User talk:Cailil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Cailil's talk page To leave me a new message, please click here.

Crystal Clear action gohome.png
User page

Crystal Clear app sipphone.png
Talk page
Crystal Clear app access.png
Crystal Clear action info.png
Crystal Clear app lassist.png
Crystal Clear app filetypes.png
Talk archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Will you comment here?[edit]

Since you seemed to be open minded to me editing again, will you say something positive here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Louise Goueffic Louise Goueffic (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Advice needed[edit]

I want to say if different Human beings use same computer in Cyber Cafe then can the first user be accused of Sock Puppetry.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Cailil, it is time to review the topic ban. -- HighKing++ 17:02, 5 August 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)

Personal labels[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Cailil, If I understood correctly, you called me a "men's rights editor" at ANI. Please read WP:WIAPA: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

If you want to know about me, I haven't been a member of any "MRM" community nor considered myself one. Personally, I'm not a feminist and I don't agree with all of their views, if that's what you wanted to know.

I've never called any other editor "feminist", "conservative", "communist" or whatever, and I suggest you leave such labels off as well. Thanks. --Pudeo' 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Pudeo you did misunderstand me but that was my fault. I left out an S it should read "what has become a repeat pattern of Men's rights advocate editors". There have been a number of attempts by editors from that POV to have Bbb23 removed from the area all were completely unfounded (for example[1]) - that's a matter of record not opinion. But FYI calling a "manual geomorphological modification implement" a spade is not a personal attack it's just a fact. Calling editors like Memills, CS Darrow et al MRA editors is not an insult neither is it ad hominem. Adding a negative term to it like troll or POV pusher etc - words I didn't use btw - would be ad hominem however--Cailil talk 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore I might add that given the fact that you have been defending Memills and advocating for Bbb23's removal from the men's rights area since 2012[2] associating you with editors like Memills, CSDarrow and Arkon would be an innocent mistake--Cailil talk 19:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. Yes, I've known Memills' sanctions since that, and I've certainly thought it's problematic there are only so few active admins enforcing the probation - in that case KillerChihuahua (you might remember when I was blocked in error and I appealed the block twice and it was overturned and discussed at ANI). I'd still like to be associated only as Pudeo, an independent editor, but if you want to draw some kind of battlelines for some reason, you of course are free to do so. But I recommend reading Kyohyi's comment on such identifiers: [3]. BTW I'm neither an advocate for Memills. I think his behauvior has been stubborn, although I agree with him that the article probation is flawed. --Pudeo' 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, you have no business attaching a label to me as an editor, especially when there is no evidence that I am an MRA. All my edits on gender related pages have been in regards to the Five Pillars. Never once have I expressed support for MRM causes. Much as you personally interpret such a label as a matter of fact and not a pejorative, others may not and may be unduly influenced. The honorable thing to do is for you to withdraw your statement and apologise. CSDarrow (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR Inquiry[edit]

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[4] its edit summary is a direct reflection of the first revert on November 2nd[5]. 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.

Your consideration is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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 [6], [7].Dubs boy (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)