User talk:Cailil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

My user page

My talk page

My contributions

Archives Archive 1 Jan 2007

1 Random smiley
2 Gender-stub/Masc-stub
3 Possible sexist bias on wikipedia
4 hmm
5 Project Gender Studies
6 Gender-studies-stub
7 User:Shirahadasha
8 Hi Cailil
9 Criticisms of women's studies
10 Pop Feminism made into a redirect
11 re:barnstar

[edit] Random smiley

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Jerry lavoie 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender-stub/Masc-stub

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a couple of new stub types. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it is already covered as part of {{Sex-stub}}, which isn't really in need of splitting yet. Also, the name "gender-stub" is fairly ambiguous (mind you, so is sex-stub - see my comments on that at WP:WSS/D). Also it is far from clear that the new stub types would reach the standard threshold of 60 stubs for creation of new stub types. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grutness, apologies for that I didn't raed the policy. Sorry again I didn't know that stubs were restricted. I'll make a comment on the deletion page expressing why sex-stub doesn't cover these two areas. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I'm sorry for causing any bother at your end--Cailil 01:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sexist bias on wikipedia

Sir could you plz look at the concerns I have raised in the Gender Studies project page regarding three articles regarding Indian Feminism that IMHO are very biased and have a sexist POV? [1] India Rising 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was hoping for a more active participation from gender studies people in those articles, particularly the one about NCW, which I feel still contains some pretty mysogynistic biases, trying to portray a notable and respectable feminist organization with the "militant hairy-armed feminist" stereotype propogated by the American Christian right.I hope that more knowledgeable people will investigate this matter further. India Rising 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hmm

well, i'm trying to work out a way to respond to that rant from you know who. plus i actually have to work. sorry you're bearing the brunt of the attack. --lquilter 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks lquilter, I've decided to disengage for a while I can't deal with this person's complaints/comments its too frustrating. At this stage I'm used to being attacked its water off a duck's back for me : )--Cailil 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Gender Studies

Always happy to give advice. In this case, I'm not sure what the problem is. Perhaps I'm missumarizing, but you're dealing with essentially a vandal IP attack. Repeatedly posting lengthy off-topic comments to talk pages is vandalism if the user has been told (and the posts removed with a useful edit summary). Messing with a "to-do" list is vandalism.

As to what you can do to stop the vandalism, there are three things: revert; warnings and (eventually) blocking the user; and semi-protection of pages. Offering "RfC" when you can't get an editor to even discuss what he/she is doing (and he/she continues to vandalize) is pointless; I personally wouldn't bother, and certainly you should worry about any failure to respond to that.

Similarly, you say I'd really like to know what can be done to solve some of their complaints. I think their complaint is that today's world isn't like it was 150 years ago, with women subservient. That's probably not a complaint you can - or really want to, obviously - help them with.

So, considering the three things you can do:

Revert. This isn't futile, really, though it's irritating. Consider it the price of being an editor here. Reverting is like picking up other trash left by other people at a beach - you can wish the world were different, but unfortunately there are a lot of thoughtless, petty, mean, ignorant folks out there. And always will be, in all probability.

Warnings and blocks - if the editor continues to change IP addresses, warnings are pointless; I normally ignore the first vandalism from an IP account, not posting a warning unless there is evidence that it is being used on a more-or-less continuing basis. Of course it's easier to get a user blocked if there have been warnings; I suggest, given the history here, you start with {{subst:blatantvandal}}, a level 3 warning. (See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Grid of warnings for the full range of stuff.) But don't expect much payback here - someone with a dial-up account, for example, will always get a new IP address each time.

Get semi-protection: you say that you'd like to have the page safe enough to be unprotected. The norm here is for an admin to come along (at an unpredictable interval) and unprotect the page to see what happens; if vandalism doesn't start up again, it stays unprotected. I personally don't think that having a page semi-protected is that bad a thing (fully protected, on the other hand - yes, that is unfortunate), particularly a project page - I don't think anonymous editors really are likely to be serious contributors to a WikiProject (if they understand what one is, and are serious, they can always register, or post something to the talk page, or even just do what wikiproject members do without formally signing up). And, again, this isn't something you really can fix - as long as there are IP vandals out there, the choice is either revert them manually or protect against them; each has advantages and disadvantages, but the underlying cause - the ill intentions of others - is something that Wikipedia editors really can't fix.

Hope that helps; if I've misread something in your posting, I apologize. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't misunderstood at all. I wasn't sure if ordinary editors could use warnings and I didn't just want to delete the user's comments/additions unilaterally. Thanks for your advice.--Cailil 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender-studies-stub

Yeah, i think that proposing it at WP:WSS/P would be the next logical move from here. Given that there's already been some discussion of it, I don't think there's likely to be any problems with it there. Mention the previous discussion so that anyone who sees it for the first time on the proposal page has some idea what's already been going on. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shirahadasha

Hello Cailil. It might relieve your concerns somewhat to note that for all our many editorial disagreements, IZAK didn't oppose my RfA (which was ultimately unsuccessful). It might also be worth noting that of all the many comments made for and against, none questioned the appropriateness of my username. If there were a serious issue or cause of misunderstanding in the user community, perhaps someone might have mentioned it. Given that I've been editing for about a year and this is the first time the issue has been raised, perhaps it might be worth waiting a bit to see if someone else also objects before taking any sort of action. Does this seem reasonable? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Cailil

How are you doing? Since I know you are interested in gender issues, I thought you might be interested in a discussion related to the topic at Marc Lépine, and have some insights to share. --Slp1 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of women's studies

Towsonu2003 I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.
I can see why you've decided to seperate Criticisms of women's studies to work on this problematic section - but you should have used a subpage not created a new article page. I would recommend to you strongly that that page be merged with Women's studies or be deleted. At present there is no need a) to sperate this from the Women's studies page because of that article's length or b) enough reliable material in this section to constitute an article "in and of itself."
Please corect me if I'm wrong but your premise for creating the Criticisms of women's studies page is that summary style should be used for the women's studies criticism section. This implies that there is a "large" amount of criticism of the Women's Studies discipline and also that a large encyclopedic article could be written about it. I for one don't agree a) with this premise (as above 'Women's studies is not long') or b) that such criticisms are notable enough for their own article. By notable I mean that in this case Patai and Koertge's book is a primary source - you'd need to find enough secondary sources that talk about their book and the other's to show notablity rather than undue weight . I did a search myself and I found two such sources

Anne-Marie Kinahan in Published in Canadian Review of American Studies - Issue 31:1, 2001 [2] which critiques René Denfeld's The New Victorians: A Young Woman's Challenge to the Old Feminist Order (New York: Warner, 1995)
and a wider look at women's studies including its critics in Kim Chuppa-Cornell's "The Scholarly Arm of the Women's Movement: A Look Back at the Journey." WILLA, Volume 11, p. 3-10.

IMHO this is not enough for a separate article - I reiterate that you should copy this content to a sandbox and merge the existing page to Women's studies otherwise it will be Afd'd eventually. Some artciles just sit here on wikipedia in a sorry state, alá Pop feminism. Putting unsourced material "out there" doesn't mean it will get sourced by other users.
I apologize if I sound aggressive - if I certainly don't mean to be - I know you are acting in good faith and are making postive contributions to developing the Women's studies article (which needs a lot of work) but i disagree fundamentally with the approach taken. IMO even if there was enough material for a content fork such a change needs to be discussed on the Women' studies talk page. Drop me a line about this when you can I'd be happy to talk about this--Cailil 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls see [[3]] for my reasons. I don't care too much about the criticism within the article except that it kills the item by making it hostile to itself (which makes it looks ridiculous, to say the least). Those who want to talk about the "bad stuff" women's studies did should take their anti-feminist backlash to a new page and play there. Towsonu2003 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Towsonu2003. I 100% agree with you about the undue balance given to criticisms of Women's studies but there are more approriate ways of dealing with this. I may not have been clear about my point. The Criticisms of women's studies page should have been created as a temporary rather than permanent subpage. As it stands the article (and I realize it doesn't reflect your opinions) is unsourced, POV and of dubious notability. The backlashers as well as encyclopedic editors would be able to develop the page in a temporary subpage just as well as they could in the current one. I'm sorry to be nit-picking but a POV Fork is quite a problem. I would be happy to host the temporary subpage for the criticism or for the rewrite of the whole Women's studies article if you're not able to. Such a page could be listed at the 3 most pertinent WikiProjects (Project Gender Studies, WikiProject LGBT studies and the Sociology WikiProject). This way even as a subpage it would get quite a lot of attention and not be a POV fork. Please consider this approach--Cailil 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Towsonu2003. I'm just dropping by to ask if you've had a chance to think about the above. As mentioned I have a free sandbox which could be used as a temorary subpage if required.--Cailil 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point really. But if you want, I don't have any problems with making that page a temporary page. Towsonu2003 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Feminism made into a redirect

I just noticed that Pop Feminism is now a redirect into Feminism. Sorry, I have not been watching this issue too closely the last few days - could you tell me what prompted this action? Also, I'm not sure its a good thing to have 'pop feminism' redirected to feminism. If the term is indeed invalid then surely nobody would type it into the search box. It should be deleted completely. The pity is that various websites have not updated or deleted their copycat entries on it.--ChrisJMoor 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi ChrisJMoor, I understand your point - it was an admin or sysop decision to merge rather than delete the article. Black Falcon merged the pages on the 11th of March. They were going to try to develop the page but after a week of searching could find nothing. I support the decision to merge but I see your point as well. Between the 3 editors (yourself, myself and Black falcon) none of us can source a definition for the term, 'pop feminism,' but at the same time we all know 'pop feminism' exists. I have proposed that a section: Feminism & Popular Culture could be created (initially as a temp. sub-page so that it can be properly sourced etc) in the Feminism article - I'm happy to provide a temp subpage myself if neccessary. In this way the redirect would have a purpose--Cailil 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)