User talk:The Vintage Feminist: Difference between revisions

This is The Vintage Feminist's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Thanks for creating The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, The Vintage Feminist!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This page is reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

	The Original Barnstar
	For your quality additions to day of the year pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Peer review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Peer review, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Peer review really need active peer reviewers, so if you could possibly click on one or more of those articles and add your username under the Active Peer reviewers section that would be great. Please let me know. Thanks. Maranjosie (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
	If Adrianne Wadewitz were here, she'd give you an award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on murderers and serial killers raises something that's been niggling at me for a while. At least now actors are not split into actors and actresses, but I looked at just one female novelist and found this:

Category:American women writers, there is Category:American male writers

Category:French women writers, there is Category:French male writers

Category:American women novelists, there is Category:American male novelists

Category:French women novelists, but no Category:French male novelists

Category:20th-century women writers, but no Category:20th-century male writers

Category:21st-century women writers, but no Category:21st-century male writers

In general I think that "categories" are a bit overdone. But categorising on a male/female binary particularly so. pablo 20:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that categories can be a bit overdone but I found that by having, for example, Category:French female serial killers that I was able to use it as a replacement for both Category:French serial killers and Category:Female serial killers. Users of Wikipedia can navigate by: serial killers > serial killers by nationality > French serial killers > French female serial killers. Alternatively they can search by: serial killers > female serial killers > then look for nationality.

Gender can be a useful categorization for categories especially when they are large, but for me it is a case of avoiding a "female dumping ground" to reduce the size of a particular category. Perhaps it is a policy idea "that no gender orientated category should be created without a similar opposite gender category being created". Possibly with transgender being discussed on a case-by-case basis. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense and avoids the risk of 'othering' (whether this is done inadvertently or no). I am unsure about how transgender would fit, and tend to avoid discussion in that area. pablo 08:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should add the male or female categories to unidentified serial killers. I was intentionally leaving them out, we don't know we they are. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think ya have to be an arbitrator to vote there :) GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work in areas of mutual interest!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Vintage Feminist:

Thank you for your opinion. Sadly who were in favor of the deletion were mostly women. There is a lot of men journalists and also women without any relevance in Wikipidia. Blanquska (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) You have the coolest user page ever 2) I love Michael Sandel 3) I definitely just put the "we can do it!" badge on my user page. Happy editing! Safehaven86 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be blunt here. Your regular, almost paranoic, aspersions on others who do not share your obvious bias regarding the GGTF being primarily a means to promote feminism comes across to me, and I imagine others, as being almost childish, rather immature, and frankly counterproductive. Please reas WP:AGF and realize that it is possible, however fervently you might apparently believe otherwise, that people can legitimately disagree with your opinions and not be anti-feminist. And, yes, as I said on the talk page in question, the purpose of the task force was to increase the participation of women of all sorts, not just radical feminists like you apparently are. And, also, at some point, you might want to look over the various pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias and see that I have added several entries there which apparently relate to women which do not necessarily show the radical anti-feminist bias you so strongly and obviously indicate is shared by anyone who doesn't want to see the GGTF become the "feminist WikiProject" in all but name. Frankly, I can honestly say that there are some other women who are active editors who do not share your personal biases and I have to think that if they see the comments and discussion at the GGTF talk page they may well become even perhaps a bit more disinterested or even opposed to the group than they might already be. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your post on my user talk page, I think you will notice that I did not disagree with that statement, although your own comments seem to willfully denigate the possibility that women could be interested in topics of "traditional" interest to women. And it is not unreasonble to point out to you that your clear bias, as indicated by your user name, and your repeated unfounded insinuations regarding the motivations and thinking of others does clearly at least seem to border on the paranoic. While your comment on my user talk page makes it rather obvious that you either don't read what others say, or possibly, somewhat self-righteously(?) jump to conclusions and assume that your telepathy makes it possible for you to devise what they are "really" thinking, I have to say that much of your conduct and commentary of late seems to me anyway to be blindly biased in favor of a clearly feminist ideology. Maybe you could make more of an effort to actually read and address them, rather than try to spin everything, including the comments of others, to somehow perhaps reflect a feminist perspective in accord with your own. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new experience for me: to have another editor so speedily add to an article I'm creating (with something other than a "notability" tag or a category, at least) that a series of edit conflicts ensue. To further my understanding of how Wikipedia works, how did your attention come to it so quickly? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to be adding a social work portal to numerous hospital articles where this would not appear to be enhancing these articles. Hospitals are not a sub-category of social-care. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Health and social care is becoming more integrated in Scotland, but please desist from spamming multiple hospital articles with a portal that is not directly relevant.Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are sequential adding a social work portal to articles even despite there being no mention of social work in the article, in facilities where the type of care provided is not social care. Please understand that would appear to be spamming, which needs to be challenged. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry if my reaction to your addition to these pages has caused you any upset. I admit it was harsh of me to use a phrase like "spamming" which can refer to some unpleasant behaviours. I guess your motivations were genuine and that you were aiming to be constructive. I recognise that there was not any commercial motivation in your actions. I had been concerned that I was seeing a systematic addition of unrelated material to a number of articles despite my attempts to discuss this further. I hope that we can make some progress discussing this at the WP:hospital talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a question, what information would you like to see in an infobox for A Rape on Campus that isn't part of the first sentence of the lead? This feels like a case of a Disinfobox and the box would be a wedge for POV pushers. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently requested an infobox on Parthenogenesis. As a primarily biological article, I'm not sure what kind of infobox would be appropriate, at least in Category:Infobox templates. Since you added the request to the Gender Studies project banner (a Wikipedia area I'm less familiar with), did you have any particular infoboxes or navboxes in mind that would be pertinent in the context of the article? Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing about the Androgyny and Transgender articles. Not everything has an appropriate infobox or needs one. LadyofShalott 00:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I was wondering similarly regarding this and this matter. And by "wondering," I mean that it seems that you are tagging all these talk pages simply because you don't see an infobox in the articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you replied here on LadyofShalott's talk page. I prefer to keep discussion centralized (see WP:TALKCENT), so I am replying here. What you stated there is not a solid reason to tag these articles as needing an infobox. They likely don't need an infobox unless one already exists for them. And even in the case that infoboxes do exist for them, they still might not need one. WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes. I am likely to revert you on some of these infobox tags you've added. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What you stated there is not a solid reason to tag these articles as needing an infobox." Why isn't it?

"WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes." Isn't that just a matter of opinion?

It strikes me that there are no infoboxes at all within Category:LGBT templates and that is merely a case of a infobox request not having been put in yet. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "Why isn't it?" question, I feel that it isn't for the reasons I stated above. Once again, as seen here, you have needlessly requested an infobox. That article does not need an infobox; as is currently seen in it, it has a relevant sidebar at the top of the article and a sexual abuse template at its bottom; that is all that it needs. Is that my opinion? Yes. And I'm sure that it would be the opinion of others if I started a WP:RfC on the matter at that talk page. You are going around tagging all of these articles with a "needs an infobox" alert as though they need them. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles don't have infoboxes and do well without them. An infobox distracts our readers from the lead, and infoboxes or similar can take up a good portion of the lead, as in this case (an addiction glossary); so, yes, it is my opinion that WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes. You have had queries and/or complaints about the infobox tags you are adding, and you are likely to get more queries and/or complaints about them. Flyer22 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had one complaint, yours, and I have read it and replied to it. "yes, it is my opinion that WP:Leads are often better without infoboxes" - fine, in that case we will agree to disagree. You go your way I will go mine. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, Animalparty, LadyofShalott do not seem pleased with your infobox tags; that, in addition to my query/complaint, is why I stated, "You have had queries and/or complaints about the infobox tags you are adding." And as for going "my way," Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment and you are coming across articles that I have on my WP:Watchlist; so you are coming "my way." If you mean that I should go ahead and revert you, since you clearly do not want to discuss the matter, I will then. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theirs were queries, if they "do not seem pleased" it is because you have chosen to interpret it that way. By "you go your way I will go mine", I simply mean that I have read what you have to say, I have answered it and I have nothing further to add. Please put your comments to the Wikipedia community on the talk pages of the articles that you have on your watchlist as per WP:INFOBOXUSE, or as you've already said, at WP:RfC, rather than making the same point over and over on my talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If their comments only seem like queries and that they are not displeased by your tags, then that is because, unless they state otherwise, you have chosen to interpret those comments that way. Guerillero stated above, "This feels like a case of a Disinfobox and the box would be a wedge for POV pushers." And LadyofShalott stated, "Not everything has an appropriate infobox or needs one.", which is exactly the point I was getting across above, and is why I agreed with her. Those comments certainly do give an "I'm not pleased with your tags" impression. As for all this disagreement being a matter of how I view things, we can certainly open this topic up to wider community discussion, so that you can see that it is not simply an "it's only you" matter. I have not repeated myself over and over on your talk page. But, yes, my discussion with you on this matter has run its course. I have reverted you at some articles, and will not press further on this topic unless one or more WP:Edit wars result and/or it is addressed at the article talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state it more clearly: I do not agree with you that these articles should have infoboxes. Since you think they do, the onus is on you to show how such an infobox would be useful. You have not done so. LadyofShalott 15:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Gender Studies Award
		for your excellent contributions to gender studies and feminism. DStrassmann (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation) only. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]