User talk:Lquilter/Archive 002

Thank you
I understand you were doing routine vandal patrol. Still, THANK YOU. Thank for catching the vandalism in the Langston Hugehs article. You guys keep those like me from wanting to give up. Again, a sincere thank you.TonyCrew 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The X-Files Calusari
Thanks for the interest. I am yet to see 'Home' though I am well aware of it's content which my father says was the most disturbing episode ever. I have seen 'The Calusari' and did not think it disturbing though looking at the UK DVD ratings, season two is the only box set to have a rating of '18'. All the others have ratings of '15', including season 4 (which contains 'Home'). The disk inside the season 2 boxset that is '18' contains 'The Calusari', 'F. Emasculata', 'Soft Light' and 'Our Town'. Out of all of these, I would say that it is most probably 'The Calusari' that holds this rating. The Irish rating for the same disk is '15'. Thanks for the advice. 05/01/07 User:Midnightblueowl
 * Hi I went with the fact that it wasn't 'Our Town' because the Torchwood box set which had far more explicit images of cannibalism was only rated a '15'. I shall delete it and try to find out more. User: Midnightblueowl

Discussion 18/12/06 (Category talk:Awards of the United States)
Hello, per our discussion above, on naming conventions for the national sub-categories of Category:Awards by country. I've put the contents of this category up for CFD, proposing that all be renamed 'XXX awards' as we settled upon in our discussion - see the CFD debate.

Best wishes,

X damr talk 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft
Why did you add a box around the archive link? Kaldari 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

political art / etc
well, personally, i like "subversive" a bit better, because i think it's less vague than "political" and not as limiting as something like "anarchist" or marxist. BUT, i'll certainly use it if "subversive" gets consensed out of here. of all the artists i put into the category, i think most would identify as "anarchist", but not all, but i think those others could interest folks that might be interested in "anarchist" artists, so should be able to grouped together in some way, without the broad definition of "political". bottom line though, i'll take what's consensed upon, because, well, i have to. thanks a ton for your interest. cheers! Murderbike 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
Great job on the Biology category cleanup! For the main articles of the subcategories, you shouldn't remove it from the supercategory according to Categorization_and_subcategories. Cheers!--ragesoss 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't ever seen that either until now (who has time to read all the mess of regulations?). I just noticed you doing things differently than I usually do when I saw my pet articles get recategorized, so I figured I'd see if there was any guideline on it one way or the other.--ragesoss 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

per your question in cfd
"how many "peoples" have a dedicated state?" Please see titular nation for an idea. `'mikka 07:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting -- I've even been to Kazakhstan and didn't think of it. --lquilter 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation.
Hi! I saw your helpful comment on WP:LGBT and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We'd love to have to on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome aboard. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorizations
Hi Lquilter,

I just added a comment regarding the IP cat. vs. the IPLaw cat. and have a qstn. about logistics that I am hoping you will be willing to answer for me. I agree that the appropriate heading is IPL and that the merge should be in that direction. But how do you execute the merge? As a practical matter, would it not be easier to move the 3 or so pages in the IPL cat. over to the IP cat., delete the old IPL cat., and rename the IP cat. IPL? Have I just confused you? Either way, you have to go to all pages using the categorisation and change it, right? Thanks for your time.

--Vbd 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if we were just resorting articles individually, we would do exactly that. But in this instance, because there are two cats and we actually want to get rid of one, I took it to the CFD.  If consensus is achieved, then administrators who work on the CFD will take care of it.  They often sic the bots on the project. So CFD, while time-consuming in terms of waiting for decisions and participating in discussions, is actually often time-saving in terms of processing out big categories. (Thanks for agreeing with me, btw! I always feel warmly towards people who do. ) --lquilter 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying! I'm still learning my way around and am often baffled by the logic some people use in categorizing things.  And I am definitely sketchy on the nuts & bolts inner workings (e.g., admins, bots) of Wikipedia.  It's nice to encounter a friendly user willing to answer a question or two!  I'll keep my eyes open for other law-related categorization discussions.  See ya'. --Vbd 22:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Drop by any time. You're absolutely right that categorization doesn't always make sense: Lots of people categorize in a fairly ad hoc way, so it's not always consistent or sensible -- that's why we've got CFD.  --lquilter 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Stubsorting
''I'm doing a lot of person-stub-sorting, including in the activists category, and will simply file people whose articles describe themselves as "Animal rights activists" in the category Category:Animal rights movement. Sorry to just dump them in a big category, which seems really inappropriate to me.'' --lquilter 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Lquilter, please don't put them in that category indiscriminately. They should only be in the AR movement if reliable sources (not Wikipedia) indicate they belong there, by calling them AR advocates, activists etc. If they're just people who support PETA, they should go in Category:PETA supporters. But please make sure there are third party sources, and that it's not Wikipedia you're using as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category
Your change is correct! Where in the US are you located? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Category
Your change is correct! Where in the US are you located? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I split my time b/w NY & Mass -- why? --lquilter 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Gender Studies
Hi Lquilter, I'm asking some Project Gender Studies members for their opinions on a few changes to the project templates. The discussion is here. If you're interested please have a look. I'd also like to have the project page unprotected so it could be editted to give due balance to the Gender Theory activities of the project as well as the removal of systemic bias activities - what would be your opinions on this (discussed here)?--Cailil 01:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wordsmith
I believe that the article on the award was meant, although I don't mind either way.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well we should revert then, because if there is unclarity then there certainly isn't consensus. Sorry! --lquilter 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Political artists cat.
Hey - I'd be interested in helping with it. I created a category for "Musical activists" myself a while ago, though it was deleted (and well should have been, with a name like that). I can add a few articles to the category whenever you'd like, in a few fields - visual arts, music, literature. Subcats can follow - I'd go with art atyles first, then go into politics from there, preferably keeping it fairly broad. Eg., anarchist musicians, fascist painters, socialist writers, libertarian poets, conservative interpretive dancers (ha!). Anyway, good luck. ~  Swi tch t 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I worry that the category is, currently, not well named. However, political art is a phenomena/genre that needs to be discussed, and it is a defining characteristic of some/many artists.  The problem is that it's hard to define by the subcats of political belief -- see issues on Category talk:American liberals (discussed Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people and see Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization.  I'm not sure what the solution is.  I support categorizing for (a) important categories / genres of work; (b) potentially categorizing based on certain identities; and (c) not categorizing with unclear or controversial terms (like "liberal" or "conservative" in the US). Somewhere there's a sensible categorizing philosophy but I haven't been able to articulate it yet. ... In the meantime, yes, I think we should be populating these categories with people who are making specifically political art. --lquilter 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

SBA abortion views
Just to give you a heads up on the situation over at the Anthony page, the user James xeno and I have had issues in the past on exactly how SBA's view in respect to abortion should read in the article, with myself favoring historical context and Xeno pushing for a staunch anti-abortion position. I have laid out my feelings regarding a potential revision of the info per your suggestion on the talk page. Meanwhile, Xeno continues to stealthily edit in favor of his POV irrespective of any prior discussion, so keep an eye out for that. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update -- yes, I've added SBA to my watchlist. These stealth POV-ers are so annoying! --lquilter 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Category American liberals
Hi-I understand your position, and I agree that the category as defined is probably way, way too vague. I just thought that Zinn fit the category as it is currently defined (which currently is essentially everything on the left side of the political spectrum; perhaps a rename to Cateogry: American leftists or such is in order?) Anyway, it looks like it's about to become a non-issue soon anyway, because the category looks headed for defeat at CFD (and I can't say I'd be sad for it). Bduddy 05:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, it is a sort of de facto "leftists" category (although even that term is a little problematic to some radicals). I agree that the category "as defined" included, probably, Zinn; the problem was that the definition didn't correspond to most notions of "liberal"; and "liberal" is a real political identity .... Conceptually, I think it's good to be able to categorize people by important identifiers like their politics.   Hopefully the community will come up with some good guidelines on how to handle these issues -- something sensible & not as prone to abuse as the current cat structure.  You'll participate, I hope, in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people? --lquilter 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

LIS
Hi, would be interested in commenting at User talk:Pegship? Cheers, —Ruud 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IP lawyer
Hey, me too! Maybe we should have our own subcat for Wikipedian IP Lawyers (there are others). bd2412 T 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you start it, I'll join it. Wikipedians can never be over-categorized! We should subdivide by types of pet, regions of the country, and favorite author, at least!  I would be a cat-loving northeastern/pacific northwestern/ Le Guin public interest copyright lawyer.  --lquilter 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Please stop making misrepresentations as you just did on my talk page, when you insunuated that I had broken the three-revert rule, when you knew very well that I hadn't. Stop obsessively undoing every edit I make on the Nadine Gordimer page. You need to discuss things, not just delete. And stop making personal threats that you are going to have me blocked from Wikipedia, simply because I do not share your politics. Personal threats have a way of boomeranging back at their originators. 70.23.199.239 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave you a warning that you had hit 3Rs on the same page. I have discussed things ad nauseum on the Talk:Nadine Gordimer page as the edit history attests.  I have never made personal threats of having you blocked; I've given you warnings only after you repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and engaged in edit warring.  --lquilter 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with problem editors
I noticed that you posted this, then deleted it. It's a good question; I want to offer some thoughts.

''I would also like outside commentary on & suggestions for my interactions with this editor. I am stressed by the ongoing inability to have a dialogue about the substance of issues, and keep getting sucked in by the pointless accusations the editor makes about other editors. I would prefer to disengage entirely, but what is my responsibility to deal with the issues? This is a community ...?''


 * First, some editors simply don't respond to constructive comments. My standard is to give them one chance, then to basically ignore them.  By basically ignore, I mean that once I've asked them to pleae follow (say) WP:CIVIL, it's not worth repeating.


 * Second, if a posting on a talk page is an egregious violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, it may be worth simply deleting the offending language and citing the policy violated, in the edit summary. I always also cite Talk Page and WP:TPG, because those say what a talk page should be used for; if nothing else, incivlity and personal attacks violate those guidelines.


 * Third, you absolutely want to avoid going point-to-point with a disruptive editor when he/she attacks you or others; that just feeds the fire. Simply saying "I think the above comments are not in keeping with WP:AGF and I urge you and others to focus on discussing the article, per (cite talk page guidelines]] is a flat, factual statement.  If an editor says "X is racist", don't argue that X is not; just say that the editor is off-topic and please observe (cite policy).


 * Fourth, at the risk of being redundant, you want to defend the process from getting bogged down in personalal/behavioral issues, if possible, not defend individual editors. Assume they have thick skins (something everyone should cultivate), and remember that this isn't the real world.  Report blatant attacks (obscenities, shouting via caps, etc.) at WP:AN/I and otherwise restrict yourself to flat comments (above).  If you are concerned about how other editors feel personally about attacks, put a note on their talk page saying that you think they're a constructive member of Wikipedia; that you're sorry that there are other editors who don't seem to want to work on improving the article; and that you hope they will continue to contribute and will largely ignore such attacks.

-- Hope that helps. If questions, just drop me a line. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks John Broughton - this is helpful, especially the last point. --lquilter 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. (I added a couple of words that I mistakenly omitted on the first posting.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories on fauna in U.S. states
In the WP:CFD discussion, could you add additional comments specifying which states should be merged into which "U.S. region" category? I am not certain if I agree with the approach, but if other people prefer your suggestion, then having a more specific proposal would be helpful. Dr. Submillimeter 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean that won't happen automatically with our brilliant admins?  okay, you're right, i'll try to be a bit more precise. --lquilter 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)