![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
I appreciate the suggestion. I saw the description of the book at Amazon.com and wondered whether his argument may be too specific for my needs. I am interested in those things that can be considered meaningful but that do not enter the symbolic. For Pierce, indexical or iconic signifiers might be examples. For Lacan, the register of the imaginary. I think Wittgenstein grapples with this issue and I am just as interesated in his thoughts, although I do not know if anyone has devised a strictly "Wittgensteinian" demiotic (or related his work to Pierce's). Anyway, this is why I asked. I have way more to read than I have time for, so I am trying to be very careful about what I add to my list. Am I better off just reading more/about Pierce, Wittgenstein, and Lacan and just thinking it through, or is there a real payoff to reading Muller's book? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This user has resumed his disruptive activities following his unblock. In particular when I warned him that if he continued arguing on the talk page of Europe (I suppose the same point but it was essentially trolling because he had no edit to suggest), he reported simultaneously on WP:WQA and WP:ANI without informing me. I filed a separate report on WP:ANI. Please can some oreder be restored here? TheThankful is continuing to be disruptive and is harrassing me by this forum shopping. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Replied at ANI [2]-- Cailil talk 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Is there any reason to revert my edits? It´s a total neutral point of view. Jackiestud ( talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Jackie what has that got to do with WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY? I've removed the material again. Please conduct an request for comment if you want input on its reinstatement. To be clear I don't think this info should not be in the encyclopedia I just think you're putting it in the wrong place and giving it too much emphasis there-- Cailil talk 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What you wrote in your sandbox looks great - do you want to add it into the article, or do you want to wait? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. Frankly, I think AC started this because although the need is there, any proposal is likely to wind up mired in the usual wrangling over comma placement that besets every proposal that would better the community. Were I slightly more conspiracy-minded, I would suggest that the AC proposal was intended to fail as a way of jumpstarting the community into creating its own body.
In any case, this may be of interest to you as an alternate proposal, built from the ground up by the community, with the initial members appointed by ArbCom left in place for a few months to set it up. → ROUX ₪ 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi – I'm not sure if you are still on your Wikibreak or are following the Feminism Task Force talk page or not, but I just left a note here about the recent NPOV tagging of the Third-wave feminism article by an anonymous IP editor. I'm not sure how warranted some of the tags were, but I was hoping somebody could POV-check the article. You seem quite knowledgeable about the topic, so I was hoping you could have a look at it. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd really appreeciate it if you could parse this discussion: [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cailil Good to see you back and thanks for your comments on those various pages that almost cause me to go bonkers with frustration. I have a very different request for you, however, with your M. Litt and all. I was wondering if you would care to review Olivia Manning, that I am trying to get up for peer review and then FA if possible. She's a 20th Century writer with an Irish connection, if that will tempt you. I'll have to warn you, that as a person she's quite annoying!! Anyway, I would be especially grateful if you could take a look at the literary assessment part and give your comments, questions.... or even better just improve it! -- Slp1 ( talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In general, serious abuse should be reported to the Internet service provider so appropriate action may be taken against the abusive user. From what I understand, it sounds like this editor fits the abuse response criteria and should be reported there for contact. Feel free to report him there =D. However, I should warn you that WP:ABUSE is undergoing some major revamping to become more effective in the future, so reports aren't being processed at a fast rate right now. The reports will still be processed (moved to the new toolserver interface in the future). Also, if the user meets WP:LTA criteria, he could also be reported there and then deferred to abuse response for contact with the ISP in the future. Sorry if this is a bit complicated; we're taking many steps to revive the project and making it more user friendly. Thanks & if you have any more questions, feel free to message me. Netalarm welcome to 2010! 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for any trouble. I just saw the comment & I just instinctivly deleted it.-- Jastcaan ( talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:IAR is a much better summation of what I was trying to explain to you before. And it happens to have been the first rule of Wikipedia, and the only one I care about. I'm very happy I found it - I'm going to cite it every single time somebody like you tries to bully me with WP:WIKILAWYERING. I just want to improve the encyclopedia, I don't care about the rules. And according to Jimbo Wales, I shouldn't, because Wikipedia has no firm rules. DegenFarang ( talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Hi Cailil. Thanks for your two cents in the Gender Studies talk page on Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols' name. Much appreciated, and a good point. If one initially explicates the full name (using anaesthetic of course - I mean it does sound painful), one could then trim down to what looks like the established "Mary Gove Nichols" usage, using "she" and "her" for readability where possible, interspersed with "Mary Gove Nichols" at key points. Money well spent!
P.s. I've also copied your reply and mine to the Feminism Task Force discussion page, as the Gender studies talkpage has automated archiving after 30 days, which I note at the bottom of another discussion section is probably too frequent for a page with low-frequency discussion turnover (logic dictates high frequency archiving for high frequency turnover and vice versa). The Feminism Task Force page has automated archiving after 45 days, so any discussion on a Mary Gove Nichols article can also continue there if need be. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. He violeted 3RR today, and absused another BLP. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 ( talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
All to angst has become moot since Michael H 34 has returned to editing. I have posted the RFC/U here [5], in case you care to comment/endorse. -- Slp1 ( talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter (Febrauary 2010) | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
I've been attempting to tidy up this article, which seems to have suffered some malicious tweaks and blankings since your excellent attempt to overhaul it early in 2008. I thought I would drop you a note since I'm sure you know a lot more about the subject than I do (I've only been able to work on it as a sub-editor with no specialist information to hand), and might be interested in helping to pull the article back into shape. Best wishes, Alfietucker ( talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Since even I'd agree the block for what he did isn't necessarily deserving an indef block, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1 has been filed. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)The ANI thread has been archived. Has the issue been dealt with? Were any sanctions decided upon? -- HighKing ( talk) 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please can you take a look at the recent editing pattern of User:MidnightBlueMan if you get half a chance please? Appears to be putting "British Isles" into articles even when they've been discussed on the SE page, etc. -- HighKing ( talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)Breach of 1RR on List of former sovereign states -- HighKing ( talk) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Recent activity by User:MidnightBlueMan shows that they're in breach of 1RR and clearly not bothering with the SE page for discussing any changes they may have concerns or doubts about. For example The Ferns of Great Britain and Ireland has been a recent edit war with reverts by MBM here, here, with a summary in breach of civility, and here. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the length of my reply but allow me to clarify HighKing, there is no policy for that 1RR because there is no ruling or dispute resolution that can be reviewed and enforced by multiple outside admins. This is down to Black Kite - who left without instructing anyone in how to carry on, or with the what where and why of his remedy. Because BK did not formalize that remedy nobody knows how to enforce it or when to. Thus I consider enforcing it unsafe. (In other words any other admin would have the right to reverse such a block immediately and query the conduct of the blocking admin - unless it was BK.) Thus I think other avenues should be explored. I have also said that I have not agreed to enforce BK's measures.
I have stated my recommendation a number of times that all involved should try formal mediation. That way a formal remedy could be reached and imposed. It might also resolve some of the personal antipathy that seems to exist between some volunteers.
The issue re: WP:OWN is also simple. The BI task force and it's SE page are a forum for reaching consensus on how to improve and manage articles relating to, or containing, the phrase "British Isles". It can (and has) been used to formulate a policy as well - but at some point you have to bring that to the village pump and or WP:MOS. You need to understand that due to WP:BOLD nobody is, or can be, forced to use the BI SE page - until it has a standing in policy or through dispute resolution. For it to have such a standing a formal system of dispute resolution would need to be attempted (ie mediation, or ArbCom).
Be clear HK I am not against the SE page at all in fact I think it's an excellent idea - but you don't seem to be clear about its limits in, or its relationship to, policy. The fact that you and others are willing to discuss and propose ideas at the BI SE page in order to find consensus is a very positive thing. Also the fact that others are obviously acting contrary to that consensus (while being aware of it) speaks volumes. If in future there is an RfAr the activity of users on the page will be noted.
FYI I am reviewing the activity of a number of users in relation to this issue and I can see a pattern of disruption. I have long experience of this and I will follow my own council and site policy on when, where and how to act. My best advice for the time being is that there are at least 3 ways in which the task force can try to resolve this.
Unfortunately I believe this will end up in ArbCom unless all involved go to mediation or the MOS issue is cleared up. ArbCom would probably not be an enjoyable process nor one that will end to any of your satisfactions.
Also re: "Sounds very one-sided to me" I'm going to let that slide HK, but I wont in future - I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Saying you should all disengage is a basic dispute resolution suggestion.
Apropos this, here on this site I work within its core policies and through its internal processes. I set aside my personal feelings, allegiances and opinions - acting as "coldly" and neutrally as possible towards an issue. If I err on the side of caution that is because I have found it best practice to do so. Sometimes volunteers who are in the thick of a dispute can misinterpret my coldness for disinterest or negativity. It is neither. I am merely being neutral, and thus my perspective on a dispute will be different to those involved - please bear that in mind when I disagree with your view on an edit or on another user's behaviour--
Cailil
talk
03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This comment is the latest in a series which I believe you are aware of. I'd appreciate, if you get a chance, to examine this editors contributions and behaviour. -- HighKing ( talk) 23:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be a can of worms for you (or hornet's nest) but perhaps you might review this discussion and consider editing the article when you are ready next to take on an important and somewhat controversial project. Hope things have settled down at 4th wall, I was never sure how I could contribute constructively. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is where Atomaton characterizes other people's views as superstitions. Here is where Atomaton suggests that if a view is not scientific it is religious. Just so you know what I was responding to, if this helps you follow Phoenix's rant. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to restore some reason to the discussion - but I think what the page needs most is just more, informed, editors getting involved. Any thoughts as to how? Surely there must be more than two or three Wikipedia editors who know about various discussions on/debates over different disourses concerning sexual orientation. But I do not know how to find such editors.
Slrubenstein |
Talk
23:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."
The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth.
Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost two sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Cailil -- thanks so much for your note. I had come to the same conclusion a few hours ago while reflecting on a walk.
Stepping beyond Alastair, I do sense that there needs to be a policy improvement (even granting that the Arbcom were 100% correct in the conclusion, there could still be potential for policy improvement).
If there is a way to aid the project without dragging Alastair into it, I would be grateful for any ideas. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I know your time is limited, and you have other commitments, but if you can - I sure hope you can - could you review my recent talk on the talk page of this article (all within the last week or ten days) and my recent edits to the article (all today) and make whatever comments you believe in, if you have anything to say? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hammy's been blocked and is threatening to leave Wikipedia which ends the immediate threat. But as Maunus points out, this article is a toal mess. On the talk page I propose a new way to structure it and I would really like your input although it certainly does not have to be today. Most literature on patriarchy comes from anthropology and feminist theory so I think people knowledgable in these areas should work out the basic structure of the article and identify key sources. I hope soe time in the next week you can give it a look over. The current article is a mess and the more you read the more bizarre it gets. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you weigh in here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Cailil. Nope, the only email was on the talk page, from "Steven Goldberg" (who I was writing to the talk page to say couldn't be "the" expert). Thanks for your concern. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() Talk page |
![]() Admin |
![]() Logs |
![]() Awards |
![]() Books |
I appreciate the suggestion. I saw the description of the book at Amazon.com and wondered whether his argument may be too specific for my needs. I am interested in those things that can be considered meaningful but that do not enter the symbolic. For Pierce, indexical or iconic signifiers might be examples. For Lacan, the register of the imaginary. I think Wittgenstein grapples with this issue and I am just as interesated in his thoughts, although I do not know if anyone has devised a strictly "Wittgensteinian" demiotic (or related his work to Pierce's). Anyway, this is why I asked. I have way more to read than I have time for, so I am trying to be very careful about what I add to my list. Am I better off just reading more/about Pierce, Wittgenstein, and Lacan and just thinking it through, or is there a real payoff to reading Muller's book? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This user has resumed his disruptive activities following his unblock. In particular when I warned him that if he continued arguing on the talk page of Europe (I suppose the same point but it was essentially trolling because he had no edit to suggest), he reported simultaneously on WP:WQA and WP:ANI without informing me. I filed a separate report on WP:ANI. Please can some oreder be restored here? TheThankful is continuing to be disruptive and is harrassing me by this forum shopping. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Replied at ANI [2]-- Cailil talk 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Is there any reason to revert my edits? It´s a total neutral point of view. Jackiestud ( talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Jackie what has that got to do with WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY? I've removed the material again. Please conduct an request for comment if you want input on its reinstatement. To be clear I don't think this info should not be in the encyclopedia I just think you're putting it in the wrong place and giving it too much emphasis there-- Cailil talk 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What you wrote in your sandbox looks great - do you want to add it into the article, or do you want to wait? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. Frankly, I think AC started this because although the need is there, any proposal is likely to wind up mired in the usual wrangling over comma placement that besets every proposal that would better the community. Were I slightly more conspiracy-minded, I would suggest that the AC proposal was intended to fail as a way of jumpstarting the community into creating its own body.
In any case, this may be of interest to you as an alternate proposal, built from the ground up by the community, with the initial members appointed by ArbCom left in place for a few months to set it up. → ROUX ₪ 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi – I'm not sure if you are still on your Wikibreak or are following the Feminism Task Force talk page or not, but I just left a note here about the recent NPOV tagging of the Third-wave feminism article by an anonymous IP editor. I'm not sure how warranted some of the tags were, but I was hoping somebody could POV-check the article. You seem quite knowledgeable about the topic, so I was hoping you could have a look at it. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd really appreeciate it if you could parse this discussion: [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cailil Good to see you back and thanks for your comments on those various pages that almost cause me to go bonkers with frustration. I have a very different request for you, however, with your M. Litt and all. I was wondering if you would care to review Olivia Manning, that I am trying to get up for peer review and then FA if possible. She's a 20th Century writer with an Irish connection, if that will tempt you. I'll have to warn you, that as a person she's quite annoying!! Anyway, I would be especially grateful if you could take a look at the literary assessment part and give your comments, questions.... or even better just improve it! -- Slp1 ( talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In general, serious abuse should be reported to the Internet service provider so appropriate action may be taken against the abusive user. From what I understand, it sounds like this editor fits the abuse response criteria and should be reported there for contact. Feel free to report him there =D. However, I should warn you that WP:ABUSE is undergoing some major revamping to become more effective in the future, so reports aren't being processed at a fast rate right now. The reports will still be processed (moved to the new toolserver interface in the future). Also, if the user meets WP:LTA criteria, he could also be reported there and then deferred to abuse response for contact with the ISP in the future. Sorry if this is a bit complicated; we're taking many steps to revive the project and making it more user friendly. Thanks & if you have any more questions, feel free to message me. Netalarm welcome to 2010! 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for any trouble. I just saw the comment & I just instinctivly deleted it.-- Jastcaan ( talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:IAR is a much better summation of what I was trying to explain to you before. And it happens to have been the first rule of Wikipedia, and the only one I care about. I'm very happy I found it - I'm going to cite it every single time somebody like you tries to bully me with WP:WIKILAWYERING. I just want to improve the encyclopedia, I don't care about the rules. And according to Jimbo Wales, I shouldn't, because Wikipedia has no firm rules. DegenFarang ( talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Hi Cailil. Thanks for your two cents in the Gender Studies talk page on Mary Sargeant Gove Nichols' name. Much appreciated, and a good point. If one initially explicates the full name (using anaesthetic of course - I mean it does sound painful), one could then trim down to what looks like the established "Mary Gove Nichols" usage, using "she" and "her" for readability where possible, interspersed with "Mary Gove Nichols" at key points. Money well spent!
P.s. I've also copied your reply and mine to the Feminism Task Force discussion page, as the Gender studies talkpage has automated archiving after 30 days, which I note at the bottom of another discussion section is probably too frequent for a page with low-frequency discussion turnover (logic dictates high frequency archiving for high frequency turnover and vice versa). The Feminism Task Force page has automated archiving after 45 days, so any discussion on a Mary Gove Nichols article can also continue there if need be. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. He violeted 3RR today, and absused another BLP. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 ( talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
All to angst has become moot since Michael H 34 has returned to editing. I have posted the RFC/U here [5], in case you care to comment/endorse. -- Slp1 ( talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter (Febrauary 2010) | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
I've been attempting to tidy up this article, which seems to have suffered some malicious tweaks and blankings since your excellent attempt to overhaul it early in 2008. I thought I would drop you a note since I'm sure you know a lot more about the subject than I do (I've only been able to work on it as a sub-editor with no specialist information to hand), and might be interested in helping to pull the article back into shape. Best wishes, Alfietucker ( talk) 11:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Since even I'd agree the block for what he did isn't necessarily deserving an indef block, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1 has been filed. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)The ANI thread has been archived. Has the issue been dealt with? Were any sanctions decided upon? -- HighKing ( talk) 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please can you take a look at the recent editing pattern of User:MidnightBlueMan if you get half a chance please? Appears to be putting "British Isles" into articles even when they've been discussed on the SE page, etc. -- HighKing ( talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)Breach of 1RR on List of former sovereign states -- HighKing ( talk) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Recent activity by User:MidnightBlueMan shows that they're in breach of 1RR and clearly not bothering with the SE page for discussing any changes they may have concerns or doubts about. For example The Ferns of Great Britain and Ireland has been a recent edit war with reverts by MBM here, here, with a summary in breach of civility, and here. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the length of my reply but allow me to clarify HighKing, there is no policy for that 1RR because there is no ruling or dispute resolution that can be reviewed and enforced by multiple outside admins. This is down to Black Kite - who left without instructing anyone in how to carry on, or with the what where and why of his remedy. Because BK did not formalize that remedy nobody knows how to enforce it or when to. Thus I consider enforcing it unsafe. (In other words any other admin would have the right to reverse such a block immediately and query the conduct of the blocking admin - unless it was BK.) Thus I think other avenues should be explored. I have also said that I have not agreed to enforce BK's measures.
I have stated my recommendation a number of times that all involved should try formal mediation. That way a formal remedy could be reached and imposed. It might also resolve some of the personal antipathy that seems to exist between some volunteers.
The issue re: WP:OWN is also simple. The BI task force and it's SE page are a forum for reaching consensus on how to improve and manage articles relating to, or containing, the phrase "British Isles". It can (and has) been used to formulate a policy as well - but at some point you have to bring that to the village pump and or WP:MOS. You need to understand that due to WP:BOLD nobody is, or can be, forced to use the BI SE page - until it has a standing in policy or through dispute resolution. For it to have such a standing a formal system of dispute resolution would need to be attempted (ie mediation, or ArbCom).
Be clear HK I am not against the SE page at all in fact I think it's an excellent idea - but you don't seem to be clear about its limits in, or its relationship to, policy. The fact that you and others are willing to discuss and propose ideas at the BI SE page in order to find consensus is a very positive thing. Also the fact that others are obviously acting contrary to that consensus (while being aware of it) speaks volumes. If in future there is an RfAr the activity of users on the page will be noted.
FYI I am reviewing the activity of a number of users in relation to this issue and I can see a pattern of disruption. I have long experience of this and I will follow my own council and site policy on when, where and how to act. My best advice for the time being is that there are at least 3 ways in which the task force can try to resolve this.
Unfortunately I believe this will end up in ArbCom unless all involved go to mediation or the MOS issue is cleared up. ArbCom would probably not be an enjoyable process nor one that will end to any of your satisfactions.
Also re: "Sounds very one-sided to me" I'm going to let that slide HK, but I wont in future - I'm not taking sides in this dispute. Saying you should all disengage is a basic dispute resolution suggestion.
Apropos this, here on this site I work within its core policies and through its internal processes. I set aside my personal feelings, allegiances and opinions - acting as "coldly" and neutrally as possible towards an issue. If I err on the side of caution that is because I have found it best practice to do so. Sometimes volunteers who are in the thick of a dispute can misinterpret my coldness for disinterest or negativity. It is neither. I am merely being neutral, and thus my perspective on a dispute will be different to those involved - please bear that in mind when I disagree with your view on an edit or on another user's behaviour--
Cailil
talk
03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This comment is the latest in a series which I believe you are aware of. I'd appreciate, if you get a chance, to examine this editors contributions and behaviour. -- HighKing ( talk) 23:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be a can of worms for you (or hornet's nest) but perhaps you might review this discussion and consider editing the article when you are ready next to take on an important and somewhat controversial project. Hope things have settled down at 4th wall, I was never sure how I could contribute constructively. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is where Atomaton characterizes other people's views as superstitions. Here is where Atomaton suggests that if a view is not scientific it is religious. Just so you know what I was responding to, if this helps you follow Phoenix's rant. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to restore some reason to the discussion - but I think what the page needs most is just more, informed, editors getting involved. Any thoughts as to how? Surely there must be more than two or three Wikipedia editors who know about various discussions on/debates over different disourses concerning sexual orientation. But I do not know how to find such editors.
Slrubenstein |
Talk
23:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."
The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth.
Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost two sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Cailil -- thanks so much for your note. I had come to the same conclusion a few hours ago while reflecting on a walk.
Stepping beyond Alastair, I do sense that there needs to be a policy improvement (even granting that the Arbcom were 100% correct in the conclusion, there could still be potential for policy improvement).
If there is a way to aid the project without dragging Alastair into it, I would be grateful for any ideas. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I know your time is limited, and you have other commitments, but if you can - I sure hope you can - could you review my recent talk on the talk page of this article (all within the last week or ten days) and my recent edits to the article (all today) and make whatever comments you believe in, if you have anything to say? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hammy's been blocked and is threatening to leave Wikipedia which ends the immediate threat. But as Maunus points out, this article is a toal mess. On the talk page I propose a new way to structure it and I would really like your input although it certainly does not have to be today. Most literature on patriarchy comes from anthropology and feminist theory so I think people knowledgable in these areas should work out the basic structure of the article and identify key sources. I hope soe time in the next week you can give it a look over. The current article is a mess and the more you read the more bizarre it gets. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you weigh in here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Cailil. Nope, the only email was on the talk page, from "Steven Goldberg" (who I was writing to the talk page to say couldn't be "the" expert). Thanks for your concern. - SusanLesch ( talk) 02:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)