User talk:Phyesalis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reproductive rights

Thanks for your note. I'll see what I can do in terms of looking over the discussion and evaluating the source material, etc. I think I'm pretty good at sorting these sorts of things out but we'll see. I usually read the talk page thoroughly to get a feeling for the dispute before wading into the discussion and I haven't done that yet. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't get around to doing anything tonight but I appreciate the information that this might be an extension of other conflicts. I'll have to deal with the article in front of me though, and not get into any other issues. My initial impression is that the article may need some refocusing of the topic and a clearer sense of the coverage of article (what to include or exclude) and perhaps a little restructuring. The sources mostly seem good altho the ones in the Men section seem weaker at first glance. This is just a first pass impression so don't hold me to it. I'll probably comment later today (Weds) on the talk page of the article with whatever meager opinions I can offer. Cheers, Pigman☿ 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: disengagement. Not a problem. Sometimes it is the best course of action to gain perspective, particularly in heated discussions like this one. I'll be keeping an eye on the article but don't hesitate to ask me to take a closer look if I miss something. Blackworm has a point as well as an obvious POV in relation to this article. However I believe his time would be better spent conceptualizing a structured counterpoint section with relevant and valid sources/cites than haggling over wording in the first few sentences. Such a section would make it much easier to incorporate the view into the lede of the article. Um, sorry to think aloud to you; that's unlikely to help you disengage and I do think a period of disengagement is a good idea for you. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian fetish

Thanks for offering your help despite your edit war at reproductive rights. Based on your civility you demonstrated to other editors, I'm sure it will go the right direction in the end. After Asian fetish was protected, User:Crotalus horridus suggested editing the article at a sandbox as a temporary solution. I deleted fringe solutions and thus some of the sections have been left blank. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the article at my sandbox. It has additional sources from the Rolling Stones and GLAAD which I think are reliable. миражinred 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, feel free to copy edit. миражinred 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your feedback. The sandbox was supposed to be a temporary solution for protection so feel free to edit or invite other users to improve the article. миражinred 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vague categorisation

Just wanted to say that categorisation such as this is so vague as to be useless, and it clogs the master categories. People wanting to know about topics pertaining to geography won't want to know about some village in where ever that is. I changed it to the more specific Category:Geography of Maharashtra. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

disengage

Phyesalis I'm going to recommend you disengage from Blackworm. I'm advising you to follow dispute resolution. Step three - disengage. Pigman is a sysop and is aware of the situation. Wait for further engagement from him or others. Do not let this dispute (or the other two) spill-out and cause real stress - that will hamper your judgment. Disengage and come back to it tomorrow or the day after. The issue may not have been resolved but it might be better to take some time out and relax and come back to it with a fresh mind and renewed AGF. I've seen and mediated disputes before, temporary disengagement is a starting point for their resolution--Cailil ^talk 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Phyesalis, I hope you don't mind a suggestion from me, just to make sure you're aware of this option. You said, "I'm not answering directly because this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion. If you have an issue, I have invited you to discuss it on my talk page. Do I understand you correctly? You have refused my invitation and feel that the article talk page is a more appropriate place for this discussion?" An option you have, when asked a question you think is more appropriate on a user talk page, is to reply on your talk page, and put a brief note on the article talk page like "I've replied on my talk page." Whether the other person reads the reply is up to them.

(However, one could perhaps argue that discussion of whether canvassing has occurred or not is relevant on the article talk page.) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning you in an Admins noticeboard post

There's no need for you to participate if you do not want to but since I mentioned your name in a post about User:Blackworm here, it's a courtesy to notify you. You're only mentioned in passing so a response isn't really necessary but I thought you should know. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A response on my talk page

I'm erratic about where I leave responses but I've responded to your post on my talk page here. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also left a message for you on my talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation?

Please clarify: Are you still interested in participating in a mediation process with me and Blackworm? Re this edit -- it leaves the situation unclear. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't completely thought through all the possibilities, but if you're shunning Blackworm, it would be difficult for the three of us to work together on a description of the dispute, so you may have to fill out the mediation request by yourself; and then I expect the mediation request will probably be rejected because of the shunning.

If you and Blackworm agree, it may be a good idea to request page protection at Female genital cutting and possibly also at Reproductive rights. I would expect that measure to address the concern that Blackworm raised. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just picking-up on this Phyesalis. I'm not going to tell anyone what to do but if you want to try meditation WP:SHUN wont help. Everyone needs to be active in dialogue to resolve this dispute, otherwise it will just keep going indefinitely--Cailil ^talk 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry for the faux pas. Please see my comments here. I have stricken the comment and apologized. Please forgive the confusion. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See my message at User talk:Blackworm. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: There are still unanswered questions at User talk:Coppertwig#A tardy thank you, subsection "Arbitrary section break". --Coppertwig (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

An example of prose attribution

As an example, see this edit by Jakew. Jakew is careful and precise with words, as usual, and includes a prose attribution. If he had left out the prose attribution, I would have challenged the edit. Note that the wording in the article is also very similar to the wording in the source -- in this case, much of it being an exact quote, and the word "concluded" representing the word "conclusion" in the source. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tea

Why, thank you. I'll have ginger-root tea with a little honey this time, if I may. What would you like?

By the way, I'm afraid some of the things I said at WP:AN were somewhat arrogant and tactless, and I've posted a clarification there. Also, since I was focussing on discussing Blackworm's behaviour, since that was what the thread was about, I didn't pay as much attention as I might have to what impression I was giving about your behaviour, and I'm sorry for any negative impressions I might have generated. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your tea is served. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence

You know, regarding a certain incorrigibily tendentious editor, it's quite interesting that the heart of her position appears to be: "If something once appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, then it can never be 'purged' from Wikipedia, undue weight and relevance be damned." This obsession is a bit ridiculous from a scientific point of view - all sorts of outdated, erroneous, or speculative notions have been published in various peer-reviewed forums, and the peer-reviewed literature is not intended to be cherry-picked or fetishized, but analyzed as a whole.

But I got to thinking. There is an proposed amendment currently gathering signatures in Missouri which would require doctors performing abortions to document that continuing the pregnancy would be more harmful than the combination of every psychological, emotional, demographic or situational risk that has been linked to abortion in any study ever published in a peer-reviewed journal (see [1]). So the amendment would formalize the idea that once something is published in a peer-reviewed journal it acquires political and legal significance, regardless of contradicting data. The amendment is sponsored by David Reardon and the Elliott Institute. The congruence between the Institute's political tactics and a certain editor's on-wiki approach (and target articles of interest) certainly raises eyebrows. Of course, a tendentious policy violator is a tendentious policy violator, regardless of real-life conflicts of interest, but I do enjoy a good "coincidence". MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of answers

Some answers to your questions: I also don't know why Human rights failed as an FA specifically, but it certainly wasn't up to being one a couple of months ago. I think a peer review would be a good idea (but don't know how to ask for one). I think there should be much better articles on the different rights, and the history section should definitely become its own article.

I've not edited anything anonymously, and I'm afraid I don't use edit summaries because I'm lazy, and not for any other reason. I do use them when I think I need to explain what I've done, or why I've done it, but not when I think it's obvious just by comparing the versions - maybe that's not how it's meant to be done? Anyway, thanks for saying I'm a good editor!Tkn20 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy mistake

It's ok to make bold edits. But if you get reverted, in good faith, it is never appropriate to re-make the same controversial edit without discussion and consensus first. I am referring specifically to you "undoing" my revert of your previous edit to the lead of abortion. As you probably know, there is a whole subpage based entirely on the discussing the first paragraph, with multiple archives of past discussions. The result of all that hard work was the current first paragraph. When you come along and make a bold edit that gets reverted, and then you try to edit war in an attempt to force you way in the article, you are spitting in the face of all the hard work all those editors put into that paragraph. Please, I ask you, stop trying to edit war. You need to discuss your proposed changes first, and see if there is a new consensus. It is hard for me personally to work in good faith towards consensus on the talk page with an editor who is editing in a disruptive manner on a live article. Specifically dealing with this issue, there was a list gathered of definitions of "abortions" (see this and the analysis). It was clear that the majority of definitions (especially medical definitions) defined "abortion" as something that occurred before viability (or before ~20 weeks, or before the fetus was 500g or something along those lines). Editors who worked on the lead felt it was important to at least make note of this fact in the lead. Your edits remove this "medical" point of view, which was established as notable by the prevalence of it in multiple dictionaries. I ask you to please revert yourself to the last stable version of the lead, and continue this discussion at Talk:Abortion. If the issue is simple citing sources, I'm sure we can use one of the 20 odd sources listed in the archives. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) [per agreement based on new and different information]

I think I missed your post at Talk:Abortion the other day because it wasn't at the bottom, or maybe I had vision issues or something. Sorry about that. The webster's citation wasn't part of the original lead paragraph, and was added quite a bit later (and I'm not sure who added it or why). Is your issue simply that the sentence isn't sourced, and if I came up with a source you'd be ok with it, or is there a bigger issue involved in that sentence?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately your, um, hyperbolic mischaracterization of our interaction does create a second issue. How did you determine that I was "edit warring"? Notable points include:

1. The lead was short, yet surprisingly repetitive - for the number of words, there was extremely little content, to the point of being an issue at the reassessment.
2. I made the good faith edit to expand the lead three days ago
3. You made the 2nd change without discussion on talk, but did make a good point in your summary (which I incorporated) regarding the difference between medical and medicinal
4. The cited source does not mention viability in its definition. My edit was legitimate because it brought the citation inline with WP policies - your revert reintroduced material that looked an awful lot like academic dishonesty. I'm not saying that you (or the editor who originally introduced the error) were trying to be dishonest, but that the citation was inappropriate for sourcing "viability" info.
5. I asked you to discuss the change on talk after you changed it. Three days later, no response from you. As you are a member of the Abortion project, have managed to keep an eye on changes and respond rather quickly to things you don't like (historically speaking), and had been active on WP each of the following days, I determined that you had no intention of discussing the issue.
6. After no response, I reinstated my change incorporating your edit summary point about "medical" and I asked you to discuss this on the article talk page. Still no discussion on talk.

This was a simple content dispute and had you actually discussed this issue on the article talk page at any point before you decided to leave your ill-conceived post on my talk page, you would have seen one or both of my posts clarifying my edits and specifically asking for your explanation/input. The fact that you didn't, choosing instead to bring it here, label it "edit warring" and characterize my two mainspace edits and my two subsequent talk posts as "forcing my way into the article" and "spitting in the face of editors" seems mendacious and almost deliberately so. Please discuss what part these edits have warranted your histrionics?

Your allegations of edit warring and "disruptive editing" are completely unfounded. After I made the change, discussed it on talk, and asking other editors to look it over, Killerchihuahua checked it out but did not have an issue with the removal of the uncited material. The fact that you are the only editor who has an issue with it and couldn't take the time to discuss your issue hardly seems to suggest that I am trying to "edit war in an attempt to force [my] way in the article". I reverted it (once) three days after you failed to respond. I found your behavior extremely questionable given our past history - notably the last time you erred in accusing me of a violation. Might I suggest that you spend a little more time investigating those actions which you consider to be violations? And then if you do find an actual violation, maybe as an administrator, you might think about WP goals of harmonious collaboration and include a little positive commentary, like "thanks for expanding the lead" or "thank you for discussing the issues on talk" or "good work on finding a citation error"?

I'd appreciate some striking out of text. I'd also appreciate it if you'd change the heading of this section to something more accurate and civil. Sorry if this seems cranky, but your 1st post was extremely inappropriate, and your second post did little to address the error. If this had been the first time, I might have overlooked it, but it wasn't, and it was rather vituperative. I've responded at length in the hope that we can both gain some perspective, clear the air, address the issues and move on. Our paths often cross on a number of articles and I'd hate for this misunderstanding to affect our future interactions. I'll address the relevant content issues on the article talk page. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Andrew c. I was looking at this page as someone who is on an opposing side to Phyesalis in an ongoing content dispute on two other pages, and happened to see your comment.

I find it odd that you ask Phyesalis to "continue" the discussion at Talk:Abortion, because that page has two comments from her, approximately three days apart, dated 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) and 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC), in subsection "Lead definition", with no comment or reply there from you or anyone else. In light of this lack of response, her restoring of her edit seems quite reasonable to me. You seem to be suggesting that she should follow the editing pattern bold, revert, discuss. She did the bold part, you did the revert, but I don't see discussion on the talk page from you.

I don't know whether Phyesalis was aware of the subpage on the first paragraph or not. I see that she has not posted within it. I note that you haven't supplied a link to it in your message. On reading your message, I tried to find that subpage. I almost gave up. I found a whole thread on the "Lead" that doesn't seem to mention or link to a subpage anywhere. I used my browser to search for the word "subpage" and found nothing in the text of Talk:Abortion anywhere about a subpage. (I see now that this search usefully finds the word in a box at the side of the page; I must have ignored that, assuming it was irrelevant, since I was expecting the word "subpage" to appear in talk page comments.) After searching around and almost concluding that the subpage can't be found without reading the entire long talk page, I noticed the templates at the top of the page. There, in the FAQ, with reference to the word "death" there is a link to the first paragraph subpage. However, these templates say nothing about going to that subpage for any purpose other than one having to do with the specific word "death"; and the subpage itself has no explanation at the top as to its purpose.

On looking further through the templates, I saw that the first to-do item listed is "expand the lead". This is what Phyesalis was doing, in a Wikipedian spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia writing.

Phyesalis has been very courteous in this exchange. In her first edit summary, she said, "started to expand lead, could use another pair of eyes", in effect politely inviting the type of revert that you did ... although I assume she expected it would be accompanied by discussion and negotiation. In a later edit summary she politely said "please discuss on ta)" (meaning "on talk", of course). Her talk page comments also look very gentle and polite to me: "...Andrew, I know you just switched it back, but would you mind discussing this?" and "If there is an issue with this, please discuss it here. Thank you." She's clearly indicating a willingness to discuss, negotiate and collaborate. There is still no response on the talk page to these comments.

Andrew c, you said, "it is never appropriate to re-make the same controversial edit without discussion and consensus first." Actually, if the other person doesn't reply for a longish time, it can be quite appropriate to re-make the edit, if one believes one has addressed the concerns the other person raised. Silence doesn't win arguments.

You also said, "you are spitting in the face of all the hard work all those editors put into that paragraph." This tone of this remark is quite different from the polite tone that Phyesalis was using. I suggest that if you want to avoid being accused of making personal attacks or incivility, when you're feeling strong emotion it's a good idea to take a break for 24 hours before replying, which you clearly didn't do in this case; and if you do still want to express emotions, it's better to talk about yourself only, e.g. to say something like "I feel" followed by a single word for an emotion, rather than describing or making metaphors about the other person or their behaviour in a pejorative way. That type of communication would tend to have a much better chance of being well-received by the person you're addressing.

Andrew c, you put the heading "Edit warring" at the top of this section and you also said "stop trying to edit war." Phyesalis had done one revert. One. The same number you had done. Unless possibly you count her first edit as also a revert, which brings it to one to two reverts -- over a period of about 3 days, and accompanied by talk page comments by her which were going unanswered. I find your characterization of her edits to be exaggerated, and it's unfortunate that it appears in the section title and edit summary, since you can't strike out edit summaries. It's best to understate criticism in edit summaries to avoid this problem.

You said "editing in a disruptive manner". I see nothing disruptive about Phyesalis' edits. It says in the templates at the top of the talk page, "expand the lead section". It doesn't say "Propose changes on talk about how to expand the lead section."

I see that you've acknowledged that you hadn't seen Phyesalis' post on the talk page, and you've apologized. That's good. I didn't notice your apology, or forgot I'd read it earlier, when I wrote most of the above. I suggest you also strike words out of your original post above, as Phyesalis asks. The request is a reasonable one, in my opinion, since your original comments have much more prominence on this talk page than does your apology, and since I feel that Phyesalis deserves some of those words to be retracted. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm a jerk. And I can't bother to read all of the above. Try to be more concise in the future. This is your talk page, so you are welcome to completely remove my comment. I also won't be offended if you change the header. Hope this clears everything up. I made a mistake. Let's move on. Great!-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a jerk, everyone makes errors. Thanks! Phyesalis (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew c. Well done. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Phyesalis, re your comments at User talk:Andrew c#???: I don't get the joke, either. (I do occasionally find things on Wikipedia funny, though.) However, let's presume he meant my comments, not yours, when he said he didn't have time to read it. I'm just as glad -- I figured I'd overdone the length of the message, as well as ignoring the apology he'd already posted when I wrote most of it. Yours is a little shorter and as you say, might not have been possible to explain in a shorter message. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Got both your notes. Thanks.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice@yahoo.com - am leaving, will be back later this evening. Can message through yahoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Portals

Hello! I just replied to your comment on my talkpage about the portals. Thought I'd let you know. I also left a message on User_talk:Cailil and User_talk:BrownHairedGirl about the portals. Do you know of anyone else that might be interested in helping out with the feminism portal? If so, Let me know. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism has been created. --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gayass Wikipedians

There has been a lot of discussion about the usercat. I was wondering if we might want to discuss the possibility of switching support to LGBT or Gay or Queer (I'm for Queer myself - but I'd support either of the other two if either is overwhelmingly preferred). Personally, I saw the userbox on User:Photouploaded and thought it was the best thing I'd seen so far on WP - great way to reclaim language, speak of identity and encourage a sense of humor. I had no idea of the uproar the cat had caused. Now that I've had my little rant over at the deletion discussion, and read some of the more constructive criticism, I thought maybe we could discuss and see if we can't provide a statement about the cat or vote to move it to another name. Thoughts? --Phyesalis (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This idea was mine - a lighthearted and restrained category, since I am fond of labeling myself "Faggotyass". I didn't think it would seriously be turned into a category, and I didn't think once it was a category it would stick around. And I never thought people would get this wrought up in it. I think people should be able to label themselves as whatever they would like. I have done so in calling myself a "total lesbo" on my userpage. I don't know why people would care what categories there are for Wikipedians. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot claim that userbox; the original was created by User:Allstarecho and he generously gave permission that I create a "queer" version of the original version for "avowed homosexuals". (Thanks, Allstar!)

That said, I strongly support renaming the category to something inclusive of everyone in the greater LGBTGQI community, rather than simply "gay". I am a fan of "queer", but I understand if some people do not like that label. Frankly, I think that having subcategories for Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, Category:Transmasculine Wikipedians, etc, is entirely appropriate, but a good inclusive category such as Category:LGBT Wikipedians would be a good first step towards equal treatment. Photouploaded (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind what we call ourselves, as long as it's clear to all and sundry that we have sex with people of the same gender. Any statement we make should include (in my mind) the high points of the cat debate, including the fact that the deletion of any LGBT cats while other cats exist that serve no purpose for collaboration is discriminatory and creates a two class system. I've even been thinking that the LGBT editors should call for a work stoppage, but perhaps that's going too far. Jeffpw (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I haven't seen anyone objecting to the name, so I can't see why changing the name would help. I have seen people objecting to the non-collaborativeness of it. It's true that there are other non-collaborative categories still in existence, but that's a reason either to propose their deletion as well or to propose a change to the policy, not a reason why the LGBT cats should stay. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (out and proud, and not needing a category)

Thanks everybody for responding. Thanks, Island, I just posted to those who'd signed up, but (oops - forgot about WT:LGBT) all commentary is welcome (if you know of anyone else who'd like to join the discussion on self-identification, feel free to send them this way). If you check out the discussion, a number of users have made arguments regarding WP:Point about the inclusion of "ass". IMO, I think "ass" is hysterical, but I'd be happy to move toward something less fun if it gets us a usercat. TWI brings up an interesting point, but I have a question - where is the policy?

I looked up the previous CfD and was surprised to find it fairly 50/50 - no consensus - yet deleted anyway. So then I looked up User:Categories only to find the "policy" inactive/no consensus. So my question is - can anyone point me to an active policy that addresses these issues? Because it seems like this debate is all sound and fury.

I suggest a poll:

• Queer

# Phyesalis(12/22/08 - and I'd be happy to change to LGBTQQI/variation if consensus goes that way) per Moni3

• LGBTQQI or some variation

I'd like something of this sort, possibly with subcats for b, g, l, t, etc., as appropriate. Aleta (Sing) 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Gayass Wikipedians

1. Phyesalis

• Gay and/or Lesbian

-Phyesalis (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, in facing if I should choose "Queer" over that long list of initials, I don't seem to like either, so I wouldn't choose either. I would consider "gay", and of course, "lesbian", but I tend to lean old-school. I'm queer (queerbait, too!) in an outcast way, not Queer in the not-gay-or-lesbian-but-something-like-it sense. See, I thought "Gayass" was fairly chuckilicious, but now it describes me better than I thought... --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your point of view. I agree. I think the sense of humor is integral to the self-id cat. To all, please feel free to add other cat suggestions. I can't go for lesbian 'cause I'm queer/bi and I'd like to go for a category that united those who unabashedly sleep with people who aren't their opposite gender. I'd happily support sub-categories, though. --Phyesalis (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

indeed. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So I actually would prefer GlBts, but that was already deleted.... Kairos (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for Queer as well. Queer to me seems to be a more-inclusive category. I would note some of the arguments in the last CfD weren't very compelling, I think we can come up with better ones. The closer will based a close not on vote-count, but rather on the clarity of the argument. I would suggest we cite other box categories that are more similar. Look at the index starting with Category:Wikipedians Wjhonson (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also vote for Queer, but note that a Queer Wikipedians category would likely be criticised as being social, and that collaboration would be better with a Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues category. As such, I wonder what would happen if we moved Category:Christian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians Interested in Christianity? Jay*Jay (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. Examples of other similar categories include religious orientation and WPians interested in a religion or religions, WPians by profession, trout slapping (humorous), and WPians by nationality and location, as well as WPians interested in a region. The question is how are these supported as collaborative categories and how can these arguments be applied to Queer/LGBT/Gayass categories? Personally, I think there are good arguments for how self-identifying functions as a collaborative mechanism. A little short on time right now, will add more later. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that Avruch has created a category:LGBT Wikipedians and included an explanatory note. I have echoed DuncanHill's appreciation for this action on Avruch's talk page. You might want to have a look, and / or make a comment. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that this is basically over (this go-around at least), I'll note that queerass should not be confused with cuirass. :-P Aleta (Sing) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! And thanks for the heads up, Jay*Jay. I left a note. Well, thanks to Avruch, everybody who weighed in, and the community at large for creating and sustaining equity. Yay! -Phyesalis (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis‎

I've created a request for mediation. Please list if you agree or disagree to participate on the article. If you want to discuss/expand anything related to it, please put it on the talk page. Thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey. The request has already been submitted, so you can edit/comment on it already. My bad, instead of article I should have said on the page. My bad. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lil Lovell

Wow! You did a splendid job on improving article.

		The Original Barnstar
		For greatly improving and expanding the article on Lil Lovell, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Good job! --Sharkface217 02:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the awesome work, dude. --Sharkface217 02:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my tardy gratitude. Thank you. -Phyesalis (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry. I hadn't read your answer carefully before I responded. I've posted an apology and a further response at User talk:Phyesalis/Mediation request. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Albertis Castle

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For making some awesome edits, and substantially expanding Albertis Castle, I - Milk's Favorite Cookie hereby award you the "Original Barnstar" - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For making some awesome edits, and substantially expanding Albertis Castle, I - Milk's Favorite Cookie hereby award you the "Original Barnstar" - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow - two! Thank you, thank you! -Phyesalis (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3