User talk:Cailil

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

This is Cailil's talk page. To leave me a new message, please click here.

Please help

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you would check out the article on White people and comment on this discussion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Loneranger4justice

I saw your comments on the ANI post about fourdee. I share your view that there has been an upsurge in racist posters. I was heartened by Jimbo's action in this case because no-one else seemed to notice Fourdee's white-supremacists rants, the pictures of weapons in his user space & his trolling of talk pages. There were so many red flags he was becoming quite a problem.

Recently I've been having problems with User:Loneranger4justice. His comments aren't exactly racist but they are similarly fringe. He doesn't post very often, but when he does all he does is revert to reinsert what are a mix of unsourced and fringe theories that claim feminists are nazis and that pro-feminist men are like KKK auxiliaries. I have a report page about it here. I've brought this to Seraphimblade's attention a month ago, but he didn't see the repeated reverts to be as povpushy as I did, so he recommended I RFC the pages and that I try to engage Loneranger4justice in discussion. I attempted this nearly a month ago - I left an NPOV warning with a message on August 6th. Since then Loneranger4justice has reverted without discussion 6 times across 3 articles.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. After the first 4 I warned him with {{uw-npov4}}. About 10 days later (August 27th) he made a further 2 reverts to reinsert his preferred material.

Have you any advice on this? Has Loneranger4justice broken WP:NPOV or am I incorrect in this?--Cailil ^talk 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the trend. Too many POV edits formulated as WP:OR (i.e.WP:SYNTH) and some concerns about the same at his talkpage since a year or so now. Fix what you can fix following the policies above. If he persists drop me another line. I am leaving a note at his talk page. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Everybody who watches these topics is aware of the Ranger and his POV edits. I agree he's a long-term problem; but he insists it's WE who have the POV problem. What else is new? --Orange Mike 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. I hope the messages on his page either encourage L4J to become a better wikipedian or at least to engage and seek consensus for his edits. But considering his edit summaries I'd be a surprised if that happened--Cailil ^talk 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

hate speech and soapboxing

Thanks for your comment - yes, I do think we need something like a 3RR for talk pages, only instead of three reverts, three "soapboxing" warnings, or something like that. The thing is, I fear there is little general support for this (for reasons that are sadly obvious) and I have no idea where even to raise the idea. Are you on the list serve? I was but dropped out well over a year ago, it would good for someone to raise the idea there to see what feedback it generates before trying to develop a formal proposal. But if you want to work on one let me know and I will help out.

By the way, I really value the incredible work you have done with the Feminism article. When I first came to Wikipedia it was one of a handfull of articles I worked on, but since then I have focused on other things and as you know really just check in every once in a while to leave a comment on the talk page. But I am sory there aren't other editors as knowledgable as you to help you develop it. You have been doing great things! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My theory of the problem I'd like to hear more about what Durova thinks. My own views are a little complicated. I certainly think Wikipedia needs a hate-speech policy. However I do think we need to encourage free speech on talk pages and am very uncomfortable about blocking or banning someone just becuase he holds views I despise. Therefore, I do not agree with Matchsci that what we need is a guideline on racism. I would like to present a different analysis of the problem which i think justifies a slightly different approach without violating NPOV. I think this is the problem: we have content policies like NOR and V and NPOV for articles, and they do not strictly apply to talk pages. As long as people use talk pages to discuss improvements to the article, this (writing stuff that would otherwise violate NPOV, V< NOR) is completely fine, indeed, it may be a good thing to be encouraged, to keep discussions open and free-flowing. However, I think there are some trolls who have figured out that this expediency for talk pages creates a huge loophole: they can say things on talk pages that would instantly be reverted in the article. If they really cared about improving the article and intended on editing the article we could tolerate such stuff and move beyond it. but I think that some of them actually decide that they will not edit article pages. They are content merely to write on talk pages. Conventionally, the article is the end, and the talk page is a means to an end; these trolls, by abandoning working on articles, turn the talk page into an end in itself. What they have in effect done is turned talk pages into something that for them functions like article pages (a way to broadcast their views, make them permanently present at Wikipedia) without ever having to obey the content policies. This is why I characterize them as having "hijacked" the talk pages. While I do not feel comfortable banning someone for hate speech (though I do not defend it), I do NOT have any qualms against blocking someone for hijaking a talk page. Others, reflecting on Fourdee, have focused on hate-speech, or disruptive editing, or incivility. I am not convinced these are the proper points of dparture for rething our policies - for one thing, Fourdee was (if you can believe it) a civil anti-Semite most of the time. And were his comments disruptive? Only because they represented a fringe view - and my belief in NPOV is such that in general I do not want to discourage that (in a way, lots of talk should be disruptive - it is how original or challenging ideas enter a discussion). While I do not reject policies that guide personal behavior, I think we all too often rely on infraction of personal behavior guidelines to police Wikipedia. Let's just be honest: the problem with Fourdee was not his personal behaviro so much as the actual content of what he wrote, and our dilemma is that we resist policing content on talk pages. BUT if we can see how people like Fourdee treat talk pages such that they function as at least surrogates for articles, then such people should be held accountable to our content policies on talk pages. Anyway this is the logic I have been playing with recently. Please think about it.

EnforcementBe that as it may I do think we need a mechanism for blocking people from talk pages and, using 3RR as a model, I would say that if three different people slap an off-topic warning on someone three times, they shoulc then have the right to ask a fourth party admin to block if it happens again.

rationalizing with other policies And I do think it is worthwhile to take elements of an existing policty, namely this and this, copy them from the [Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not] policy and edit them to apply specifically to talk pages, which is where these particular elements of the policy most often apply. I wonder if my "theory" should be proposed as a guidelins. I think we need a discussion of how "not a blog" and "not a soapbox" fit together - should they be merged? Are they one idea or two? i think we need to look at all policies and guidelines that touch on this issue and rationalize them, so they are not only consistent but each cover distinct problems.

templates would a "no soapboxing template" duplicate or complement these: {{Off topic warning}} or {{Notaforum}}? Again, I think we need to rationalize them. do they apply to increasingly serious problems, or different kinds of problems? I think we need an omnibus policy that lays out different kinds of abuses of talk pages and provides different warning templates with clear explanations of what makes them different/how to apply them. When you have reflected more on this can you compare notes with Durovna and see if she agrees? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

i hope you find these thoughts useful. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be content for you to take what I have written here, whatever Durova has suggested, and your own thoughts, and draft a proposal - and then i can go over it and either revise it or raise points of discussion with you. I certainly think we have dicussed it enough at this point to lay out a rough draft of something Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikisleuthing

Could you send me a link to your Anacapa report? I'd like to relay it to someone as a model. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 10:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

re User:204.52.215.6's warning / message at my talkpage

No, you didn't make a mess - you reported in good faith, and that is all that can be asked when making a report. Thanks for the understanding re my decision. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for the tip on Mentors; will follow-up. Sincerely, Shir-El too 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is too much.

I'm willing to compromise. I open to debate the issue in the talkpage with proper arguments and reasons. I'm willing to provide a sentence explaining that that name is controversial, and I'm also willing to provide a proper link to the relevant article. But when the other side is uncompromising and simply deletes and reverts everything it's simply a lost case. Honestly: I'm not even British or English (seriously: I consider myself rather a European and the Brits are all against the EU, the irony of this whole situation :). I'm just interrested in the accuracy of this little article in particular, and of all articles inside of wikipedia in general. What shall I do? Simply accept that someones can impose his POV through force? This is simply ridiculous. Flamarande 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simply ridiculous that the term british isles must be used i do not see why it cannot be left as britain and Ireland. If you want people to look at the britsih isles page so much then put a link at the bottom of the page saying, see also british isles. Saoirsegodeohf 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think Flamarande's measure to introduce NPOV by stating that the term is contested is good. The term "British isles" offends me - but wikipedia is not a forum for restorative social justice (I know WP:NOT doesn't use these words but it is implied) - but I will not give a further opinion on this as I feel too close to the subject. To answer your question Flamarande POVPUSHING is considered as disruptive editing. So is pushing against consensus. What needs to happen at Talk:Western Europe is this. Request comment for community wide in-put on the issue in order to establish consensus. When consensus is established one term or the other will be used by the wikipedia article until a new consensus is reached. I will point one more policy out to both of you. WP gives self-definition preference in naming disputes. I would therefore see it as entirely appropriate and possible to note that the term British Isles is not used in the Republic of Ireland but is used elsewhere--Cailil ^talk 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hy, I placed the "Request comment template" as you suggested. I honestly don't know if the template is working corectly (I hope it does, but I don't think so). I also improved the article with a neutral statement that the term/name is controversial and objected by the ppl of the Irish Republic, including a proper link to the article British Isles naming dispute. That article explains the issues and the controversy to a large extent. I hope that you agree with all these changes. Flamarande 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is fine - people are just very slow to respond to it. You could make a short post it to WikiProject Ireland or the Geography WikiProject if you want faster responses.

Honestly I think you're doing fine - just disengage from the dispute with Saoirsegodeohf for a while and if he continues to disrupt WP he'll be dealt with by the community--Cailil ^talk 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender Studies

Dear Cailil, I've looked you personal page and I read this:

Current
gender studies
Feminism
Feminist theory
Bride burning
The Second Sex
Gender studies

I'd like to remember you that in "gender stidues" there are masculinism and "men's movement" too. The genders are two not only one, there are males and females, not just female! ;-) Bye --Giubizza 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK! --Giubizza 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You have reason, but I'm very tired, very tired now!

Bye --Giubizza 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Kudos again for your hard work on the Feminism article. given your skill with research, I would really appreciate it if you would comment on the current debates at Wikipedia talk:No original research. If you look at the actual policy, the second section is on the origins of the policy, and section 1 of the talk page is my proposed revision of that section - if you have an opinion I welcome it. But the real debate has to do with the policy's distinction between primary and secondary sources. You ought to read the latter third of the talk page and comment wherever you think it appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote. feel free to edit the proposed draft of the section for better style, clarity and concision, if you can, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're suggesting is very much needed at WP:NOR. BTW I'm finding the whole disagreement over WP:PSTS difficult to follow. I'll have a second read of it al later on--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A B Pepper

I haven't had to deal with someone as bad as User:A B Pepper before. I'm thinking of just filing a RfC if he/she isn't willing to stop the incivility soon, but am willing to help if you decide to take it to that step before I do. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you believe his talk page, he's left in a huff, bragging that he's whupped all us heretical sissies and girlies with his brilliant reasoning. --Orange Mike 03:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well he's blocked for 3 months now so he's got no choice in the matter. If he pops up again give me a shout--Cailil ^talk 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender Trouble

You suggest: "The largest departure from other branches of feminism, is the argument that both sex and gender are constructed through language." Which seems OK, but I would prefer to emphasize that the social construction of sex is particularly distinctive. Perhaps "The largest departure from other branches of feminism is the argument that sex as well as gender is constructed through language." ? BTW, I like your other clarifications of Butler, particularly mentioning race, class, and sexuality expliticly. VoluntarySlave 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

yup

i know what wikipedia is. i dont need to reminded that wikipedia is not a soapbox. i dont try to start trouble. i am trying to improve the article. i had an account then forgot the password and stuff and i was too lazy to make an other one. ill probably an other one eventually.

dont get my believes confused. i am not some oppressive fundamentalist. i kind of support abortion. but i believe that you should never call it a right. abortion is a terrible thing. to say that women have the right to get pregnant and destroy the life in development in their body is extremely distributing. i for making it a legal privilege. abortion is ok in some cases.

the way is worded is makes it still makes it seem like it says abortion is a right. it worded that way because they wanted to cited the whole thing correctly i know. but it should still be changed. maybe to something like "feminist fight for what the they believe is the right to have an abortion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.230.196 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

69.106.230.196 if you understand WP:SOAP then you should understand why comments like the above are not constructive. I will not debate with you on your opinion about whether abortion is or is not a right. Talk pages are for articles development, and articles are written from a verifiable sources. The current wording of the piece you dislike has multiple sources and can have more. Once again, I will state that the wording of the lead in Feminism describes the feminist campaign for the right to abortion. That is the feminist campaign as recorded in fact checked journals, books and news articles. BTW please sign your comments--Cailil ^talk 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

reminding me about the rules is not constructive sense i know what they are or relevant to the topic. i know that not everything it the above comment is constructive. it obvious you are hostile to my beliefs.

when you say "feminist campaign for the right to abortion" that means they are campaigning for a right. it does not say they are campaigning for what they think is a right.69.106.230.196 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)