidence so that they may be quoted as factual, just the reputation of the source is insufficient if statement it makes is unsupported, 3 - I believe academic 'npov' sources aren't npov on a number of issues, which I think wikipedia should be able to fix... Coming to the issue of feminism - I think the article is missing a great deal of what ambiguous things it does, not just what it proclaims... How it is represented in research institutions in practice, in politics, in law... There is a criticism section, but I don't think criticising is the right approach - the very article should show good and bad coming out of feminism - so far it is pretty much sterile... Hope I'm making sense with what I just wrote Lost Angel 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've all run into a fanatic or two on Wikipedia, its an occupational hazard. Just a note on Pts 2 & 3, I understand your concerns - Wikipedia has a way of gauging reliability - if you study WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:ATT it will help you. As to whether sources are NPOV - I would agree that some are not and that's where WP:RS and WP:N become inportant. If a source is widely accepted and used it is considered by WP to be a reliable source, even if it is not 100% NPOV. If a comment is published by major print media - its generally considered to be notable. After notability and reliability due weight is also important - that policy says that fringe POVs should not be given equal weight to the mainstream.
Anyway, I hope your bad experience won't scare you off.--Cailil talk 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I will try to edit then. Will see if absurd rvs/edits will abound. Considering "weight" and sources - there comes a problem - I know personally eye-witnesses and people from the places that the article I mentioned earlier talks about. Information I have is very different from what recognized sources say and I can not find significant sources, which would illustrate situation, the way I know it personally from people who visited the specific location at stake and talked to local population informally... How to treat such issue?Lost Angel 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is difficult. Unfortunately the only thing you can do, at least on Wikipedia, is wait untill what you know is recorded by a notable and/or reliable source - and it will probably happen eventually. I can imagine how frustrating this situation is but again the only thing you can do here is wait. I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer--Cailil talk 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feminism discussion

[edit]

Hi Lost Angel, apologies in advance for the length of this message. I think you may have misinterpreted some of my comments on Talk:Feminism. You should try to source quotes from the books/articles themselves so that you can see the point being made by the writer. Sourcing "feminist quotes" from sites like wiki.Mensactivism.org and www.fathers.bc.ca isn't good enough. You need to be able to see the quote in full so that you can verify that you're quoting the source properly. Otherwisae people who have read the material will tell you that you've misrepresented the source. You need to avoid this happening because misrepresentation of sources has been used by complex vandals on Wikipedia before and it is taken very seriously. The context of a quote is relevant and sometimes very important, as is the context of certain writers in a field as broad as feminism.
If you want to write a section about an "anti-family agenda" you need

  1. A reliable source that claims that there is a feminist anti-family agendas; one that is not mediated through partisan websites (so that you don't add factual inaccuracies) and one you are not interpreting to show that an anti-family agenda exits.
  2. To make sure that you give the source due weight - in accordance with the rest of the article and the notability of the source.
  3. You might also want to consider whether it belongs on Feminism or on Second wave feminism or Radical feminism
  4. You should also try to gauge whether the info is reflective of teh bigger picture. Does it reflect a global perspective? You should also examine wether you're sources are partisan or not.

I'm actaully trying to take a wikibreak at the moment but I'm responding to you're comments becuase I'm worried by your claims about "feminist censorship" - it is not difficult to find quotes by feminists like Mary Daly, Mary Jo Bane, Anne Koedt or Germaine Greer, their books are widely available in any college library or on Amazon. Claiming that "feminists dictate both media and academic research apparatus" or that there is feminist conspiracy to censor views is a red flag. And I have had a conversation with you about how you had similar issues on another article. Please study WP:RS and WP:N to understand why editors are objecting. One of the rules of WP is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox comments like this might be seen as disruptive - soapboxing isn't tolerated. You need to understand that Wikipedia is not here to "fix" anything - its here to be a verifiable encyclopedia, not to tell "the Truth" (see WP:V). If you are struggling with the policies and/or other user's objections you should also look into WP:ADOPT - the mentorship programme. I hope you will continue to work on the feminism article and help try and make it a good article--Cailil talk 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interrupting your break, was not intentional. Cases of feminist censorship include coverage of pro-father events in the media - just saw a broadcast about some British men on stone henge having some kind of protest with regards to some father-rights - media did not as much as explain their point rather than going into lengthy debate of how ridiculous those men were. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2p7TBRp_Tg who made the news coverage that way? And that is a tiny drop of what I see. In my university we're fed with feminist/women literature of demerit quality (Kristeva etc), while skipping Kant and Nietsche - I find this to be a case of censorship is my situation so special? I do not watch TV so it is hard to refer to some broader material you might have seen. When speaking of difficulty to find misandric and anti-family quotes by feminist I meant google for example. Type "antifeminism" and search for image - you will not find any that really corresponds to the word. Why are they not there? I am not in a hurry to blow the whistle, but some small things about even the digital space speak for themselves. Looking for information against feminism in google will bring ten times more unrelated pro-feminist articles. Why? Nobody ever wrote -"antifamily quotes" feminism- in one sentence? I've gotten a very demanding job so will have to cut back or stop wikiediting altogether, so I can not research this issue - physically no time.

As to different waves - replace feminism with fascism on the word level and you will get "well fascists in general are about national unity, tradition and patriotism" and there are some waves of radical fascists... etc. Of course I am exaggerating, but there is a point to consider. Sorry for not explaining myself with better coherence - too exhausted. If time permits I will explain myself better with better sources.Lost Angel 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be frank Lost Angel. I have already advised you about Soapboxing. If you keep soapboxing you will be warned for it formally. You might believe in feminist censorship, however unless you can provide verifiable, factualy accurate & reliably sourced references it will be at best considered original research and at worse POV.
I'm unclear what your last paragraph is saying but (and forgive me if I've misunderstood you) it looks like reducto ad hitlerum.
I am concerned that you will find your self in the same position as you were in on Anna Politkovskaya because the points you are making are not coming from reliably sourced and verifiable material and look like POV. I really think you should consider the mentorship program WP:ADOPT. You're a good editor but you need to develop a better understanding of WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:NOR--Cailil talk 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS you didn't interupt my wikibreak - I did! So don't worry about that =)--Cailil talk 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to issue a formal warning - by all means do so. I've presented the evidence in the article on antifeminism, which includes "antifeminism" definition being absent from Webster dictionary, it includes OED's reference to antifeminism as being same as chauvinism, against equality and misogyny, a POV based on perspective of very few radical antifeminists (recall your own "oh, it's just feminists of second wave, who are against family" for a parallel), feminism, however, is defined as nice and peachy movement for equality, despite radical feminist appeals to "reduce male population to 10%" Sally Miller Gearhart worthy of Goebbels speech on Jews, which is out there and in my very humble opinion doesn't reflect on the idea of equality at all, does it in yours? Why should one than take a POV definition which excludes things one doesn't like for standard? Mind you, I do not remove things. Thus I am ready to defend my case if hearing be held.
As to Politkovskaya - there is a huge active well financed machinery of an international scale forging documents,pushing POV, it was stupid of me to waste my time going against it to begin with. Due weight of sources here is confused with the factuality of the sources. Feminist machinery is also huge, but it is slower now that hysteria is over largely (see radical feminism) - it is going decadent already. Therefore things have a chance of factual description. No using "whimsical" Latin labels to discredit my arguments is not helpful - I've supported them with sources. And let us not pose too naive - look up the media - do you know many movies, where massive beating up or killing of women is portrayed as a fun thing? I don't. Is it because that's not as entertaining as an average action movie with guys getting killed in numbers? Compare to Far East Asian movies and animation - it is there allover and is very successful. And it does work in Western culture too - check out Kill Bill for example, sold well, yet it goes under half-serious label. I'm simply keeping an open mind on the issue.
Here is a much simpler one - why is SCUM manifesto not censored and is taught in the universities while Mein Kampf isn't? Lost Angel 08:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks on User:Edgarde [1]

[edit]

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Misandry. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm sorry Lost Angel. But your comments to Edgarde are in violation of No personal attacks. I have spoken to you at length about other issues with your talk page behaviour and I hope you will reflect on this. I do not like giving good editors warnings like this but personal attacks are unacceptable Cailil talk 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you qualify as a personal attack? I have on a number of examples pointed out that the user's inability for whatever reason to verify a source that is openly available doesn't disqualify the source as requiring a "fact" tag. I have obviously not implied that the user in question can not read. I think you are being biased in evaluating my comments. If you could be so kind as to point me to a higher authority to judge the case independently, I'd be much obliged.Lost Angel 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying to edgarde - "you not being literate enough or well enough equipped to go to the library and read he book doesn't disqualify the book" is a personal attack. Your statement is insulting and disparaging to another editor - that is the definition of a personal attack. Calling them a troll for requiring a WP:RS is also incivil and borders on personal attack.
I do not know if you are aware of the sentence structures using "one" and "you" interchangeably, but I think you are. I've correctly used the trolling label to describe the actions of repeated rv actions without reaching consensus in discussion section with justifications of a personal or insulting (to people) level "I'm running a different OS, some people are lazy, my internet is slow". I believe you are biased in reading my text and will contact higher authority for a neutral judgment on this matter.Lost Angel 13:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this checked the people to ask about this are Wikiquette alerts or an admin.
I'd like to ask admin, since I do not believe my post to be qualifying for a personal attack.Lost Angel 13:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand over my warning. However justified or not your point is on the talkpage you should have found another way to make it. You should be working towards building a consensus rather than accusing users who disagree with you of trolling--Cailil talk 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again - this is not about me agreeing or not to the user's actions, but rather whether such actions are backed up by solid reasoning and factual evidence, which is not the case in this situation. I do not think you are giving me a fair credit reducing my action to the level of personal frustration.Lost Angel 13:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked User:SirFozzie to double check my warning, they aren't an admin (yet) so if you want to contact an admin go ahead. Try WP:ADMIN.--Cailil talk 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the procedure, please, fill in your part of the argument and I will place it in the place of conflict resolution by administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration I am not satisfied as long as this warning is not removed or is judged by an independent source. I do not know the respectable user whose advice you seek. However, if he agrees that the warning should be pulled - I do not mind not starting the official procedure.

{Request to remove a warning}

[edit]
Initiated by Lost Angelat 14.06.2007

Involved parties

[edit]
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lost_Angel&diff=138121704&oldid=138120270 - sides are informed and steps to regulate the dispute have been taken.

Statement by {Lost Angel}

[edit]

I have been issued a warning on the grounds of committing an alleged personal attack on user Edgarde here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misandry&diff=prev&oldid=138106870 Full conversation link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misandry#microsoft_spell_check_add Full discussion of the situation including warning link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lost_Angel - "personal attacks on User:Edgarde" section. With a phrase in question: "you not being literate enough or well enough equipped to go to the library and read he book doesn't disqualify the book.Lost Angel 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)" I do not believe that my action qualifies as a personal attack for a number of reasons:[reply]

  • I have not in fact referred to the ability of this specific user to read, but rather pointed out that him not having access to a primary source readily available to anybody on the internet does not disqualify the source from being factual (a point he kept repeating here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misandry#microsoft_spell_check_add I had to make this remark in a strict fashion, since user has been repeatedly reverting the article, which I personally identified as trolling in discussion section.
  • In my phrase "you" is used as a synonym to "one" as it is used in normal English language in sentences like "You can't have the omlette without breaking a few eggs".
  • The very content of my phrase prevents it from being taken literary - the person I am addressing can read and we are not discussing libraries.
  • I believe user Calil to be misinterpreting a number of my posts in various discussion sections, repeatedly attempting to bring them down to level of my personal frustrations, poor contextualizing of sources and reasoning or insufficient language skills (for example, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lost_Angel#feminism_discussion and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Feminism#Should_specific_historical_reference_to_socialism.2Fcommunism_be_made.3F). Which I am not sure why he does.
  • I request the warning on my page to be removed by your supreme authority and if possible encourage user Calil to refrain from what I identify as over scrutinizing of my edits. Thank you! Lost Angel 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Calil}

[edit]

Clerk notes

[edit]
(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

[edit]
Lost Angel, administration and arbitration are two different things. Arbcom is the final step in a dispute resolution process not the first - it says that on the top of the Request for Arbritartion page. The above text also has a field for "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" - no steps in dispute resolution have been tried. If you are concerned you should ask an admin for advice, you will find a list of admins at WP:ADMIN, you could go directly to the admin noticeboard this will get attention from a number of admins quite quickly.--Cailil talk 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the manual - we tried to settle this matter, you called on a third person to evaluate, I will call onto one admin now too before posting this further. The steps have been tried in that I tried to reason with you on this matter.Lost Angel 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Cailil on the specific edit that she provided me, that "you not being literate enough or well enough equipped to go to the library and read he book doesn't disqualify the book" is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of No Personal Attacks. While I do not consider it a blocking offense, nor would probably any admin (unless done continually and ignoring requests to stop), I would suggest you read the Wikipedia policies on Assuming Good Faith of other editors and Maintaing a civil discussion. However, there is a rule that you CAN remove warnings from your talk page, it is considered that you have acknowledged the warning by deleting it. Have a nice day. SirFozzie 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback - have you considered my comments on it? I will not remove it from my talk page, since that is not something I find honest. I will wait for decision from administrator, whom I asked for feedback. Providing that feedback too would be contrary to my view of the situation, I will stop editing wikipedia, since it would mean my understanding of sensible speech limits and its freedom boundaries is incompatible with that of this place. I am strongly against personal attacks, but I am also against castrating the language (I am not pointing fingers).Lost Angel 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Misandry

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misandry. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -Andrew c 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you've got to be kidding me. Firstly I know about 3 rvs rule in 24 hours. Secondly, I'm not simply doing rvs there - I have satisfied the counterarguments of the disputing side by providing a link for them to verify the facts they doubt by themselves, which they refused to do. Do read the talk section there to see details.
is that a warning you're posting? On which ground? Are you warning me about an existing rule? Or my action that violated something? Why have you not posted the same one on the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edgarde ? Since what you call edit war can not be done by one side. Stop biased comments in my address!Lost Angel 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to remove warning comments from your talk page after you have read them. That said, you kept removing the fact tag. 3 times by my count. I understand that you do not believe you were simply doing reverts, but for 3RR purposes, even partial reverts count against you. A warning is generally required before filing a 3RR report, and I wanted to make sure that you were aware of our policy, in order to avoid future edit warring. It seems like this matter is cleared up, and I do not anticipate you removing the fact tag without talk page consensus, so feel free to remove the warning if you don't want it on your talk page. Hope this helps.-Andrew c 18:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove, I've simply satisfied the criticism pointed at the need for the tag to be there, only to see more ridiculous ones come up. Now my text is further reversed with another rubbish of "blah blah, use doesn't matter" but of course you'd have to use the word to discuss it. And I shan't remove the warnings which I haven't put myself.Lost Angel 19:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achronological threading in talk page discussion

[edit]

Talk page discussions are best kept in chronological order within hierarchically indented threads.

It's getting increasingly hard to follow the flow of conversation on Talk:Misandry#microsoft_spell_check_add, because new comments are being posted in a way that precedes older comments replying to same parent; the normal (and more readable) method is to resume below existing comments (and their subthreads) at the same indent rank as other comments to the same parent.

Not the biggest issue, but keeping to this standard helps people new to the discussion understand what has been said previously.

Wikipedia's format standards for Talk pages might be helpful to read. / edgarde 18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, but went with the edit format I found more adequate for the situation. There is no major violation in this, as you point out.Lost Angel 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lost_Angel&oldid=1142523233"