|Cailil is currently extremely busy in real life due to work related commitments & pressures. He may be intermittently inactive or away from wikipedia on occassion. If there is an emergency in an area Cailil has been involved in do leave a message here but if you get no reply for more than 24 hours please contact another sysop.|
Will you comment here?
Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The Patriarchal Code
Cailil, I deleted refs that were "selfcite". I wasn't understanding secondary sources. Now I have to change 'argument' and present material in factual form.
Cailil, I was doing some things wrong. I deleted the refs called 'selfcite'. I had a hard time understanding what secondary sources were. (still do)
Now, I'm accused of making an argument, which I tried to change a while ago, by presenting the material in a more factual form.
But I still need help in the form of criticism. It appears this is the only way I'm learning _Called the hard way, I guess.
- Hi Louise. I think you may have fallen into one of the steeper learning curves of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You've done some research in this area and published on it. On Wikipedia it's considered a bad idea to write about your own work here. We call that original research. I understand how counter intuitive that is but what wikipedia does is summarize the most notable research in a field rather than publishing new knowledge or ideas--Cailil talk 15:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi HK I'm afraid I have almost zero WP time right now so I'm going to recommend you take this to one of the admin boards, AN or ANi--Cailil talk 23:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also please direct any one who has time to conduct this review to the last one (here)--Cailil talk 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Cailil, it's not clear to me that my edits constituted a 1RR violation -- though I do leave open the possibility that I'm not interpreting the policy correctly. You write:
On first sight this didn't look like a 1RR violation until you look at this diff from October 17th its edit summary is a direct reflection of the first revert on November 2nd. So there is a violation of 1RR and obviously a slow edit-war.
Not sure how my first edit on Nov. 2 is a "direct reflection" of the edit from Oct. 17. I removed an an entire sentence and all corresponding refs on Oct. 17. On Nov. 2, I removed one of three references and no text in the body of the article. WP:REVERT states, "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion." I don't see how my first edit on Nov. 2 was restoring the article to any sort of previous version. This was an entirely new version. And if I was aware that I had violated 1RR, I would not have made the edit in the first place or would have self-reverted if I had made the edit. Nableezy did not give me the opportunity to do so and instead went straight to AE, and blew up a situation that could have been easily resolved without taking to AE.
- Please see my edit notice I only deal with WP:AE issues at AE. I wont spread discussion out in multiple fora. Also I think I've been quite clear on this at AE and really don't have anything further to add--Cailil talk 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cailil, Can you raise an SPI against me? Just Murry1975 is insinuating that I am rogue Factocop. Obviously no evidence and there is nothing like a good old piss party. I'm just wondering if getting banned for personal attacks is something that only applies to me or can other users be banned for this aswell? I'm sure you will do the necessary after reviewing these edit summaries , .Dubs boy (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)