Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 19 December 2007 (archived). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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)

69.106.230.196, You need sources for your change. The current wording is well sourced. Also please do not speculate about the beliefs of another user. If you continue to use the talk space like a forum you will receive further & escalating warnings--Cailil 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

you did that to me!!!!!!! you know im right. there is no flaw in my reasoning. my indignation is not mindless jeering. i know talkspaces platforms for personal views but i thought it was acceptable thing to say anyways, sorry if it wasnt. i dont need a source to interpret the english language i know what it says. wheres the proof that says abortion is a natural right? i believe im right and if you cant disprove me you should just change it so everyone can agree.69.106.230.196 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

I'm out for a couple hours. Please issue a final warning with diffs and cite policy. Ask the IP not to post to your talk page again, too. This will be resolved soon. - Jehochman 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

You are nice enough to AGF regarding me and Anacapa! However, it is impossible to dispute the checkuser. Therefore, if there is any scrutiny, I will be unable to shake the assertion that I am not Anacapa. So I might as well try to ignore it but if there is ever a dispute, I might have to say "I AM Anacapa" and anybody else is a copy cat.

Again, thank you for the welcome back! Chergles 19:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of feminism

Caesar is pushing his "more correct" POV redefinition into the lede again. I don't want to run afoul of the 3RR. Could you take a look at what's going on? --Orange Mike 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Women's Rights

Cailil, you're awesome.  : ) - Sasha Kopf 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you Sasha. It's really only a start that article needs work--Cailil 18:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandal on my user page. Greg Jones II 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all--Cailil 01:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian  02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: checkuser

Hi, sorry for my late reply and thanks for your suggestion. I am still considering filing a report of some kind about the suspected sock-puppeteer, but as Parsifal already pointed out on my talk page, the close IP relation behind all those edits is already quite clear, which leaves me wondering as well, how a checkuser procedure could help. But then again, I'm not that familiar with the process and what exactly it unearths. In that light, what would your next move be, still checkuser or rather a WP:SSP report? - Cyrus XIII 14:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathanson & Young

User:Alastair Haines/Misandry sources has a framework and some sources. I'm simply trying to systematically gather all publications citing N&Y via internet traces, linking to authors, publishers and text if I can get it. Interesting things pop up like the American Library Association best of the best award, and Canadian government funding (via the Marriage Institute site). Canada seems to be quite a progressive place, if the Canadian Children's Rights Council is anything to go by, I can imagine the government wanting investigation into this sort of thing.

If you want a methodology for investigating popular media regarding misandry, James Macnamara's PhD is the publication to look at. He is cited elsewhere as a rigorous version of N&Y.

Other trivia: the article by N&Y at the Mariage Institute notes that one of them is gay, although they offer arguments against gay marriage!

Canada and N&Y are rather interesting!

Glen Sacks shared the platform with them at a men's movement conference, but I'm not looking for political conferences, only academic and quasi academic conferences.

My own interest in the subject is also linguistic, as it turns out, I am researching for a postgrad award analysing love poetry. As you can easily imagine misandry (and misogyny) are relevant as a contrast. Hate is so often frustrated love too ... but I haven't got to psychology yet. ;) Alastair Haines 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine John Beynon (Welsh, 3 years of press data) and James Macnamara are the academic type treatments more useful to you. Nathanson and Young are definitely popular press - political - moral in their treatment and in who uses them. Even the journal articles that criticize them are political. I can agree with you on talk pages that many journals are political, even ones with substantial studies used to back political arguments; however, for article space, I'm content to present all learned peer-reviewed journals at the same level. Saves me trying to draw a line regarding where research is compromised by funding, rather than facilitated by it. It's a serious issue, but hard to judge even in my own field, let alone those outside my area.

By the way, I'm slowly learning respect for the men's movement. It's very diverse. I couldn't come at the tree-huggers; and I'm not the football watching, hard-hat wearing, back-shed type either. LoL, in that stubbornly persistent classification of masculinities as man's man or ladies man, I certainly fall into the latter, but I'm a failure there! I don't know what kind of masculinity I have, I just know I'm a man, and that I'm me!

I'm just wondering. Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia shows a complex of contradictory masculinity related issues I would have thought. Not a Rex Harrison or Yule Brenner cardboard cut-out. Hamlet and some other Shakespearean anti-heroes reveal a sophistication in exploring masculine character, I imagine. There are some gems in the Bible -- Samson the knucklehead, and Elijah the intense. Joshua, and his New Testament namesake, are too good to be true, unless, of course, they were! ;) he he.

There's a stream of consciousness for you as I try to think a bit into your world. People have done so much great thinking, and there's not enough time to share it with them all! :-( Alastair Haines 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very big thank you

I am not surprised that there has been a very appropriate process involved in this case. Thank you for taking the time to summarise it for me. It is very clear that everything has been conducted in a way any reasonable editor can understand and endorse. Your personal diligence in going to the trouble of "bringing me up to speed" is very much appreciated Calil.

I will note on the misandry page that my questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and that I have every reason to believe that anyone else interested in such things will find Wiki's conduct in this satisfactory.

I have sympathy for Anapaca's emotions, and am open to some of his views, however, one can be involved in emotional and controversial subjects without slander or threat. These are precisely the same allegations he makes regarding feminism, but it is hardly conducive to constructive discussion to imitate in one's own methodology what one alleges of others.

Again, thanks for your time and patience. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was little chance of trouble in this case, 'cause I know so many excellent people at Wiki, that it's usually just a matter of time before things are resolved, and reasonably. But, yes, it could be more confusing and uncertain for someone newer, or with fewer points of contact with the wider community.

LoL, it's a "baptism of fire" talking about sex, religion and politics at Wiki. But that's a good thing! More importantly, there is no conspiracy for or against men or women that I've detected.

Hope your server works out OK soon, and hope your research (and teaching?) in RL are going well also. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More excellent commentary from you Sir! :D I feel the sincerity of your discouraging infamy comment. So true! You put very concisely the logic of what is essentially a compassionate emotional instinct with me. I particularly appreciate people who are able to think and act (as well as feel) like this. It seems to me the essence of what good management and good government seek in those who determine discipline proceedures.

I'm taken up with RL deadlines atm, but rest assured, I wish to honour your excellent handling of my sincere questions, by raising some of the issues at the redlink you provided. The issue is important, but thankfully not urgent.

Between you and me, I think Misplaced Pages is potentially the ultimate in what the internet has to offer. It is not a democratisation of truth, but it has the potential to be a very substantial democritisation of knowledge, which is a very wonderful thing. It depends on a subtle management of interaction with users and editors (and administrators too). The strategy and sociology of Wiki fascinates me. I try to stick to generating reliable content, but in cases like the current one, I think there are some big picture things that are part of long term discussions for important abstract improvements to Wiki processes.

Thanks again, I hear you, and I intend to act according to your suggestion, please bear with me. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

individualist feminism

Dr. Presley:

I updated the individualist feminism page. I believe the page looks a lot cleaner now. Hopefully you'll agree that these are improvements.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Allixpeeke (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alex. I think you've confused me for someone else - I'm not Dr. Preseley. Your changes to individualist feminism are improvements but the article needs more sources to properly comply with WP:V--Cailil 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. When I saw "Sharon Presley --Cailil 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)" posted here, well...

Actually, can you explain that? Did you write that post, and if so, why does her name appear? Maybe I'm just not getting it.

Thanks,

Alex Peak

replied on user's talk page--Cailil 14:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

When you become a sysop you probably will have to use some confidential evidence sometime. If nothing else it may be an e-mail from someone who's been harassed and respects you enough to trust you. I'm glad the community is working out some parameters for that issue now because it really had no standards on the subject and I was feeling my way through the dark. I fully support that effort. Durova 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize you were in uncharted territory and that you were acting with the very best of intentions but one has to be able to explain one's actions. I belive that when one's values are threatened by those who wish to subvert them then it is time to be most strict with one's self about what those values are.

Openness and "due process" are there for our protection from the system - secrecy exists only to protect the system from us. That is my belief. There was a time in my personal life when I had to faced some pretty dangerous people in court as a witness, at many levels I would have liked to use secrecy to have those people sent-down but that's just not how liberal society works. In the end I stood-up, I was counted, I was named and my evidence was presented for cross examination. And they were defeated fairly and openly.

We both know that there are people attempting to use this encyclopedia in order to make money; to promote their crackpot ideas and their non-notable organizations; etc., but we don't need to use secret methods to stop them - in fact we need these people not only to be defeated for attempting to usurp the poject, we need them to be seen to be defeated and defeated fairly.

All that said I do think you handled yourself admirably during the controversy and your unblock of !! should have been enough. There were a few users who attempted to (and succeeded in) causing drama - I wonder if they've heard the proverb: "people in glass houses...".

I'll see you in mainspace and as always you have my respect and support--Cailil 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)