Jump to content

User talk:Lquilter/Archive 008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

This came up as a new article. I would have speedied it for lack of content but I looked at your Userpage. I've put an Under Construction on it for the time being to protect it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's kind. I don't think there was any need to look at my userpage to confirm that, though; I had made an assertion of notability in the first paragraph, and added a legal-cases-stub to it (and your "under construction" caused an edit conflict for my next set of edits to the page). IMO it did not meet the requirements for speedy; what understanding of speedy do you have? --lquilter 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My last edit

I don't understand your message, since I reverted the change myself - mainly because I didn't make it. I undid it. It was someone's idea of a joke, when I left the computer unattended. America's Wang 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know you didn't do it. Sometimes people make a test edit and then revert it themselves, trying to learn the system. It's good that they revert it but we encourage them to do those kinds of tests in sandboxes rather than in articles. Happy editing. --lquilter 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiptree award

Response on my talk page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

response two :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

I am sending this to everyone who participated about six months ago in the discussion about the appropriate English variant to use for the Mary Wollstonecraft article.

You may wish to read a similar discussion, taking place over a Mary Wollstonecraft pamphlet, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, currently a featured article candidate.

The FAC discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Men

The applicable part of the article's talk page is here: Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men#FAC: AmEng, BrEng, etc

--ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News
  • The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
  • A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

WW not getting a solo film

I moved the cite to be more exact. Yeah, it sucks that Wonder Woman won't get her own movie... for now. *shakes fist at Robinov* Alientraveller 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My Response

Wow you must have no life just going around on wikipedia editing wikis. So you're a lesbian, feminist, atheist, and lawyer. I don't even want to imagine what you look like in person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjd1116 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Please read WP:NPA. --lquilter 05:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Science and engineering awards

As you probably know, Wikipedia considers the category of Engineering a Problem Category because it is too large. Wikipedia has asked for help in reducing the size of Category:Engineering. Much has been done to try to reduce its size. So any solution you can come up with that will reduce the number of articles in Engineering (i.e. by breaking categories down into smaller ones so that so many articles do not reside under Engineering would be much appreciated by Wikipedia.

Hopefully, you will not be putting Physics awards and other theoretical science awards under Engineering, making further havoc in the Engineering category and contributing to the category mess. Regards, --Mattisse 12:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Err... what? The CFD is set up, so if you have input about the category structure in awards and its impact on engineering, please share them with other CFDers.
Engineering, like many other academic & science topics, needs constant pruning to maintain a manageable size. But there shouldn't be any net effect by making a subcategory within "science and engineering awards" for "engineering awards" (which is what I did). Also, I don't believe I've miscategorized any theoretical science awards into Category:Engineering awards, but if I have, please let me know (or fix it, whichever you prefer).
The CFD I started was because you created a new category "science awards", which wasn't at all related or even linked to the existing "science and engineering awards" category.
--lquilter 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note!

Hi! You're right, I've done a lot of work on Elizabeth Cady Stanton, but I'm not new to wikipedia. Sometimes I edit, but forget to sign in. My "legit" username is JanCarhart -- which also shows up a lot on the ECS article. Needless to say, I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have about the article. I'm hoping to get it up to FA status, if possible. 71.192.39.45 00:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey - good to know you. I'll look for you. I'd be happy to work on the article to get it up to FA status. I've been mostly doing vandalism patrol on it, and doing substantive work on women scientists, but it would be fun to do some editing with a goal.--lquilter 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

flags on EG

Yeah, I thought they were especially ironic on her page, as I'm sure Goldman would loathe to be associated with any nation-state. Kaldari 20:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:131.123.176.63

User:131.123.176.63 has made unproductive edits to a few articles, including multiple edits to White privilege (sociology) and has been warned a few times. I checked this person's IP address, and it is the IP of Kent State University in Kent Ohio. Would it be helpful to put on the user's talk page that by vandalizing pages it puts their university's IP in danger of being blocked from editing, which would affect others at the school? Or would it be counter productive in mentioning that on his talk page? -Chris01720 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey - if someone is making vandalism edits, why not just put vandalism warnings on their page? {{subst:uw-vandal1}} --~~~~}} and the other levels 1, 2, 3, 4)--lquilter 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh hey - that IP address. I had already done some warnings & they stopped. With persistent vandalism you give them a couple of warnings including the final warning and then quickly report them to WP:AIV. Someone who is clearly and persistently making obvious vandalisms will be blocked for a short time. --lquilter 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I asked you this question because I saw you had already given them some warnings. What I was wondering is if it is beneficial to say something like: "If you continue to make such edits your IP address may be blocked from editing Wikipedia; which would also prevent others at your university from editing Wikipedia. Out of respect for others at your university and the Wikipedia community, please do not continue destructive edits of Wikipedia articles." In general, is it a good idea to remind someone that is making counter-productive edits (from a school's IP) that their actions may end up affecting the university as a whole? Or do you think that if they see that they might say to themselves: "they won't block me because it would block the whole university from making edits and therefore I can keep making destructive edits."? -Chris01720 04:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It probably doesn't hurt to tell them of the consequences of their actions, but I doubt it will help, either. Is it likely that people who are explicitly vandalizing wikipedia with racist comments are going to care for their fellow students? --lquilter 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I wasn't sure of. -Chris01720 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, do the experiment. <g> (I note that the IP editor stopped on the 20th after warnings. Maybe you should wait till/if they come back.)--lquilter 12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that. I guess it was more of a general question and less of a question pertaining to this specific incident. I have heard of instances where entire universities were blocked from editing wikipedia just because of a few vandals. If that IP vandalizes again, I will post a warning like that on their talk page. I guess I should watch to see if the writing style is the same if that IP vandalizes again. If it's a different writing style, then it's likely a different person. Thanks for the advice. -Chris01720 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should do a new template that points out the social costs to other people, and just routinely use it. Then, after using it for a year, you could do some comparison of the effect of this message to the effect of the generic messages. I'm serious. It could be a fun paper. I'd provide some early commentary / peer-review. --lquilter 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's something I might do. I'll ask my stat professor if he would be willing to assist in designing such an experiment. I'll keep you updated since commentary, peer-review, and input are always helpful. Thanx. -Chris01720 04:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it may be a week or so before I can get on that because I have some exams coming up. -Chris01720 04:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of feminism

We've got a POV pusher now. I've had to revert him twice, and don't want to have a brush with the 3RR. Can you watch him, Laura? --Orange Mike 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cavite Actors CfD

I have closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Category:Cavite_Actors_and_Actresses as "no consensus", which seems to be the best label to describe the fact that participants in the debate agreed that any such decision should not be made for only one such sub-category, and that the broader question of sub0national categories of actors should be considered via a group nomination. I will leave it to participants to consider whether they want to pursue such a nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and it sounds fine to me. Like quite a few things I edited it was done because I went looking for info I needed and not finding it decided to at least start the article myself. I have always assumed that then people would take the topic(s) over and build and improve on theses subjects. CyntWorkStuff 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, then I'll propose the separation. --lquilter 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony acrl

Hello, seems that a fan of a TV show has renamed the Susan B. Anthony page and created a confusing (not working) redirect page here Susan B. Anthony. Could you take a look? I think that the page for the real Susan B. Anthony should have that name, and the TV character page should have the name Susan B. Anthony (Prison Break character). Regards—G716 <T·C> 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other editors fixed the pages. I guess I needn't have bothered you -- Wikipedia really is self healing. Regards—G716 <T·C> 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories, CFDs, etc

Hello! It was a nice surprise to find the note you left for me -- in fact, you beat me to it, as I was already planning to touch base with you about these issues! I've noticed the general tenor of your comments in various CFDs, and appreciate your contributions. It always helps to have a kindred soul or three in these uphill battles. Believe me, I totally understand why you had to leave Wiki for a while.

I have an important piece of news for you: I discovered almost by accident that, as a result of the appalling decision that just came down on the sports categories, another editor has taken Category African American baseball players to Deletion Review (something I should have done myself...<sigh>). The discussion is already under way. In addition, I am planning to take this latest batch of CFDs to DRV as well -- unless somebody else beats me to it. Especially considering the strong margin of support for those cats, which the closing admin ignored in favor of citing a very shaky "precedent".

In the same vein, please take a look at the CFD for ethnic sub-cats of journalists, all of which bit the dust back in July. What a travesty. That was my personal Waterloo, so to speak -- 1,000 times worse than losing these sports cats (even worse than losing the scientist sub-cats).

I've been pondering your comments, along with a whole range of other thoughts on these issues. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about putting my energy into creating the article(s) you've suggested. Which is *not* to say that it's not a good idea. I'm just not sure that's where I want to put a lot of my own energy at this particular point in time. But I certainly don't want to say anything to discourage you in any way from starting in on an article like that if you're feeling revved up about doing it! I'm just trying to be realistic about where I'm likely to put my time & energy right now.

I'm pretty pooped out right now, so I will elaborate further in the near future. Regards, Cgingold 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I – a new approach

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

hey

Just want to be sure you know that I sent you email. :) Cgingold 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

oh! i'll look for it. but that email account has gotten kinda crazy with spam (and spam filters). i just changed my email address in wp so if you send it again it will go to a saner email acct. --lquilter 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've resent my original -- hope you get it this time! Cgingold 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


WikiProject Literature proposal

Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Art for Arts sake

Ah yes - I see Category:Art awards needs either renaming to "arts", or some work (or both). Category:Performing arts awards could go straight to the "Awards by subject" cat. Most of the awards are clearly for some form of visual art, but others like the Ho-Am Prize in the Arts do cover the whole waterfront. The ideal would probably be to rename this to "Arts", then set up a "Visual art" sub-cat for painting awards etc - but that's a fair bit of work. Johnbod 15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we just create Category:Arts awards as the umbrella category>? Structure like:
Category:Arts awards
> Category:Graphic art awards
> Category:Literary awards
> Category:Music awards
> Category:Performing arts awards
> Category:Visual art awards
But I guess the question would be, is Category:Art awards better renamed as Category:Visual art awards? or Category:Visual arts awards?
(etc.)

--Lquilter 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The last question is just a judgement call on the amount of work involved, I think - and CfD is usually to be avoided if at all possible, especially for something like this, where possibilities for grasping the wrong end of the stick are rife, and are bound to be seized by some! I would set up a new "Arts" cat & move up the appropriate articles - I think a minority. Sub-cats like the Canadian one can just go to Arts, at least for now - it's probably OCAT to split them.
Category:Graphic art awards should be a subcat of the VA one, and I think may not be needed. Most of those would be for printmaking, & it could be called that. Category:Architecture awards & Category:Design awards should perhaps be included as well (now I see there is one). Music is already a sub-cat of Performing arts, so you maybe have: Arts > literary, Performing arts, Architecture, Visual arts, design.

Or put Architecture under VA, though in general it isn't so categorised in WP. I think V Arts is better here (than V art). Hope that helps. Let me know what you're doing & I'll try to lend a hand. Johnbod 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And now we've left out video (film/tv) ...
Question on graphic art awards (and graphic art generally) - what would you do with animation/anime and manga? --Lquilter 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I would leave them in arts, as there is a literary component. The Angoulême International Comics Festival Prize for Artwork eg should also go in VA as being specifically for artwork. I know many of these could be described as "graphic" and are, but it isn't where people would expect to find them, I think. It's not a term we categorise on much - "graphic novel" is also avoided I think. Johnbod 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gone all through the articles (not the sub-cats) of Category:Art awards moving some to Category:Arts awards and elsewhere. If they have separate entries/awards for music/literature etc & are in multiple cats, I've left that. If they can award to anyone in these fields & were only in "art", they went to "Arts". Johnbod 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help - there's a lot of stuff there! Johnbod 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Musicology cat CfD

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Also just thought I'd mention how cool it is not only to run into a librarian who is also an attorney on Wikipedia (bringing some sense to the copyright and fair-use muddle here) but also to find out she's also in Boston. Nice to make your acquaintance! Best, Myke (-- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

New comments on ethnic cats

Hey, I had to take a few days off from those CFDs (I maxed out... ), but I finally went back and added my closing comments re Category:African American baseball players (most of which I also reposted at the CFD for Category:Chinese American scientists). My guess is they'll both close "No Concensus", like Category:Jewish American scientists did a few days back -- but what do I know? (I've been wrong before... ) Cgingold 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Susan Wood (science fiction)

To my horror, I discovered that the Susan Wood that fannish links to "Susan Wood" were going to was this Kiwi TV personality! I've banged together a rough sketch, but please add to it.--Orange Mike 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not a structured database DGG (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tx, DGG; I added some thoughts. --Lquilter (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Scholars and academics

Please can you consider my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#scholars_and_academics? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Literature Project

It's been created! Click WP:LIT. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

TFA

I have nominated A Vindication of the Rights of Men to appear on the main page on November 29, the day it was initially released. Since I know that you are interested in feminist issues, I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the debate. It is here. Awadewit | talk 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


PEN/Open Book cat

hi there. thanks for the suggestion. my reasoning behind not categorising PEN/Open Book as a free expression organisation is that, as far as I know, it is only a program. It's run by PEN American Center, which IS a free expression org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetibet (talk • contribs) 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Advanced maternal age

Hi. I'm a member of WP:ORPHAN, and in my routine duties I came across this article Advanced maternal age. The article, in my opinion, touches upon some important women's issues. This article needs work, but as yet it is not part of any WikiProject. I was contacting you, hoping that you'd be able to incorporate this article into the WP:GS, so people with the right knowledge can edit it. I will also attempt to find an appropriate Biological WikiProject to contact. Thankyou. Lex Kitten (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Democracy Alliance categorization

Hi Lquilter. Thanks for question about Democracy Alliance category. What I'm trying to capture in one place by creating that category are the donors to/members of the Democracy Alliance, the organizations to which they collectively donate (to the extent that this information becomes available), and figures who are associated with the DA in some other way--political activists who float in and out, journalists and investigators who focus on the DA, etc.Buellering (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Buellering, I think that would be much better done in a list. Check out Categories, Lists, and Series Infoboxes for more detailed explanations about what the features of each way of presenting info. But let me tell you why I think this. The category just presents, basically, an alphabetically sorted list of items, but there's no indication in the category about what the relationship of each one is -- whether they're journalists & investigators who might be critical, or whether they're funders, or what. A list of associated figures would give much better context for each entity's relationship to DA, plus allow inclusion of entities that are not themselves notable enough for an encyclopedia article, plus allow you to include references for each one. Plus, you can sort them in ways other than alphabetical. So, for instance, you could have "list of funders" and sort them by dollar amount, or percent of DA's funding, or both. Does this make sense? --Lquilter (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I get what you're saying. Would it be something like creating an article that is "List of donors to/members of DA", "List of organizations funded by DA", etc? If so, I agree with you that that makes more sense than the category.Buellering (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly; you've got the right idea with the lists. I'm not sure that each of these lists would be notable -- see notability; my suggestion with them is that you incorporate them into the Democracy Alliance page, similarly to the way that page currently has "Organizations funded" as a section. There can also be a "Known contributors" or "Major contributors" or "Major members" section. As for the investigators or critics, if there's just assorted people who have written about DA, in the course of writing other works, then there probably doesn't need to be a separate section in the DA article for them, but they should be cited to and referenced as appropriate. But if there are multiple people who have made it their careers or a major focus to investigate this group (seems unlikely since it's so new) then a separate section could be okay; otherwise it's probably unwarranted. That's a decision for you and other contributors to that article as you work on it, though.
... If you go this way, I'd suggest taking off the category tags from that article, and posting it at WP:CFD ("categories for discussion"); administrators at CFD will delete it, or, sometimes people have discussions. I regularly participate at CFD and can help you with that. --Lquilter (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Sorry about that I am only a beginner HTML programmer and I make loads of mistakes. I have to preview so many times before I get it right. Harland1 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Let me know if you need help - I've been doing HTML since 1994. --Lquilter (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethical banking closure

Hi Jc37 -- This is about the ethical banking closure. You closed as "listify and delete". As I read the discussion, it was not primarily about what to do with banks that may or may not have been included in the category; we all agreed to take those out. The question was what to do with the movement name. From what I could see, only Carlossuarez46 thought to delete the category altogether, but he didn't respond to the questions about why naming it movement wouldn't work. The issue is that there are articles that reasonably would be associated with the movement that are not "banks", per se. Lquilter (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, but it seemed to me that only banks were members of the category? So if they are removed, it would effectively be "empty". - jc37 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for msg will try to make an input soon to valuable new series as time allows, cheers Peter morrell 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to examine and consider the suitability of this site at Cambridege uni [1] re women and their status at the uni e.g. issuing of degrees. The shameful facts are that no women were offered full degrees until 1948! How this might be used is up to you but I thought it might prove a useful site in your work; I hope to make some additions about early female medics in due course, thanks Peter morrell 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This is helpful. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of CryptoRights Foundation

A tag has been placed on CryptoRights Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AvruchTalk 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The article does seem to be improved from when I first read it. I would agree with the editor who removed the db tag in this instance. I think that the notability bar is generally not applied strictly enough - I would suggest that individuals with the will and ability to become regular contributors would take the relatively minor setback of a notability CSD in stride, and use the information provided in the alert template to familiarize themselves with the criteria.
The policy does note the possibility of tagging or stubbing articles rather than deleting them, and in some cases I think that would be appropriate. But in the instance of individuals or companies (as opposed to, say, scientific fact) I personally prefer an unsubstantiated article be removed from articlespace (a potentially temporary measure) rather than risk it being abandoned unimproved because no one will ever search for it and it was ignored on NP patrol. AvruchTalk 03:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In most cases, I'd agree. The botanist nom you commented on was, therefore, an AfD. I used an AfD in this case because it did seem borderline and was both obviously academic in nature and not promotional. I'm not at all familiar with botany, but the article as written didn't seem to assert notability for the individual even in his field. The AfD generated the opinion of experts and others in the community, and based on that I withdrew and closed the AfD myself. I think the issue with leaving vanity pages as tagged or something lesser is that it fills the encyclopedia with information that hasn't been verified and is unlikely to attract any formal review if its missed on NP. AvruchTalk 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You will of course do as you please and I'm sure your approach often works for you. I simply suggest that it ends up wasting other people's time when someone tags things more aggressively than warranted; and based on the two speedies I've seen you do, you might consider taking a more nuanced approach to your speedies. Peace, Lquilter (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You may be right. I did 20-30 other speedies just tonight though (I think, I haven't counted, could be +/-). Most were deleted. AvruchTalk 05:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

I've responded to your comments, we just have a strong disagreement - philosophical not personal. There are numerous "intersections" as posited by some. My view is that for Fooian Doers to be notable, there has to be something to be said about how Fooians Do that is different than how non-Fooians Do. Not an article about the existence, prevalence or list of notable Fooian Doers - or even the difficulties that they may have overcome in the past. As you probably know Jews have been systematically discriminated against in academia - Jews have been expelled from most European countries for years on end, they were sold into slavery, slaughtered, dragged far from the homes, not admitted to or kicked out of universities, and ultimately exterminated. All for their religion/ethnicity. Nor does the horrible history endured by African American academics. Yes, there were Negro colleges, segregation, etc. Different in time/scope/circumstance but fundamentally, no different in "wow these folks have overcome a lot". That doesn't make Jewish academics a notable intersection; nor does it make African American academics one either.

For it to be otherwise every intersection imaginable is possible: Category:Jewish French anti-Nazi mimes (542 ghits) and transplant Marcel Marceau (the most notable person in such category) to justify the category; or Category:Left-handed pedophiles (600,000 ghits) because one study tentatively links genes for both behaviors ([2]); or Category:Latino illegal aliens (1.3 million ghits) and no shortage of news coverage even spilling into the US presidential election. These cats are inappropriate because there is nothing to show that Jewish French anti-Nazi mimes mime any differently than non-Jewish non-French pro-Nazi mimes; that Left-handed pedophiles differ from Right-handed ones, or that Latino illegal aliens "alienate" any differently than non-Latino ones. To have African American academics there has to be something inherently different about them - reading a paper from an unknown academic, can you tell that person's race? I can't and I do a lot of reading academic journals. If you can show that people can tell by the work product that African Americans "academe" differently than non-African Americans, I'll change my mind.

But I think you cannot, for a fundamental reason that majoritarian culture people often assume: that Fooian Americans are a homogenous monolithic group. It's difficult for most people in majoritarian cultures to understand, but most people in a minority culture want to be recognized for their achievements not their race/ethnicity. We have our race/ethnicity and culture but I don't know anyone who calls himself or herself a "Latino doctor", "Latino academic", or "Latino lawyer" like their skills are limited to that group - they are "doctor", "academic", "lawyer" who happen to be Latino.

There are places where ethnicity/race matter and the intersection for CATGRS can be met: Latter Day Saints theologians, Roman Catholic theologians, etc. is obvious because they come at the discipline from a particular angle, but this isn't true for African American academics - academics is any discipline, including scientists (African American scientists was deleted as you may recall) and others for which no particular angle can be applied without stereotyping them all - just compare Angela Davis with Condoleezza Rice and you can see that 2 African American female professors in California can be 180 degrees opposed and my guess is that wider groupings will be scattered in their opinions and ideas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you know enough about me to assert what cultures I might belong to or be familiar with! Be that as it may, I don't by any means believe that members of any ethnicity, gender, sexuality, are homogenous, or that all members of one group necessarily have experiences in common. ... From what I see, the sum of your comments here and elsewhere comes to two main points: (1) concern about ghettoization; (2) identity-related concerns about assigning identities improperly to individual articles, or implying things wrongfully based on inclusion in a category.
  1. The ghettoization is just not a problem. Ghettoization of categories would be, for instance, if Category:Scientists exists, and African Americans are taken out of Category:Scientists and women are taken out of Category:Scientists, and diffused into Category:African American scientists and Category:Female scientists. That would, indeed, be a problem and an undesirable outcome -- I think everyone who's thought about this issue at all, from the categorizer perspective or the subject-interest perspectives, understands that that is not the way to go. But WP:CATGRS says, straight up, that "a gender/race/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree". I agree that the next sentence is confusing, but the final example makes it clear that you simply apply a relevant GRS category and a relevant non-GRS subject category. And of course the whole point of the paragraph is to say that articles should not be ghettoized. ... I wonder if we could hold off on the larger question of whether GRS categories should exist, in order to clarify that last paragraph? I mean, can you agree that if GRS categories exist, they should be implemented in a non-ghettoizing fashion; for instance, Category:African American musicians and Category:Musicians applied to the same article about an African American musician?
  2. The latter problem is trickier and more substantive, in my view. Of course this is a significant problem -- putting Condoleezza Rice and Angela Davis in Category:African American academics or Category:Female academics implies something in common about them. But the thing that it implies is not necessarily their personal identity, but that they each belong to a category that has independent social recognition. Ideally the head article would treat this issue appropriately: Discuss the history; point out disputes and controversies about whether this is a meaningful category; and so on. I've been thinking through WP:CATGRS' approach to "category is appropriate only if a head article can be supported" and I think it works pretty well.
You also say that you think the category is only justified if there is, say, a fooian style of doing X. No offense, but that's a very narrow view to take of "doing X" / occupation categories. The categories and articles do not just capture "what they do" but also the history of the field; the impact of the field; and the relation of the field to the rest of society. Yes WP articles are often rather bare bones & lacking in historical & sociological context, but that's not how they're supposed to be. --Lquilter (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
First: I make no assumptions about your ethnicity; I merely state that those from majoritarian cultures often see things differently from those who are not. Whether or not that applies to you, it applies to the majority of Wikipedians from which consensus is drawn. Frankly, I don't care what ethnicity you are.
Second: The issue is broader than you describe: (a) not being the bottom of a category tree is a meaningless statement. What children categories do we envision for this puppy that don't also run into the same problem of having a race+occupation intersection? (b) standard practice is to put every article in the most limiting category that applies: we put people from Davis, California in Category:People from Davis, California, not also in Category:People from Yolo County, California, Category:People from California, and Category:American people. CATGRS does not change this just because race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity is in play.
Third: Your expansive view of what supports a category is different from mine. I could create an article Category:Fooian-American "Xers" for nearly any X type job because of all the census-information that cross-corelates all these things, and we can cite sources to create articles like German American lawyers that say that there are approximately X,000 of them and they practice in all facets of the law and a few famous ones include Mr. X, Ms. Y, and Ms. Z. and justify a category on the basis of having an article. It doesn't and shouldn't work that way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On your last point, surely you're being a bit facetious. You know that the history of, say, women or African Americans in law and medicine is considerably different than the history of German Americans; that German Americans had white privilege while African Americans suffered under a significant color bar; that the first African Americans who practiced law and medicine suffered insane amounts of discrimination in integrating their fields; that separatist education (historically Black colleges) played a great role in educating African American professionals; and that the whole of 19th- and 20th-century law and medicine are part of a history of those professions, in which the restrictions and discrimination against African Americans (and women) were gradually lifted with enormous struggle. And that today we continue to see the effects of two centuries of discrimination -- within the profession, by shrinking professional pipelines & glass ceilings. In the context of that broader social history of the professions, the individual biographies of notable African Americans and women who struggled to open doors in the profession form their own unique field of study. Ethnic studies and women's studies encompass history, biography, and sociology, primarily; so any article about an ethnic or female professional is going to focus on those fields. If you don't know, you can google "German-Americans in law" and "African-Americans in law" to see the difference between 0 and 38,900 hits. I'm no fan of Ghits as an indicator of, say, notability of pokemon characters, but when distinguishing between two academic topics, I think it provides a decent approximation of level of scholarly interest.
  • On the categorization point --The category can be the final rung. But the article shouldn't be classified in that category as the final rung. That classification of the article would be ghettoizing the article. ... The example that WP:CATGRS gives is, while confusingly written, demonstrative of how this might work: Envision cat trees like this (I'm drafting these & my comments on them arguendo, so please don't take my comments to be my views on the merits or lack thereof for any category):
Langston Hughes goes into Poets and Novelists and African American writers. He's not ghettoized by being in an ethnic category tree; he's still in the main occupation category tree.
In terms of "ghettoization", think of the Category:African Americans by occupation as organizing Category:African Americans; cross-linked into the occupation category itself for convenience & logic. Some categories are simply more helpful in one tree than another. ... But, because of the sensitivity of this topic, regardless of the category's utility in the GRS tree, we evaluate it (more than most categories) against an extra set of standards to ensure that it is a unique and individual topic of interest in its own right, against the CATGRS standard.
In other words, CATGRS is a restrictive, limiting guideline, that operates to restrict what would ordinarily be a slew of obvious categorization that would help clean up the various GRS category trees that are otherwise very very large. ... Do you think that gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality shouldn't be mentioned at all, nor subjects of categorization? --Lquilter 14:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce

How do I make a taskforce for WikiProject Islam--129.115.102.13 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave comments on User talk:Java7837

Done - User_talk:Java7837#task_forces --Lquilter 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (Animal, nutritional and applied microbial sciences)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of members of the National Academy of Sciences (Animal, nutritional and applied microbial sciences), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Yalebert/Test List of members of the National Academy of Sciences. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Bias against wives of famous men

Hi, I found your name through Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, which I came across today. I tend to think everyone has biases and the danger is denying one's biases. That's why on my user page I've tried to set forth what mine are, if that makes any sense. Anyway, that's not what I'd like to discuss with you. Through editing the article on Catherine T. MacArthur, I came to the conclusion that there is a bias against the wives of famous men. I worked once for a small Florida bank that was controlled by her husband, John D. MacArthur and had occasion to met with him in his coffee shop office. I met or saw her a few times, but never really talked with her. I understood, though, that she was more than just a house wive and that she played a powerful role behind the scenes. Anyway, if you look at the articles, someone has slashed hers with citation needed on practically every sentence. I've supplied some of the citations, but not all. His article, though, was not similarly slashed, although I see now there is one citation needed that's been added. Her notability has even been questioned. Anyway, it seems to me that there is a bias against wives of famous men that seems to discount them and the contribution they may have made to their husband's success. This bias may even come from women who consider themselves "more liberated." Catherine T. MacArthur, though, wasn't home keeping house or baking cookies; she was in the office designing the business procedures that made Bankers Life a success. I'm sorry if I've rambled, but I would appreciate your thoughts on this. clariosophic (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories and Subject Headings

Posted at User talk:Sterry2607: Hi Sterry2607 - nice to meet you; I'm Laura Quilter User:Lquilter. I'm also a librarian -- well, a former librarian; currently an information law attorney who works with librarians (in the States). Anyway, I wanted to respond to your comment on the editor's page about women writers. I too have been thinking about the use of subject headings and search terms in thinking about categories lately. If you don't already (or haven't previously) participated in categories for discussion, I think there are a lot of discussions that could use some sensible real-world approaches like that. ... the specific issues I was thinking of for subject headings & search terms wasn't women writers (although you're absolutely right) but other ethnic/occupational categories. Anyway -- obviously I have no idea what you might think about those issues, but I would love to see someone who's thinking about library & reference uses also keeping a weather eye on relevant discussions. ... Anyway good to meet another librarian. Cheers, Lquilter 13:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lquilter. Thanks for your message. I'm fairly new at Wikipedia - since about May - and am still finding my feet, working out where I want to put my effort, besides writing articles. A few weeks ago, after trying a few projects, I landed on the Uncategorised articles project and so now do some stuff there when I have a spare moment. I have decided that Categories are the aspect of behind the scenes work that I am most interested in. I didn't know about that categories discussion area so will have a look at that link you gave me. BTW I am recently retired. And in fact I was really only a "proper librarian" for a year or so. Most of my career I was a film librarian and then an audiovisual archivist. However, in much of my archive career - 22 years - I was interested in data and indexing etc. We didn't use the standard library tools and systems but I guess I have tried to keep abreast of the principles because they are applicable in other circumstances. I'm still trying to get my head around Wikipedia and categories ... will see if I can contribute! No promises! Cheers, and thanks again for the friendly helpful message. Sterry2607 17:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Exciting that you were a film librarian/archivist! One of my best friends runs a film archiving program at NYU (Howard Besser). If you ever have Qs about categories here on wikipedia please feel free to ask me -- I've been doing them off & on for about a year. Doing a lot of work categorizing Category:Organizations right now as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. --Lquilter 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Laura, I should have used your name since you told me it. I'm Sue by the way. How interesting re your friend. I don't think I've heard of him. Is he active in AMIA (Association of Moving Image Archivists)? It's international but started in the US and is largely US based. I did go to its conference in Portland in 2001 - wonderful. There aren't many film archivists here in Australia so we feel quite isolated. Anyhow, back to Wiki. I'll probably keep working on the Uncategorised project for the next little while - it helps me learn about what catagories there are and how they work...but if you ever want to toss some ideas around please let me know. As I said, I'm retired but not out for the count yet. (Still in my mid 50s)! Sterry2607 04:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Women lawyers

Thought you would be interested in this new article I have been creating in my sandbox [3] please feel free to work on it as you see fit. I may not have time to do that myself, so please use what is there and launch it yourself if you wish, regards Peter morrell 08:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • awesome - i'll do some

Thanks for your very helpful additions. Meantime, I am hoping to add some good quotes and keep adding to it. Do you know how I can find an article in a new category: Physicians of color? or Black doctors? there is much on this which I have in historical texts but seemingly no WP article on this topic. I can create one in sandbox but wonder if there is one already in WP? thanks Peter morrell 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • there is not. there has been a lot of difficulty creating and preserving cats on professionals of color or women professionals. typically the response is "non-notable intersection". so my new approach is to demonstrate notability by writing the article first -- the articles all need to be written anyway. ... As for race & ethnicity in professional histories, I think it will be hard for two reasons. (1) WP's issues with describing ethnicities, and (2) tendency of new page patrollers to be confused about articles with interdisciplinary topics. ... more later. --Lquilter 14:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks, I will create one (on black physicians) in sandbox later and send you the link. I have some great stuff from Rothstein and Coulter re women in early US medicine and early black doctors which will certainly go into the mix + some good stuff on early women homeopathic physicians. Not sure you will want that in your 'women in medicine' piece because of its marginality but some were real pioneers worthy of a sentence or so. More on this in due course, thanks again Peter morrell 14:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a sample of the women quote I mentioned: Homeopathy, like other non-regular sects, had many more female practitioners than regular medicine did. In 1900, women constituted 5% of the students in regular medical schools, 9% of the students in Eclectic schools, and 17% of the students in Homeopathic schools. (cite: George M Kober, The Progress and Tendency of Hygiene and Sanitary Science in the Nineteenth Century, Medical Record 59, 1901, p.906) In the same year, 12% of all homeopathic physicians were women. (cite: George B Peck, Homeopathy in the USA, Hahnemannian Monthly 35, 1900, p.560)[W G Rothstein, American Physicians in the Nineteenth Century, from Sects to Science, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Univ Press, 1972, pp.300-301]

Opposition to the admission of women into medicine was part and parcel of allopathic conservatism, along with opposition to the Negro physician and to homeopathy...the American Institute of Homeopathy devoted its 1869 meeting to the role of woman in medicine; at this time it resolved to admit female physicians to membership (cite: Trans. Amer Inst Homeo XXii, 1869, p.349)."[Harris L Coulter, Divided Legacy, Vol. 3, Science and Ethics in American Medicine 1800-1914, p.296] Question is do you want this type of stuff in 'your' article?

It's not my article! ... Of course, the history of professionalization (including exclusion of so-called alternative medicine) is part and parcel of the history of minorities and women in medicine. I'm not sure how much of that should go into the "women in medicine" article. I skirted it a bit in the draft by alluding & referencing the professionalization lit including English/Ehrenreich (more midwifery than alt. med.). The other problem, of course, that I haven't really handled in the Women in medicine article is that it is, currently, primarily focused on physicians. Nursing is another example that is ripe for writing, but you know, there's not even a History of nursing or Professionalization of nursing article. So there's a lot of missing stuff right now. ... What else is in WP right now about relationship between professionalization of medicine and alternative medicine? I guess, I feel if we're thinking about broadening topics we should take the big view; I wouldn't mind helping to sketch out different articles & where topics/discussions should fit in them. (Is there a history of medicine project that this would work under? Or history of science?) ... If you're thinking about just the Women in medicine article, I guess I would put the material in with the professionalization right now, but less than you currently have, because the article is mostly focused on physicians. (And I would edit some of what you have for POV issues.) Once we have the question resolved about what to do with non-physician-medicine in Women in medicine then we could move on. (I note, btw, that the History of medicine article currently has nothing about exclusion of women and people of color, a problem that should be remedied.) --Lquilter 15:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks; of course I know it's not YOUR article but you have done much on it that was all. Well, thanks for valuable feedback I will work on it as time permits...it's a wide field that's for sure. Will let you know new sandbox stuff when it is ready, regards Peter morrell 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for update re drafts! gulp! Gosh! your plans are very advanced and prolific! am v. impressed. thanks will be happy to help where I can. cheers Peter morrell 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comment re women in the US judiciary...I think my 'article in the making' (in the sandbox, if you will!) is broader and should be merged with this one. I dont think a solely UK article is desirable. Maybe a new article 'Women Lawyers' can be made to replace the one you mentioned? just a thought. However, I am in any case way too busy right now to do this. Let me know what you think. cheers Peter morrell 11:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Donation in a good cause?

Maria and I were wondering if you would be willing to donate $5 or $10 towards a Cervantes pot. We recently discovered that the Spanish wikipedia has FAs on a number of British and American writers and texts, but we have none on any Spanish-language writers or texts. So, we thought maybe a push at the reward board would do the trick. See our discussion here. Awadewit | talk 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Good idea. Let me think about it -- I wholeheartedly support the goal but I'm still on the fence about the method. I had postponed thinking about the bounty/reward thing but will look into it and try to make up my mind. If I don't feel too fraught about paying for WP, then I'll definitely contribute. How? Paypal? --Lquilter 20:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminists everywhere

Elizabeth Cady Stanton is up for FAC. I thought you might be interested in commenting. Awadewit | talk 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Abortion and early feminists

Looks like they're at it again. I removed a sentence about Elizabeth Cady Stanton saying abortion was "infanticide" due to the obvious undue weight implications. On the talk page, I quoted you for the explanation. Hope that's OK. Kaldari 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Like bad pennies! How nice to be quoted with such respect. <g> BTW I'm a she not a he. --Lquilter 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Worker's NGOs

Re: eliminating redundancies in Category:Organizations
I have no problems with that. I was doing things in a hurry as I tried to plow through 400 articles. There is a lot of redundancy between Organizations, NGOs and non-profits. No one has developed a clear definiton to seperate them and I'm not sure they should be seperate. Feel free to rework anything I've done there. I was just trying to create some order in the chaos there. Eventually I focused more into dividing them by major category types and by country of origin/work (combing them for one country group).----Adimovk5 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename for subcategories of Category:Women by occupation

As you participated in the discussion on Female writers (10th century), I thought you may be interested in the proposal I have made in which that category is subsumed.--Matthew Proctor 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

NGO's

G'day Lquilter, I was just looking at the categorys discussion Log/2007 December 4. I'm assuming NGO's stands for Non Government Organization? If that's the case and I'm pretty sure it is then there would be seperate categorys for the government bodies right? Sting_au Talk 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep -- NGOs means "non-government organizations" Unfortunately, a lot of non-government organizations are listed under "charities", "non-profit organizations" or simply "organizations". "NGOs" is a term that came from the UN so certain kinds of international groups that tended to work with the UN use it; all sorts of other "NGOs" use whatever their own country's term for "nonprofit" is -- charity, nonprofit, lobbying organization, etc. It's a mess! I'm trying to create a general "organizations" tree that has subtrees for (a) forprofits (e.g., companies), (b) nonprofits (however described), and (c) government agencies. So on this CFD I'm just trying to combine a couple of the NGO/nonprofit categories & get better ideas for names; but if you have thoughts about the overall structure, those would be most welcome, too. --Lquilter (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick answer on Cat Emergency organisations

I am fine with your merge suggestion. A possible rename would be Relief organisations, but that limits the scope as it does not include domestic or governmental organisations. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 08:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rxnd - Would you mind responding at the CFD, to help keep that discussion centralized? link --Lquilter (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AA, etc, Cat Cleanup

Thanks. It was pretty messy and random before. PhGustaf (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was! Hopefully it'll be a lot easier for people to find those articles now. --Lquilter (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

re: organization cats

I'm not real bright when it comes to categories/sub-categories. Can you tell me which ones specifically you object too? Here are the changes I made:

  • I added the non-profit organization category to the al-anon article, as it is a non-profit and the you left that category in similar articles, so I figured it would be okay [4].
  • I added added the cannabis category to the marijuana anonymous article as it seemed to fit with the pattern in the cocaine anonymous article (that is the cocaine category) and the narcotics anonymous article (that is in the opioids category) [5].
  • GROW, Recovery, Inc., and Emotions Anonymous are fairly similar (and not addiction recovery groups) so where I thought where it applied I used some categories that you left some of them in the others:[6], [7], [8].

You must know a lot more about all of this than I do, so I'll trust your judgment if you think any of the changes are way off base. Just let me know where I went wrong.

... and thank you for all the work you put in to getting the articles correctly categorized. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Ohh, and somewhat related, maybe you can help me find better categories for some of these other article? For instance Debtors Anonymous, Clutterers Anonymous, Self-help groups for mental health are defiantly not addiction or substance abuse organizations (I just removed the category from them). Some of the other ones that you put in the same category are more borderline cases but probably don't belong in it (e.g. Co-Dependents Anonymous) -- as much as some people might like to call co-dependency a "process addiction," they're kind of reaching there. That's probably beside the point. I only slept but four hours in the last two days, so my apologies for being incoherent.

Overeaters Anonymous is also a little controversial in an addiction and substance abuse category. Some people compare compulsive overeating to drug/substance abuse, but other's don't see it as being quiet analogous.

The auxiliary groups for friends and family of people in other recovery groups may also be a little out of place in that category.

Anyway, I'd appreciate you thoughts on the topic, and thanks again. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

woman author

Hi Lquilter, thanks for your message. Ethel M. Dell. Her works recently popped up on the new list at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu. The Top of the World and They Way of an Eagle are the only two I looked into. Do you know some scholars that might have written about her? WikiJedits (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A word of advice please

I've been asked to attempt to broker peace at post-abortion syndrome and steer a new NPOV path. I know nothing whatsoever about this, being broadly indifferent to the abortion debate. I have though noticed in people I know that mild short-term depression/anxiety/guilt seems a frequent consequence of abortion. (Why not? Depression/anxiety is a common consequence of heart attacks. Us humans are emotionally fragile things.) So, do you believe such an outcome is possible? Or are positions too entrenched? --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychologists

Please see [[9]]. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Redirect of Talk:Angela Harris

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Angela Harris, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Angela Harris is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Angela Harris, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In re: Benjamin N. Cardozo

I apologize if my comments on the talk page of this article seemed a bit harsh, but I have gotten so accustomed to POV-pushing and personal attacks here that it is difficult for me to assume good faith when I see a controversial edit (that and the fact that I haven't slept in a couple of days). My problem is that making speculations about the personal lives of historical figures is something which is easy to do but difficult to substantiate. Imagine, if you will, that someone made a Wikipedia entry for you, and then under "personal life" wrote something like "It is impossible to know if Laura Quilter was an alcoholic/car thief/Wikipedia vandal/etc. There is no evidence for it, but if there were evidence against it, she certainly would have hidden it." I am sure that both you and your relatives/descendants would be pretty upset about that, right? I know I would be.

Including such speculations about a person's sexual orientation, while obviously not as damning as accusing them of theft or alcoholism, is just as damaging, and just as baseless. I do not feel that this is the proper place for such speculation. If you read this and you still think I am some sort of bigoted monster for pointing this out, go ahead and think that, if it makes you feel better. All I am asking you to do is see this issue from another perspective. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) I never said, and never assumed, that you are homophobic. So please put your mind at ease regarding that. (2) Regarding the article, if your whole comment was directed at that one last piece of the "personal life" section that you removed (diff) then we have no disagreement. --Lquilter (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I saw your recent addition to the talk page, and I think we have come to a good "compromise solution". I apologize if my earlier criticism sounded too harsh, but I follow a policy of strict NPOV enforcement, and I tend to get a bit upset at anything I see in an article that looks even remotely POV. Additionally, I think that putting too much emphasis on Cardozo's personal life (such as it was) in the article would draw focus away from his professional accomplishments, which is what everyone (at least in the legal profession) remembers him for. The stuff that's in the article now is fine; it is properly sourced and I don't think it creates too much bias one way or the other. It's the purely speculative material that I chose to excise from the article, because unlike in the case of J. Edgar Hoover, there is a distinct lack of either direct or circumstantial evidence for such an assertion. Again, I still feel such speculation would be better suited for a blog or a personal webpage rather than an encyclopedia. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Glad to see I didn't manage to piss everyone off. It was really just a riff on this since I am not smart enough to be particularly original and have actually become derivative of myself. Eusebeus (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lquilter/Archive_008&oldid=1147870332"