User talk:Cherylbarksdale

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

Welcome!

Hello, Cherylbarksdale, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!


Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hallows AG (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation[edit]

Looks good! Thanks for creating the article. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation[edit]

I have formally nominated this article for deletion. You can see my reasons for this nomination here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Campaign_Against_Female_Genital_Mutilation. Lastly, if you are IP 64.118.217.166 please only comment on the deletion nomination from either your IP address or from your user name by logging in. To comment from both could be considered sockpuppetry, see: WP:PUPPET. I assume you are 64.118.217.166 because this user account has only edited the same pages that 64.118.217.166 has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.118.217.166. I have posted a similar message on that user's talk page. Thank you. Vietminh (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say someone is the same person because they edited the same pages is absolutely ridiculous. Are you aware that some people are only interested in a particular subject and thus will edit the same pages? Ndbriggs (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "absolutely ridiculous" at all, the IP address I listed here has only edited the exact same pages as this user, and began editing at the exact same time. Furthermore, the IP address has joined into discussion or began editing immediately after this User has tried to submit content which was deemed inappropriate, and further to that the User crafts their arguments and writes very similar to the IP address listed above. Coincidence? Maybe. A new user who accidentally forgot to login before continuing editing? Maybe. I have no way of knowing at all, but if the latter was true I wanted to inform this user that it is against Wikipedia guidelines to vote from two different accounts, information which is very valuable to them. Vietminh (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new user does not have to login to edit. Their IP is their signature. Your argument above is baseless. There was nothing "inappropriate" about what was submitted. It is my personal opinion that you are biased against me and I will refer you for investigation. If you truly are trying to help on wiki, there are so many useless information on wiki that should be targeted instead of notable topics like the one i submitted. Would you like me to send you some since you seem to have so much time on your hands. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a breather[edit]

I just read your post on the Sockpuppet investigation page, let's relax about this for a second. Firstly, I am not attacking you on this, but what you have done is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I understand that it is in good faith and that you may be new to editing Wikipedia, so this is not a big deal. It's just hard on my end to tell good faith from bad faith when I'm getting confusing signals. Now, the issue here is you have recruited people to comment in your favour, and as I say on the investigation page this is against policy. Secondly, I'm not attacking you on this, I just had to figure out what is going on. I do have a bias, we all have biases and interests, that's how this whole encylopedia works. But before you begin to think I am something that I'm not, you should know that I am the user who got the Female Genital Mutilation page named as such, before I came along it was called Female Genital Cutting. I also worked very hard with other users to bring the content of that page more in line with the consensus in the medical and NGO community. If I have a bias, it's a bias that is in line with your bias.

As for the page you created, the problem with this is that the organization cagem is simply not notable enough to merit it's own page, the only sources that say it exists is the cagem website itself. Clearly and obviously there is a worldwide campaign to get rid of FGM, anyone familiar with the subject knows this. But the premise of the article misleads people into thinking something exists which does not. Your colleague who commented on the AfD is right, I haven't been to Africa. But the way Wikipedia works is that we need a reliable, english language source that says something exists or something is going on. Otherwise it's just hearsay and opinion. The sources you provided clearly show there are multiple global campaigns ongoing, but they do not show any connection between any of them.
So the way forward on this is pretty straightforward. For the Sockpuppet investigation: If you could acknowledge on the investigation page that you understand how what you did violated Wikipedia guidelines I will close the investigation which is clearly unnecessary. For the article you created: After the sockpuppet investigation is closed, I will re-list the article for deletion and the community can decide whether it should be deleted or kept. Once this is done you would be free to comment again with your support for keeping the article, but your colleagues would not (without this becoming a case of meatpuppetry again). The editors who frequent the AfD boards make assessments on what should and shouldn't be kept all the time, they have a good eye for it and since they have no interest in the article you can trust them to make an unbiased, dispassionate assessment.

I hope this brings everything to a positive and acceptable conclusion for you, please reply on my talk page so I know what's up :). Vietminh (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Case Outcome[edit]

The sockpuppet investigation has been resolved per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cherylbarksdale#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments. Please read up on WP:MEAT (specifically "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, and seek comments from other Wikipedians or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.") as well as WP:EQ. Thank you and happy editing. Vietminh (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, I want to tell you that I told the experts in my community to look for sources from their resources to improve the article not comment on the AFD page. if they did that it was of their own free will. They had the option of either defending or disputing the article. However, i'm a physician and this is really a low priority for me so i'm not going to hunt down everyone who heard the announcement of the article to tell them to not comment especially if they did so on their own free will and not under my influence. In fact there are ip's that commented there that I don't think have anything to do with me. A student researching the subject who has never edited wiki will see the tag at the top and the call for contribution to the debate and will no doubt contribute especially if it was helpful to them. But i see you are tagging all of them as meatpuppets even when it is clear that at least one of them have edited several other wiki pages. You seem to be really invested in this and your desire to delete that article without giving it a chance, unfortunately makes me feel you have some kind of ulterior motive, i'm just not sure what it is. Here is my reasoning for that: inappropriate articles usually get deleted by "speedy deletion" in fact most of them do not even make it to being published. However, poorly sourced articles if new are given time to develop, and by time I mean way more than a week. You don't want to give it time, you nominated it for DELETION as soon as it was published. To declare that something does not exist takes a lot more work than you obviously have put in. No offense but honestly as a physician, researcher, and a member of doctors without borders, I have to tell you that you really don't know the true meaning of "verifiable". BTW if i don't respond to you its because I'm crazy busy and today is my weekend off:) Honestly, you've really put me off wiki because it makes me feel there are people like you that want to monopolize content by any means necessary. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond to what you said last, first, because it's the most important thing. Also sorry about the length of this response, there is a lot to outline but I trust you'll find it worth reading :). I can understand why you feel the way you feel, I had the exact same experience that you have had when I first started editing. If you recall that link you posted about where I was accused of being a sockpuppet, that was some jackass trying to tell me that my opinion wasn't valuable and that I had no experience and therefore couldn't speak. What's worse, that User was actually trying to intimidate me out of editing by threatening me with a baseless sockpuppet investigation. The other thing is when you start editing you get this myriad of legalese thrown at you that takes a while to wrap your head around. There are two people who edit Wikipedia, people like you and I who have lives and just wanna occasionally contribute, and then there's e-peeps who dedicate their existence to this crap that doesn't really matter. Hence: the clash. Either way, my point is I understand how you feel. I would like to see someone who actually has experience with FGM editing these pages, it's sorely needed. If you wanna do this and you want help with the rules side of stuff just give me a shout and I'd be happy to offer my opinion or whatever you want. But I really hope you edit, because this content has been too long dominated by people who know very little on this subject.

That said, I don't appreciate your tone of implying that this is me having too much time on my hands or that it's a personal attack on you. I'm an academic and small business owner and I edit Wikipedia, occasionally, in my spare time. I suppose I could have been nicer in my tone to you, but think about it from my perspective. You continually tried to add what was deemed self promoting material to the FGM page despite several requests not to, and then seemingly started recruiting people to assist you. It is, as I say, a misunderstanding clearly, but I think if you put yourself in my shoes my actions might make more sense.
In response to your first comment, I've read what you said on the SPI page and this quote from one of the anonymous IP addresses "No, I am not cherylbarksdale but your deletions of important information on this page were brought to my attention which is why I decided to get involved". It appears that this was not done of their own free will and qualifies as meatpuppetry and the admin which closed the SPI agreed with me on that. Secondly and importantly, I tagged the IP addresses per the admin's suggestion that I do so (see the SPI page). If you read the WP:MEATSIGNS page, the behaviour of the IP addresses is a-typical for meatpuppets, so I think you can understand why I took the actions I did. Also importantly, I recognize what you did was in good faith, and I made that clear at every instance, overall this is clearly a giant misunderstanding.
On the article itself: My only motive is ensuring that good quality content is on Wikipedia and that the guidelines are followed. Just because the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (which is usually used for hoaxes or obvious things) does not mean that it somehow escapes deletion at all. Many articles get created then deleted, and it's easier to create then to delete (opposite real life haha). It's not that I am not giving your article a chance, the AfD is the chance, it's a chance to get input on whether it should stay to be improved or be deleted. However, I believe that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, there is no evidence "CAGEM" exists beyond the website itself, and listing a bunch of different organizations that are trying to get rid of FGM does not provide evidence of a "global campaign", anymore than listing a bunch of sources constitutes a paper. I know you're probably wondering why I didn't then try to improve the article, my answer is because again, I can't find the evidence of the global campaign, as I say, clearly there are campaigns, but there's no evidence that they're connected in the way the article suggests. So if we take away the global campaign and the connectedness then all that's left is an article without a premise. The other thing that kind of played against you is that the article was geared toward CAGEM in particular, if you had merely created a "list of different campaigns against FGM" and talked about them individually it probably wouldn't have got deleted. If you wanna do this, go for it, because that is definitely notable. The other option is editing the main FGM page or the pages on the individual organization's themselves.
Also, as an academic I can assure you I know what verifiability it is, and I can also assure you that I think Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is at an unacceptably low standard, which is why Wikipedia is shunned in academic circles. You have to remember that most people who edit only have access what is available freely on the internet, so if it's not there then they can't verify it exists. I also have access to databases of academic journals, but I also can't find evidence there. Also, and most importantly, when I speak of verifiability I am speaking about Wikipedia's concept of verifiability, which is listed here WP:VERIFY, specifically if you look at this part (WP:SOURCES) I think you will understand where I'm coming from better.
All in all, I applaud the good work you're doing with Médecins Sans Frontières, and I, and many other editors would welcome someone of your experience to Wikipedia. Thanks for hearing me out :) Vietminh (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Message well received. There IS an international campaign, I experienced it myself both in Africa and at the International day against female genital mutilation organized by the campaign which you seem to have discredited as non-existent because the link provided was to the event invitation page created by both the campaign and Amnesty. I'm sorry, if i sounded rude to you. I still feel you personaly attacked me by saying my entries were "self promoting" like I am the campaign itself. Also FYI, please don't get hung up on the acronym "CAGeM" because it only recently started being used and early reports on the campaign did not have it at all. As per my message about verifiablility, I only said that because you seemed to believe in order to be notable you have to find it online and it has to be in English. My colleagues are working on the getting the sources for the article. The article could use improvement but i still do not think it is a fair candidate for deletion as you suggest.
  • Update, per the suggestion I included above, I am de-listing the article for deletion and I am going to transform it into a page that lists all of the different, notable, campaigns on FGM. You are doubtlessly aware of more organizations than I, please include any you know of that meet notability criteria and that you have a source for :) Vietminh (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saw your last comment, we need to work together on this without downplaying the existence of the international campaign. The sources are coming in as we speak and i am taking time out tonight to compile their bibliographies. But other campaigns most of which were inspired by the original campaign and obviously have ended up getting more media attention should also be highlighted. The campaign does not seek media attention, just results. They only just recently got an office in NY. I have contacted their headquaters in Port Harcourt and told them they need to highlight their influence to the media because of this debate here. Unfortunately, i have noticed that the ones with media have been organized by international organizations who have greater media pull but are not focused soley on FGM and the "notable" organizations did not begin in or are headquatered in Africa, to my knowledge, which is why I feel this original campaign deserves a spot. Are there organized campaigns that started prior to 1998? My entry was coming from more of a historical perspective on the general campaign which no doubt has exploded. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW I am not opposed to your changing the name of the article to "list of campaigns" as the main purpose of this article was to bring the campaigns to the forefront. So this is good. Ok, so now I have renewed my interest in wiki so on another note while looking up the organization Tostan, which i will put on this list even though anti-fgm is not their sole purpose, i noticed the entry for their founder Molly Melching, now if that isn't "self promoting" i don't know what is. All that info and only 1 reference???? It was tagged as such but was not deleted which I think is "good" wiki practice so others can edit. Can you see if you can improve the article, I'm sure she is notable but the article looks bad as is.
What is to be included on the list page still has to have an english language, reliable source (preferably sources) that speaks to it's notability, otherwise the content would get deleted, or the article itself may get deleted. As such the article would probably be limited in scope to the well publicized campaigns by NGOs (i.e. WHO w/ the day of zero tolerance). I'm not sure exactly which original campaign you're speaking of, can you clarify? I'll also look at this page you mentioned. Vietminh (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is it does not have to be in English but since this is english wiki, english is preferred. But if it is in a different language, a translation is encouraged as a "courtesy". Anyway, i'm not going to post anything i don't understand so I requested English translations.Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct :). Vietminh (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the "original campaign" the campaign against FGM is the first international campaign based in Africa. Do you know of any before 1998? Thankfully, it's beginnings were recognized in Glamour in 1999. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a link to information that, I'm looking it's just a pretty common phrase for the search term. As for Pre 1998, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Since_the_1960s is a good starting point. This is one I know of in particular that is pre 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-African_Committee_on_Traditional_Practices_Affecting_the_Health_of_Women_and_Children. I am going to setup the table in a little bit, just trying to seek clarification on how to avoid deletion. Vietminh (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, i reviewed that but it was not organized for the sole purpose of eradicating FGM, it included other harmful traditional practices. You will find that most organizations featured in the media are the same way. Not specific to FGM like the international campaign. As for the link, that is the problem I have been trying to bring to your attention. Not everything can be found online. But here is the reference so you can verify: Fuller, Bonnie (October 1999). "Millenium movers and shakers". Glamour Magazine.Cherylbarksdale (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kk, I'll have to look into that a little more, I'm not sure that could count as a reliable source. I realize not everything is online, but users may take issue with sources they can't readily access, especially if the content in question is supposed to be a notable campaign, they may logically ask if it is notable then why is it not mentioned in other sources, if you follow me. Vietminh (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For creating an article that is long over due. I will do my best to expand the article and find sources. Ndbriggs (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section: List of campaigns against FGM page[edit]

I added the table and changed the paragraph titles to reflect the new format. The content itself will still have to be tweaked to speak more generally. The table is by no means perfect, it's going to need a format that can work for all the different campaigns. Some are just annual events, some are ongoing, some area in one country, others have branches in several, including one's that aren't big practitioners of FGM. This is something that will come along as more info get's added. Most importantly it needs to be decided how the table will be organized, i.e. alphabetically, chronologically, by notability (kind of subjective though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_campaigns_against_female_genital_mutilation Vietminh (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article location[edit]

Per the AfD discussion the decision has been made to WP:USERFY the article for the time being. This will stop the ongoing deletion and give us time to fix up the article for re-introduction onto the mainspace. The article is currently located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vietminh/List_of_campaigns_against_female_genital_mutilation. Feel free to edit this page and once it's ready we can put it back up for all to see :). Vietminh (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would have been deleted because i was bringing sources. I think it at worst it would have been tagged as needing work. Anyway, you already did it so lets work on it. Now I wanted to do this right so i used the organization "Tostan's" wiki page as a guide since they work on FGM. However, I noticed half the references are from the organizations website, 3 others don't mention tostan, leaving just two that mention it. Is two sufficient and then the rest can be from the website? So far i have 7 references but need to know if its okay to also cite the campaign's website as it has more information. Could you send me a good model page to use as a guide?Cherylbarksdale (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jim is correct I haven't been around for a bit, I have been busy the last few days and will probably be busy the next few, though if I have some time tomorrow I will sharpen up the table. Don't worry about the references right now, the layout of the table is likely going to have to be changed because it's going to be hard to pack all the different formats of the campaigns the table. The important part right now is to get all the info onto the page, then I can fix the table as needed.
In regards to the message you left on my talk page, you can reference the Orchid Project's website (http://www.orchidproject.org/about-library//). Overall, if the reference is a clear one you'll only need one ref per each campaign and it will be okay to cite a campaign's website. Just be sure that the campaign itself meets notability guidelines (in this case since it's just a list of the all the campaigns all that needs to be "proven" for inclusion is that it a) exists (via it's website), and b) its notable. If it's something obvious, like the WHO or USAID, then the organization's website will do. If it's not something obvious a source that shows it's notable would be preferable, like a news story from a notable news website). Hope this is helpful, chat soon. Vietminh (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary on fgm[edit]

I ran into these. Thought you might be interested: [1] Jim1138 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of campaigns against female genital mutilation[edit]

Hello, Cherylbarksdale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of campaigns against female genital mutilation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cherylbarksdale&oldid=937409965"