User talk:Cailil/archive7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page To leave me a new message, please click here.

Is it just me?
Or does this seem a bit odd to you too? No Means No This has its own page: Make love not war And so does this: Power to the people

BillyTFried (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why no reply? Was I mistaken that this might be a topic that interests you? BillyTFried (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Billy I lost track of this post. As far as I can see No Means No  is redirecting to a band and the other two are fairly notable slogans - in fact power to the people is a disambiguation page since the phrase has been used so often (so I assume you're eferring to Power to the people (slogan)).
 * I'm not sure in what context your asking for attention here. These phrases seem pretty notable to me (although some could do with a serious clean-up).  If you wanted however you look to create a parent article for the 3 phrases (or phrases like these) and seek consensus to merge them-- Cailil   talk 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing. My point is that, I'm guessing there is not a person in the Western World who has not heard the phrase "No Means No" and knows damn well what it means, and maybe I'm no punk rock aficionado, but I'd imagine some little known band from Canada wouldn't stand up to WP:Notability standards when put head to head with the much more well known meaning of that phrase. At the very least, it should have the same treatment as Never Again. No? BillyTFried (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. Well IMO a disambiguation page would seem appropriate for the the phrase "No Means No".  You can edit the redirect page here-- Cailil   talk 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I thought bringing this to the attention of a "feminist" (which I am not) would spark some interest in editing it. But that's fine. I'll see what I can come up with. Thanks again. BillyTFried (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes real life gets in the way Billy. (And sometimes dealing with difficult ArbCom cases does too.) And just so you know that slogan is not used outside North America - its not something that is current as a phrase in European sexual harassment discourse, for various reasons - I'll have a look at the DAB page when I can dedicate some time to it.  If you don't get the chance to work on a stub/new article for "No means no" I'll have a look at linking something to either Sexual harassment or date rape (or perhaps Sexual assault) & writing a section on the slogan in one of the articles-- Cailil   talk 10:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I took care of it. You might find this quote from today's news intersting:

British Home Office Minister Tony McNulty shot back criticism, saying "No means no, means no, and that needs to be the message as clearly as we can in terms of rape." http://www.popeater.com/movies/article/nazi-barbie-turned-mirren-off-cocaine/155531?icid=100214839x1208541425x1200504896

Chow! BillyTFried (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bracha L. Ettinger
She is not notable in any field: .This is a spam by an Israeli troll named Nimrod Kamer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.14.111 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To the author of the previous paragraph and any others supporting that position: As a disinterested party who is unfamiliar with the arguments here, I just stumbled on these repeated deletions & reverts. However, on the surface it seems to me that: (a) until and unless you convince people to remove the article about Ettinger, there's no future in deleting her hame from other articles or aguing her notability in or about those other articles; (b) WP content is supposed to be based on documentation by independent sources, rather than editors' opinions, and your cited google searches seem to contradict your opinion. Rich Janis (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's it exactly Rich-- Cailil  talk 11:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you google her - she seems plenty notable. Why is this editor User:Ori Redler deleting her...Modernist (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser. I've left a note on the ANI thread about it, but I have to go offline for a while-- Cailil   talk 15:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that Ettinger is being deleted because of political reasons. She is activist of human rights and some Israeli right wing people do not like this. Ettinger's notablity is not questionnable. This seems like political persecution. I am going to proceed to put her name bak wherever it was deleted---these deletions seem the work of hateful personal or political persecution.Artethical (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found: the call for attack to delete savagely Ettinger and all links to her, as well as to delete totally some other pages in the same way, was now reported as appearing on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Danny as unsigned demand by anonymous 89.138.170.22 (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC). The reason seems to be a fight against an Israeli editor associated to contributions to these pages. As simple as that. In the Gender Studies history Kristeva was deleted in the past too. Lets return to ameliorate the page, very little is left in it: the criticism is llonger than what we have. I left a new message on the Gender Studies page.Artethical (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is quite concerning. Can you link to anything showing off-wiki coordination or campaigning for Ettinger's (or others') removal from wikipedia?-- Cailil   talk 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it ok if I giggle quietly to myself over here?
You know at least you only affected yourself by your mistake, other people have mistakenly deleted the main page or blocked Jimbo ;) So you got that going for you :) SirFozzie (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course its okay - I'm LMAO :) I'm going to cite MastCell's example - but at least he did it deliberately-- Cailil   talk 11:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least you can now boast an unusual block log... ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could do an ad for Master Card with my blocklog: "4 years of college tuition €5,000, 4 years of PhD scholarship €17,500 - being smart enough to block your self on wikipedia - priceless!"-- Cailil  talk 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Can you please take a loot at and comment on Talk:Acid_attack.--CreazySuit (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have given up, no matter how much I cry that Wikipedia is not a place to synthesize martial for essay-writing and editorializing, and doing so is a disservice to an Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, my concerns are dismissed and I am out-reverted. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. But beside the SYNTH concerns, how do you justify inclusion of those countries based on isolated incidents, and in Iran's case, by citing one incident of a threat, not even an attack. One single unverifiable threat of an attack (claimed by a partisan Iranian editorialist) does not make acid attacks a general phenomenon in Iran or any of the other places mentioned in the disputed line -  unlike Pakistan or Bangladesh where Acid Attacks are actually a general phenomenon with hundreds of documented cases. So the line in question is not only a violation of SYNTH, it's also a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think AzureFury's action has resolved this. I had advised users' of wp:weight and I'm glad you did also.  BTW am I correct in thinking some of the parties here were involved in a dispute at Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran?-- Cailil   talk 15:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Cailil, according to WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted." In this case it is very relevant to making an article content choice, as I'm explaining that Amir Taheri is not a reliable source, and it is perfectly acceptable for me or anyone else to object to to him being used as one. Amir Taheri's fabrications are not just an allegation (ie see 2006_Iranian sumptuary law controversy), they've been investigated and exposed by many reputable publications including the New York Times and the Economist.   --CreazySuit (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it is acceptable for you to dispute the reliability of a source CreazySuit. However, the manner in which you do so must do no harm.  I will be asking another sysop to review it-- Cailil   talk 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Project activity
This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox (User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Acid attack
Any replies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acid_attack#Expansion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acid_attack#Motivation_of_Attackers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Motivation_of_attackers_who_make_Acid_attacks --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you missed the sign on the top of this page I'm away and I wont be able to deal with this "blow-by-blow" becuase my on-wiki time will be quite limited. However I have posted at Talk:Acid attack.  BTW the 4 of you need to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring-- Cailil   talk 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

24.130.14.225
"... to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." The research has been published and is on topic--24.130.14.225 (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, explain to me how VAWA is not about domestic violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.14.225 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No 24.130.14.225 it's the source that is not about the VAWA-- Cailil  talk 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh Please!
Really, you've over stepped your scope. Chaos4tu (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Far from it Chaos4tu. Whether or not you really are who you claim to be makes absolutely no difference.  Civility is the fundamental of all communication on wikipedia and if one's behaviour fails to meet that requirement then one will be prevented from behaving in that manner.  One must resolve one's disputes on wikipedia politely and in the spirit of co-operation.  I will also point out that the sarcasm of your response to Pigman today is unacceptable-- Cailil   talk 12:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

how to do research for a WP article
Hello, I am a new editor and I see that you have a lot of experience. Do you have any advice on how to do research for a WP article? Maybe there is an article on this already somewhere? I use google, Lexisnexis primarily and was wondering if I am missing someother obvious database, etc. Thanksaharon42 (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Aharon42, well the internet is great but it can sometimes give a false impression. The best way to research articles is to read as many books on the subject as possible.  The key thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia rather than a news room.  All information added to wikipedia must be weighed in accordance with the historical context of the subject, and the best way to judge this is to do background reading.  Libraries are your friend, and for more academic sources places like JSTOR and Project MUSE are quite helpful-- Cailil   talk 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for renaming
Hello! I am ru:User:Candid in Russian wikipedia and Ru.Candid at en-wiki. Could you please rename this account to User:Candid, who has been registered and didn't make any edits. Hope it is possible to do. Thank you, best wishes, Candid from ru-wiki. --Ru.Candid (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have the ability to do that Ru.Candid, but if you follow this link to meta you should be able to ask a steward to do this for you out-- Cailil  talk 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! --Ru.Candid (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, please visit Changing username/SUL for renames on this wiki, kind regards, --birdy (:> )= 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Birdy-- Cailil  talk 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Chelonatheosism??
I dont understand why my article got deleted i seen nothing wrong with this.. its a religon. i myself am a Chelonatheosist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortuga12193 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

help with Freud
There is a little conflict brewing between Skoojal and Esterson on the Sigmund Freud article and talk page. You have handled controversy before, and well. Could you review this little dispute and see if you can add anything constructive? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will have a look at that now. Thanks for the heads-up-- Cailil   talk 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sommers
Cailil: just so you know, there's a dispute over the Christina Hoff Sommers article (between me and a couple of other editors) that's getting increasingly nasty. I'm not trying to remove all criticism from that article; I just want to see it dealt with in a balanced way, which thus far it has not been. Skoojal (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a comment just now-- Cailil  talk 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, the situation with that article is becoming worse. I have commented on the talk page regarding BLP violation there and the inclusion of undue material. I would appeal to you to protect the article against editing. Skoojal (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Skoojal while I agree with some of your points I cannot protect the page as I have previously edited the article a number of times, engaged in this particular content issue previously and currently have other content disagreements with IronAngelAlice - for these reasons I am "involved" and it would be improper for me to use my sysop privileges in a way that could be seen to give me an "upper hand" in a content dispute, or to hinder an editor that I am in disagreement with elsewhere. I will however request that someone who is "uninvolved" have a look at the whole issue if it escalates.  For the time being I recommend that the 4 of you (Alice, Carol, yourself and K D) either enter mediation, open an article RfC or perhaps both-- Cailil   talk 17:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation with that article is continuing to get worse. IronAngelAlice is repeatedly re-inserting a non-reliable source. If you cannot protect the article, then please bring the matter to the attention of another admin who could do that. Skoojal (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Skoojal there seems to be a consensus contrary your position. If you have an issue with this seek dispute resolution via RfC or mediation-- Cailil   talk 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted Wikipedia BLP
Cailil: Thank you for your response in relation to the Allen Esterson Wikipedia page posted by Skoojal. The links will be very useful.

You wrote: "Also from my reading of said article, there seems to be too little sourcing for it to stay either."

The meagre amount of material for someone who has no appreciable public profile, has never held a university post, and has published only one book and half-a-dozen articles in history of psychology journals, is indicated by Skoojal's having to pad out the page with a listing of the titles of the 13 chapters in my book. Esterson (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Esterson is over-stating things by saying that he has 'no appreciable public profile.' The fact of the matter is that he is quite a well-known writer. He is known not only for his highly influential work on Freud, but also for his contributions to debate over Mileva Maric. There is nothing inappropriate about the existence of an article about him. As for my mentioning the chapter titles of Esterson's book, that's because I want to see a detailed account of his book and its argument. I see nothing wrong with that. Skoojal (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask Cailil exactly what he objects to regarding the passage he removed from the article on Esterson. Why do you think that this counts as Original Research, and what other ways could I discuss this part of Esterson's book? I think it does need some discussion, as there is relatively little point to the article simply stating that according to Esterson '"...the received view of Freud's character...has always been that he was a man of absolute integrity', without mentioning how that view has changed. Skoojal (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Skoojal, first of all wikipedia has a specific policy within BLP for people requesting the removal of articles about themselves - if Esterson requests the removal of the article about him we have to look into it. Second, the passage removed was in essay-style (WP:SYN) hence WP:OR.  This is more of a problem in a BLP article and anything that looks like OR will be removed as a precaution until it can be shown otherwise.  I've referred Esterson to the BLP noticeboard for help from sysops who have dealt with this scenario before.  If consensus at the noticeboard concurs with your position Skoojal then the article will remain-- Cailil   talk 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cailil: if Wikipedia has a policy that people can request removal of articles about themselves, then sure, of course you will have to look into it. It would not, however, be reasonable to delete the article. Esterson is a well known and influential writer, he is notable, and it would be a huge over-reaction to delete the article simply because I started it. I am not interested in using the article to attack Esterson. If I intended to do that, I would say so directly and in no uncertain terms. Skoojal (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a matter for the sysops who will consider the issue. And actually Skoojal much more notable people have had their BLP articles deleted. There have been ArbCom cases about it. I'm not an expert in that area of BLP so other editors & sysops will look into it-- Cailil  talk 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for advice
Cailil: I have been so caught up with dealing with Skoojal's (and other editor's) flood of comments about me on various pages that I completely forgot to thank you for your advice on how to deal with Skoojal starting an Allen Esterson Wikipedia page. Anyway, belated thanks. Esterson (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome Esterson, it's what sysops are supposed to do : )-- Cailil  talk 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They might be back
I have reverted two Ettinger hunters today - here Christine Buci-Glucksmann and here Jean-François Lyotard please keep an eye out on those pages that were attacked previously. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

and another - Hans Prinzhorn. 

They are using lame pretexts to delete Ellinger. Modernist (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Have been away.  Will keep an eye on this-- Cailil   talk 14:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

request
I saw this user who is not constructive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WayneMurphy2004 Could you grant me rollback rights? Or if you don't know how, can you support such rights and I can ask someone who knows how? I wouldn't necessarily use it for this person but it would be possibly useful.

Chergles (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See you are on a Wikibreak but...
I think we may first have crossed paths during the David Usher incident, and so I wonder if, when you return, you could cast your eyeball over the Fathers' rights movement page and talkpage, and this page as well. The latter is not necessarily a model of what it should be, though I tried to remember of your Anacapa report, but it does attempt to describe my longstanding concerns about this editor, and my need for help and advice about what to do next!!! If you have any thoughts, do let me know. --Slp1 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

nor
I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ED
Please consider pitching in here. I think you have highly relevant experience on such issues! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Incivility warning
Hello. Please note that accusations of "povpushing," that you make in this edit summary, are considered by the Wikipedia community to be incivil and unnecessary. Please see also WP:POVPUSH. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Check your facts Blackworm - the spamming of Save Indian Family across wikipedia is povpushing and has been povpushing (and has been under scrutiny since November 2006) - I incorrectly labeled my edit summary with "Ip" when in fact the account in question was User:Parthasarathy_B (who has been recognized as a spammer by other users - see their contribs). Also I will remind you are not welcome on this talk page as has been the case for nearly 11 months. Please respect my wishes (and your agreement not to use this page) and don't come back here again - thank you-- Cailil   talk 13:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page is all blank and stuff.
My spouse and I love your serious cat. Anyway. Thanks again for the blurb about the criticism section. I had seen them being trouble-magnets, but did not know that their undesirability was formalized. ;) Wikipedia, not surprisingly, is large.  All the best.sinneed (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to expand on my thank you for the Criticism/Controversy section information. I spotted some edit warring at  Family Foundation School‎, and looked at the article.  The article is heavily polarized, with pro-school information presented directly, and anti-school information relegated to a "Controversy" section.  I flagged the section, and pointed out the lack of balance of that approach by pointing out how unacceptable the article would be if the situation were reversed.  I had noticed that controversy/criticism sections tended to be very ... controversial, but until I read your notes and the criticism essay, reasons why this would necessarily be so did not crystallize for me.  Thank you again.sinneed (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome Sinneed. WP:NPOV is a very profound policy and one that people need to be continually reminded of.  A very frequent misconception about it is that minor or minority objections/criticisms/oppositions to a subject should be given equal weight (or indeed 'any' prominence) in an article.  This is not the case.  An encyclopedia records the mainstream scholarly and reliably sourced information about a subject - and that's all.  If critical material exists it should integrated into the article rather than being "ghettoized" into a pov-forked section or article (which can serve to give it either less or more prominence than it would deserve).-- Cailil   talk 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Cailil and Happy New Year when it comes: sooner to you than to me!!

Anyway, yes, I have watchlisted those articles and will keep an eye out. I am going to do a run through Save Indian Family in a minute to remove the original research etc there in any case. Hope all goes well in 2009 for you, with all your busyness of life. --Slp1 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Slp1, and happy new year. I'll run an eye over that article too when I get a moment-- Cailil   talk 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The BLP question
Thanks for your note Cailil, and thanks for seconding my attempt to focus on a "common decency" argument for us being humble in how we think about what we do in BLP. I don't know how much of the Gutnick case you read. I thought the Australian judges showed tons of common sense. I also think Dow Jones did the right thing in the end by paying up without rehashing things in US courts. In their case, it was not a matter of bravely offering criticism against religious zealots abroad, they were simply trying to sell their knowledge of the business world, but got it wrong about Gutnick. By pure co-incidence I have been starting to write up an interesting book I've been reading—Educating Eve: The Language Instinct Debate. I was curious to see what Wiki had on its author Geoffrey Sampson. The very restrained comments and actions of this UK citizen towards the writer of his Wiki biography provide very interesting reading. I encountered them after my first post at the current discussion. They don't change my views, they reinforce them. However, I still don't really know how to handle writing up one of the sensitive issues regarding Sampson. It is interesting that his comments seem to indicate that he himself understands that a full, fair and frank presentation might not look very nice, and he could live with that, what irked him was the way two controversial incidents were being featured, and non-neutrally. What pleased me so much about you joining in at the BLP discussion was the sense that although both you and I might agree UK and Australian laws might go a little far, there are underlying issues of treating people properly. The reality is that US courts would make precisely the same findings as UK and Aussie courts in many cases. In fact, I bet there are more successful defamation actions in the US than the UK and Australia. In the abstract there are "shades of grey", sure, but case by case, even the US will see black as black.
 * Gutnick
 * Sampson
 * Cailil

I've got to work on my thesis quite intensively for the next month, I'll be pretty inactive at Wiki, though I'd be interested in any further thoughts you might have on the above. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS If you haven't already done so, read George Lakoff. There's something in his fresh thinking for everyone, and for all of us. I've got to read more of him myself. I expect I won't agree with all he says, but a couple of his core ideas—metaphor and nurturance—are very close to long-cherished views of my own, metaphor especially. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

advice
Hey, do you happen to know who, among active Wikipedians, is a cultural historian or an expert in cultural history? Ditto cultural studies. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi SLR. Hmm, I'm not sure I know any Cultural historians here but I could advise on the cultural studies field (at least in regard to most areas of cultural studies).  Let me have a think and I'll see if I can find a cultural historian on WP-- Cailil   talk 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As for "cultural studies" I could use your help.  As of a few days ago, the Culture article was, in my view, a disaster.  There was a GA review and two people commented.  Their criticisms were good but I don't think they know enough about current research to fix the problems, so I did what looks like a major overhaul.  In fact I was conservative: I deleted every redundancy and tangent or fringe view, and then reorganized what was left in an attempt to identify major points of view or approaches.  So of course the article needs more work.  I spell this out in more detail on the article talk page.  I believe that the concept "culture" is most central to cultural anthropology and cultural studies (and perhaps cultural history, hence my question.  I know a good deal about the former, and very little about the latter so the article is currently unbalanced.  Would you have time to go over it and develop the section on views of culture within cultural studies?  Obviously the article should not be "about" cultural anthroplogy and cultural studies, or try to replace those articles.  I do however want to provide a good account of the different meanings of culture, the different ways different scholars use the concept, and cutting edge theoretical debates about culture, properly contextualized.  I realize this can be a small or a large job - I woulod appreciate your providing whatever help you can.  If you are willing to do this, you may feel that some reorganization is needed since I did not create a distinct section on cultural studies.  I would only ask (and I trust you to do a good job with this) to keep your eye on "the whole."  One reason the article became a wreck was people adding different things ad hoc without ever considering the overall organization of the article.  I know a lot more stuff needs to be added; I just want to make sure that as any addition is made the article is reorganized as needed so that there is no redundancy and the overall organization provides every section with a context so that the whole things makes sense.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Socktag
Hello, I'm going to start an SPI concerning the user mentioned in the sock tag of this diff, and, instead of hunting through the massive article history myself, I was wondering if you could cite the edit that prompted you to add the tag, or, if nothing else, contribute to the SPI when I create it.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Daedalus, that tagging is based on edit patterns. If you look at a wannbe kate list for the user in question you can see that the IP matches a number of interests.  The points being made also made me a bit suspicious.  Drop me a line when you've put the SPI report together and I'll see what I can do to help-- Cailil   talk 02:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I may hold off on the SPI, because I don't know enough about the situation, but, if it matters at all, the user you tagged has now registered an account, re: .—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  09:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * okay, lets agf in the case of this user-- Cailil  talk 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

another plea for help
Hi. I have now done considerable work on the Culture article. It is my understanding that "culture" as such is the principal object of study of two academic disciplines: anthropology and cultural studies. Our article on culture should provide a good account of how both disciplines think of and use the concept of "culture." I know a lot about anthropology, cut not cultural studies. So right now the article is very unbalanced - mostly anthropology and very little from cultural studies (and what is there could be inaccurate and is certainly partial). I am not sure how many Wikipedians know more about cultural studies than you do, which is why I am asking you to help out with that part of the article. I do know that there are important differences between cultural studies as organized and practiced in the US, and the UK. Can you solicit the help of other editors to make sure fair coverage is given to both US and UK forms of cultural studies? I'd be grateful, but more important I think it would really help the encyclopedia. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi SLR and sorry about my tardiness in response. Things are difficult right now - but I'll have a look at Culture on Saturday.  Sorry gain I can't get to it any soon.  Best wishes --Cailil
 * Oky, thanks ... right now I am especially concerned about this proposal - by someone who I believe cannot recognize the difference between mainsream and fringe research, and is anti-academic research. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Content Needed
Hello Cailil, would you mind checking out Gynodioecy. It is a biology stub and needs reliable content for its development.Please help me improve it.I am new to wikipedia and would be glad if you could ask other wikipedians that might be experienced in this field to add content to it.Thank you.Ochawhite (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Ochawhite I have very little time to spend on wikipedia and I know nothing about Gynodioecy so I can't help-- Cailil  talk 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rape and censorship in Wikipedia
I am not so interested in the rape article. However, censorship in Wikipedia may be an unintended result of WP practice among editors.

I think that those accused of rape are mentioned in American newspapers but not British newspapers. I think this is because American tradition, it is not shameful to be accused of rape (it actually is) but in the UK, they wait until conviction.

With WP, if I edit that, others will immediately accuse me of being Anacapa and ban me. On the other hand, I am not interested in the article and don't care if it is or is not included. However, you could insert it. I got to the article simply by clicking "random article" while looking for something to edit. (Later, I found a small Kansas town which I found interesting and will write more on it later!) Chergles (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Redaction
Calil -- thanks for at least addressing my concern. This was the first time that I'm aware of that you actually responded in a semi-direct way to my concern (that is "I did so elsewhere"). Before that all I was getting on Alastair's page was "you aren't being helpful." Well, as far as I could tell your response wasn't being helpful either. I think there are legitimate concerns all around. Alastair originally asked for an apology, then asked for administrative help, then asked for an apology from the administrative help that wasn't helping, etc. Was that the most pragmatic way to go about it? No. Idealistic would be a better word.

Here's what I think is going on: Admins are trying to keep Wikipedia functioning. That's about it. It's not a question of justice but of function. If an editor is disrupting the function of Wikipedia by being abusive, he gets blocked. On the other hand, if an editor is disrupting the function of Wikipedia by seeking redress from abuse, he gets blocked. The concern is for Wikipedia instead of truth justice and the american way -- because editors are volunteers with limited time and not supermen.

As I said on the talk page I do not fault you. I think the problem is process instead of people, and may NOT be solvable. If that's the case we should all be up front about it so that all of us -- Alastair included -- can shrug our shoulders and move on.

Alastair still believes that Wikipedia is fixable. I don't think it's fixable. And I'm not convinced that you care (or even need to). But I DO think that we all need to come to some kind of understanding of the DE FACTO functioning of Wikipedia instead of the DE JURE functioning. As long as you and Alastair are arguing about right and wrong, everyone will be mired in this. What he needs -- and what you and I need -- is the simple honesty of "no it isn't perfect, but we don't have the time or ability to make it perfect -- we're just trying to clunk along as best we could with a bunch of good hearted volunteers (and yes a few powerdrunk ones in the mix)."

If we can GET to that, then we can get PAST this. But as long as Alastair thinks you guys are capable of fixing the problem, he'll keep escalating the language trying to get your attention so that you will do so. Just be up front and tell him, like you said on my talk page -- that you aren't the right people to do this (and maybe there are no right people to do this because it isn't doable).

Again, thanks for at least ADDRESSING my concern on my talk page. I'd like to see this quickly, amicably, honestly, and pragmatically resolved. I think you probably do as well. If you need me to redact something elsewhere I'm very happy to do so. I'm always glad to know where I've made a mistake regarding someone so that I can correct it.

Best.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim, you need to understand that this a very difficult situation because rather than Alastair being gagged because of the legal rhetoric we are. Sysops are just the janitors not the police.  We don't have the right, or the ability to comment on what Alastair has asked for comment and upon that's just one of the problems here.  Secondly, the reason I wont respond to anyone else's remarks about Alastair is becuase I want to see Alastair communicate with the Foundation or ArbCom in a clear and direct fashion that means that everyone needs to stop talking around him.  Thirdly, Alastair's use of the revert function was limited by ArbCom.  He was seen to breach this restriction on a number of occassions and each time has protested that he has done nothing wrong - this is the nub of the problem.  Alastair repudiates the ArbCom ruling because he sees his behaviour as exemplary - ArbCom sees it another way.  Finally I take Alastair's complaint about Abtract VERY seriously but I can do nothing about it if Alastair wont help me find the problematic remarks - he can email me a list of diffs and I will examine them asap or he can post them in a new thread on his talk page.  Personally I believe that Alasatir was painted into a corner but I know that he has to take the first step to get out of it.  The ongoing issue between yourself and Lisa and Lisa and Alastair isn't going to help and may come under severe scrutiny when the ball starts to roll here - I'm just giving you a heads-up on that. By way of a 'road map' I have two suggestions: #1 Alastair conducts his concerns with the Foundation through the Office relating to WP:Libel off-line and when that is resolved comes back to wikipedia.  Then he can ask them or ask me or ask ArbCom to investigate the behaviour of others (in this case I mean Abtract not the sysops - who for the record are/were just doing their job) that led to this issue.  I believe that Alastair might have been wikibullied here but I need diffs to prove or discount my belief.  #2 Alastair retracts any and all legal threats unequivocally.  He and all those associated with him stop using any and all legal sounding terms and language (ie slander, libel, defamation, 'your on trial here').  He requests oversight of a series of diffs after they are submitted to me/another admin or admins/ArbCom.  For this to happen and for either solution to work Alastair has to accept that his use of the revert funstion was restricted because of a tendency to slow-edit war. If he is to return he may have to go for a period without undoing or reverting (in any way).  If he is interested he can always, and I mean at anytime, email me to discuss it-- Cailil   talk 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note I have provided Alastair with the links and in fact I'm assuming due to his silence these past days that he is talking to the foundation directly. If not I will post what I said to you on his talk page as well-- Cailil   talk 17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Calil -- thanks so much. That sounds much more thought out and helpful than anything I've been able to come up with (I really don't understand all the Wiki-process and am having trouble learning it for some reason; even on the admin noticeboard all I'm getting is annoyed stonewalling).  Of all the admins I've encountered on this issue -- I think you're much closer to some kind of real solution than anything I've heard.  In any case, other than staying off of his talk page, what else can I do to help?  Could I try to encourage Alastair toward some of these ideas?  And I'll attempt a redaction now -- please let me know if I need to improve it after I post it.  Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just tried a redaction -- if that's not enough, I'll be happy to tweak it. As for some implied scrutiny regarding Lisa and myself, I'm open to it, although I don't have the time or the ability she does for diffs.  My own solution has been to remove my real name from my signon and reduce my time on Wikipedia.  I'll restore some sourced text occasionally when a vandal comes along, but I don't do that much any more.  It hasn't really been worth it.  If I do go active again I'll find some subjects she has no apparent interest in and use a brand new screen name.  Not sure I have the time to go there yet, but if I do go fully active again that's a better solution than dragging a bunch of admins into a decision.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Tim that the 'stone-walling' is because we're between a rock and a hard place. Alastair wants us to do something we don't have the power to do.  He's also broken a rule that is treated with zero tolerance.  At this juncture the other sysops see no-way out.  But I would suggest that Durova's words on ANI are salient. If you want to help I would say that suggesting Alastair read our exchanges might be helpful.  This situation is eminently fixable but it's going to be a process of give and take-- Cailil   talk 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, thank you for the redaction-- Cailil  talk 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay -- I'll try to email him. Sometimes he's not online for weeks at a time, though, either through travel or computer/network problems.  And I'll read what Durova has posted on the ANI.  Glad to know there's some interest in a well rounded resolution, and I appreciate the time you've given me to point me where to look.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'm done now. Thanks again for correcting me about the Arbcom.  I even missed it when I looked at the link you gave me and finally saw it when I looked the second time.  I'll sit back for a while and see how nice everyone wants to be.  You've really helped out my faulty memory on the Abtract thing.  Funny how easy it is to miss something like that.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My only problem at this point is that the admins not unblocking him are requiring him to do something that is far beyond Wikipedia policy, AND requiring him to lie -- withdrawing a threat he does not believe he has made. He can withdraw a statement (which he has done), assure people that he is not seeking legal action (which he has done), and promised to not speak of legal things at all (which he has done).  Now, if he WERE to accept the wording imposed upon him, he would be breaking his word, lying about the past, and bowing to a threat regarding a legal waiver (which is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy).  Alastair's gone as far as he can go without lying.  We have to back off.  SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that the admin not unblocking him is not being helpful at all. Someone has to fix this.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Haines
Hi Cailil. Alastair has now posted a new unblock request as suggested, but was unable to archive his talk page to remove prior discussion. Skywriter and LisaLiel continue to contribute extremely unhelpfully after the unblock request. Just to let you know. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mathsci, thanks for the heads-up - I'll see what I can do-- Cailil  talk 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Cailil, and Happy Easter! There seem to have been some question-marks over Coren's recent NLT blocks. One of these blocks was just overturned by fellow arb Roger Davies. A number of people are asking for more details of his block of User:SkyWriter on Coren's talk page. The block was justified by exactly the same OTRS ticket as the block of User:Alastair Haines, something unexplained so far (User:John Carter and you also raised this point on WP:ANI). Just to let you know. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SkyWriter (Tim) has just been unblocked. Coren - apart from ruling out Tim as the originator of the OTRS ticket as an error on his part - has not explained what proof there is that Alastair Haines had anything to do with the email. I hope that this can be clarified, because if the email was anonymous, it's not clear what weight can be attached to it. The email could possibly have originated from a malicious third party. Mathsci (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to be careful here so I'm going to say very little. Alastair has emailed me.  The OTRS email in question is not a fraud, Alastair has verified that it was his publisher who sent it.  I think that matter has gone out of our remit and is really for the office to deal with now.  Sorry if I sound terse I'm trying to be very very careful here-- Cailil   talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, Calil. Fair enough.  I'll leave it alone for a while.  I'll be offline for another 48 hours anyway.  Catch you later. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Cailil, thanks for clarifying that. I can understand why you're being careful. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Looking in my WP mail account, I found that Alastair sent me what must have been a similar email on the 9th. Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cailil. This has been publicly raised to the Arbcom at Requests_for_arbitration, and I have mentioned one of your comments in my note there. Thanks for your efforts thus far in attempting to clarify and resolve this. I think privatemusings, Casliber and AH will all be catching up on the weekend, face to face. I hope that a few beers will assist in fixing this mess where other approaches have failed. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 15:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that note John. I've left a statement on the RfAr page.  Also I wasn't able to locate the specific proposal that Alastair mentioned to me - although I have a clear memory of the one he referred to.  I hope the guys can sort this out-- Cailil   talk 16:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed -- let me know if that works. And thanks for the explanation of block and ban. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI
FYI. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Feminism
I like the way the feminism article is done up. Who is the user behind it? I read on the notice board that articles like Feminism in India need help, and I saw it, and I agree. Do you think we could work on it together? Thanks! TT. TroubledTraveler (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi TroubledTraveler, I'd be delighted to help you work on the feminism in India pages. About the feminism article: I suppose I did a lot of the structural work on the current shape of the page but many editors have made the page what it is today - nobody is solely responsible :) it's a collaborative effort after all-- Cailil   talk 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That does indeed sound great. I'll work it out with you as soon as possible. TroubledTraveler (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)