text:
User talk:Theresa knott/archive9

archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Welcome to my talk page. ''If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgment, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in anyway, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it.If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better''.

Re:User_talk:Sam_Spade
How now? Sam [Spade] 21:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know
Thanks for telling me that personal attacks is considered abuse (I'm somewhat new here), I'm making a record of it should I need it in the future. Also where is there a page highlighting this policy?--198 22:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Personal attacks (of course) I wouldn't make a record on you user page, it looks vindictive. I would also remove the pages that i will revert on sight section as well. It makes you look like an edit warrior. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well I'm compromising with the users in questions, I'll re-word it. BTW: pages that i will revert on site (site like website :)--198 23:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Picture
do you happen to have a picture of yourself? i'm curious. --Anon

 * Oh you are are you? Well you'll have to follow the advice on my user page. Yes there is a photo of me on wikipedia. Yes it's particlulay easy to find. No i'm not going to tell you where it is, that'll take all the fun out of the search. Theresa Knott (Not the skater)

 * Did you stop skating due to the hot knees? --Rebroad 22:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you on La: ?
I requested adminship there. So now I'm on the campaign trail trying to woo voters, your support would be appreciated :-) Nicholas 12:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry no. i'm on meta, wikibooks, and here. Theresa Knott (Not the skater)

Thank you for your help
Thank you for going and talking with user:Cheung1303. I am currently working my ass off trying to make the wikis for the MTR featured-article quality, and I keep getting annoying edits from him and a legion of people who work only under ISP addresses. For example, the MTR (which is the name of the company) was moved to MTR Corporation Limited, which is the full and never used name of the company that OWNS the MTR service.

Sorry, just ranting.

How do you recommend we go about trying to resolve the copyright issues with Cheung1303? I speak both Engish and Chinese fluently, so if there is any need of translation, I am happy to do it. Thank you! PZFUN 01:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Great! I suggest you go to his talk pagre and explain to him in chinese that he must only add photos that he took himself, or photos where he has the express permission of the copyright owners. Furthermore he must add copyright info to each and every photo he uploads. I've already done this in English, but it's possible he doesn't understand me, rather than just ignoring me. If he ignores you. I'll have to just delete everything he uploads. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 05:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Johannesburg Dispute Resolution
Hello, as an admin (and since I'm translating a big thing about copyrights into Chinese!) I'm coming to you with a series of angry edits and e-mails I have received from User:Rob Thomas regarding the Johannesburg article. He responds negatively when I edit what he has contributed, and this morning I received this e-mail:

Hello!

The reason why the info on Rand McNally was included is because people keep on listing Jo'burg's population as either 712,000 or 3 million. It is, in fact, between 6 and 8 million across the metro area (depending on which source you refer to), in the same way that Greater New York is listed as 21 million. I am so tired of fighting the prejudices and misinformation about both Johannesburg and South Africa. In any case, with all due respect, what makes you an authoritative expert on the city? It is quite clear that you don't live here. PS NOBODY refers to the city as "Egoli." It is the name of a TV soapie. If you had to include a slang word for the city, "Jozi" would be more appropriate.

To which I responded:

Rob,

No, the population of Johannesburg is three million, while its metropolitan population is around 8 million. Just as the wiki for New York City lists the population for New York City and its metropolitan area as separate, so should the Johannesburg wiki. I am not causing a prejudice nor misinformation. I just find it irrelevant to talk about what Rand McNally thinks about a subject not related specifically to Johannesburg in the abstract at the top of the page.

PS, there is no need to insult my knowledge or authority about the Johannesburg page. I welcome all criticisms, however I also think it is very important to be clear and concise at all times.

Paul

And I received this back:

Paul

Thank you for your response. I'm not insulting your knowledge about the Johannesburg page. What qualifies you to make assessments about Johannesburg in the first place? I wouldn't insult you by writing up about Denmark or New York. I've been to New York once and I have never been to Denmark. I'm sure you'd feel insulted if people wrote ill-informed stuff about your city and country. I fail to see how you can be an "expert" when you don't live here and your knowledge of the local literature is limited - simply because you don't have access to it.

The information about metropolitan Johannesburg IS relevant to the city and should never have been deleted in the first place, which necessitated the inclusion of Rand McNally as a credible source before someone accused me of original research again. Please feel free to read up on the brouhaha caused by the article on Johannesburg's mall culture, which nobody except a resident of Johannesburg would understand.

The support received from other South African contributors lends credence to the fact that people write a whole lot of rubbish about our country and then dish it up in the name of education. This is totally unacceptable, and flies in the face of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia.

Please feel free to continue contributing to the Johannesburg page. But I will have no qualms editing it.

Have a great day!

Cheers

Rob.

I am trying to figure out what to do about this hostile attitude. Thank you! PZFUN 08:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * At first glance it doesn't look all that hostile to me. I think Rob probably feels strongly about the subject, it doesn't look as to me as if he is trying to offend you. The first thing i suggest you do, is not talk to him by email. Emails are private, and aricle disscusion should be public. For one thing the Arbitration committee doesn't have any duristiction over private communication. So IMO you should talk on the talk page and nowhere else. That way I can come to the article and try to mediate a solution that everyone can live with. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 09:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Article Dispute
Theresa, thank you for for taking the time to participate in the current dispute at Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation. I see that you have read the current article, and made some observations and suggestions. As one of the primary editors of that article for the past several months, I must agree with your assessment that the present article is difficult to read, POV and a mess. It is also a vandalised version, and more than 100 edits away from what was the current version of the article. A more recent and readable version can be found here, although this more thorough version could certainly benefit from the formatting suggestions you made. Much of the "life" of both versions of the article has been stripped away in the name of NPOV. Please take a glance at it and let me know if you agree or disagree.

Your suggestions reflect common sense, but unfortunately I wouldn't know where to begin as far as a paragraph-by-paragraph rewrite is concerned. My rewrites would merely move the article back toward its state before it was vandalised. As for a dispute tag, the article has been thus tagged off and on for the past several months, as SEWilco and I hammered out acceptable NPOV content. That is basically standard procedure. My only disagreement is with your suggestion to leave it in the present vandalised state while trying to work paragraph by paragraph to bring it back to where it was. My suggestion would be to replace the most current version (presently over a third is missing), reinstate the dispute flag and work on any POV or content disputes that anyone has. -Rob

 * Please don't call other people's edits vandalism. Doing this does not foster cooperation.As far as I can see everyone is editing in good faith here, nothing that anyone has done looks like vandalism to me. I know how to begin as far as a paragraph by paragraph rewrite. We choose the first paragraph where there is two different vesions in existance. We put both versions on the talk page, everyone pipes in with their arguments and we work to reach a consensus version that everyone can live with (even though they may not be estatic about it). Theresa Knott  (Not the skater) 20:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't call other people's edits vandalism, and I don't believe I did in this situation. The changes most recently implemented by TDC to the article in question are not edits.  He simply did a complete article revert to a version that is almost two weeks old.  I don't believe TDC has made an actual edit (i.e.; making an addition or change of his own origin) to this article in months.  His reverts, while he claims they are prompted by POV issues, also revert several spelling corrections, link additions, additional content by 3rd parties, etc.  When this is pointed out to TDC, he refuses to discuss his changes - even to the point of bragging about his non-cooperation and threatening endless revert-wars.  Forgive me if I call a duck a duck and refer to TDC's antics as vandalism.  See this discussion for more insight to my ranting.

 * As for fostering cooperation, please note that my recent comments on Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation do not specify TDCs vandalism as such, but instead refer simply (and diplomatically) to incomplete articles and large missing sections. I tend to use a little more candor on private user's talk pages such as this.  I must admit that I don't share your optimism regarding your "everyone pipes in with their arguments and we work to reach a consensus version" plan, as I've already tried that.  The only response I got from TDC was: "I am not going to argue this with an Anon user who is trying to stuff this garbage into an article."  You and I may be the only two contributors "piping in" for now.  Not that such is a bad thing -- I've had my head buried in these articles for so long now that I'm certain to be blind to changes that would seem much more obvious to you.  -Rob

I am actually very busy this weekend and will not be able to get back to the article till tommorow nite. TDC 21:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Looking forward to your participation, TDC. The article will still be there :)  -Rob

 * That's fine TDC, there's no particular hurry. To Rob - a couple of points

 * Talk pages are not private. Anything you say here can (and probably will) be read by TDC. So please bear that in mind and be extra careful to always be polite. That advice goes to anyone else who wants to get involved too. In fact it's not advice it's a rule. This is my talk page and if anyone says anything that even hints of a personal attack, or appear to me to be having a go at their opponent, or are even just being impolite i will delete their comments. I will not have anything on my talk page that isn't 100% polite and respectful.
 * Please do not confuse candor with impoliteness or disrespect. As to your point that TDC "probably will" read whatever I post (regardless of location), that was made obvious some time ago.  Of course I will respect your right to moderate your talk page, as I hope you will respect my right to reasonable expression. -Rob

 * I don't know that it will do any good at all to go back and look at TDC's or your past behaviour. I'm not interested in apportioning blame for the edit war. All i want is to be able to have the edit war stop and the article unprotected. The best way forwards IMO is to simply forget the past, and start to work from this point onwards.That way we can focus on the facts of the arguments, rather than who is doing rthe argueing. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true diplomat. Might I point out, however, that an actual argument has yet to be raised?  -Rob
 * Yes but hopefully that will change when TDC gets back to Wikipedia later on tonight. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 19:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * From the previous paragraphs:
 * Me: I must admit that I don't share your optimism regarding your "everyone pipes in with their arguments and we work to reach a consensus version" plan, as I've already tried that. The only response I got from TDC was: "I am not going to argue this with an Anon user who is trying to stuff this garbage into an article."  You and I may be the only two contributors "piping in" for now. -Rob 21:07, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * You: Yes but hopefully that will change when TDC gets back to Wikipedia later on tonight. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 19:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A month later, TDC still hasn't piped in with an argument - but I'll refrain from trumpeting the obvious "I told you so" claim. Instead, I'll just thank you for attempts at mediation in that matter.  I'd also suggest that the article you created, Winter Soldier Investigation (temp), is now a good candidate for deletion since work has ceased on that page, and has resumed on the original non-temp article.  Best wishes to you, -Rob

Johannesburg Dispute Resolution
Hello, I'm sorry to bother you again, but I received another very hostile e-maiil from the person I've been having this dispute with after I edited his East Rand and West Rand article:

I really don't care that your husband is a native of Johannesburg. That means he should know better. It doesn't qualify if he lived here in 1972 or even 2000. Things have changed since then. In any case, he's more than likely a disgruntled expat who has nothing positive to say about Johannesburg or SA.

Arrogant, dumb Yank - now THAT would approximate an insult, only in your case it's true where Johannesburg is concerned. Mess with my city and I'll klap you.

Thank you PZFUN 08:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What a rude person. Do not reply to that email, just put his name in your killfile so that his emails are deleted without you having to bother reading them. It's a very awkward situation because emails are private communications and so the arbitration committee cannot get involved. So it's important not to communicate with this person in private. I'll take a look at the east and west Rand articles and see if I can mediate. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 11:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to step in and arbitrate. I find this quite abhorrant as I am only trying to make the pages better and I tend to work in places where there are fewer people to do the work themselves. I responded with an e-mail asking him to discuss any issue related to an article with me on its talk page, and to please have a nice day. PZFUN 12:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation
Hi. I'm becoming embroiled in a dispute on the Genital modification and mutilation page with a new user (User:Jakew) who is now accusing me of vandalism. He has just reverted a large number of edits. Could you take a look at the page and at Jakew's user contributions? I think it may be time to protect the article for a short while; I'd do it myself but as I'm involved in the dispute I'd rather not. Thanks. Exploding Boy 20:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Images by Cheung1303
Hi, I noticed that you (and multiple other admins) have complained on User:Cheung1303's talk page about his uploading of images without source information. (These days, he is adding copyright tags for some images, but they look very questionable to me in several cases, especially since he still doesn't indicate where the image comes from.) He is, unfortunately, still doing it (e.g. recently for the images at  and .)  —Steven G. Johnson 21:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Cheung1303
Hi, since you've dealt with this user's persistent uploading of copyrighted images before, I wanted to let you know that the problem is still continuing. I've started a request for comment on him, to see what we can do about this. If you're willing to certify this RfC, that would be appreciated. --Michael Snow 05:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Big Cats, Big Cats
I've voiced my opinion over on meta, but I'm willing to pitch in with the grunt work on any of the projects...by which I mean researching, writing, editing. Organization is perhaps left best to others. I think writing for children will be a good exercise (and frankly I'll be happy to be free of edit wars on penises!)

 * That's how I feel.The pro and anticirc POV pushers, and the censors and the moral cursaders, and the people who think that those with differing opinions than themselves are nutters or evil can all have a bit of a break from me for a little while (they will still be there when I come back). I'm off to do something fun!

Some (content, but not media content) sites of interest might be:
 * Big Cats Online
 * The Big Cats Info Page
 * rare and exotic cats
 * Cats! Wild to Mild - Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
 * The World Conservation Union. Species Survival Commission - Nunh-huh 08:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks I'll take a look.

P.S. If we do wind up doing big cats, it might not be a bad idea to reach out to User:Dan Koehl to see if he's interested. He's a reasonably famous elephant handler and may have pictures or interest in participating. - Nunh-huh 08:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a great idea. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 17:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irismaster
Theresa, your revert is strange: if you think the arbitrators need to see his behavior, send them a diff, why keep his vandalism on a public page? Gady 22:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah your right. i wasn't thinking straight. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, good luck with banning this idiot. Gady 22:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris, and your kneejerk censorship
(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moriori")

I've removed you comment (but not your vote) from the picture vote. Saying that people who disagree with your POV needs psychiatric help violates our no personal attack rules :-( Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What absolute rubbish. Every wikipedian is allowed to have opinions. I was giving my genuine opinion on a talk page, NOT insisting it be included in an article. People state their differing opinions every day -- it's called freedom of speech -- but you somehow decide you can elevate Wikipedia to a unique no-go area for opinions. Also, claiming that I said that people who disagree with me need psychiatric help is an astounding misinterpretation of the facts. I said no such thing, but was simply stating a generalisation, NOT aiming at a specific person/s personally. Your kneejerk censorship is frightening and I wonder about the future of wikipedia. I have read departing comments of some people who have quit wiki for good and understand their frustration. It's very disapppointing. Moriori 23:01, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Help! Votes_for_undeletion
I've lost my temper at Anthony to the point where I don't think I'd better do anything more on this... could you take a look at Votes_for_undeletion and sort of, uh, take over on figuring out what ought to be done next?

I personally believe the appropriate thing to do is to delete the page until the VfU process is complete, which I temporarily undeleted at Anthony's request so that he could review the page history. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Under what deletion policy would you suggest deleting the page? It's not a candidate for speedy deletion.  anthony 警告 21:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Was this originally deleted as a speedy or did it go through VFD? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 12:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to have been a speedy. anthony 警告 13:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't get a reply on my own talk page, and didn't realize this discussion was in progress. I have taken the following further action: I have deleted the page which I temporarily undeleted at the request of a user who wished to examine the page history. The page was left undeleted for about 36 hours. My reading of the current undeletion vote is 4:4 with about five days' discussion. I intend to take no further action in this matter. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * IMO it's best to just let it stay at VFU for a little longer. If at the end of the voting period it is still evens then IMO it should be undeleted and go through vfd. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * (Agree). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikijunior and KeyStroke
Hi, I have been absent due to a physical ailment which sent me to the hospital. I hope to return to active participation soon, but I am focusing on my recovery.

KeyStroke 05:44, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Re your removal of my vandalism notice
Hello Theresa, This is about Node ue's blanking the article German modal particle, you removed my notice of current vandalism saying this wasn't vandalism. Did you actually look at both the histories of German modal particle and Talk:German modal particle. Talk about "dispute resolution", I must have spoken to him about this umpteen times, this is Mark Williamson isn't it? He has taken it into his head this totally POV, but he doesn't know what he is talking about and instead of placing it on to the Vfd list he just keeps blanking the article. Dieter Simon 23:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes I looked at the history and the talk page. This is very clearly a content dispute. It should be addressed through dispute resolution not vandalism in progress. VIP get's far to long as it is. Hope this helps. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I am afraid it doesn't help. He started off as 24.251.242.236 and tells me it is all POV. Do you really think he would have taken notice of my patiently explaining to him why 'G.m.p.s' are quite different from other particles he would have just carried on doing the same, namely blanking the page, which in the end he did. Anyway, it is really all explained in the article. If he carries this on I shall revert the article every time, that's all. Dieter Simon 23:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of relevant links from an article is clearly vandalism. Do not remove legitimate entries from VIP. anthony 警告 15:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No it is not. VIP is not a punishment page. it's a page where admins can see if someone is actually vandalising an article and if they need to do something about it. Goto the article talk page, start a rfc or take it to arbitration if you feel you need to, but do not clutter up a page that gets out of hand as it is with all the genuine vandals without people adding other wikipedians in that thwey are in an edit war with. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 15:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know VIP was just for admins. I thought it was a place to get attention when someone is vandalising Wikipedia instead of engaging in a revert war with that user. RFC would certainly not be appropriate at this stage, and neither is arbitration. In any case, an admin should look into the matter and see if they need to do something about it. I don't know where you get the idea that I was trying to punish anyone. anthony 警告 15:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not just for admins. Anyone can use it. Sorry if i gave the impression that only admins can use it. Never the less this is clearly not vandalism, the VIP page has to be kept usable. So it's not an appropriate place for this. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 15:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call the removal of clearly relevant links anything but vandalism. anthony 警告 15:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) I've just read the history. He is trying to prevent googlebombing. He appears to be trying various ways of having the link in without allowing googlebombing. Now you may disagree that this is necessary, but never the less he is clearly editing in good faith. therefore it is, by definition not vandalism. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 16:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If another uninvolved party removes the listing from VIP, I'll move it to the talk page, though. anthony 警告 16:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the listing. anthony 警告 16:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you Anthony.I'm very glad that this was sorted out amicably. Theresa Knott  (Not the skater) 18:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

signature
I'd like to compliment your witty anagram signatures, always good for a giggle when reading WP:RFA (and god knows that page needs one once in a while). Thanks! --fvw 00:09, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

 * Thank you . Most of the anagrams were suggested to me by other wikipedians, so I can't take credit for making them up. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 06:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here are a few more, apologies if you have one of these already:
 * Take the snort (or snort the teak)
 * Tank tester ho (sorry)
 * Tart, knees hot (sorry again)
 * Sank teeth rot (what?)

Ah, I give up. The best ones (taketh no rest, the token star) are already taken anyway. :-) JRM 17:10, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I Love them! I'm going to change to one right now. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 18:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * And some more. It's scarily addictive.

 * to thank trees
 * ten shot taker
 * the rote stank
 * then rot steak
 * the rots taken
 * the toner task

 * Seemingly your name has an infinite combination of anagrams. Really quite fascinating!

 * zoney ♣ talk 21:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I'm very lucky to have a number of very popular letters in my name. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * We who have silent "k"s in our name are a lucky breed. ;-) func (talk) 23:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * WOWWWWWW. I feel indescribably thick-headed right now.  I just now realised that those were anagrams.  *blushes* BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I find the best cure for blushing is taking you mind off it. I think you'll find that if you spend some time thinking up some more for me, you soon forget your how long it took for you to cotton on ;-)
 * A few:
 * That snot reek
 * To the stanker
 * The tort snake
 * The snott rake
 * The stark note
 * This is fun... :-P BLANKFAZE | (что??<b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 07:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As you can see I've taken a fancy to one or yours. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 18:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL>

Up to
Not up to much. I did not agree that it should be undeleted and the text of the policy explicitely said the admin "may" undelete - implying there was no policy that it must be undeleted. I was not going to prevent another admin from doing so and had no wish to hide the majority vote from anyone (hence my comment when it was removed). - Tεx  τ  urε  23:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough. The page certainly needs cleaning up that's for sure. Anyway, the problem is solved now. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 23:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

good job!
Nice work cleaning up the Cheung1303 mess. :) --mav 07:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd rather have spent the last two hours drawing pictures for wikijunior, but someone had to sort these images out. I only hope that he will finally get the message and stop uploading them. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 09:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Book where?
Hi Theresa, via the barnstar you awarded Angela I discovered you as involved in Wikibooks. I have a question, if you don't mind: I try to find a good place for the book on "Digital Network Theory" (1.1 MB pdf) that I recently wrote - after retirement from 32 yrs research at Philips Research Labs (Eindhoven, NL). Instead of trying to find a publisher (I don't need the money;-) I prefer to put it in a freely accessible, but known, internet place. My own homepage http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/preface.htm works allright is also on the open directory 'Online_Texts' http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Math/Publications/Online_Texts/ ) but is - apart from a Google search - rather anon. I recently discovered Wikipedia where it is now at Digital Network Theory, but maybe Wikibooks is better. Being a scientist and Wikipedian yourself, I hope you can advise me. Thanks, Nico B. 10:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Wikibooks is ideal for this sort of thing. The only thing is it would need to be editable. I don't know if there any pdf to wikimarkup converters that could do the job automatically, but I would certainly suggest you create an account there and ask for help at their equivalent of a village pump (they call it the "staff notice board") Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ieSpell program: it is good!!
Theresa: I just wanted you to know that the ieSpell program was recommended to me for the ADD typing problem we had discussed. I am using it and it is helping a lot with reducing the time I spend going back and looking for and correcting my transpositions. It is by far the best I have ever used, and I've tried more than a few. Its free, and I would recommend it to you as well. I am having fun writing railroad and Virginia related stuff, and I updated my user page with some personal information. I am amazed at how many Wikipedia contributors and linked to the ADD page. Misery loves company.... blah, blah.. by for now, Yours in Richmond, Mark Vaoverland 15:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I'll take a look but i rarely use IE (haven fallen in love witrh firefox) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Katowice
I think you can lift the protection of the page because of Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision ...Sicherlich 08:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * and there was one more city in Poland protected (same reason).. unfortunately i forgot which one and i dont know where on en you have your protection log ... please lift the protection as well ...Sicherlich 09:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Likewise for Great Purge. Fred Bauder 11:47, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * OK I've done those two. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Clitoris"
I understand that you have a job to do, and you had to block for that reason. However I was considering quitting wiki for that reason but I figured I'd better stay for now. On another note I think the current picture on the "Clitoris" is better than the last one (Although I still take some offence to it).--198 22:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm glad you've decided to stay. I didn't mean to drive you away. But as an admin I have to respect and sometimes enforce community consensus. I'm glad you find the new picture better than the old. i too prefer it but for different reasons. (I found the copyright status of the old one deeply troubling). I have to say that some of the comments of the people with an opposite view than you were sometimes rude. I think that's a shame. Take my advice 198 please. Just remove the clitoris article from your watchlist and think on it no more. Then it won't bother you. You are unlikely to come across it by accident. I hope we can work together on something more agreeable in the future. Hey come to wikibooks if you want. We are writing a series of children's books there. It's all very plesent, no edit wars, - nothing like wikipedia in fact. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Help
Hello, I wonder if I can ask for your help. For some reason I have been rather doggedly targeted by vandals recently. In particular, there is a new user User:FirstPricniples whose name is obviously intended to imitate me. I wonder if you could delete that username. Sorry to be a hassle. -- FirstPrinciples 17:05, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also another one now, called User:FisrtPricniples. -- FirstPrinciples 17:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I've blocked them both. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had to go in and unblock myself, Theresa, your unblock didn't even work for some reason. Oh well. I'm the only one who uses the IP, so it was just a harmless gesture of protest and frustration...I don't know what's going to happen to a project that punishes people who try to prevent vandalism. Maybe I'll have to leave eventually. But for the time being, of course I can't really stay blocked for 24 hours when I've got a 5,000 page watchlist to monitor. Everyking 20:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems like the 3RR enforcement is going to result in people being blocked for reverting vandalism...I don't know if it would actually happen in practice, but we ought to be explicit in encouraging people to fix vandalism, it ought to be an explicit exception; we shouldn't leave people thinking they might be breaking the rules. Everyking 21:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That'll be open to abuse. Edit warriors already call each other vandals, they'll be making bogus rfc's on admins who blocked them, and generally causing trouble. Genuine reverts of vandalism wont be punished anyway, remember "admins may block" They don't have to. What admin is going to block someone for reverting vandalism? Remember that you're not allowed to protect a page you're involved in. I've seen vandalism on pages, reverted, then protected that page. I've done this loads of times, but never been accused of breaking the rules, even though i just protected a page that I've edited. I honestly  think you are worrying over nothing.Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 21:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meeting up on 3rd Dec.
Thank you, Theresa, for reminding this old feller. Yes, I'd like to be present to meet everyone, if I can. Have just moved to a new house after 44 years in the same place. Quite frighteneing, this. Anyway, I'll try to be there. Dieter Simon 00:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:AtlasAward.jpg

 * First of all, Hi, nice to meet you, thanks for all of your valuable contributions...Pedant

Image:AtlasAward.jpgI'm worried about the copyright status of this image. I don't see the justification of "fair use". Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a tiny piece of a picture from a reduced size, (the original of that portion is over 2 inches) low resolution scan of an ad from a 1960's comic book, famous enough to be the single most notable thing about its owner. It's attributed to the owner.  The image description points at an article about the owner.  The image is being used in a symbolic celebration of the owner's main claim to fame:  the 98 pound weakling who had sand kicked in his face by bullies.   I don't see any fairer use than that.  Image:TrangBang.jpg

 * If you are looking for images that aren't fair use, though, I'd suggest you lean on Image:TrangBang.jpg if you want a clear-cut example of abuse of fair-use doctrine, the AP has specifically stated it may not be used in an encyclopedia in any form without payment and will not be licensed for free distribution in any way.

 * I do appreciate you looking out for 'bad' images, but I don't think that the Atlas image is one of those. If you just don't like it though, feel free to replace it with something suitable.  Just upload to the same name, any 100 pixel square image, and explain why, and all that in the upload history.  Thanks again for your concern.  Let me know if there's anything I can do.Pedant 00:22, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * PS there's more on my talk page, I don't want to clutter yours up. I need to get off the computer though, the home school kids are all here working.  I'll be on later tonight or if not, then Thursday.  Thanks again for your inquiry.Pedant

 * Hi Theresa, thought this might help you be more comfortable with the use of the excerpt:the full ad (this full page was originally approximately 8x10 inches), as the 'Atlas Award'. You can see that, although Image:AtlasAward.jpg is a good quality scan of a well preserved copy of the ad, it is a tiny fragment, low resolution excerpt.  It's not being used in a commercial way, and is being used with his name attached.  The name "Atlas" itself might not be fair use, but I really think that this image, as used here is absolutely fair use.  I don't think it's worth the time to try to make a  substitute image, unless it's a great substitute... like redrawing the image by hand, in a similar style, or something along those lines.  Also, Angelo Siciliano/Charles Atlas has been dead for over 30 years.  But it won't bother me if you change the image.Pedant 16:26, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections
As you've no doubt noticed, new members for the Arbitration committee are going to be elected this december. While there are some fine candidates, the number of … ehm, how shall we put this … "abrasive personalities" there is worrying me a little. While I'm sure the approval voting will weed out the more controversial candidates, I'd still greatly appreciate it if you'd consider running. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 05:17, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

 * OK I'm considering it at the moment. I'll probably decide to toss my hat in the ring later tonight. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An attractive pair of bookends?
You are a   SICK, SICK BUNNY. I like her, can we mmmph mph…hey, let go of my throat!?! --Phil | Talk 07:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * I know I'm sick but she sure is a beauty. She likes you, I can tell by the way she is manhandling you. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm desperately hoping your eyes are drifting leftwards as you say that: the thought of Jimbo in a dress does nothing for me [snigger, sorry Jimbo] although I'm sure you could find someone who would like it. Is it safe to say that the thought of Angela in that dress does do something for me? No, I thought not --Phil | Talk 09:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * You know full well my eyes were drifting right as I said it ;-p Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 10:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You know that dreadful sound in the middle of the night which tells you to watch your step in the morning in order to avoid the gigantic hairball your cat is depositing just outside your door? That's my instinctive response to your latest outrage :-) A more measured response will have to await my recovery. Let's just send her the hairball… --Phil | Talk 15:31, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry, I will not upload any more photos without permission. cheung1303

 * I'm glad to hear that. Welcome back! Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Honeycake
I don't bite newbies. I usually start with the notice, occasionally changing it to  if they do something to a User_talk page, for example. The fact that this hypothetical newbie/vandal has newbie tested/vandalised a User_talk page proves that they aren't just testing. If your complaint is about User:Adolph Wales, I have to say that moving the sandbox (very possibly one of the most commonly used pages in the encyclopedia) is stupid, to say the least. Maybe vandalism was the wrong word, but the 'caps lock, italics and bold' was certainly justified. Finally, your saying it's a good thing you're not an admin I find extremely offensive. I spend a lot of time (1h a day plus) dealing with vandalism. I have received the Atlas Award (it's true: see my user page) for keeping the sandbox clean. I have created Template:Sbox which is obviously effective since it's attracting vandalism (I hope you follow my logic). I do, in fact, aim to become an admin, however, I will wait until you leave the Wiki or leave me alone before putting my name forward. ''NB this is not a threat. I didn't mean it threateningly.'' Please reply on my talk page.--Honeycake 16:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, apology accepted.--[[User:Honeycake|Honeycake (mad scientist)]] 06:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anagrams
A few more anagrams you might be able to use - HOT NET TASKER KNEES THAT ROT TAKE THE SNORT My name (Adrian R Pingstone) is AN ROAST PIG DINNER! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 17:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you :-) I love pork BTW Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 21:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom
Theresa, do have any interest in running for the Arbitration Committee? I just asked Cecropia the same question. I was just thinking that it would be great if all of my favorite editors were to throw their hat into the ring. :) You are exceptionally fair minded, and would be a great addition to the ArbCom. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">func <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">(talk) 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. But i haven't decided yet Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:25, 18 Nov 2004

OK I've thought about it long enough. (I was thinking about it before anyone asked me). I've added my name to the list. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * YES!!! Good stuff, your addition to the Committee would be a very good thing. :) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">func <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">(talk) 23:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've endorsed you publically -- best of luck. :-) Incidentally, if you haven't looked yet, my colleagues on the AC are getting some speed and teeth -- the proposed decision at Irismeister 3 is only held up at present because they can't decide between a 1 and 5 year ban. :-) Happy editing and campaigning, Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 09:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

copyvio vs. steal
From User_talk:Cheung1303: ... You cannot steal images from other websites. ... Copyright violation and theft are two entirely different things, please don't synonimise<SUP>*</SUP> them. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 22:45, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

* don't think that's a word, but you get my drift.

I know but Cheung is very difficult to talk to. I've tried explaining in all sorts of ways, but he never seems to "get it". I've resorted to oversimplifying my language in the hope that i can get through to him. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "Simplify language" in the same way as the record companies do, incidentally :-). Much like the minitrue of Nineteen Eighty-four simplified English into Newspeak. I suppose the record companies consider kids and adults who download songs from the Internet "never seem to 'get it'" too. </rant>— David Remahl 23:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't get yer knickers in a twist ;-) Downloading a track of the internet is a world of difference to uploading over a hundred images to wikipedia that you know to be copyrighted, and in fact have removed the copyright info form the corner of the photo.(The evidence is in th deletion log - where i deleted 105 of Chuengs copyright violations last saturday morning)Record companies are a panicky breed because if they don't keep up with the times they are all going to die out. And even if they do keep up with the times, distribution costs over the internet are so small huge numbers of small independant companies will snatch thier business anyway. Bands may soon be able to distribute thier own music, without the need for record companies at all. So they try to talk tough, not simple. Whereas me -I'll try talking in any way I can to make Cheung understand that he will not be allowed to break our rules. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 09:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Our dear friend
I guess you've noticed that our dear friend i386, aka El Chico, aka Tuesday Teen, aka 33451 aka a slew of other names has picked up in activity? Still doing the same things; vandalising the front page, using his numerous sock puppets without any skill at all, and general trolling...Now he's on commons too. — David Remahl 00:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No I hadn't noticed. I'll keep an eye out for him here.*Sigh* Kids! You gotta love 'em. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 09:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias
I'd like your opinion at Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain your action in unprotecting apple pie while the conflict is still being worked out on the talk page? Arminius 13:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I unprotected because conflicts are being worked out on the talk page. Protection is generally a bad thing, nd should only be done for a short enough period that forces opponents to talk to one another. If another revert war happens the page can always be reprotected, but for now let's see what happwns with many more people involved. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 13:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed they are not being worked out if you observe the talk page. The conflict is between user:Darrien and User:Chameleon. Once they agree to not edit war again then it should go off protection. Arminius 13:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page is unprotected now, darrien has made a commitment to not edit war. User:Chameleon is now on block for personal attacks. Hopefully the page will continue to progress. thanks Arminius 13:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I have to agree that User:Chameleon was getting worked up, but then given that your (Arminius) page protection was ill considered and doesn't appear to have followed policy by reverting the page first, its not that surprising that User:Chameleon was getting annoyed. I'm not sure that blocking User:Chameleon was a good idea, he was making constructive edits to the article whilst User:Darrien had contributed little. Chameleon's personal attacks don't look sufficiently egregious to warrant blocking, it would have been better to have given him a warning first and better still to have gotten a different admin to consider the blocking. -- Solipsist 17:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I've unblocked him. Arminius you are making matters worse, when as an admin you should be trying to make them better. I respectfully ask that you just step away from the page becasue it appears to me that you are letting your irritation with Chameleon get in the way of your good judgement. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I have left a comment on this matter on Arminius's talk page. Wolfman 23:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheung
I was wondering if you were still having problems with Cheung. I just wanted to let you know that I explained to him what the issue was with his copyrights in Cantonese which he says is his native language. I haven't been paying attention, but has he stopped? PZFUN 20:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blender
You may be interested to know that the new version of Blender has a global undo feature, which is something it has never had before. I just now found out about it, and can't wait to try it out. Cheers! -- Wapcaplet 23:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-wishing
Good luck to you in the election too. Stealing Shane King's compliment to Ambi, if this election allowed one to rank candidates based on his preference, I'd rank you above me. Johnleemk | Talk 18:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 18:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I just read User talk:Jimbo_Wales, and I just came here to say I'm quite impressed at your rational dealing with some rather annoying individuals. anthony 警告 04:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you anthony.Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 10:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the... I'm not sure what it was, but thanks. I've decided to remove my endorsements, and not to give any further in this election, but you have my well wishes, and my thanks for your kind words. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * you are welcome :-) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 10:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsement
Greetings. You have my endorsement for Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, and you have therefore earned the Quadell seal of approval. Feel free to use this image, or not, as you like. (You won't hurt my feelings if you don't.)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   05:24, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's very odd. My endorsement isn't in the history either. Oh well, I put it back in.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:29, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 14:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, and one more thing. IMHO, it would look best for you to respond to overblown accusations against you on a page in your user space, and simply add a link (rebuttal) on the page. But that's just my unsolicited advice.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:48, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing out the merge error on the endorsements page. I apologize on behalf of those who introduced this error.

 * At 00:04, 22 Nov 2004, user Gzornenplatz changed the page to the last version which had all of the endorsements on one page.

 * Unfortunately, he was not careful enough to merge all of the most recent versions of the subpages at that moment, so a merge process took place for the next several hours. If you made your change after Gzornenplatz change, it was temporarily lost, although another pass was done to recover any such changes after the merge was completed.

 * However, if you made a change to your endorsements subpage after the last pass to check on the correctness of the merge was made, it was also lost.

 * If anyone finds any other discrepancies that were introduced during the merge process, and feels put upon to fix it themselves, I will happily fix it for them, quickly and without complaint.

 * I see that Quadell has already fixed the lost changes, and I apologize that you spent your valuable time wondering about that mistake.

 * It may be a lost cause, but I truly believe a central "public square" where interested voters can post their endorsements is worth the effort. If it proves futile because of user issues, (or perhaps even technical issues!) so be it, but I strongly believed in at least trying to make it work.

 * Thank you. --DV 14:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's very nice of you to apologise David but it really isn't necessary. These things happen! Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spam is in the eye of the beholder
Jimbo says I have the wrong impression of you. Here is a link to a better organized framework for a discussion. If you have some time to navigate to this subpage and read any of this, I would be encouraged to hear from you. --DV 02:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tits
Great tits, Teresa! I don't know how long you've had that picture up, but it gave me a good chuckle. Tannin

 * That's why I leave it up there:-) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Anagrams

 * A TENTH STROKE
 * TREATS KEN HOT
 * SANK TEETH ROT
 * TANKS HERE TOT
 * TORE THE TANKS

Sorry, I couldn't resist ;) →Raul654 08:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Exciting new feature to control campaign messages
Please vote at Software and features, to approve an exciting new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages. --DV 11:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of campaign messages. ..
I thought you might get a kick out of this. – Quadell (talk) (help)  20:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

LOL!! Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness
Would you please comment at Requests for comment about

Cultural and historical background of Jesus Admin (User:Theresa knott) took sides by protecting page immediately after revert by Biased editor. Rather than protecting a pre-edit war version (the edit war goes back about 100 or so edits, by the way). CheeseDreams 22:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Nonsense. No matter what version an Admin protects a page at, someone will scream.  Theresa protected a page in order to stop an edit war.  Pure and simple.  RickK 00:21, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * The page was being discussed but reverted back to an edit war. CheeseDreams has tried hard to support the edit process and consensus in the last few days, but I can't fault the re-locking of the page, and *if* re-locking is right then it is almost arbitrary and not a "fault" item for theresa which version its locked at. Sadly. FT2 03:25, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

On a separate but related issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule - #Enforcement
 * Where pages are protected due to revert wars, sysops may protect pages on the version disliked by those who have engaged in excessive reverts. This is believed by some to be a recent change to the protection policy. The sysop also has the option to protect the current version, thereby maintaining a sense of neutrality.

and Protection policy
 * Additionally, when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts. See wikipedia talk:revert#The protection option for the discussion on this.

On these grounds I request that you revert the article to a version prior to the current one.

 * The grounds above show me that I can revert. I already knew that. What you haven't shown me is why i should. Looking through the history shows that the number of edits is huge. There are a number of people reverting each other. I can't work out who is on whose side:-( If it's one person against everyone else, i will revert. If there is an arbitration ruling that has been broken, then I will revert. If there is a rfc against your opponent that shows the wikipedia community thinks he is biased I will revert. If the rfc against me shows that the community at large thinks I was wrong not to revert, then I will revert. Failing that I will not revert, because the moment I did, i would have your opponents claimimg that I was abusing admin powers :-( Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 23:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The only user who broke the 3RR was John kenney; he reverted 5 times today knowing he was violating the 3RR, which has a written policy suggesting the protector should favor the non-violating party. However, I fully understand your worries about an RfC. This group has seemed rather litigious than compromise oriented. I *regret* the current version, I have *asked* that you change it to one neither party wishes, but I do not think you have done anything unfair or partisan - which is nothing short of amazing. Further, I want to thank you for actually protecting the page, if I have not already done so. - Amgine 23:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Amgine I can't do as you request becasue I simply don't know what version to revert it to. Suggest a suitable version to me here. In the meantime I will ask some people I know and trust for thier opinion.Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 00:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay (wow there have been a lot of edits...) Here's the compromise version by FT2, Tigermoon, CheeseDreams which was over-written . However, this is very likely to be seen as partisan by Slrubenstein, since he was author of the replacement essay. Therefore I suggest which was the version unprotected after the last round of revert war. - Amgine 01:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * After reading what everyone has to say I have decided that I would be unwise to revert. I think that the best thing for you to do, is to ask another admin to unprotect the page, or ask the formal mediator to revert the page, or create a temp page and work on that. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, I put in my 2c at the RfC and seem to have incurred CheeseDream's wrath at the ArbCom vote. Such is life. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did the right thing here, Theresa. There was an edit war in progress, and you put a stop to it. It was extremely unreasonable for anyone to expect you to have waded through a 100 plus edits and figure out what was what. CheeseDreams's assertion that you took sides one way or the other is patent nonsense, and violates assuming good faith. P.S. You're going to be a great ArbCom member! :) P.P.S. Do any of the ranks under my Tote the Ranks strike your fancy? :) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">func <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">(talk) 17:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks eceryone. i'm going to take your advice and do nothing. As for func's offer - I quite like the idea of "Jimbo usurper" but you don't have a rank that high ;-) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks...sorry I can't help
Thanks for thinking of me as someone whose opinion you respect. :-) Regrettably, I cannot be of any help in this case, as I am seen as a POV warrior by CheeseDreams.  I expect that any advice that I gave you would be seen as biased -- indeed, I have almost given up on all Jesus articles here for a while until the flurry of talk page wars abates a little .  I haven't kept up with the article in question anyhow, so I don't even know whose version is currently protected (and given my "given up" status, I hope you don't mind if I avoid checking).  My one comment, which I hope will not get either of us in trouble for colluding against those who see me as biased, is that The wrong version was written by Angela a long time ago and I always find it a refreshing read when I am accosted for protecting a page.  Given that anyone who disagrees with Angela must be wrong, that page (or at least that page as it existed at Angela's last edit) should be the one true way of looking at things. :-) And even if it's not, it's an excellent job by Angela of capturing the very situation you find yourself in.  Best wishes as always, Jwrosenzweig 00:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I see no reason why you should allow material attacking you on your own talk page. If I were you, I'd revert. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:53, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * You misunderstand me. I have no intention of reverting my talk page. I feel it important that people be allowed to question my decisions on my talk page. What I was asking was - should i revert Cultural and historical background of Jesus to an earler version in order to punish the editwarriors? (Note that this would involve editing a protected page) Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 00:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to leave the page as it is unless the different sides can agree on what is the appropriate version to revert to (assuming that you can figure out what sides are involved - don't knock yourself out trying). Since protecting a page is the job of an uninvolved admin, it's hardly fair to expect someone who has no familiarity with the problem to identify what version predates the edit war. If we had the oft-discussed ability to flag stable revisions in the history, things might change, but in the meantime, "The Wrong Version" is the principle that applies. At least in theory, protection is supposed to push the parties towards discussion and working out their differences. --Michael Snow 01:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind word
I continue to wrestle with ideas for cutting down that kind of aggravation. I have been putting hundreds of pages of articles in over the last 6 mos. I find it annoying when somebody makes small changes that don't match style or organization, particularly the ones that feel a need to make a plodding point obvious to any adult past 12. But the biggest aggravation is the idiots like Robert who are here for other purposes. So I oscillate between thinking wp isnt "worth the aggro" and thinking we need to provide some degree of protection, like when an article is in good shape with community confirmation that it's something we are proud of, asking for opinions to make sure all sides have been heard, and thereafter blocking the article from anonymous editing or requiring that proposed changes be posted on the talk page for discussion, or filtered through senior editors or something that slows the entropic erosion or POV warrior edits. I would like to see a controlled trial, where we randomly allocate 50 nontrivial articles, half to continued open edits and half to a monitored system for, 4 months, followed by a review of the quality of changes for most. I have an open mind about what system is healthiest for wp, and maybe the trial would show me I am wrong, but I think some of the articles that I have worked hard to shape simply regress toward an entropic low mediocre quality if left untended. Anyway, I think the people who put a lot of work into buffing the better articles would find some degree of erosion resistance welcome. Or maybe I'm trying to do the wrong things here. Vent over. alteripse 02:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
I'd like to personally thank you for supporting my adminship request, so here it is: Thank you! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:10, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Field Marshal Administrator
Theresa of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the rank of Field Marshal Administrator, with all the privileges and responsibilities it entails. :)

This is your ASCII rank: (****~)

I am confident that, one day, you will indeed rise to the newly created Tote the Ranks rank of Jimbo Usurper. ;-)

<span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">func <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">(talk) 19:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why thank you Func :) responsibilites? Dont like the sound of that! Priviledges - that's more like it.What do I get? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * We can discuss it during your "training"... muhahaha. ;-) (Turkey day tomorrow... can't wait!) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">func <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">(talk) 00:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chemical drawings
I wonder if you'd like to look at Help_desk and make any comments. I know you are interested in illustrating articles. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 22:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removing your own blocks
Hi Theresa, when you blocked Reithy and then unblocked him it had the same effect as just removing the original block, since you took over from Jimbo's when you put your own in. Users can only be blocked by one person at a time. silsor 22:36, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oh! Cheers for letting me know. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mymac
I think this is verging on an advertisement. (I'm especially noticing the use of "our" and "we" in the last part) What's your opinion? Joyous 16:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC) It looks like an advert to me. I suggest you put it on Votes for deletion and see what everyone else says. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheung
I sent another friendly note to Cheung asking him again to remember the copy-write policy. Again, it was in Cantonese. Maybe I should try Zulu next, as it doesn't seem to be getting through. PZFUN 17:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * As far as I can see he's only uploading fair use logos. If he does start uploading copyvios again, i've told him I will delete them the moment I spot them. So he's just be wasting his time. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One more thing
I just added my support for your candidacy on the Arbitration committee. Good luck! PZFUN 18:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Peano
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Why is it a CSD? I was confused because both this and Peano curve were listed as CSDs. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:04, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right. It's also the exact same image as Image:Peano curve.png.  Is Hilbert Curve the correct name for it?  I have no idea what these are even.  Maybe that's why it should go to IFD?  People can go there and debate the proper name for it.  In either case, do image redirects work? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:44, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Products
Hey Theresa: Whats up? First of all Im so glad that everything is ok between us. That took a lot of weight off my back and Im happy that I didnt offend you.

I was told that youre the store manager for Wikipedia or the designer or that you hold a position as far as wikipedia sales.

I wanted to know what you think of these two ideas I have for wikipedia to promote and if maybe we can get them out with your help:

Numero uno: A Wikipedia shirt that says Im a Wikipedian, are you? on the front with the Wikipedia logo on the back. Black with White lettering for men, and White with Black lettering for women.

Numero dos: This will sound off the wall if not interesting at least, I know but......Wikipedia desktop model airplanes. This one should be easy, just go to flightminiatures.com They will discuss the price with the Wikipedia store and if the price is right, well then....as a collector of those plane models myself, I came to think that aviation enthusiasts who visit that website might actually buy the plane, thus our site earning maybe a commission, and aviation experts and collectors will also become interested to find out what Wikipedia is just by seeing a plane model with our logo in that website.

You let me know what you think and whats up:)

Sincerely yours, your friend, "Antonio Boy Antonio George Martin"

title: User talk:Theresa knott/archive9


text:
Talk:Individualist feminism

iFeminists
Material from ifeminists.net is used with permission of the author and a link to ifeminists.net has been restored. I've reverted to a previous version due to vandalism.

 * Permission is not enough, you need to have permission to relicense the content under the GNU FDL which means it may be altered and used in ways the original author won't like or intend. If you cannot get such a relicensing permission, the text can not be copied here. Nixdorf 16:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Don't remove facts
Whoever removes things from this page, stop it. Do not distort facts, you only get us angry. Please read the Wikipedia NPOV policy, because you most definately have problems following it. For example:

 * Do not try to disassociate the shortform "ifeminism" with libertarian groups, because such a connection exists and is interesting for the reader
 * Do not try to disassociate left-wing views from individualist feminism, because there are many left-wing individualist feminists
 * Do not try to remove references to other strands of feminism which are indeed an interesting comparison

Trying to make a subject impossible to juxtapose to other subjects is propaganda, not encyclopedic.

Nixdorf 06:04, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Question
How is this distinct from anarcha-feminism?

 * Individualist feminists do not necessarily confess to anarchism whereas anarcha-feminists by definition does. Inidvidualist put themselves (and other selves) ahead of any ideologies, or -isms. Nixdorf 16:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I just made some changes to avoid confusion with anarcha-feminism. While there is certainly a relationship between individualist feminism and anarcho-capitalism, it is very misleading to bring in the term "anarcha-feminist" here, because this term is MUCH more strongly associated with radical feminism then with individualist. Relatively few individualist feminists actually identify with anarnchism, but I removed the statement "Individualist feminism advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law," because that would mean NO individualist feminist is an anarchist (anarchy almost literally means "absence of law").--Brian Z 14:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree on the use of the term "anarcha-feminism" on this page. Let's see some sources and cites before we start making comparisons between them. The way anarcha-feminism is treated on this article is very biased, and unsupported by sources. Making weasle-statements such as "there are many anarcha-feminists who are also ifeminists" or somesuch, is simply unacceptable!  An An  02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Brian Z, it is incorrect to believe that anarchists inherently oppose law. What all anarchists oppose is statutory law.  There's a long tradition in anarchism (Spooner, Rothbard, et cetera) in advocating natural law.
 * Therefore, I disagree with the presumption that the statement "Individualist feminism advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law" would preclude anarchists.
 * Allixpeeke (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

contributions of 200.69.166.68
User:200.69.166.68 keeps putting "In the rest of the world individualist feminists are anti-capitalists and part of anarcha-feminism" onto the bottom of this article. Not only is this unsourced, but it appears contrary to the assertions in the rest of this article. I've left 2 notes on their talk page, without success.  An An  03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for and received (in Spanish) a website about "women creating". I've heard of them, but am not sure about their exact politics. Anyone speak Spanish? and. If these check out, I was thinking of inserting something like. "Outside the US, there are several individualist feminist groups which are also anti-capitalist", and providing these websites as support.  An An  03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of anarchists women in México, Spain, Chile and Bolivia (that are the feminist that i known) are radical individualists. They continue the way of thinking of Ezra Heywood and Voltairine de Cleyre (free love, etc)and the radicalism of Emma Goldman or the  Mujeres Libres  group (Spain). They are filosofical individualists and gender activists. You can see that a lot in anarcha-feminists groups.

For us who live out of U.S is very extrange that individualists feminists in U.S are not anarchists or anti-capitalists!

In Europe and Latin america (and i believe the rest of the world) a radical individualist is an anarchist an obviously an anti-capitalists. The same for individualists women.

For us, an individualist anarchist don´t support any domination (bosses included), and capitalism is the rule of the bosses. So an individualist is anti-capitalist.

--200.69.166.68 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

--200.69.166.68 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We know a little about Wendy McElroy but we see her like a liberal (that thing that in U.S is Known as Libertarian). And Libertarians is what in Latinamerica we know as Neoliberalism. All anarchists are oppose to Neoliberalism, so we oppose to Wendy McElroy.

What you name as Individualist feminism we name it Liberal feminist and we don´t related it individualists anarchists, so we don´t related it with Ezra Heywood or Voltairine De Cleyre. Individualists anarchists are anti-capitalists, liberals are capitalists. See : Feminismo liberal (Liberal feminism) or Libertarian (capitalists sense) feminism.

I suggest you to change the name or the article to Liberal or Libertarian feminism (or ifeminism) and use Individualist feminist for the anticapitalist individualist feminists of the rest of the world. (That is most bigger and with more people than U.S.)--200.69.166.68 02:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

--200.69.166.68 02:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reponse to Previous Post by 200.69.166.68
You do not have a copyright (pardon the expression) on the title "individualist feminism." You do not seem to know the history of individualist feminism in the US or you would not try to usurp the title for yourself. The US has a long history of individualist feminism just as it has a long history of philosophical individualism. See Joan Kennedy Taylor's book ''Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Rediscovered. '' You apparently know little about the philosophy of individualism if you do not understand why it is compatible with free enterprise (what you call "capitalism"). You have no right to ask that North American individualist feminists like Wendy McElroy and myself not use this term just because you don't like our views. We would not do this to you. Speaking for myself, I do not think such intolerance serves feminism very well.

SPresley 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Sharon Presley

libertarian feminist
is what this article should be called. Libertarians are pro-capitalism, not anarchists.

A response to the above anonymous comment:

You are wrong, whoever you are. I have been an anarchist for almost 40 years and I am also a libertarian. Just because you don't like our brand of anarchism doesn't mean you get to redefine the terms. Opposition to the coercive rule of a monopoly state is what defines anarchism, not the economic system. You may believe that free enterprise is coercive but we do not agree. Please note that NO libertarian or individualist anarchist advocates the kind of state corporate capitalism that we have today. THAT is NOT free enterprise.

Perhaps you should try reading the great anarchist feminist Voltairine de Cleyre, who said: "There is nothing un-Anarchistic about [Individualism, Communism, Socialism, or Mutualism] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling people to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to."

If you tried to force me to be in the economic system you like or prevented me from peacefully living in the system I prefer, than you would not be an anarchist.

Voltairine also said: "Anarchism means freedom to the soul as well as the body--in every aspiration, every growth...Each choose that method which expresses your selfhood best, and condemn no man because he expresses his Self otherwise."

I choose free enterprise and private property but I would never force that choice on anyone else. I would hope you would extend me the same courtesy.

Sharon Presley [not afraid to be nonanonymous] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPresley (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 July 2006

 * Anarchism is also against class oppression, anarchism cannot be capitalist. Similarily Individualist Feminism is also against class oppression, therefore people like Wendy McElroy can't be individualist feminist. --Voidkom (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

responses to all:

Some of the above are not about improving the article (and thus don't belong on an article's talk page) and some may be more relevant to other articles. If any are meant to be future additions, sources will be needed. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Ditto. Please no WP:Soapbox. One of many articles I'd like to clean up, once there was something done about the libertarian feminist vs. individualist conundrum, i.e., that there is some overlap and some differences. I think libertarian feminist should be the main article with individualist underneath, and probably others think the opposite. Though no one replied when I brought it up above. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 🗽 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Feminism that opposes class oppression should not be linked with feminism that rejects the existence of class oppression. This is not a minor issue, you wouldn't do the same if the disagreement were race oppression. --Voidkom (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 * That's content for articles, not for talk pages, and content for articles needs sourcing. If it's not in an article now and you have a source, please add it to an article. For example, there may be (and probably is) a source contrasting feminisms by their views on class oppression. In general, if you have a question or disagreement about how to edit an article, the article's talk page is a good place for that, but it appears that you're at a stage of finding sourcing and drafting for or editing an article, if it isn't covered now. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work
So many crappy libertarian articles, so little time to clean them up!! Carol Moore 05:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
 * First, I thought the cite in main article said needs more references, not that there are not any
 * But it does needs a lot more research and references soon or about 80% of the article should be deleted soon as mere personal opinions.
 * a lot of clumbsy writing
 * not clear what the differences are between ALF and other individual feminists mentioned
 * anarcha feminism article also pretty bad and not clear if it is relevant here at all, despite some abstruse reference that doesn't sound very definitive; more research needed
 * abortion section pretty bad

Yes it does. I'll try to come back and work on it soon because it is really incomplete. There are many brands of individualist feminism besides that of McElroy. I tried to add a bit more tonight. Added mention of several organizations and used JK Taylor's history of individualism feminism as a citation. I will add more from that book soon.

Emmaspooner (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Just remember to only add material with sources. Esp. regarding the women's freedom network. If you can't source that someone has called them libertarian - or not really libertarian - it shouldn't be in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Anarchism Template
Is it appropriate to include the anarchism template here? I would personally argue that it's not, that libertarian feminism is not inherently anarchistic, nor inherently statist; that it, like libertarianism in general, bridges the gap between minarchism and anarchism. In the same way the anarchism template wouldn't be included on the libertarianism page, neither too would I argue it should be included here.

Sincerely, Alex Peak Allixpeeke (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nice meeting you here also! As you can see above, this has been debated. If there was a Limited Government category then both could be inserted making it balanced. Someone probably should start that category. I think the bigger problem is lack of references for various claims. I especially don't know/can't remember what differences there might between ALF and other contemporary individuals feminists so unless someone references that soon I'm going to just put them all together. See my post directly above.
 * Carol Moore 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

 * Not really sure whether the template is appropriate or not. But I do know that Wendy McElroy calls herself an "individualist anarchist" so confusion about the difference between individualist anarchism, individualist feminism and Anarcha-feminism might be the reason for its addition here.  I think Carol's point about limited govt. as a category is a good idea-- Cailil   talk 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
RE: this edit and the several reverts/restorations before it. Edit warring is bad juju! Mikkalai's point is sound: the problem with the text is that the part in parentheses is not supported by the reference attached to it (which simply discusses anarcho-feminism is; here's a direct link to the ref on Google books if anyone wants to read it). If you want to make a claim about the relative popularity of I-F vs. A-F in different places then that needs to be supported. The link given does not do that. -- Hux (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the assertions as to popularity seemed unsupported and I've tried a less sweeping wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mikkalai I'm ok with your edit here, which is not revert warring, but helpful clarification (never mind your combative edit summary, which is not that big of a deal to me). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ifeminists website
While I think mention of the ifeminists website would be a good idea here there needs to be third party reliable sources used to create a piece for it. The material added by User:Prof Carol Williams while informative is not sourced to any third party reliable sources and contains what we call "original research in its last line (the bit about the "futuristic" sound of the term). Before re-adding this please rewrite it in accordance with Wikipeida's sourcing and attribution requirements.  Thanks-- Cailil   talk 13:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A little choosy given the poor state of the article, but can't really argue with this on principle. Skomorokh  13:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I understand your point Skomorokh this is a very poorly sourced and written article - I'm going to recommend stubbifying it into something like this - some OR has also been removed and some rephrasing done also-- Cailil  talk 14:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Hopefully that will motivate someone to expand article with sources. I have lots of good info in my files where groups talk about themselves, which is allowable within reason, and WP:RS info about some individuals, but no time to do it. Also, if IFeminists actually has a history page that could be used for info about how it came to be.  And I probably would be motivated to find and add some WP:RS material pointing out that Ifeminists has become more about blaming feminists for male problems than protecting women against the state or violent and fraudulent males. Carol Moore 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

New POV of this article
I put in WP:POV because a lot of (unsourced) but somewhat accurate material about the history of individualist feminism was removed and this has become all about more recent McElroy/Sommers developments, ones not necessarily embraced by all libertarian or individualist feminists. I hate to take time to do this, but obviously I'll have to work to include the much longer history of individualist feminism before McElroy/Sommers started obsessing about how much modern feminism oppresses men. Meanwhile please leave in the tag. Carol Moore 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

PS. If you want to do some research to beef up the article, go back to an earlier version for some important omitted material that might need more sourcing. Also see the Libertarianism to women page. Carol Moore 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

 * I agree with you 100% Carol, and for the record although I deleted the other unsourced material I am not the world's biggest fan of the McElroy position, and I agree that it does not adequately represent the spectrum of libertarian feminism. The 'Principle' section from the earlier although unsourced version may have some good points if it can be rewritten with sources it would help the article a lot-- Cailil   talk 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Great. It's just a matter of priorities in a busy wiki world! Meanwhile we can leave the tag unless some person comes by and get misguided by article. :-) Carol Moore 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Need to clearly separate libertarian and individualist feminism from ifeminism
I've started putting together good sources to make this article more accurate, so that it doesn't just reflect the objectives and right wing conservative views of a couple feminists or make all libertarian and even all individualist feminists seem to support those ideas. One problem is that Wendy McElroy did some good research in her earlier days (though I'll have to read some of it to see if it was more biased than I realized when first read 25 years ago) but the last ten years she has tended to focus on attacking the statist feminist movement. Many libertarian and individualist feminists might disagree with the statist means but support the actual goals of statist feminists. They can, for example, support affirmative action and even quotas in government and voluntary ones in the rest of society; they can support restructuring the political system the way women might prefer it - ie with emphasis on local government and minimal or no militaries (which are just big patriarchal prove your manhood games. Don't get me started)... Carol Moore 12:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Evidence Hoffman is or talks about libertarian/individualist feminism?

 * I know a lot of libertarians, esp. men and McElroy, have been labeling Hoffman some sort of libertarian, but that doesn't mean she herself is one or that other more neutral, less advocacy sources consider her to be one. So one must be accurate from WP:RS per WP:BLP. (Which Advocates for Self-Govt is NOT for that purpose per wp:blp.)
 * Also, what are the page numbers of those two book references where Hoffman allegedly "defines individualist feminism"? Does she use words individualist or libertarian? Please quote the sentences where she does.
 * It is fair to say that some libertarians and individualist/lib feminists support her views on "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" but those views are not the same as individualist/lib feminism or agreed with in whole or in part by all such feminists. So let's be accurate in this version, even as a more accurate version is percolating in my word processor. Carol Moore 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

 * PS: when I looked further at the actual sources they included a dead link which, even if found, may not be specifically on this topic and therefore would be WP:OR or WP:Synthesis just like the paragraph I removed for that reason. There are more relevant articles to flog Sommers if you want to do so. Carol Moore 13:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

WP:Synthesis, Insufficient WP:RS on Hoff
If you were to say that individualist feminist Wendy McElroy agrees with Sommers (who is not individualist or libertarian feminist that is so far proven) about gender feminism then you can make specific critiques (short so not WP:UNDUE) of all three. But this sentence you use as a reference: "Sommers's book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic. Sommers focuses... on the feminists and cultural liberals against whom she has a long-standing animus... This intemperate book is a hindrance to such conversation." doesn't support this statement you make "Scholars and critics have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism.[4][5]" And you don't even tell us which of the six 8 minute audio tapes or the couple of transcripts (which one must pay for) support it. So it's both WP:synthesis and not easily verifiable sourcing, when you could make it easier. I'm just talking wiki policy here, not necessarily disagreeing with your overall thrust. Carol Moore 13:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

De Cleyrne
Edited page to note that De Cleyrne eventually endorsed leftist economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.49.34 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

not citing an index
Usually, a book index is not a source. That occurs regarding Sommers in the following sentence in the article: "Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers define individualist feminism in opposition to what they call political or gender feminism.[9][10]" I discovered this when searching in amazon.com (the search-inside-book feature). However, it is possible that different versions of the book (hardcover, paperback, etc.) have different paginations, so perhaps p. 320 is appropriate. If someone has it, please check and edit as needed. If the citation is already correct, please add the book's version (hardcover, paperback, etc.) to the citation, to prevent a similar doubt in the future. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Individualist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828170220/http://www.alf.org:80/aboutalf/founding.shtml to http://alf.org/aboutalf/founding.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226003724/http://www.alf.org:80/papers/gwe1.shtml to http://alf.org/papers/gwe1.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225235956/http://www.alf.org:80/papers/abortion.shtml to http://alf.org/papers/abortion.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

sometimes also

 * Individualist feminism, sometimes also grouped with libertarian feminism

This opening sentence is pretty confusing. Are these the same things or different things? Shouldn't a clear synonym ALWAYS be grouped with its cognate term?

If it is not the same thing and we are going to discuss it in the same article as a group then the title should reflect that, as individualist and libertarian feminism or something like that.

That's a bit of a mouthful though. Why don't we just have a page explaining what libertarian feminism is on its own? If there are links between the two then that can be explained on each page.

Is every individualist a libertarian? Is every libertarian an individualist? If individualism and libertarianism are separate, why is this merged? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Separating articles for individualist feminism and libertarian feminism is a good idea provided that there is enough sourcing for each to establish the notability of each subject and sources support distinct content for each article. Then they can be cross-linked and the opening sentence edited. Or, if there's not enough for separation, and the sources suggest about equal weight for both, then a move as you conditionally propose is good, but if the sources generally treat them as the same and place one term as the more common, then the article should be titled for the more common term and the body and perhaps the lead should mention the other term. Whether these subjects should be separate is a different question than whether individualism and libertarianism should be separate, since the sources for the feminist subjects will be different than the sources for the not-specifically-feminist subjects. Go according to sources and see what comes up. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Individualist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050902192743/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/heywood.html to http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/heywood.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730235724/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/femme.html to http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/femme.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060804001950/http://alf.org/ to http://alf.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ifeminism is not conservative?
Ifeminism is a libertarian concept, why tarry it with the word conservative? Rjedgar (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Short description⸺keeping it short and informative 🪶
The current short description	 Movements for gender equality that emphasizes freedom of choice and autonomy of each person is excessively long. The description has to be just a few words preferably. ToniTurunen (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Feel free to be bold and fix it! Wracking  💬 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Major trimming
Hi all, I deleted the "History in the United States" section of this article. It was not about individualist feminism, but feminism in general. When it did allude to individualist feminism or libertarianism, the citations were not sufficient. If this content is restored, I think it belongs over at Feminism in the United States. See the diff of my edit here. Wracking 💬 04:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

More major trimming

 * I have deleted the section about Camille Paglia; she is on the list of notable people. Some of the material may be salvageable for Camille Paglia, but it is unencyclopedic in tone and would therefore require a copy edit. See diff.
 * I have deleted the section about Rene Denfeld and added her to the list of notable people. This material could be moved to Rene Denfeld and has fewer tone issues than the above section did. See diff.
 * I have deleted the section about Wendy McElroy and added additional information about her in the list of notable people (which I will likely reformat soon). Some material could be moved to Wendy McElroy, though it needs a copy edit and to use secondary sources. See diff.
 * I have deleted the section about Joan Kennedy Taylor; she is on the list of notable people. Most of the content appears to be already covered at Joan Kennedy Taylor, and this section was completely uncited. See diff.

Overall, if these people are truly especially notable in individualist feminism, they should naturally show up in the History section. Wracking 💬 05:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Individualist feminism


text:
Sherif Pasha

Sherif Pasha or Cherif Pasha may refer to:
 * Mohamed Sherif Pasha
 * Şerif Pasha

title: Sherif Pasha


text:
Clyde Crashcup

Clyde Crashcup is a fictional character from the early 1960s animated television series The Alvin Show. He is a scientist in a white coat who tends to "invent" things that had already been invented; his experiments invariably fail. He usually invented by penciling the concept in air, with the picture becoming the actual object. The character has also appeared in comics and other Alvin and the Chipmunks works after The Alvin Show.

Creation
Clyde Crashcup was created by Ross Bagdasarian. He is voiced by Shepard Menken mimicking the enunciation of Richard Haydn's nasal-voiced character Edwin Carp. Clyde had one of the four segments of each episode of The Alvin Show, and the Chipmunks starred in the other three (two of which were musical segments).

Character details
Crashcup is a scientist in a white coat whose experiments invariably fail. His was the only voice heard in many of the episodes because the other main character in the series was his assistant Leonardo, who only whispered into Clyde's ear.

Clyde Crashcup was primarily an inventor rather than a researcher, although he tended to "invent" things that had already been invented. However, in one episode, he built a functioning time machine. He typically would invent something by taking a pencil out of his lab coat's pocket and drawing a picture in midair of his conception: the picture would then become the actual object. With the release of "This Is Your Life Clyde CrashCup" it shows him for the first time of wearing black pants and black bowtie and a grey shirt.

Clyde's catchphrase was to break down the name of his invention into its metonymic elements to explain his thought process. For example, when asked to justify the invention of the telephone, he would say "That's 'tele-' for tele and '-phone' for phone: telephone."

In one episode, Clyde invented a wife, voiced by June Foray.

Other media

 * Dell Comics published 5 issues of a "Clyde Crashcup" comic book from Aug-Oct 1963 to Sept-Nov 1964. During a period spanning parts of 1963 and 1964, Dell also published a 12¢ and a 25¢ comic book titled "Alvin and His Pals in Merry Christmas with Clyde Crashcup and Leonardo", in which Clyde and Leonardo appear throughout. All were written by John Stanley.
 * In 1981, Crashcup appeared on the TV-special A Chipmunk Christmas, in a dream sequence; he told Alvin that he'd just invented Santa Claus. True to Crashcup's earlier form, his Santa is shown as Abraham Lincoln in a hollowed out pumpkin. Charles Berendt provides the voice of Clyde Crashcup. Recent television airings of A Chipmunk Christmas edit out the dream sequence due to time constraints concerning broadcast commercial time.
 * Crashcup later had a special guest spot in the modern Alvin and the Chipmunks 1990 episode "Back to Our Future", in which he showed up in the time of the new show with a time machine and brought the modern Chipmunks back to his time, where they temporarily switched places with the Alvin Show Chipmunks. It was later released on VHS on April 14, 1994, as Back to Alvin's Future.
 * In Alvin and the Chipmunks Meet the Wolfman, the Chipmunks and the Chipettes go to school at Clyde C. Crashcup Elementary School, a school apparently named after him.

title: Clyde Crashcup