Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cherylbarksdale (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 26 February 2012 (→SPI Case Outcome). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Cherylbarksdale, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Your submission at Articles for creation

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation

Looks good! Thanks for creating the article. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation

I have formally nominated this article for deletion. You can see my reasons for this nomination here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Campaign_Against_Female_Genital_Mutilation. Lastly, if you are IP 64.118.217.166 please only comment on the deletion nomination from either your IP address or from your user name by logging in. To comment from both could be considered sockpuppetry, see: WP:PUPPET. I assume you are 64.118.217.166 because this user account has only edited the same pages that 64.118.217.166 has: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/64.118.217.166. I have posted a similar message on that user's talk page. Thank you. Vietminh (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

To say someone is the same person because they edited the same pages is absolutely ridiculous. Are you aware that some people are only interested in a particular subject and thus will edit the same pages? Ndbriggs (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not "absolutely ridiculous" at all, the IP address I listed here has only edited the exact same pages as this user, and began editing at the exact same time. Furthermore, the IP address has joined into discussion or began editing immediately after this User has tried to submit content which was deemed inappropriate, and further to that the User crafts their arguments and writes very similar to the IP address listed above. Coincidence? Maybe. A new user who accidentally forgot to login before continuing editing? Maybe. I have no way of knowing at all, but if the latter was true I wanted to inform this user that it is against Misplaced Pages guidelines to vote from two different accounts, information which is very valuable to them. Vietminh (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A new user does not have to login to edit. Their IP is their signature. Your argument above is baseless. There was nothing "inappropriate" about what was submitted. It is my personal opinion that you are biased against me and I will refer you for investigation. If you truly are trying to help on wiki, there are so many useless information on wiki that should be targeted instead of notable topics like the one i submitted. Would you like me to send you some since you seem to have so much time on your hands. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's take a breather

I just read your post on the Sockpuppet investigation page, let's relax about this for a second. Firstly, I am not attacking you on this, but what you have done is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. I understand that it is in good faith and that you may be new to editing Misplaced Pages, so this is not a big deal. It's just hard on my end to tell good faith from bad faith when I'm getting confusing signals. Now, the issue here is you have recruited people to comment in your favour, and as I say on the investigation page this is against policy. Secondly, I'm not attacking you on this, I just had to figure out what is going on. I do have a bias, we all have biases and interests, that's how this whole encylopedia works. But before you begin to think I am something that I'm not, you should know that I am the user who got the Female Genital Mutilation page named as such, before I came along it was called Female Genital Cutting. I also worked very hard with other users to bring the content of that page more in line with the consensus in the medical and NGO community. If I have a bias, it's a bias that is in line with your bias.

As for the page you created, the problem with this is that the organization cagem is simply not notable enough to merit it's own page, the only sources that say it exists is the cagem website itself. Clearly and obviously there is a worldwide campaign to get rid of FGM, anyone familiar with the subject knows this. But the premise of the article misleads people into thinking something exists which does not. Your colleague who commented on the AfD is right, I haven't been to Africa. But the way Misplaced Pages works is that we need a reliable, english language source that says something exists or something is going on. Otherwise it's just hearsay and opinion. The sources you provided clearly show there are multiple global campaigns ongoing, but they do not show any connection between any of them.

So the way forward on this is pretty straightforward. For the Sockpuppet investigation: If you could acknowledge on the investigation page that you understand how what you did violated Misplaced Pages guidelines I will close the investigation which is clearly unnecessary. For the article you created: After the sockpuppet investigation is closed, I will re-list the article for deletion and the community can decide whether it should be deleted or kept. Once this is done you would be free to comment again with your support for keeping the article, but your colleagues would not (without this becoming a case of meatpuppetry again). The editors who frequent the AfD boards make assessments on what should and shouldn't be kept all the time, they have a good eye for it and since they have no interest in the article you can trust them to make an unbiased, dispassionate assessment.

I hope this brings everything to a positive and acceptable conclusion for you, please reply on my talk page so I know what's up :). Vietminh (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI Case Outcome

The sockpuppet investigation has been resolved per http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cherylbarksdale#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments. Please read up on WP:MEAT (specifically "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Misplaced Pages and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, and seek comments from other Wikipedians or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.") as well as WP:EQ. Thank you and happy editing. Vietminh (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• First, I want to tell you that I told the experts in my community to look for sources from their resources to improve the article not comment on the AFD page. if they did that it was of their own free will. They had the option of either defending or disputing the article. However, i'm a physician and this is really a low priority for me so i'm not going to hunt down everyone who heard the announcement of the article to tell them to not comment especially if they did so on their own free will and not under my influence. In fact there are ip's that commented there that I don't think have anything to do with me. A student researching the subject who has never edited wiki will see the tag at the top and the call for contribution to the debate and will no doubt contribute especially if it was helpful to them. But i see you are tagging all of them as meatpuppets even when it is clear that at least one of them have edited several other wiki pages. You seem to be really invested in this and your desire to delete that article without giving it a chance, unfortunately makes me feel you have some kind of ulterior motive, i'm just not sure what it is. Hear is my reasoning for that: inappropriate articles usually get deleted by "speedy deletion" in fact most of them do not even make it to being published. However, poorly sourced articles if new are given time to develop, and by time I mean way more than a week. You don't want to give it time, you nominated it for DELETION as soon as it was published. To declare that something does not exist takes a lot more work than you obviously have put in. No offense but honestly as a physician, researcher, and a member of doctors without borders, I have to tell you that you really don't know the true meaning of "verifiable". BTW if i don't respond to you its because I'm crazy busy and today is my weekend off:) Honestly, you've really put me off wiki because it makes me feel there are people like you that want to monopolize content by any means necessary. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating an article that is long over due. I will do my best to expand the article and find sources. Ndbriggs (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)