User talk:Catamorphism

I watch any user talk pages I've commented on, so if I comment on your talk page, it's okay to respond there.

When commenting here, conciseness is a plus. I'm unlikely to read long, rambling comments that aren't particularly on-topic with respect to the article that's being discussed.

It seems a bit offensive that you make fun of autism on your user page.70.48.181.101 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Jordan

Your work on No true Scotsman offends me. No true Wikipedian would know anything about sex, let alone sexuality. --Flata 03:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Your mom wouldn't know anything about sex or sexuality. Catamorphism 03:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:07

stub

Thank you for sorting the Jack and Jill bedroom page into a correct stub category. Im not too familiar with all of the catagories and didn't want to search through the list for an appropriate one. Also since I'm leaving you a message I have to plug my Classic rock survey. If you like classic rock I hope you can participate in it. There is more info on my user page. Thanks a lot. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Hi. I noticed you put a Comedy film stub tag on Duchess of Idaho but this is inaccurate as the movie is a musical. I can't seem to find a musical-film-stub tag, however. Do you know if one exists? I'm going to be creating a few more Eleanor Powell-related film articles in the near future and such a stub tag would be handy. Thanks! 23skidoo 16:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Great Job with the Folk musicians

A few requests: Jack Hardy (singer), Edie Carey, Frank Christian (folk musician), Anne-Marie Akin, Divine Maggees, Al Grierson, Meg Christian, Bryan Bowers, Jim & Jean, Jamie Anderson (singer), Margo Hennebach, Sally Fingerett

Stub sorting Anglo Norse Society

This is a small UK charity, it does not match the definition of International organisation that the template links to. --David Woolley 21:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of 'liberals wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 23:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for voting! Larix 16:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Catamorphism, I would like to thank you for your help on the Conscience Clause page, especially with Grammar and links. So Thank you, Chooserr 06:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

6yy

to put pornography in wikipedia is vandalism to! have you lost your mind? you cannot do only that you want! Thank you --Daniel bg 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

we3

wikipedia is universal and this images don't. please i don't want to talk more about this. --Daniel bg 19:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm reporting what I've heard

Not what I think.

Pro-choice edits.

I think your edits to Pro-choice to clarify which woman is being referenced are a great idea, however I know that in the past on abortion-debate related articles, there have been attempts to avoid the word "mother" as it introduces POV feelings for some, when referring to a woman who is pregnant but has not given birth to a child. That may be where the ambiguous wording using "woman" comes from, and I don't know if there is a better term to use that's concise and well-understood. JFYI. I've seen this discussed elsewhere, but I can't cite a link. --juli. ^{t ?} 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

cisgender

taking out usually from that bit where you just did makes the bit where it's a term of disparagement seem irrelevant, and the best fix following your "simplify" suggestion is to remove it completely, but i think it's too important to the subject to leave out.

Bisexual Chic

Catamorphism: would you review my changes to Bisexual chic and let me know what you think? I'd like to get the "disputed" tag off there lest somethiing happen to a worthy article.

By the way, we have a lot of common interests (Board Games, Laurie Lewis, Bisexuality, what not)... I'm sure we'll see each other around. Thanks! Iamvered 07:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Feminism

Hi, I've noticed the very good temper with which you're meeting Nathaniel's edits (and borderline stalking) on Talk:Feminism. Keep up the good work, and don't feed the trolls too much! AnAn 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to get some positive feedback once in a while! Catamorphism 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

CSD A7

The "or groups" bit from A7 doesn't include companies. AfD won't bite you if you nominate a few articles there. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see it was speedied. Sometimes admins — and I admit I do it myself in really clear-cut cases — play fast and loose with speedy deletions, without regard to policy. It's more a bad habit than a source of inspiration, I feel. And you may like to re-read your comment before complaining about mine. Fair play, we were both being rather condescending in this little exchange. Truce? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes!

Congratulations; you're the first person whom I've met IRL that I've run across in Wikipedia. Woi. --moof 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuck truck edits

• thanks for the edits. the official name is definitely helpful. I suspect that many of this articles infitmities can be dealt with through constructive edits. I included the lesbian language largely because it paralleled the Rolling Stone article. the implication was really nothing about lesbians other than the idea (discussed in that article), that lesbians at an all-female school would probably not have the same need for the shuttle's services as heterosexual women. I know this is a somewhat borderline article, but, as I've expressed on the deletion debate, it does seem to cross the line into notability. Just know that I am not trying to be funny -- I really do just sincerely believe that wikipedia tends to be overly harsh on good faith but provocative postings. Interestingstuffadder 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Although I am enjoying the healthy debate, I can't help but think that if I would not have added that link from the Wellesley page, fuck truck would be enjoying a long, undisturbed existence. Oh well. However, as I've said, should the page make it through the deletion debate (and it is looking that way, isn't it? there sure doesn't seem to be a consensus for deletion), it will do so as a much better page because of your efforts. Actually, I am starting to think I would be willing to accept renaming this article "Senate Bus" if you would agree to support keeping this it on condition that there would be a redirect from "fuck truck" and you would support me in adding links to the Wellesley, MIT and Harvard pages reading "Senate Bus ("Fuck Truck")" or something along those lines, as the term "Fuck Truck" is just so much better known, so that if this additional info was not provided next to the link users familiar with these institutions would not know its significance. Interestingstuffadder 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• At this point, it is very hard for me to see how the outcome could be anything other than no consensus for deletion (if, in fact, the outcome is fair). Interestingstuffadder 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• I was under the impression that this was not a majority vote but a consensus building process -- that is, I was under the impression that strong Keep support from experienced users, even if not a numerical majority, is enough to keep an article on Wikipedia. Am I wrong? You obviously know the rules better than I do. Plus you are the PhD candidate-- I am just a lowly law student ;) .Interestingstuffadder 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• I understand. I was just trying to see if we could get ourselves on the same side of this debat through a little compromise. Good night -- it's bedtime on the east coast. Interestingstuffadder 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Safe Sex

I noticed you removed the Uganda comment, and discovered that the current version was pov. This is the diff showing how it was at first[1]. I think the Africa reference is important in giving the article a bit of a world view... thanks, --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 01:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but maybe this is better? I agree that it's important to give a worldwide view, I just felt that saying "abstinence programs in Uganda have been successful" in the next breath from "religious organizations have been criticized" was POV. Catamorphism 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying I like my version here: (on the left) [2]. See the recent discussion on the talk page, there is an über religious guy who tries really hard to get his views on the page. I made that version to solve the NPOV and geographic bias, but it lasted 2.5 seconds. Also, that pov statement he made about abstinance being the reason for sucess is a complete fabrication. I was hoping you might help me, I left that discussion... I get too frustrated when I feel people just humouring me... You know, you get the feeling that no matter what you say, the person is going to continue putting their point of view into the article...--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen Chooserr's edits before and know his POV-pushing. However, I'm going to leave the article as it is for now, because I think your old version was also somewhat POV (though it could be improved by citing sources) Catamorphism 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Really! How do you find it POV? My intent was avoid rhetoric such as "immoral" or "safe sex movement" and replace it with a factual representation of the situation. --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Some religious conservative organisations", "Proponents of safe sex programs agree" -- these are weasel phrases. It would be better to have citations that say exactly whose views you're describing. Catamorphism 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How is that any more weasily than what is there presently. It still says "some conservatives" and "proponents of the 'safe sex' movement"--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

True. I don't have time to improve the entire article, I just think that reverting to your earlier version wouldn't make it any better unless citations were added. The best thing you could do would be to find citations and add them. Catamorphism 02:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats impossible, especially on the safe sex side. This is something that is centred in the grass roots, in Africa. I have no idea how I could find appropriate citations. I might be able to cite some catholic website that supports abstinance, but that's already talked about in the article...--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an essay on the topic... [3]--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Safesex 2

Hi,

High risk behaviour doesn't necessarily mean just sex. It can also mean sexual contact which isn't explained, or other things such as drugs.

Also since you have restored the section on the virginity pledge which doesn't seem to belong at least be kind enough to cite sources for your claims. Chooserr 07:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologized publicly on the pages talk for that comment...I wasn't too focused sorry again, and I guess I was unfair to say you readded the section, but you seem to support it so that it feels like you do. Sorry if I'm overly accusative (?) I just am a bit passionate about such issues. Chooserr 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Fuck Truck survived the deletion debate...

But please continue helping me keep an eye on this article. Your contributions have been invaluable. Interestingstuffadder 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be censored

I King Vidor feel that wikipedia should be censored to protect the children because it's wrong that we have free encycopedia that is often a visited site in schools has images such as on the oral sex article and the like...What say you on this issue?--King Vidor 02:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Parental notification

Chooserr has continued to revert the same low-quality version of parental notification repeatedly, and I don't want to violate 3RR. Please jump in. Alienus 18:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you guys heard the term wheel warring? Chooserr 18:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll let a few of the adims decide if they are inclined. I have been trying to talk it out on the talk page and have revised my version if you were to compare two of them. Chooserr 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Catamorphism. I realize you probably have a life or something, but Chooserr is back at it again. He's given up on his original attempt, but is now trying to inject POV in medium-sized doses instead of wholesale. As usual, the work is sloppy and full of language errors on top of the content problems. So when you have a chance, come join us and add your input. Alienus 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

I wouldn't mind if you'd take a keek at the talk page of parental notification - I've given a link citing the sources that while not 3rd party discusses my comment on what the 1st party believes. Chooserr 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I replied to your comments think that you'd be monitoring the page, but you might not be so I will state here that - I don't want to even attempt to make my sources fit for it would most likely be considered a violation of the 3rvt rule. I do find it queer though that you'd start out saying I don't care about the article because I didn't catch minor spelling mistakes, and you flat out refuse to reinstate certain bits of information (with a link now) that were there before Alienus and I ever reached the page. Information that tells the reason the idea of a parental notification is so strong. Maybe my reference to "child" was misplaced, but I still think it conveyed that these people were not emancipated, and had not reached an age of being independent from their parents (19 - 20?). It would be 15 or 16 year olds this applies to - minors, children. Chooserr 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I guess that should be before Alienus reached the page, because I started it. Despite that minor inaccuracy, the main point is that we should include the reasons behind it. If you'd like to view the part of the history prior to Alienus coming, before his major rewrite you will find that I attempt to out line the reasons for both sides. Against: women no matter their age have a right to an abortion. For: minors should have to consult their parents before making such dramatic choices - especially since they still require parental approval for immunisation, medication, having a tooth pulled. Chooserr 19:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it doesn't say much for you if you say I don't care about wikipedias articles, only wanting to inflict a POV, before turning around and saying, you aren't interested, when I outline the reasons why we should include this content. Any way, I will refrain from making any other comments on your talk page. Chooserr 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Supported your wikiquote contributions, but sage advice nonetheless

I weighed in on the issue, supporting all of your contributions, but my advice will benefit you too.

Perma-link diff: http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Grace&diff=180908&oldid=180514 (Scroll to the bottom, since I can't seem to get a table of contents to work on this page.)--71.101.159.100 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oral sex

The overwhelming majority of human beings are heterosexual. Please respect this fact by not insisting that the homosexual images remain on the oral sex article.--128.235.249.80 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Lay off the fellatio page, cumshitter.

My mistake, the initial impression given to me by your profile picture was that you were a (nerdy) male.

I was not removing, but repairing. Depictions of homosexuality are repulsive and homosexuality is unnatural. Be gay all you want but don't shove it in my face, especially when I'm using an "educational resource" like wikipedia.

Parental notification

To call my edits (and me) paranoid is a personal attack, which is unacceptable. I never insult you, and it isn't unlikely that you could have found another way of expressing that the edits weren't suitable for wikipedia without personal attacks - not that I agree to that fact. Chooserr 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What is a Catamorphism

I am a student of informatic science and a absolute haskell beginner. Also I'm trying to get familiar with attribute grammar systems (working the following tool: http://www.cs.uu.nl/wiki/HUT/AttributeGrammarSystem). The term "catamorphism" has appeared more than once, but always without an explanation. I already know, that "foldr" is a catamorphism , but what is the definition (always referred to haskell, not to abstract f - algebra or something like that). I know, that this term (here in wiki) isnt in your point of interest, but after all it is your name (first hit on google). Also I would be grateful, if you could help me (or show me, where I can get some help) So it's up to you (if you can spend some time), explain your name ! ^^ Many thanks shadruel (at) gmx.net PS: Sorry about my bad german-school english

Hi, I've written a short stub on catamorphisms. Cheers, —Ruud 12:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another front

Catamorphism, thanks for your contributions on Parental notification and the ongoing struggle with Chooserr. I ran into another article that is locked in an edit war, this time on the topic of gay rights, and was wondering if you might be interested in contribution there as well.

The article is Objectivism and homosexuality, where I've been documenting the hostility Ayn Rand had towards homosexuals, feminists, LGBT rights and the LGBT rights movement, but have met with opposition from supporters of Ayn Rand who wish to make her seem more gay-friendly than she ever was.

If you're interested, you might want to start by reading this, which is the last version with my name on it, then go on to the most recent reversion. I do understand that you may well not be interested in getting involved in this mess at this time, and would in no way hold it against you if you preferred to stay out of it. Alienus 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism, you were wise to avoid this mess; they've got a biased admin on their side. Alienus 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism, turns out the admin wasn't so much biased as simply mistaken. Also, the page is now Protected, so the edit war is over but we could use more people commenting on the content. You're invited but, as always, no hard feelings if you pass on it.

Also, I have a question for you on an entirely unrelated matter. My LISP is extremely rusty and I never did properly learn lambda calculus in school, although I did pick up some afterwards from Hofstadter.

As you may have heard, the next version of C# explicitly supports lambda calculus, which means I need to get back up to speed on the subject. I was wondering if you could recommend an online tutorial on lambda calculus, perhaps even something with an interactive simulator so I could get more of a gut feel for the subject. Alienus 03:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

ESP Game

How in the world did you find this? Whispering 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Round tuit

Heh heh and I thought I was the only person who knew about a round tuit. Whispering 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wiki

Hi. I see you have a depression userbox on your page, so I wondered if you would be interested in a new wiki I'm trying to set up. It's about depression (of course) and aims to be a real resource for people suffering from the condition and a wiki community too. It's very new, and there isn't much there yet, but it could grow into something good. It's over at Wikicities (a project started by Jimbo and Angela) and the url is http://depression.wikicities.com . Hope you can have a look. -- sannse (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual actors

Hi, there is a bit of a debacle occuring in relation to bisexual allegations in Tyrone Power's article- I would appreciate your viewpoint at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03_Tyrone_Power. Thanks Arniep 16:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism Exemplifies Wikipedia's Weakness

This message will sound like a gripe against user Catamorphism, but it's not. It's really about a fundamental flaw with Wikipedia. I've been a researcher, professor, author, and editor for many years - Harvard Ph.D., published in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 11 books and more than a hundred artices in print in refereed journals and distinguished publications. I've also taught courses on both research methods and statistics at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and I've served as the editor-in-chief of a national magazine that covers scientific topics.

In contrast, Catamorphism identifies himself as a "graduate student" at the "UC Berkeley School of Information." If he has any background in science, he doesn't say so, and most of his contributions to Wikipedia have to do with music, as far as I can see. Catamorphism has many interests and opinions, and he clearly loves to write -- all good. But he also seems to be obsessed with Wikipedia, and that troubles me.

I recently made a brief addition to Wikipedia's very important entry on "Sexual Orientation," which Catamorphism promptly deleted. He also sent me a threatening note, accusing me of "advertising," although I certainly wasn't "advertising" anything at all in my entry. In fact, I was merely updating the article with important information, all of which is contained in an article on sexual orientation I published recently in a national scientific magazine of considerable standing - yes, a magazine where ONLY highly qualified individuals are allowed to publish (and, no, it's not the magazine where I used to be editor-in-chief). "The Advocate," a highly esteemed gay-and-lesbian publication, will be running a news piece about my article in an issue that will appear shortly.

And that's the problem with Wikipedia. It would take Catamorphism several years to master even the fundamental information he would need to evaluate research on sexual orientation, but Wikipedia allows him - simply because he has an OPINION - to be the keeper of information on sexual orientation that has the potential to affect the views of millions of people. He not only can contribute faulty information; he can also DELETE valid and important information. Wikipedia even gives him the power to threaten and intimidate legitimate experts who might want to make contributions.

To Catamorphism: I would be grateful if you would RESTORE my material to the article on "Sexual Orientation." Thanks!

To the creative folks behind Wikipedia: You're already under pressure to get your facts straight, but I submit that you also need to find ways to screen your contributors.

To Wikipedia users: Please be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS about accepting the validity of Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia concept, as it stands, is seriously flawed.

By the way, you might be wondering why I'm not identifying myself in this comment. It's precisely because I have so little faith in Wikipedia. I'll probably publish a "real" article in a "real" publication about these issues in the near future - WITH my name.

68.8.74.159 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on this user's talk page, but I note that if the information in the above comment is correct, then this comment was by Dr. Robert Epstein. Catamorphism 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've confirmed that the above comment is indeed by Dr. Epstein. Catamorphism 09:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My response to Robert Epstein

For the record, here are some excerpts from an email I sent to Dr. Epstein, regarding his edits to Sexual orientation (which I originally reverted as spam, since said anonymous edits mentioned a Web site and the fact that the Web site was available "free of charge", but which turned out in fact to be self-promotion). I'm not reproducing portions of an email from him that I quoted since I don't have permission.

The fact that you are perfectly capable of undoing the "damage" -- as you put it -- yourself is one of the strengths of Wikipedia. You are welcome to restore your edits to the article. If you do so, I will not revert your edits myself, but rather, I will bring the issue up on the talk page so that other editors can give their opinions about whether your edits are appropriate.

And:

I'm rather confused by this remark. I had no reason to think that your edits were vanity because I did not know that you were the author of the research involved. Since there was a URL prominently featured near the beginning of the paragraph you added, and your language at the beginning sounded promotional (mentioning that the site was free of charge), I saw it as advertising for a Web site and removed it. When I read your comment, and also the comment on your talk page from another user asking if you were Robert Epstein, it occurred to me that the edits might be by you.

In conclusion, it doesn't impress me very much that you are willing to issue a blanket criticism of Wikipedia despite the fact that you did not bother to familiarize yourself with the site enough to know that there is a guideline that recommends against researchers (even experts) contributing content about their own research. You would be welcome to edit the "Sexual orientation" article to improve it in general, and your edits would be subject to the same critical process as all Wikipedia edits. Instead, you chose to simply insert one independent paragraph promoting your own work. That suggests to me that you are interested in using Wikipedia as a tool to promote your work, rather than in improving Wikipedia as a whole.

The issue here is not just self-promotion, but whether your work is central enough to the subject of sexual orientation to merit mention in a concise encyclopedic article that is intended for a general audience. Given that your work is recent and has not had a chance to withstand the test of time, I have a hard time seeing how you could make the case that your work is part of the central core of research on sexual orientation. You mentioned in your comment in your [my mistake; should be "my"] talk page that you had an upcoming publication about your work in a prestigious scientific journal. I note that not every paper that has been published in a prestigious scientific journal is central enough to its field to justify its being mentioned in a general, encyclopedic article about the field.

Catamorphism 09:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC) -

*Grin* Just wanted to say you handled both Dr Epstein and Nathaniel very well. I'm a newbie here, so it's nice to see the masters at work. Cheers! Raystorm 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad

I probably should have read the history before I went on editing. I'm new and I don't even know if I'm adding a message to you correctly. Anyway, thanks for letting me know! I'll be more careful in the future.

GARYsurvivor 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)GARYsurvivor

Thanks for the thrill

While doing a Google search on something else, I turned up your stub article on me. Took a moment to parse what I was reading. Cool! Thanks for taking the time.

Eric-Albert 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Nice T-shirt.

Attention to my contributions that doesn't yet amount to wikistalking but is still interesting

Good to see that you have been spending time working your way through my contributions; if only you spent so much time reading my rationales for my actions at Wellesley College Senate Bus maybe you wouldn't casting aspertions at me there. Interestingstuffadder 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just observed that you clearly had been spending some time on my "user contributions". Actually my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Sorry for having a sense of humor. Obviously you do not have one and have been taking yourself way too seriously. All along I have had to have a positive attitude about our disagreements and you have repeatedly responded with stilted formality. Interestingstuffadder 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-abortion?

In the changes you made to Pro-choice, you commented that some people self-identify as "pro-abortion". Really?? I would really appreciate an explanation of that mindset as it is so out of my experience and understanding. Thanks. Boofox 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism

I noticed your edits on feminims which were well commented. To head off misunderstandings here is where I am headed:

• 1. Gender-focused, (whatever you call it) is not the only kind of feminism. To imply that it is in the opening statements here and elsewhere is false POV.
  2. One can be critical of gender-focused feminism without being critical of other types say individualist or the early American strains.
  3. We need to make these distinctions clearly so that the self-described Stalinist or Politbureau types of gender-focused feminist cannot claim that all feminism is gender feminism, a false and self-serving POV. (Note I say self-described because I listened to a couple of young feminist authors from Steinheim's inner circle joke about how the 'Old Guard' handled things in a university event.)

Hope that helps with my intentions. I will listen to your comments too and work with you. Please discuss big issues before reverts to avoid edit wars. Anacapa 01:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Spamming

I am new and do not want to be a spammer. I own the books that I cited and am very certain that they would be helpful to the reader. If you have a suggestion as to form, let me know. I want to do it right.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1122334455 (talk • contribs)

Refrain from editing for a few days

I will be glad to refrain from editing for a few days as long as I see no big changes by others in the content areas we are discussing and as long as I see no stunts like pulling gender content/links that I had nothing to do with adding from the article. I am also be willing to make slow changes so that you can consider them in the future too, but fair is fair here. I expect no less consideration back.

I also have a few requests. Please refrain from relational aggression against me with vague statements of 'problematic', with matronizing 'we' lectures and with inside so-called 'circles' in the discussion pages I am no feminist flunkie but I do respect people and feminist-people who respect me (and other people) who may or may not agree with them on all topics. I respect feminists and others who respect the basic fundamentals of research, discourse and dialogue. Therefore, please discuss personal conflicts you have about my so-called intentions or anything else with me on my discussion page so there is less possibility of poisoning me with personal opinions in the public discussion areas. On the the public pages please be specific, solution-oriented with issues you have with my edits and refrain from falsely reading my personal motives sight unseen. If you have suspicions about my intentions go ahead and ask me directly...you might be surprised with what you find.

Finally, just to let you know, that opening paragraph as it stood a few minutes ago is in IMHO much more NPOV than it was when we all began this series of editing. I am not here to prop up Wendy McElroy or anyone else. I am here to challenge what internationally recognised intellectual and feminist Camille Paglia called cult-like responses from contemporary (as opposed to early individual feministsfrom before the modern movement began) feminists. I see a lot of 'cult-like' POV by commission and POV by omission in this article which we can discuss as time goes on. I will add that this is supposed to be a NPOV article for all people, rather than a pander-to-positive-POV article by a few feminists for a few feminists. This is is my main issue with the article. Hope that helps to reduce some of the false impressions you might have. Anacapa 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Assumptions about 'gender' and Relational Aggression

Thanks for at least making the distinction 'appears to be implicit' here. However, please check your assumptions about MY assumptions with ME before you become offended. I make no assumptions about relational aggression being something ANY gender has a monopoly on. I think if you read some of the links in Relational Aggression you will see gender-neutral content there and I believe the article content makes that distinction too...how well is discussable. I will note that Baby Bush, Karl Rove and other Admin male and female cronies are masters at Relatonial Aggression. I ask that you check YOUR assumptions about my assumptions before you become make judgements about my assumptions or become (baselessly) offended. I come from a basic POV that violence: both physical and psychological, vice: both social and sexual, and all other forms of aggression are fairly gender-neutral despite the often hidden forms they take and the fact that each gender may often prefer particular forms over others. To stereotype, either, gender as good or bad is false, perjorative and POV, IHMO, if we are indeed try to achieve a world of gender-equality where women and men are responsible, accountable and equal adults and where feminism (and masculinism) is to be taken seriously. I will note that after reading Chessler's Woman's Inhumanity to Woman the idea that one gender is a nicer, better or more compassionate gender seems quite ridiculous. I will be glad to discuss assumptions with you further but please give me some assurances that I can count on respectable dialogue from you that is personal-personal, rather than any form of personal assault in public forums. I hope to prevent an ugly descent into edit wars between us based on mere misunderstandings on both sides Anacapa 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One final note about how I handled this. I made specific comments about your tactics not your gender. The tactics themselves are what I take issue with here...not your gender, or you personally, so please refrain from making this about gender when ALL it is a request for respectable tactics. All of us use relational aggression IMHO and I welcome request/comments/suggestions to me about my tactics too should they be over the line. I am wide awake enough to see and call some forms of false victimhood as a weapon of war, so please be clean with me.Anacapa 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried...long-winded is better than beginning a pointless edit war. By the way, I am not looking for false sympathy, I am looking for people genuine enough to finish what they start with no mean tactics. I am looking for open discussions that go somewhere. What I did get from this is a fine lesson on who the covert 'they' are, which validates my POV concerns here and a good sense of the unwillingness of one particular person to address key POV in this article with me. People who have something significant to say should not, IMHO, be afraid of Camille Paglia or anyone else and should be willing to face facts with facts. I smell pander to 'them' POV stench in this article which I see many other editors above have commented on too. I had hoped that you were an editor able and willing to be big as well as nice but I see that to waste too much wind on strangers is a mistake now. I will welcome new discussions in lieu of stupid edit wars. If you have problems with my future edits and are unwilling to discuss them with me please at least be kind enough to be clean and professional in your edit comments. I will do the same. I take none of this personally but I do take relational aggression tactics personally so please be nice from here on out by being overt, specific and clean about my edits.Anacapa 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh one last thing. I made a commitment to wait awhile to meet your request. Am I now free to do what I see fit (with slow carefully commented edits) or do you still want me to wait?Anacapa 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and freeing me up to continue. I see your choice to quit while I am here which might be a long time, a dissapointing decision to me, and one I hope you will own as YOURS rather than claiming victimhood here as I certainly did not demean you or your gender, or in any way CAUSE you to make that decision. I can work with other editors who work with me and I welcome you to come back should you change your mind. Anacapa 00:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip!

Hey thanks for the tip with the userboxes, I think I went a little crazy using them, hehe, but anyway! :) Cheers! Raystorm 18:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Regarding your suggestion about my userboxes, was this just friendly advice or am I potentially in violation of some wikipedia policy I don't know about? I wouldn't want to give you grounds for accusing me of anything, especially knowing from past experience that you will refuse to directly acknowledge the rationales behind my actions. Interestingstuffadder 04:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I did assume good faith. I just wanted to be certain that you didn't think I was in violation of some policy because I know from experience that when you suspect an editor of violating a wikipedia policy you refuse to acknowledge the arguments they provide in their own defense. Interestingstuffadder 21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of feminism...

REPLYS:

Dysprosia: I would be pleased to work on clarifying the meaning of the fact marketing, but not here and now since my insert has been arbitrarily remove and based on the comments below. In brief, it powerfully challenges the whole idea that males and masculinity have dominated during the latter half to two-thirds century.Doug 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen: I find your comments arrogant, self-righteous, and personally offensive. I'm not sure what you think feminist is, if it is not inherently a gigantic soapbox issue. The entire entry is, figuratively speaking, a soapbox for an activist intellectual minority; a place to sell their sociopolitical ideologies, wild speculations, and misinformation about the sexes.

Most inappropriate of all is describing my entries as "parochial," when the data in fact reflects a high-level of systemic-level thinking. If you have specific criticisms and suggestions, rather than vague, inoperative generalizations, I would be pleased to work on the entry further. There may be merit in what you say, but I have no basis for determinining that.

Your comments are like a wife saying she's divorcing her husband because he's an incompetent mate and then walking out the door. The entry was 500 words, only slightly larger size two others, half the length of the one Heterosexual Relations. Finally, the insert was made in the section reserved for "the-other-side-of-the-story." I'm also not sure how qualified most English school teachers are to evaluate the cultural, legal, and gender climate in America.

I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but you certainly are not Socrates or God, and certainly should not be spending your time "editing" other people's work in this manner.Doug 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism: Many of the same comments made to Zleitzen apply to your comments as well. You have taken upon yourself to evaluate my intentions, thus I will observe that you "seem" to have reacted to my submission emotionally, rather than rationally and reasonably. It "seems" you simply do not like the information my entry contains, and are busy seeking justifications to kill it, rather than help make it work.

The entire "pro-feminist" two-thirds/three-fourths of the article is rife with unsubstantiated generalizations and speculation, as well as distortions of contemporary realities and history. Disguising those prejudices and biases in academic mumbo-jumbo and intellectual game-playing doesn't change the actual nature of the entry.

The referenced census data is located on 2-3 pages, and is much more reliable and easier to find than a citation in a single book by an obscure socio-politically motivated feminist author. The facts I site are indeed common knowledge among lawyers, political scientists, and business professionals. Exactly which of them do you find questionable? If you have other - hopefully constructive rather than just destructive - specific suggestions or stylistic recommendations, I would be pleased to pursue them. It could prove to be a learning opportunity.

BUT AT THIS POINT, IT "SEEMS" CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETE WASTE TIME. I suggest you look at my three entries under Masculism as well... you won't "like" those either, and will probably want to arbitrarily remove them as well. Such is the power of feminism over our minds and lives in America today. Doug 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism (Addendum)...

Addendum to Catamorphism: It just dawned on me that you are a very young man who could not have had much experience or many opportunities to observe and be confronted with the discrimination against men that pervades our culture. For example, have your ever had a potential child of yours life terminated without your permission, or been denied the opportunity to rear such a child yourself; had a child of yours arbitrarily reared by the mother without you consent, and then be forced to pay child support for the next 18-22 years: had your children taken from you by a mentally incompetent and abusive wife, then lost them to a kind of "living death" forever; or ever actually observed women given preferential hiring salaries, promotions, and pay increases versus men who are better qualified and higher performers (look at my background and the insert on jobs/pay inequality before you arbitrarily reject those truism about the workplace).

You have probably had classes, however, where you read/heard academic nonsense and gobbedly-gook about how much more husbands abuse wives, how much more men sexually violate women and children; how much more socially and legally empowered the male sex is; or how dominated our culture is by masculinity. This is all just feminist propaganda, unsupported by gender-neutral scientific research or objective empirical observations. This is not some kind of harmless intellectual exercise - a millions or more men are actually dying five years prematurely and no one knows why or is working on the problem - several millions being denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment in the very areas that are most vital to human existence.

I am not certain about a lot of things. But, if there is one thing I can be sure of, it is that you will learn about such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougBaker (talk • contribs)

Grammar apology

Sorry about that, I was just trying to be helpful. But I am left to wonder why the unpleasant tone, especially in greeting a new user. Ifixgrammar 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you just be nice to people? Haven't you read wikipedia:civil?. When I look through your past interactions with other editors all I see is terseness, terseness, terseness. Ifixgrammar 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just browsing around and, because I don't really have an area of expertise, I thought I could help out with the grammar -- I have always been good at grammar. Well, as I was browing around I came upon your page by way of the feminism page (I has just figured out that users can tell who can edit what) and I saw what I thought were grammar mistakes, so I thought this was a good place to start (though, admittedly, the rules I applied are oft debated). Then I got your response and knew you were right but was mildly hurt because it just sounded sort of mean. So I responded. I surfed around more and learned about wikipedia:civility. I also figured out how to see users' previous edits so I looked at yours since you were a user I had had contact with. I notice that you had also been terse to several other editors. I also saw that you think a sense of convivality is important on wikipedia; it seemed pretty hypocritical to me that you would call for this and then basically be unfriendly in many of your interactions with other editors. That is all. When I find some time I do plan to make some useful edits. Now I know not to edit user pages. Thank you for teaching me that -- I needed to know. I just wish you could have done so in a kinder manner. Ifixgrammar 22:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Little George Band

I was pleasantly surprised to find your article about the Little George Band on Wikipedia. I am the leader of that band, and I just wanted to say thanks for thinking of us. Send email to littlegeorge4blues on google's email service if you'd like to chat. I hope you enjoyed our music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlegeorge4blues (talk • contribs)

Happy day...we finally agree on something

Re: oral sex....for once we are on the same side of a debate. Hopefully it will happen again. Interestingstuffadder 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

SummonerMarc

Moved your warning for SummonerMarc to his talk page, where he'll be notified about its existance, instead of the user page. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

SummonerMarc

Granted I am new to the editing side of Wikipedia and I had not actually read the copyright page before I added to Happy Rhodes but I do have permission to add the biography from Auntie Social Music. So, what am I doing wrong?

Thank You

Thank you for reporting Coldark418 at WP:AIV. I appreciate it. -- backburner001 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Man I Could Use Your Help Supporting Men's Rights to wear whatever the heck we want to

Definately under fire, despite a solid article I wrote compiled from more than 10 years of experience travelling abroad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment#.5B.5BMale_Unbifurcated_Garment.5D.5D

I'd love it if you could/would ad your two cents!

Here's an idea - how about if people simply include their informed opinions while refraining from commenting or judging situations about which they haven't a clue?

Again, I've travelled throughout 35 different countries, in many of which men wear MUGs on a regular basis. Here's a very incomplete list:

Canada USA Mexico Cuba San Salvador Panama Korea Japan Phillipenes Germany Italy UK Hawaii (part of the US, but where MUGs are much more common) Fiji Kuwait Iraq Dahran Bahrain Saudi Arabia Turkey Italy Greece Switzerland Sweden Belgium Norway Nederlands (The Netherlands) Iceland France Spain

I could go on, but what's the point, except for the fact that the comments on the MUGs page indicate a very grossly myopic prejudice against a very common form of fashion for nearly half the men on our planet.

My question to you is: Why in the world is this under fire? Are the Wiki adminstrators really that ignorant about common standards of dress abroad that they'd literally try and shut down this informative article? Are they afraid (dare I say homophobic) that if such styles of dress become fashionable in the US that everyone would have a cow? This has nothing to do with transgender issues. It's simply the normal style of dress found throughout many cultures. As we continue the trend towards globalization, this will continue to become more and more of a mainstream issue.

Personally, I thought Wiki was leading the pack, but on this issue, it appears they're hiding behind 1950's stereotypes.

Really, given reality, what gives with Wiki?

Not credible?

Catamorphism how exactly is the source not credible? Are you saying that they wouldn't know if their building was vandalised...? If so that is a rather odd statement to make. Chooserr 06:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and there are 70,400 results for them if you are talking about a notability test...please reply soon. Chooserr 07:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Lonympics

Seems to be back anonymously as User:62.69.37.254, which I deduce from this edit: [4]. Note the external URL. Dunno what the proper procedure is, just an FYI. —johndburger 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice on removing gender bias in hockey articles

Hi there, newer wikipedian here. Defenceman is an ice hockey player who plays the defence position. How do I get the article renamed 'defence player' or 'defence (ice hockey)'? I could start a discussion on the talk page, but I'm not sure that the typical hockey fan, or members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey are all that interested in removing gender bias. My only idea was to copy the article into a new one (with the gender-neutral name), then go and change all the pages that link to the old 'defenceman' page so they point to the new one, then nominate 'defenceman' for delation. I don't mind taking the time to do it, but is there a better way? Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks ColtsScore 05:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, fast reply. Thanks for your help. ColtsScore 05:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I like you

I was just looking at some of your recent edits on Feminism. I have no complaints, I just want to tell you you're doing a great job improving that article. I'm currently involved in an argument/edit war with a ridiculously uncooperative editor (over mail-order bride) and it's so refreshing to see strong, neutral editing on a controversial topic. Please contact me if you ever need a third opinion in a dispute or something. --Grace 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw what you said on cisgender and I thank you. I have been trying to learn how to use wikipedia and I am still struggling, but I do know how to use a search engine. The first day that I had the words used on me I argued them on Talk:Voice feminization and was told that I was an idiot. The conversations on Talk:Voice feminization may not be useful for you to read, but they were useful as I calmly read what I could get and did more research and reading on what to do on WP. I was very tentative about taking out what AlexR put in, but everything I read said it was the right thing to do. Again, thank you.

FemVoice 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I was reading the information about you

I would love to discuss programming with you, but you are so far above me in knowledge that I am embarrased to even suggest that I could carry on an inteligent conversation.FemVoice 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Feminism

I was just making it a litle more interesting to read. --Street Scholar 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Did I add too much information and make it easy

Wow! Someone that actually will take what I say and look up the veiled reference. Yes, I have been doing research. I never expected you to actually look it up, but I should have known since you are doing a masters on usenet that you would understand. FemVoice 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying something about the where the word cisgender comes from

I want to argue because you are referencing a 'usenet article' but the way that you phrased it makes it very hard as you are giving it as a history of public use. And from what I recall, that is acceptable in general as you did it. I hope that you do not mind that I am removing from References, 'Carl Buijs', as it is not actually the original, but a personal web page that quoted a posting on usenet, and that is against Wikipedia policy on reliable references.FemVoice 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may ask you since you have been here longer than I

I am an observer, and on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04 Cisgender I observed that my name was added as someone who was involved. Am I wrong in thinking that I should also add my comments into this page? My logic is that I should add them in because I am one of the parties involved.... But I don't know if that is correct or not?

What I do on my talk page

... is nobodys business but my own. And I will remove all references to this harassment in which you so happily participate. In case you are an admin, I would warn you not to block me myself, or you will have been an admin, since that would obviously not be proper behaviour. And why the heck should I let this BS stand there? As I said, solely my business. Maybe though you could have a word with your buddy FemVoice, who has removed lots of stuff from articles talk pages. But I guess this is a lesser crime. -- AlexR 12:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cisgender mediation

Hi, I'm entering at this point as a mediator as its obviously needed and I don't feel that the debate is getting anywhere. I've commented already and wasn't intending to step in, but I might as well. Are you and User:FemVoice ready to accept the presence of the definition of the cis(sex) terms in the cisgender article? I understand you questioning the terms as neologisms, have you ever come accross them at all outside wikipedia? Usrnme h8er 16:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since AlexR has chosen not to partake in the mediation, I'm going to have to consider the mediation to have reached a consensus... Do you feel that you and User:FemVoice can agree about page content on the talk page? Or do you want the mediation to remain open? --Usrnme h8er 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo

How's it going, my old wikipedia friend? Good to see we haven't had any disagreements recently. Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)