User talk:Kirk Hilliard

Welcome
I notice that you have posted a welcome message to User:Megjellett, while at the same time posting a warning tag. May I respectfully suggest that editors posting welcome messages should have adequate experience to cope with questions that new users may generate?--Anthony.bradbury 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthony; I appreciate advice from experienced editors, but request some clarification. You are not suggesting that a welcome message combined with a warning tag was inappropriate, are you?  I am not seeking out random new users in order to add welcome messages, but felt that a warning tag alone was harsh, even for a db-attack case.  When asked for help, I will answer what I know and ask more experienced editors about what I am unsure.Kirk Hilliard 02:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

89.176.55.95
Hello. Im completely new to Wikipedia.org. I just received a message regarding the vandalism I did or something. I would like to assure you that I respect all your work you have done and also would like to pardon me for causing any trouble. Thing is that I saw a mistake in ONE hungarian word - wanted to repair the grammar, but after fixing it and saving the page, the result wasnt saved. So Im really sorry for that. It was not intentional!


 * Hi 89.176.55.95. I put the note on your talk page to verify the nature of the edits, which being from an anonymous account, may not all be yours.  I am taking this discussion over to your talk page for your convenience. Kirk Hilliard 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

list of animals with hymens
I have no idea how you claim that this article deserves to be in Wikipedia, the references are ridiculously non scientific and non biological and this is a biological page. I taught anatomy in university for several years and none of the science books I used mentioned any animals with hymens.

Not only did you remove the request for deletion but you also removed perfectly valid proper references request.

That article is a joke and completely unscientific!--Tallard (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are in error; I have done none of the three things you have claimed. My edit was fully described in its summary: Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content ("Slugs").  The page appears to have been vandalized twice between your edit and mine, first removing the various tags, then adding "Slugs".  Furthermore, I have never commented on the appropriateness of this article for inclusion in Wikipedia, but have simply tried to keep it clear of vandalism.  --  [User:Kirk Hilliard|Kirk Hilliard]] (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard's vandalism on Hymen page
I am at a loss here, yesterday he started vandalizing by flooding the hymen article with multiple edits (individually unrevertible because of intermediate edit conflicts) by again adding religiously biased statements and deleting paragraphs left right and center. He adds {fact} tags to anything against his opinion even when the equal statement is referenced elsewhere on page, and changes referenced sentences and to twist them to his POV regardless of the reference itself. I reverted his vandalism flood several times, with justifications in discussion page of why not individual reverts, but he just keeps putting everything back. How do we deal with this religious zealousness? And I thought the image debate was a work in progress, but it seems the other users that came around have left already... what to do?--Tallard (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tallard. Take a short time out.  I see that Richard has flagged you with a 3RR warning, and there is no need getting blocked over this.  (Three is an upper bound here, and blocks happen for less.  Don't set yourself up so that you have to waste your time appealing a block.)  Remember that this article was in what you considered "bible pedia" condition for a long time before you ran across it, so a couple of days delay to your edits isn't significant in the Big Picture.  Flag the article as Template:POV, as you clearly feel that this is the case.  Perhaps Template:ActiveDiscuss is merited as well.  More to follow shortly.  -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I do think that both of you are editing in good faith, although both of you have, at times (and perhaps unintentionally), employed disruptive tactics, and in Richard's case, I do agree that much of his recent activity has been unhelpful. Let me write up a couple of paragraphs about how we can structure the discussion and work toward harmonious editing (yeah, right!).  I can't do it immediately, but I'll get it posted within 24 hrs.  (Morning call for prayer has been echoing across the harbour and with the coming daylight I have to return to real work.)  In the meantime, consider copying Hymen over to a user subpage and working on it there.


 * I suggest that in your posts to Talk:Hymen you avoid labeling material contrary to your view as "religious" or edits as "religiously motivated". It is not at all clear to me that religion (or even an overbearing morality that does travel hand in hand with many religious sects) is responsible for whatever misunderstandings exist regarding the hymen.  Nor is it clear that obsession with virginity (again motivated more, perhaps, by overbearing morality than by religion itself) and resulting virginity tests are much influenced by such misinformation.  Even if some incorrect information is religious in origin, those spreading it may simply be misinformed.  In any case, excessive use of the term does create the appearance of fanatically advocating an agenda (although I suppose, fanatic or not, we should all be advocating an agenda of NPOV).  It should be sufficient to describe an assertion as incorrect.  As you've mentioned, addressing the tone of an article is the most difficult part, so save your "religiously motivated" descriptions for when you need them, and even then use them sparingly.


 * Finally, don't think that I am necessarily "on your side" (unless, of course, "your side" is simply that of the improvement of this article and of wikipedia in general). I am under the impression that you are assuming as fact some statements that I do not find supported by my recent reading, however I am not well informed on the subject, and am even less well informed on your assumptions.  From the beginning you proposed a complete rewrite and asked for others' input, and after not receiving any you started boldly editing the article.  This is good, but as objections have arisen, and as you propose sweeping changes to the article, it is reasonable to discuss what problems exist with both the facts and the POV (the former always easier than the latter) before implementing those sweeping changes.  Before you think that I am part of some religious cabal "against you" (as if denials do any good), left me assure you that I am an atheist, much as I am an Aleprechaunist (however germane that may be).  --  Kirk Hilliard (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of my last changes to the article: merging the duplicate refs, formatting and fixing the one with the dead url, integrating the "myths", removing the quote from the 1500s from the "modern perspectives" to a new section called something like "historic" and adding a reference to it, and removing the one sentence that had no source; which do you disagree with. Certainly they are not vandalism. With them completed, I think the cleanup tag can be removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me the edit where I added "Social, Medical, and Legal Control of Female Sexuality Through Construction of Virginity in Turkey". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)