User:Catamorphism/Archive March 2006-May 2006

This is an archive page. Please don't edit it. Leave any comments at ser talk:Catamorphism

Catamorphism Exemplifies Wikipedia's Weakness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68.8.74.159 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

My response to Robert Epstein

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

My bad

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

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

Thanks for the thrill

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

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

P.S. Nice T-shirt.

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

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

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

Pro-abortion?

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

Feminism

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

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

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

Spamming

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

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

Refrain from editing for a few days

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

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

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

Assumptions about 'gender' and Relational Aggression

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the tip!

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

Userboxes

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

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

Criticism of feminism...

REPLYS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism (Addendum)...

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

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

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

Grammar apology

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

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

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

Little George Band

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

Happy day...we finally agree on something

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

SummonerMarc

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

SummonerMarc

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

Thank You

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really, given reality, what gives with Wiki?

Not credible?

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

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

Lonympics

Seems to be back anonymously as User:62.69.37.254, which I deduce from this edit: [1]. Note the external URL. Dunno what the proper procedure is, just an FYI. —johndburger 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice on removing gender bias in hockey articles

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

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