User talk:Cybermud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Cybermud! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Goodvac (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do


I rewrote your article on Arturo Durazo Moreno. It had multiple POV and formatting issues. It also is in need of more references. If you have the ability to fix these problems, then please do so. ~BLM (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Greetings Cybermud, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

Hi Cybermud, I see that you're fairly new to wikipedia so I'm going to try to explain this to you in as much detail as I can - I hope it's helpful. Just FYI, your comment[1] to me on Talk:Men's rights has a series of 'issues'. First, please don't add another comment to a thread that another user has correctly warned users is violating WP:NOT#FORUM - you should have asked me your question on my talk page, indeed if I wasn't watching that page i would have missed it (which is why I'm replying here). Making forum-style posts to WP is disruptive and keeping a disruptive thread open makes that worse. Also you could have used a less incendiary edit summary. Edit summaries cannot be removed a remark that is inaccurate in an edit summary stays there and for that reason misusing an edit summary is very serious. I realize you might have seen other people do this but it is against site policy to use edit summaries to ... express opinions about other users involved.
To answer your question I did warn them all, all 3 editors, that their points were inappropriate. The difference however between the other two users and the IP is that the IP made a number of bad faith assumptions and personalized remarks. SantaClaus86 was violating WP:NOT#FORUM and if I had seen it on June 10th 2010 I would have "barked" at them directly then - but I didn't. In fact if I had seen the first post when it was made I would have warned that user when it was made - but I didn't. It was the Ip who brought that to my attention - that's part of the reason I 'singled' them out.
All of the problems in that section stem from people using wikipedia like a forum - which is not allowed. Also we don't discuss subjects we discuss changes and sources that's all. And furthermore we don't discuss other users. When we assume good faith we work from the assumption that others are editing with the best interests of the project in mind, which your comment/question to me fails in part to do. If your comment had not included the line "Wow.. pot calling the kettle black?" it would have been fine - but by including it your comment assumes I was agreeing with the other users in the section other than the Ip when in fact I was not. Take a step back before you make a comment to another user and give them the benefit of the doubt - remember this is a text based medium with users from all over the world, people may miss any good natured humour or genuine curiosity in a comment if it's not phrased in a way that they find clear.
As a rule of thumb only when an editor is demonstrably breaking should you infer that they. And then you should be constructive about it. BTW this isn't a warning just a heads-up. I highly recommend the adoption programme (which I see you're interested in) it's very useful as WikiPedia has a number of polices, guidelines and ways of working that may not be immediately obvious to new comers. Also I suggest reading WP:TPG to understand why I was so harsh on the 3 users and WP:NPA why I singled out the Ip - if you've any questions about this or anything else on WikiPedia feel free to ask--Cailil talk 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Child abduction in Brazil[edit]

Hi Cybermud. I undid the tags you put there and think that this article should be left alone by both you and me for the time being since it appears that things are getting a bit heated. I would suggest that other editors be left to deal with it and, if there are any persistent problems, a call be put out for an editor who has some knowledge of the issue and can take control of it. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I began editing WP precisely because there were no knowledgeable editors handling this subject so waiting for some to come along may take quite a while. I have worked hard for WP to have quality coverage on the topic and frankly the Brazil article is an embarrassment and all the other articles on the topic link to it and are pulled down by its embarrassingly biased coverage. Even the Japan article, as bad as it is, is far more balanced and polished than the article on Brazil. Those tags should not have been removed and the whole article should be rewritten but because I am sympathetic to the LBP's editing it I have not gone and outright removed whole sections of it entirely in the hopes that the other editors will realize they are embarrassing themselves and the topic and make the changes themselves. I've worked on some of the more controversial gender related articles and know that very little of that article will stand up to reasoned criticism or scrutiny based on WP policies. If I were a parent of a child abducted to Brazil that article would have no value to me. It doesn't discuss the legal process, such as hiring an attorney or using the AGU. It doesn't discuss which courts have jurisdiction to hear Hague cases or which courts hear appeals. It has no coverage of domestic Brazilian constitutional or family law or substantive information about criminal proceedings and extradition. It doesn't mention how abducted children are located (ie by Interpol.) It has no real statistics and a journalist looking for real information would not take it seriously as a source for information on the topic since it's says a whole lot without really saying anything. Hatufim in particular is adding the Nazi content, linking TO HIS OWN SITE as a reference, writing about his own kids and creating references that have no link and contain only the text "Brazilian Federal Court Records." He also is taking images from other sources and claiming they are "his own work" eg the child airplane image that I added to the ICA in Mexico article which should properly be attributed to the US State Dept (works by the US federal gov't are free of copyright and can be reused but that doesn't me you can call them your own).--Cybermud (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

International child abduction in Brazil[edit]

You didn't finish the AFD. The reasoning just says "reason." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was adding additional comments to the page while you wrote that :) It wasn't clear to me when creating the discussion page that I should have added them at the same time by expanding "reason" (though it makes sense.--Cybermud (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud. You are now vandalising this page. The latest edit was something you had ever even referred to or mentioned before and you have removed my message from your talk page as well. I am warning you to stop now. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Are you aware of WP's fundamental principle Assume good faith? Where do you see vandalism?--Cybermud (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure you know what you are doing? Can you point to where I "removed your message?" You are aware that WP has a history. I cannot magically remove things without it keeping a record of it... Are you sure you're on the right talk page? Vandalism... removed message? If you really mean me I have to ask you to stop w/ your personal attacks against me. Disagreeing with my edits is no reason to violate WP:NPA.

You are right, Cybermud, and I apologise for that statement about the removed message. I left it on another page. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick of you telling me what to do SineBot!!  :p

PAW at PAS[edit]

About this: You mean that I should read this guideline, which says that WikiProjects are the sole and final arbiters of which articles are within their scope, even if you or I can't figure out how the subject of the article relates to the name of the project?

Perhaps now that you know what the actual guidelines are, you'll go self-revert your removal of their template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for informing me of the revert rule and I apologise. I thought the rule apply to each content but I was obviously in error. Vapour (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fathers's Rights Article[edit]

I totally agree with you about the fathers Rights article. I've known about the problem for a long time but haven't had time to deal or energy with the issue as it is clear there certain keen to keep the biased material in place. I've added a number of my concerns to the talk page and I will tag the article to illustrate that it is many problems. I very much hope you can help deal with the many problems we've all identified.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

hi sorry to hear your concerns about having a wikihounder. It's not nice to be hounded on here and I know exactly what it's like. Strange they're also making such strange accusations about me also. Given their level of understanding of Wikipedia it really does strongly suggest a sockpuppet though I can't work out who it might be yet.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've posted a message on your wikihounder's talk page reminding him of the polices in that regards to harassment as the evidence is pretty damning. I'm less certain in regards to the Sockpuppetry issue - clearly it is a someone's Sockpuppet or a banned user but are you sure you've identified the correct culprit? Obviously you know far better than me in term of who you've dealt with in the past but I think a little more evidence or explanation might be useful if you have any. I'm quite good at catching sockpuppets but I can't figure this one out.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah I'm not entirely sure who the owner of the SonicYouth puppet is, but Nick seemed the most likely culprit. It's pretty clear that someone created that account just to chase me around though.--Cybermud (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't' really know what the procedure is for finding out who an obvious sockpuppet belongs to in cases like this. I've had no dealings that I can think of with Nick so again that doesn't help. I know that sockpuppetry is a despicable offence but it might be a good idea to be more cautious in this regard and wait a little longer next time so you can accumulate more evidence.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've added some comments to the investigation, I'm certain you've got the wrong guy. The sock has significant knowledge of the Fathers' Rights Article, it has to be someone who edits there and Nick does not.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw his response, it does seem like it's somebody else and just a coincidence that I was talking to him in Andrea Dworkin when SonicSpoof first showed up. Could be someone from a different article that decided they wanted to jump in on our debate there like he's done in other articles that I've used talk pages for (such as FRM). Hopefully the admins can sort it out--Cybermud (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
ITBH I'm not sure the admins can do much unless you provide evidence. Is it possible to withdraw the case, I'm not really sure of process? I'd suggest you at least admit your mistake on this one with regards to Nick. It's clearly someone from the Fathers' Rights page. You should know that I've had run ins with Slp1 in the past, do you think she is the likely candidate or are they just copying her arguments to annoy you?--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write that. There is no real dispute here, or at least not in regards to any content -- just a user whose sole purpose seems to be following me to talk pages and vociferously disagreeing with, and attacking, me on articles he doesn't edit and, if you read his comments for substance, it's pretty clear he hasn't even read the articles he's ranting about (though since I opened the SPI he has branched out to some new articles... in my mind to obscure what was once a very one sided edit history). Contrary to aspersions by others, my only agenda was reporting a user that I genuinely believed was someone's sockpuppet (ie SonicYouth.) I'm not personally concerned with his attacks or feigned concerns regarding content. I'm a big boy and can ignore them or refute them with little trouble -- I have no problem whatsoever defending my edits via WP's quite extensive set of polices without trying to game the system and censor real editors in "content debates."
I don't believe I read anywhere that an SPI takes huge personnel resources and, in fact, I'm quite surprised that it does. It's a task that lends itself very well to automation. It was my expectation that someone with the right authority could just click a link and see all the IP's that a user has logged on from, and which other users had logged in with the same IPs. That is to say, much less effort than it took for you to read the, now quite long, SPI page and comment here. As a software engineer I know that such a system is not just feasible but pretty trivial to implement, and as a moderator and developer of various forums myself, I've yet to see one that does not have such functionality. That said I've never looked at, or even downloaded the source code for WP, much less implemented a Wiki based upon it. There may be safe-guards in place that I'm unaware of to avoid WP admins from seeing too much about users. If that is the case, I suggest clarifying it as such on the SPI page (if it's there and I missed it I do apologize.) All that said I'm not at all convinced that SonicYouth is not a sockpuppet. On the contrary, I very much do believe that he is one, I just don't know who the puppetmaster is. If knowing who the puppetmaster is constitutes a necessary component of the SPI I will withdraw it though I assumed, per above, it must be possible to investigate a user without having a good idea of who his other users are. As far as going way overboard, on the one hand, I don't disagree, but on the other hand, I feel I've only responded in kind and proportion to the comments made about me in what was very much a good faith attempt to report SonicYouth as a sockpuppet.--Cybermud (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert[edit]

Cybermud, I've decided to report you for calling me "SonicSpoof," a troll, a vandal, and your "sockpuppeting wikihound" and "wikihounding sockpuppet." You can find the report here [2]. I have waited and hoped that you would follow the advice of the administrator and take back some of your insults. But I can see now that you won't. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

quack quack--Cybermud (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

page names[edit]

We use 'politician' rather than a specific office to avoid a problem if they're later elected to another office or whatever. Flatterworld (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Organization for Men Against Sexism[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on National Organization for Men Against Sexism 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

meh.. not really a "company" and is a highly notable organization (though the current content doesn't make that clear.) Anyway, not sure how that article got into WP mainspace. I meant to create it in userspace for the time being. I've moved it to userspace and left a delete tag to remove the redirect.--Cybermud (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The International Child Abduction Database[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The International Child Abduction Database, and it appears to include material copied directly from

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The International Child Abduction Database[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The International Child Abduction Database requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud- where is the section that is based on point of view?[edit]

And how is your contribution from Forbes Magazine not biased? My statistics on how severely women are underpaid are backed up with several different sources. In addition, you have that section about how women and minorities are treated TWICE. Unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcalkin925 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how adding the different amounts of money women of color make is confusing race and gender. Black women and Latina women are women too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcalkin925 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make a contribution from Forbes magazine. I just restored your removal of it by your complete rewrite of the section lead on equal pay in the United States. In regards to your question on race, you are right, and very astute to assert that black and hispanic women are women. However, this is not an article on equal pay for minorities. Black women do make less than "men," but black men also make less than white men and black women ALSO earn less than white women. In all these cases it is an issue of race NOT sex. If you'd like to explore the impact of race and "equal pay" I suggest making an article on "Equal pay for minorities," as such content is off-topic and inappropriate for Equal pay for women. For the third time, please use the article's talk page to discuss changes to the article.--Cybermud (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Equal pay for women. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I'm sorry, but I have to warn both sides equally. HalfShadow 23:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm censoring myself greatly, trying to WP:AGF, WP:Be civil and not call a spade a spade but, with all due respect and more, you do realize I've never even edited that article 3x in a 24 hour period correct? Have you even read the policy you are so blatantly falsely accusing me of violating?--Cybermud (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I still have to warn both sides equally, or it looks like I'm taking sides. I'm just following procedure; I don't know for a fact you wouldn't have edited the page again. If it helps, I actually have no interest whatsoever, I'm simply trying to stop an edit-war before it happens and you both get in trouble. HalfShadow 02:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm unaware of the policy or procedure that obligates editors to annoyingly warn users for thoughtcrime when you, whoever the hell you are, don't know for a fact what they would or would not do. All due respect, but fuck off with your false templated concern and condescension about what I "might do." Here's something you can know for a fact. If you warn me for things I haven't done I'll be the first person to tell you to pull your head out of your backside before lecturing other editors on what they may or may not do in a future you have no way of knowing "for a fact."-Cybermud (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If, on the other hand, you want to find yourself in trouble for misusing templates, this can be arranged. Be warned. HalfShadow 02:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please add yourself to that warning as well. Be warned.--Cybermud (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cybermud. You seem really angry right now not only with HalfShadow, who is a well-respected editor here on Wikipedia, but with many users on the articles you are editing. HalfShadow simply noticed your edit war in its early stages while he was patrolling, and decided to intervene. He meant the best for you and for the encyclopedia. His intent was not to lecture or accuse but to prevent you from doing something you might regret later. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 03:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it should come as a surprise that I, or any editor, would take offense at being warned for edit-warring and threatened with being banned (per the warn template) when they haven't done so. Then, when I civilly said, to the best of my ability, that I was not edit-warring, to have my concerns condescendingly dismissed because someone was unable to read the future only added insult to injury. Having had one admin, on the "feminist task force," cast aspersions about "where the real problem lies" when I opened an SPI in good faith for a brand new user demonstrating amazing alacrity for WP syntax and wikilawyering, and following me to multiple article talk pages to disagree with me, I am, perhaps, having difficulty viewing the actions of other would be policy enforcers as entirely in good faith. Beyond that, while I may disagree with other editors on article topics that are, by their very nature, controversial; I don't take it personal when someone disagrees with me and expect other editors to do the same when I disagree with them.
I have not even really edited the article currently in question. I have only reverted edits and asked the editor making them, in an established article, to please discuss them on talk. On the surface it may seem civil to warn both sides in any content dispute, but when one side is repeatedly asking the other side to discuss their changes on talk, taking a non-partisan stance and assigning blame equally doesn't seem civil to me. Perhaps I am being thin-skinned by taking offense at being inappropriately edit-war templated but Half-Shadow didn't seem to take it much better when I templated him inappropriately either.--Cybermud (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, there's a difference between templating someone incorrectly and being a dick. What I did wasn't the first, whereas what you did was the second. Perhaps someday you'll see this. Wouldn't that be nice.

Now, if you don't mind, the valuable seconds I'm wasting on you could be put to better use, so... HalfShadow 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OH NO. Wait! Please don't stop wasting your valuable seconds on me HalfShadow!!! I promise not to call a spade a spade anymore... Please tell me more about the 3RR rule and how your crystal ball malfunctioned when you tried to read my future!!!
Unlike some editors I can take some criticism, founded or not, without running to ask an admin to intervene... You might give it a try someday. It's empowering to stand on your own two feet--Cybermud (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, why is it that once again I see the identical way out of line commentary by you that I have already seen once in the past? You need to be able to accept constructive criticism - HalfShadow was 100% correct in his templating of BOTH editors in this specific situation. You have a bad habit of responding poorly to well-intentioned critiques - besides the fact that this is the internet, and not something to get all worked up about. I don't know/don't care about how old you are, but this kind of response will lead to coronary issues! Relax; accept constructive criticism; embrace it! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh.. no kidding, and here I even thought editing WP was cathartic at first. Since neither user actually violated 3RR it remains unclear to me why either user got templated, but I lack the interest to pursue the issue. Thinking I'll avoid some of the more contentious articles for a while anyway and quietly work on new articles in userspace.--Cybermud (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png

The Barnstar of Diligence
I hearby award you the Barnstar of Diligence award for your efforts in scrutinising so many equality related articles and highlighting clear POV, inaccurate or unsourced content and general nonsense (would be great to see you deal with the remaining issues at the father's rights movement article if you get time) Shakehandsman (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

There is a discussion of your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attack by Cybermud. Feel free to weigh in with your viewpoint. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An Offer[edit]

I have noticed that you currently have an WP:ANI ANI Notice about you, and I also note that you are a fairly new editor. Have you seen The adoption program? Just a thought, and I am willing to adopt you. Dusti*poke* 17:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I will accept your very gracious offer :) As it just so happens, I actually came across your user-page last nite after seeing your colorful sig and clicking it out of curiosity, and came very close to leaving you a talk comment saying how much I liked what you did with your page.--Cybermud (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have created User:Cybermud/Adoption. That will be our adoption page. Please watchlist that page, and answer the questions I'll be posting on there. Dusti*poke* 07:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated your comments about my contribs to Feminism[edit]

Thanks for your comments about my contributions that you wrote at Talk:Feminism. While I think you're right that my being a self-identified feminist helps me make less controversial edits, I think improving on some of the issues mentioned at your ANI discussion will help you there in the future. Looking forward to working with you more on feminism-related articles :) --Aronoel (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cybermud. You have new messages at User:Cybermud/Adoption.
Message added 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Camille Paglia[edit]

Hi, Cybermud. I support your removal of the Molly Ivins quotation from the Camille Paglia article. Other editors are continuing to restore it without explanation, even though I've pointed out that it is dubious under BLP. Please help me keep it out. (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cybermud. You have new messages at User:Cybermud/Adoption.
Message added 00:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hague conf.[edit]

He Cybermud, maybe I was a bit triggerhappy in my source requests and indications that the compliance report was specific about the US situation (ok, not nationals, I'll specify), so I think the revert for now was good. However I still would like to see the article a bit more specifically sourced. So if we identify specific non-compliant countries, that can not come from a single state party without a broader consensus. Furthermore if we state widespread media attention or state that a work is authoritive it should be proved, otherwise it's a bit of an empty sentence... I'll work on the article a bit today, but will leave the ref requests (and according to US statements) above alone for some time so they can be addressed without the tags... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Very understandable concerns, and I'm very glad to see interest in improving the article. Some of the sources you asked for actually are in the article, just not inline. The Perez-Vera Explanatory Report really is the authoritative explanatory document. It was produced by the Hague Conference itself at the same time as the Convention was drafted and is relied upon heavily by courts around the world. There is a link to it in the External Links section (if not elsewhere), but there really should be an inline reference for it as well. The bit regarding US nationals is not really accurate since the Convention is entirely agnostic to citizenship and nationality. Many outgoing petitions filed for children removed from the US are filed by non-US citizens resident in the US (sometimes even illegally resident) and the majority of incoming petitions, for children taken to the US, are filed by foreign nationals who are not even US residents.--Cybermud (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
btw.. I agree on it being important to identify sources from multiple countries when identifying a country as non-compliant in the main Convention article. I don't recall which countries it currently calls out at the moment but if they are only referred to by US authorities it might be better to move that content to International child abduction in the United States an article I've also been working on, and neglecting, for a while.--Cybermud (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Good, let's see where we come in the next few days. I guess it's mainly a matter of in line citations, and will look for some external sources for non-compliance. Shall I provisionally change the text to ... (in a US report) ... ("in stead of According to the US", which indeed suggests at least others might strongly disagree?)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cybermud. You have new messages at User:Cybermud/Adoption.
Message added 01:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

just reminding you that this page still exists Dusti*poke* 01:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I know, I promise to get back to it ASAP. Have been putting out fires at work for the past week or so.--Cybermud (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Defining rape in the lead of the Rape article[edit]

You have been actively involved in editing the Rape article. I am stopping by to alert you that opinions are needed on the following discussion: Rewrite of the lead making the term difficult to define. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Are a pompous, juvenile, self-aggrandizing fucking SPIC, and that's all you are.

You forgot "poopy-head"--Cybermud (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope I'm not being judged by the quality of my enemies because it seems all I have are 2nd graders who throw hissy fits and repeat the naughty words they heard at home in the trailer park... but I should know better than to feed the trolls. No more soup for you.--Cybermud (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
...There was soup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

men's rights[edit]

FYI the men's rights page has been utterly defaced.Jayhammers (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

notification of article probation[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kevin (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Continue in your uncivil approach on Talk:Men's rights and you will receive sanctions. Such verbiage as accusing your fellow editors of "sexist motivation" and other non-collegial commentary is inappropriate. This article is under probation; you will comport yourself with utmost civility or you will not be editing that article. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries KC. I made the only real remark there that I intend to for now. I just don't have the time or energy to engage in the extended debates that will inevitably occur at that article over every punctuation change in the near future. I know my comment, on its face, violated WP:AGF, but assumptions can only go so far in the face of the long established behaviors and patterns I see around articles related to this topic. My comments were truly intended towards creating a better encyclopedia though. I think allowing an abusive majority of pro-feminist editors to remove the article "Men's Rights" altogether (except for perhaps a redirect) from WP in 2011 will be a source of embarrassment for WP once the stranglehold of feminist narratives (in particular in academia and media) for all things gender and sex related have, inevitably, broken down.--Cybermud (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize they're only talking about a rename, right? Not removing the article? And yeah, your comments violated CIVIL fairly thoroughly, you could have said what you wanted much more professionally. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that the technical proposal is to rename the article, but I also appreciate that names matter. It's also worth noting that this is the longest rename discussion I've ever seen at WP. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks the name of this article matters more than usual.
I may be missing some very notable exceptions, as I have not been involved in the dispute until now, but I see no unbiased editors. I see editors who either support the concept of men's rights or feminists. That is to say, without belaboring the topic, I see two diametrically opposed ways of viewing the world. One way says men of every society in every corner of the world developed abusive and patriarchal social structures that oppressed women. The other way says that gender roles evolved by men and women working together in accordance with biological imperatives like survival. That these gender roles limited, benefited and oppressed both sexes in different ways by forcing them to conform to the roles that society dictated. Feminist patriarchy theory has a fundamental need to attach male malice in the way gender relations evolved and inculcate guilt in modern-day males for the supposed sins of their male predecessors. Tangential rant aside, if we can appreciate that there are two opposing sides here we can achieve a much better and balanced article. But, instead, what we have on one side are a bunch of feminist editors, armed with all the sources that 30 of feminist dominated academia can churn out disingenuously feigning to be unbiased, disinterested editors who are merely trying to apply WP policy to produce the best article possible. On the other side, we have the men's rights activists. "Men's Rights" are, essentially, what men's rights activists say they are. If the article, "men's rights," doesn't have at least 50% of its content from sources that point to "men rights activists" (a term that I see used pretty pejoratively on the "Men's Rights" talk page) then the article is hopelessly biased. All feminist sources regarding men's rights are, essentially, sources that respond to the arguments and/or actions of men's rights activists (male or female.) To base more than 50% of the article on the feminist response to the article's topic is a poor way to write an article. Such an article can easily occur here if we try to stick to the best WP:RS without including both sides (because we have failed to acknowledge that there are, in fact, two sides here,) as we will end up with an article that amounts to "Men's Rights according to Feminists." The reason for which being that the men's rights activist source may be from some small publisher or self-published but the women's studies text will be published from Oxford Press.--Cybermud (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the content of the article, or the topic, but regarding move discussions, clearly you missed the eight months of polls, plus a failed MedCab case regarding naming what used to be Pro-life movement and Pro-choice movement, now finally at Arbcom - the best synopsis of the mess is probably at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence#Entire_move_process_was_disruptive. The Men's rights discussion is nothing in comparison. Its not even in second place. Its not even in 50th place. I think first place is probably the Dańzig/Gdansk discussions which resulted in the most lengthy naming straw poll ever here. The results are immortalized at the template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} (be sure to click "show"). And yes, there was edit warring on the template too. See also Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And yes, you are right, my point could have been made much more professionally. I apologize and can only say I felt rushed to add my opinion before other obligations require me to leave the rest of this to other editors and hope that my point, effectively communicated, even if not tactfully presented, will be taken into account by them.--Cybermud (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh, we all fall short sometimes, just try to be a little more civil in the future, ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 07:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Directives of Hippocrite[edit]

Do not re-add links to "a voice for men" to the "media mentions" section of the Men's rights talk page. It is not a journalistic institution, and there are further problems with violations of WP:OUTING. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please maintain normal talk page usage by creating new sections for new topics. Please also do not dictate to me what I will or will not do. There are no WP:OUTING issues, but I digress, please move your discussion here to the appropriate forum -- ie the talk page you are dictating to me how I will edit and the relevant section there on topic of the edits you reverted.--Cybermud (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cyber, try the sources here. They have all been published in newspapers, reliable sources, and so should be good. They cover most topics. extransit (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You are topic banned for one week[edit]

Due to your continued batteground behavior and incivility towards other editors, you are topic banned for one week from Men's rights and associated pages, including talk pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

heh... didn't even see this till after the ban expired. Must not have been battling all that hard after all :) Am curious to know if the feminist wiki-lawyers were disciplined for the things I pointed out. Too busy to check right now and don't want to get myself worked up about the WP endorsed defacement of the men's rights article anymore than I already have anyway ("Men's rights are the privileges claimed by boys and men..." right WP.. I'm the problem.)--Cybermud (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights article under article probation[edit]

Just to let you know, the article Men's rights is under article probation. This means that any sort of disruption, such as edit warring, may result in a temporary block from editing. Kaldari (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As Kaldari and I have both recently reminded you, men's rights is still under article probation. A number of your recent edits have violated the terms of the probation, including but not necessarily limited to these edits: [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Please pay closer attention to the terms of the probation in your future editing, especially the civility restrictions and the requirement to discuss content and not editors. You can review the full terms of the probation here: Talk:Men's_rights/Article_probation. Continued violation of the terms of the probation could lead to an indefinite topic ban for you. Kevin (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You and Kaldari have a talent for appreciating the obvious. Somehow the fact that I was blocked from the article for one week, have been an editor of it MUCH longer than you, and the big sign that says probation every time I go to the article, were not enough for me to appreciate that it is, indeed, on probation. Thank you for sharing your observations with me but, given that I also can appreciate the obvious, please refrain from using my talk page for your helpful observations in the future and limit your communications with me to more appropriate forums. Thank you.--Cybermud (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Although you're free to remove other people's posts (including this one) from your talk page, you cannot restrict other people from posting relevant notes about your editing behavior on your talk page - it's what it's there for. That said, if you'd prefer for me to just request an uninvolved administrator to sanction you when you violate the terms of the probation, I'd be more than happy to do so. Be warned that your behavior, as outlined above, is in violation of the terms of the article probation, and will most likely result in your sanctioning if it continues. Kevin (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I prefer you do whatever floats your boat princess, just have the courtesy to honor my perfectly reasonable request to STFU on my talk page. Thank you and have a nice day :)--Cybermud (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This reply is way out of line. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Which line would that be (I genuinely would like to know)?--Cybermud (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Article on Michael Kimmel[edit]

Please see the talk page [7] to resolve a disagreement we have about the article. I would be fine with you explaining why that particular quotation warrants inclusion in this article; simply saying that it is "sourced content" is not a sufficient justification for me. For starters, I suggest that we discuss whether the offending material should be in a BLP article. Here is the guideline I have in mind from [8]:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

I await your explanation on the article's talk page. -Mike Restivo (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread started about you and civility[edit]

I initiated a discussion about your incivility at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_needed_to_act_on_article_probation_violation_re:_Men.27s_rights. You are welcome to represent your views there. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of the multiple violations of the Men's rights article probation inherent in this edit, I have placed you on a one-month topic ban from Men's rights, including talk pages and related pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

After leaving this report open for a long while I have now closed it. There was no support for your position, no opposition to the one-month topic ban and indeed several calls for the ban to be made permanent. You are banned from the Men's rights article and other articles in the same topic area. You may not edit the articles or their talk pages until after this time and date in March. Even then, further repetitions of this kind of editing style will not be tolerated. Violation of this ban while in force will almost certainly lead to a block and very likely to a longer (possibly indefinite) ban. I realise you will disagree with this and think it unfair; your best bet now is to think about how, in future, you might edit to get your points across without causing every other editor who commented on your edits to side against you. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Kimmel[edit]

You are topic-banned from men's rights and related pages.[9][10] I'm pretty certain that this includes Michael Kimmel, where you have been editing, given that it was in part BLP violations regarding him that was a reason given for your topic ban.[11] I would strongly advise stopping editing that or any other men's rights related articles for now and checking with SarekoftheVulcan about the scope of your ban, because breaking a topic ban would lead to a block. --Slp1 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Kimmel is a PHD Sociologist. It's not as if he's a "gender academic" or something. What could he possibly have to do with Men's Rights? Am I paraphrasing you correctly? Because on the one hand you claim he's "just an academic," not a "gender academic," "activist" or "pro-feminist" (in the very post whose response I was banned for per your characterizing it as a Godwin-esque like rant) yet here you are claiming he's related to the article Men's Rights and ever so politely suggesting I not edit it. I'm sure you only have my best interests in mind though and aren't trying to avoid responding to my comments regarding your edits on Michael Kimmel and, likewise, it was a coincidence that YOU raised those false BLP concerns with Sarek saying they were "unsourced" when you were the very one who deleted the WP:RS to begin by citing BLP and UNDUE and without elaborating on how those policies apply to the article in question.--Cybermud (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Mike's comments at Michael Kimmel I see now that neither you, not Mike Restivo, completely deleted the source for the misandry content at Michael Kimmel and have retracted my above claim to that effect -- though you still incorrectly accused me of making unsourced claims of misandry and violating BLP. Which I did not.--Cybermud (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I do have your best interests in mind, because I genuinely would rather this not escalate for you. For the record I did not remove the "misandric" claim from the Michael Kimmel article; it is still there, if you check. But as you know, your allegations of misandry went beyond Kimmel, and those are and were utterly unsourced. As far as the connection between Men's Rights and Michael Kimmel is concerned, you made the connection yourself[12][13] on the Men's rights talkpage itself. I strongly recommend you check out the the scope of your ban before editing further.--Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern, genuinely, but I'm not the one calling these authors misandrists (or if I did I'm far from the only one,) there are lots of sources for that, many of them not WP:RS to be sure, but they exist and that's all I remember saying. It's fair for you to cry foul about that if I try to claim as much in the articles about those people, but my point, made on the talk page of an entirely separate article not about those people, is that many do make those claims and, as such, it doesn't make sense to not call-out these sources for who they are when they are controversial in regards to Men's Rights. Essentially it boils down to the fact pretty much any English speaking person on the planet who self identifies as a "men's rights activists" will recognize the names Flood, Kimmel and Messner and reject them outright. Of course, likewise, the same can be said regarding the ideological bias (ie pro-feminist) of those authors, and this bias is more broadly understood by the general, non-MRA, public. The views of these authors on this topic are polarizing and hiding them behind author/ideology neutral language does a disservice to readers, conveys a less complete picture and makes for a poorer article.--Cybermud (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD: Men and feminism[edit]

FYI, I've nominated the article "Men and feminism" for deletion. You were active on its talk page, so I thought I'd let you know.

The delete discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Men_and_feminism_(2nd_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equaaldoors (talkcontribs) 21:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible topic ban violation. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days per the discussion at WP:ANI (see [14]). The consensus at ANI is that you breached the topic ban put into place after a discussion at ANI (see this edit), which banned you from editing the "Men's rights article and closely related articles on the same topic." Consensus, which I agree with, is that your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men and feminism (2nd nomination) are in violation of this ban. As such, I have blocked you for the duration of the topic ban. Further, per Kim Dent-Brown's original closing comment, I have asked that other editors consider whether the ban should be extended. If you have any comments that you would like added to that discussion while you are blocked, please leave them here and I or someone else will copy them over to ANI for you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban extended[edit]

Consensus at the continued ANI discussion is that due to your breach of your topic ban, once your block expires, your topic ban is extended one more month, until 10 April 2011. Additionally, should you breach that topic ban again, expect that you will be reblocked immediately, for no less than the remaining length of the topic ban and quite likely more, and the topic ban will be further extended--while consensus would have to determine duration, I would certainly argue for an indefinite topic ban given past problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hola Qwrxian, agradezco la atención y tiempo invertido en ponerme al corriente con las chaquetas administrativas. En este momento me encuentro ocupado, pero en cuanto me desocupo tendrá una respuesta comprehensiva y digna de su puesta administrativa. Atte.--Cybermud (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, though next time English would be preferred--I got the gist of what you said from Google Translate, but it's always rough. Also, since your topic ban expires in 3 days, it may well be done by the time you get back to this. Just remember that after the topic ban expires you still need to edit appropriately in that topic, and any further problematic editing there will likely lead to a much longer (or even indefinite) topic ban. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Hi, it's great to see you have returned, you make such valuable contributions to Wikipedia and add such needed neutrality and accuracy to articles so your contributions were greatly missed. Regrettably I now have an even greater appreciation of how you got so frustrated previously, some of the bias on gender related articles is almost beyond belief and I find that even rudimentary edits aren't even possible sometimes. I don't ever recall it being quite this bad previously and it's all a bit depressing really. Apologies for not being more supportive in the past but the fact is that certain people appear to want to see those adding neutrality to gender articles to be banned even if they act impeccably (or at least for next to nothing), so defending you after your genuine indiscretions would be about the most impossible task imaginable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shakehansman. I've always appreciated and respected your diplomacy in the face of Wikipedia's Secular Priesthood of the politically correct. Like you I believe, and contrary to the constant accusations, I really was only trying to add balance, but the broader men's rights community already recognizes and speaks to Wikipedia's obvious failure to be neutral on gender issues. Making even the most trivial and common sense of changes can require monumental efforts in articles like feminism and it's frankly not even worth the effort. People are so used to flagrant dishonesty on gender issues at this point anyway that when they read something like "Feminism is a movement primarily interested in equality and helping men and women" they take it with a huge chunk of salt anyway. No reason to expect Wikipedia should rise above the politically correct censorship that pervades all other forms of English mainstream media at the current moment in history and provide both sides of the issues in an even-handed manner. The beauty of Wikipedia's design though is that the female chauvinists will have no where to hide their edits once social problems and human rights specific to men and boys are widely recognized as being worthy and valuable topics in their own right and the excesses of feminist political tactics and disrespect for academic integrity become widely recognized and repudiated. --Cybermud (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning comment[edit]

While you are no longer topic banned, this edit (brought to my attention by another editor) is worrisome. Please don't encourage a battleground mentality among other editors; it's only likely to lead them into trouble. The only way to make articles better is through Wikipedia's collaborative process, not by trying to "win" some sort of long term "fight" against some sort of opposition you've constructed. If you want to do the former, you can engage in discussion on articles in this topic area, but if you're only interested in the latter, you're better off editing another website. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry my opinions, directly based on my experience as an editor, and shared by most every editor who has tried editing Wikipedia without a feminist bias, and/or with compassion for the issues facing boys and men, are worrisome for you.
As it turns out, the very fact that my opinions -- as expressed on talk pages with editors facing the exact same POV pushing and activist editing, are worrisome for you is also worrisome for me -- not to mention the ideological policing of my talk page comments by activist editors and your willingness, as a WP Admin, to take action based upon such editors reports and suggest I might be better off editing another website. In short, your very comment on my talk page is a good example of the very reason I hold such opinions. In no uncertain terms, you have made me feel unwelcome here. Well done admin. You are part of the problem.--Cybermud (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Men's Right: Thanks for your comment on my Talk page[edit]

I could not agree with you more, unfortunately. Thanks for your efforts to make WP more neutral (not "neutral" in the politically correct way it is sometimes used here on controversial articles). Cheers! Memills (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Assistance Required[edit]

I'm attempting to document the online community known as the "manosphere" in a neutral and impartial way. In particular I have an article waiting for publication that's very well sourced and would be difficult for even the most combative and biased editor to reject. However I'm beginning to become concerned that no one has yet looked at my submission. If you could forward this request to anyone in the position to approve my article if it meets Wikipedia standards that would help greatly. Ethicalv (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Roosh meets the GNG and thus deserves an article, but you would be well-advised to go back over your article and rewrite it for neutrality, balance, and sticking more closely to sources. Otherwise, it may be rejected by whoever reviews your AfC. I'm not going to touch your AfC one way or another, but there are definitely problems in your draft. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reunite International Child Abduction Centre[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Reunite International Child Abduction Centre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no notability established in line with the notability guideline for irganizations...

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. L.tak (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)