User talk:Cailil
 Talk page |
 Admin |
 Logs |
 Awards |
 Books |
| Cailil is currently extremely busy in real life due to work related commitments & pressures. He may be intermittently inactive or away from wikipedia on occassion. If there is an emergency in an area Cailil has been involved in do leave a message here but if you get no reply for more than 24 hours please contact another sysop. |
Will you comment here?
Since you seemed to be open minded to me editing again, will you say something positive here? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The Patriarchal Code
Cailil, I deleted refs that were "selfcite". I wasn't understanding secondary sources. Now I have to change 'argument' and present material in factual form.
Cailil, I was doing some things wrong. I deleted the refs called 'selfcite'. I had a hard time understanding what secondary sources were. (still do)
Now, I'm accused of making an argument, which I tried to change a while ago, by presenting the material in a more factual form.
But I still need help in the form of criticism. It appears this is the only way I'm learning _Called the hard way, I guess.
Louise Goueffic Louise Goueffic (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Louise. I think you may have fallen into one of the steeper learning curves of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You've done some research in this area and published on it. On Wikipedia it's considered a bad idea to write about your own work here. We call that original research. I understand how counter intuitive that is but what wikipedia does is summarize the most notable research in a field rather than publishing new knowledge or ideas--Cailil talk 15:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Advice needed
I want to say if different Human beings use same computer in Cyber Cafe then can the first user be accused of Sock Puppetry.--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Review
Hi Cailil, it is time to review the topic ban. -- HighKing++ 17:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi HK I'm afraid I have almost zero WP time right now so I'm going to recommend you take this to one of the admin boards, AN or ANi--Cailil talk 23:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also please direct any one who has time to conduct this review to the last one (here)--Cailil talk 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Personal labels
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hi Cailil, If I understood correctly, you called me a "men's rights editor" at ANI. Please read WP:WIAPA: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
If you want to know about me, I haven't been a member of any "MRM" community nor considered myself one. Personally, I'm not a feminist and I don't agree with all of their views, if that's what you wanted to know.
I've never called any other editor "feminist", "conservative", "communist" or whatever, and I suggest you leave such labels off as well. Thanks. --Pudeo' 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Pudeo you did misunderstand me but that was my fault. I left out an S it should read "what has become a repeat pattern of Men's rights advocate editors". There have been a number of attempts by editors from that POV to have Bbb23 removed from the area all were completely unfounded (for example[1]) - that's a matter of record not opinion. But FYI calling a "manual geomorphological modification implement" a spade is not a personal attack it's just a fact. Calling editors like Memills, CS Darrow et al MRA editors is not an insult neither is it ad hominem. Adding a negative term to it like troll or POV pusher etc - words I didn't use btw - would be ad hominem however--Cailil talk 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore I might add that given the fact that you have been defending Memills and advocating for Bbb23's removal from the men's rights area since 2012[2] associating you with editors like Memills, CSDarrow and Arkon would be an innocent mistake--Cailil talk 19:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK. Yes, I've known Memills' sanctions since that, and I've certainly thought it's problematic there are only so few active admins enforcing the probation - in that case KillerChihuahua (you might remember when I was blocked in error and I appealed the block twice and it was overturned and discussed at ANI). I'd still like to be associated only as Pudeo, an independent editor, but if you want to draw some kind of battlelines for some reason, you of course are free to do so. But I recommend reading Kyohyi's comment on such identifiers: [3]. BTW I'm neither an advocate for Memills. I think his behauvior has been stubborn, although I agree with him that the article probation is flawed. --Pudeo' 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Cailil, you have no business attaching a label to me as an editor, especially when there is no evidence that I am an MRA. All my edits on gender related pages have been in regards to the Five Pillars. Never once have I expressed support for MRM causes. Much as you personally interpret such a label as a matter of fact and not a pejorative, others may not and may be unduly influenced. The honorable thing to do is for you to withdraw your statement and apologise. CSDarrow (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
1RR Inquiry
Cailil, it's not clear to me that my edits constituted a 1RR violation -- though I do leave open the possibility that I'm not interpreting the policy correctly. You write:
On first sight this didn't look like a 1RR violation until you look at this diff from October 17th[4] its edit summary is a direct reflection of the first revert on November 2nd[5]. So there is a violation of 1RR and obviously a slow edit-war.
Not sure how my first edit on Nov. 2 is a "direct reflection" of the edit from Oct. 17. I removed an an entire sentence and all corresponding refs on Oct. 17. On Nov. 2, I removed one of three references and no text in the body of the article. WP:REVERT states, "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion." I don't see how my first edit on Nov. 2 was restoring the article to any sort of previous version. This was an entirely new version. And if I was aware that I had violated 1RR, I would not have made the edit in the first place or would have self-reverted if I had made the edit. Nableezy did not give me the opportunity to do so and instead went straight to AE, and blew up a situation that could have been easily resolved without taking to AE.
Your consideration is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please see my edit notice I only deal with WP:AE issues at AE. I wont spread discussion out in multiple fora. Also I think I've been quite clear on this at AE and really don't have anything further to add--Cailil talk 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
SPI
Hi Cailil, Can you raise an SPI against me? Just Murry1975 is insinuating that I am rogue Factocop. Obviously no evidence and there is nothing like a good old piss party. I'm just wondering if getting banned for personal attacks is something that only applies to me or can other users be banned for this aswell? I'm sure you will do the necessary after reviewing these edit summaries [6], [7].Dubs boy (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Re, your comment..
I added the source you quoted calling my edit disruptive just today. The infobox title was already sourced by Canberra times and The Australian, would you consider retracting that remark? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please see my edit notice. I deal with WP:AE conversations at WP:AE - not here. Conversations about enforcement issues should be kept in one place--Cailil talk 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions were by OccultZone
Hi,
For some reason there was an Discretionary Sanction which prohibit me from Wikipedia pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This was done by user named OccultZone and it seems to be related to what is happening between OccultZone and TopGun. I was not even notified that there was a discussion on Discretionary Sanctions against me and when I search the Arbitration enforcement archives I cannot find any record of any appeal related to me (this is weird because I donnot think Occultzone is an Administrator).
It is interesting that the same week that the Discretionary sanctions were placed, I was thanked 3 times by 3 different users for my edits related to India and Pakistan pages. I think OccultZone has a problem with me due to my edits related to the battle of Chawinda and it seems OccultZone is going after everyone who disagrees with him. Even in the Battle of Chawinda I have not engaged in edit a war or any sort of that thing and responded by giving valid reasons for the changes I made and providing way for people view the references, TopGun sums it up well:
Sigh, this is a content dispute and many editors have said that the source is okay, I'm not even the editor who originally added the sources, Nawabmalhi did when he saw a sock vandalizing content against the sources and I asked him about verification before adding them where he responded positively. OZ on the other hand hasn't even verified the source that atleast two editors have and turns to use a scanned copy of the newspaper provided by Nawabmalhi that I showed him as a courtesy, against me.
The reason I have come to you is I don't even know the administrator who placed the discretionary sanctions, cannot find any record in the archives, and you seem to be dealing with a case related to mine. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Nawabmalhi please get your facts straight. There are no discretionary sanctions on you. OccultZone is not an admin. They have merely notified you of the existence of Sanctions in the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic areas. That's all. There was nothing wrong with OccultZone doing this and getting such a notice is NOT an accusation of misconduct. Furthermore if you actually read the message OccultZone left you this is all spelt out quite clearly with the words: "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." If there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here with your level of English - that is your issue and your choice to edit English Wikipedia--Cailil talk 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank You for the clarification, I thought maybe misconduct was not needed for the application of these sanction, that is why I thought he was acting like an administrator.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
"unconscious racism" charge by Myopia123
Was used at the shooting talk page:
- To be quite honest, I am starting to see some unconscious racism creep in this manner in articles on wikipedia. Two white guys who shot up a school are boys but an unarmed black guy is a man. Just like missing white girl syndrome -Myopia123 (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
FCAYS was by no means the first to comment on that position, DWPaul and RMosler made comments demurring with it. The claimby Myopia appeared to charge Wikipedia editors with being "unconscious racists" as far as I can tell. FCAYS made what appeared to be a cogent third response to what was likely a problematic claim by Myopia (sigh). Collect (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)