User talk:Cailil/archive15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page To leave me a new message, please click here.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Talk archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

FYI

Cailil, your name is being invoked as a threat over at my Talk page relating to some of my edits. I believe the articles in question relate to distribution tables on insect related articles (if you recall the discussions at Wikiproject Insect). Could you clarify if the edits I made at [Cicindela maritima], [nitens] and [Ilybius ater] were against any policies, advice you gave, etc, before this turns into a drama. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is obviously intended to try to preempt a structured analysis, but I am still building a detailed report on a great many edits that HighKing has carried out since his emergence from the last block, the purpose of which was to remove "British Isles". In the ones cited above, HighKing has deliberately confused the scientific term "Britain I" used in the literature with the common name "Great Britain" and is visiting a large number of articles that contain the phrase British Isles and would be part of the Fauna, adding a ref to the Fauna where he finds the phrase "British Isles", then incorrectly changing "British Isles" to "Great Britain". The two are not precisely the same, as "Britain I" is for example clearly stated to include the Isle of Man, which it has always been accepted (and which Wikipedia also defines as) not being part of "Great Britain". In other words, this is a game, the purpose of which is to delete the phrase "British Isles", wherever it apppears and there is hope of blowing enough smoke to confuse the casual observer. HK is also asking for deletions of articles that contain the said string and not making his motives plain in doing so. As far as I can tell from my survey so far, these AFD requests have been rejected. I will raise this at ANI as HK is very clearly uninterested in engaging honestly and in fact appears to me to be gaming. Thanks for your time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James, as a piece of advice, if you say you're going to bring an issue to ANi you should follow through otherwise it will look to a reviewing admin like it's no longer an issue. As regards the edits relating to Fauna Europeana I advised you HK to form a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects in May[1] - that advice still stands. If there is a transcription issue a wide view (with many ppl involved) of the matter needs to reached, otherwise ppl will, as James has, object - and it is their right to do so if there is no consensus on how to handle this issue. Indeed such challenges are the beginnings (or should be) of forming a consensus based approach to the issue. I suggest to you both that attempts at discrediting one-another rather than working together is both a short term and long term cul de sac. Instead I'd suggest sitting down and trying to find a policy & source based way forward for the articles--Cailil ^talk 20:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice. It gets hard to feel reasonable when pretty obvious gaming is taking place though, although I agree with your analysis of the issue, I don't like the way HK is apparently free to resume his campaign despite what looked like a very thorough confirm from you that it was over previously. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, it's comments like "HK is apparently free to resume his campaign" that are unjustified and against policy. Comments like these were met with warnings in the past by admins patrolling BISE as a breach of CIVILITY - and James who was involved in BISE is aware of that.
As you previously advised, this issue was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects in the past, and the "consensus" reached there was that it was OK to fix the transcription errors. In fairness, there wasn't many ppl involved - only one editor User:Stemonitis responded, but I asked several times for others to contribute if they had any opinions. Not sure what more I can do, to be honest. Dya think I'd have more success at "WikiProject Animals"? I've reposted again at "WikiProject Insects" and at Stemonitis's Talk page asking him to reconfirm the consensus of the previous discussion. Stemonitis isn't very responsive at times. Also as a BTW, I have not tried to discredit James.
Now that James is responsive to this issue once more, I'm happy to engage. I'd appreciate it greatly if James dropped the ad hominen comments and threats. --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HK, as regards what more can be done to form a wide consensus about the transcription issue, open an RFC at one of the wikiprojects OR go to WP:DRN with those who disagree (i.e James) to hash out a policy & source based approach. HK if you're going around making edits adding or removing one term across a series of articles and have no other input to those topics ppl will have a legitimate concern, especially when such behaviour (ie adding/removing the term British Isles) is under probation. I've previously explained this to you[2] and I thought you understood[3]. All that said James you are on the ragged edge of civility here, I'd suggest toning it down and focussing on edits not editors please--Cailil ^talk 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. I apologise if I said things that were out of order in the heat of what I perhaps mistakenly took to be something it wasn't. I am looking now at the Fauna page and will have a think about a more constructive response. I do however remain opposed to a blanket removal of BI from Wikipedia as a principle, in that it is not a prohibited term - we did get thwarted in the past, despite sustained reasoned effort, not least to be fair on HK's part, to produce a coherant policy on it - but that does not excuse continuing with a programme of deletions without very solid grounds. I am prepared to accept though that HKs grounds may be solid in this instance. He is a very good editor but I find the sheer persistence of this issue frustrating. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting involved Cailil. Progress is being made. Oh, and yes I absolutely "get" it 100% - that hasn't changed. --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE message (talknic)

11:00, 10 September 2012 ... talknic (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q

CLOSED

If I have something to say about an on-going thread at WP:AE I will say it there - it is unhelpful to break conversations up. Neither of the 2 admins commenting on the case are suggesting you be blocked and I strongly suggest that you read what is being said to you Factocop and take it on board--Cailil ^talk 12:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Cailil, question here [[4]]. As Silktort has said, i have done nothing wrong. Made a constructive edit, 5 days after notifying the talk page. This case had nothing to do with my edit and more to do with who I am and the user trying to get me re-blocked. [5] here Mo has finally joined the convo and despite logic still doesnt wish to play ball. pure POV. What sanctions is Mo going to face?Factocop (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help regarding admin attitude

Hi Callil, I'am DagosNavy, one of the users temporarily banned from topics related to the Troubles in NI. First of all, I acknowledge that the sanction was fair, therefore I will not appeal the decision. The reason for bothering you is that an admin removed a fair-use pic from a troubles-related article, and then claimed in the file's page that the image was "orphaned" and should be deleted. He also failed to notify it to my talk page (I was the original uploader, although the image was later modified by a bot). I find this unfair, but I am powerless to intervene because of the ban. The admin is currently engaged in a dispute with me regarding another fair-use photo. Can you help, please?. Thanks in advance.--Darius (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dagos you're banned from any editing and/or commentary on issues related to WP:TROUBLES, there is no way around this - all such topics and discussions about them are off limits to you for the duration of your ban.
The matter regarding that picture is raised very publicly at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion; Future Perfect At Sunrise's actions seems appropriate to me - he has opened discussion on pictures regarding their copyright/fair usage criteria, other editors will comment on this. This is a run of the mill action and I don't see where or what Future Pefrect has done that needs any discussion - if he's wrong the files wont be deleted. Unfortunately Dagos disagreements XFD boards like this are not an extraordinary occurrence, and if they do get deleted you can bring them to deletion review when your ban is up--Cailil ^talk 18:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tip, Callil, I'll propose a deletion review in November ;). Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

CLOSED

I missed the second comment. While its not the most civil thing BB is making a point about double speak Factocop. It is illogical to say you that were improperly blocked under WP:SOCK if you had "alternative accounts". That said I'll drop a line to Baseball Bugs to tone it down. Equally you, factocop need to drop the stick, not every comment needs a reply.
This thread is not helpful so I'm closing it. Please bear in mind Factocop, that while others do need to AGF about you, you have bridges to build becuase of your past conduct. Your unblock is not a free pass it's a second chance--Cailil ^talk 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Cailil, Can we move my enforcement case to close, otherwise I will have to continue to face personal attacks like this one [6], from Baseball_bugs. Factocop (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is not directed at you Factocop. That comment is directed at Carnival Fred. The ArbCom enforcement will be closed by another sysop after they review it, as normal--Cailil ^talk 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is quite clearly a response to my last comment. Apparently I have no integrity. That is a personal attack.Factocop (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your integrity is in question, which is why you are on probation, a situation entirely of your own making. RashersTierney (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well to say that someone has no integrity in this world based on their editing history on wikipedia is a personal attack. Factocop (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BEAR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Could you ask Factocop to stay off my talk page, I have asked him not to post unless it is a constructive, I dont think this type of baiting is constructive, thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 21:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but I did not recall receiving a message from Mo informing me that I was not allowed to comment on his page. I don't think Mo can complain about baiting. He could set up a fishing shop with the bait that he has cast into wikipedia. Its a bit rich coming from him. Factocop (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mo's first edit after retirement, is a pointless comment, off topic in relation to an RFC. [7]. How can this be considered constructive editing?Factocop (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil do I have to put up with the comments above and others like this if Factocop felt the need to inform editors that I had retired and so had BJMullen, then at least tell them that the other major contributor to the discussion was himself as a sock, he has been asked to AGF, obviously he isn't listening. Mo ainm~Talk 22:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How have I not AGF? There was no checkuser done on the account and if you look at all those SPI's cases against me, only a handful of the accounts were me, the rest were either mimics or innocent users. Please stop slinging mud in my direction. Please make a contribution to the discussion rather than stage a side show. Hackney was not me, and I was simply saying that the 3 users were no longer active. No harm in that!!!!!!!!Doubts still linger over you and Bjmullans relationship so don't start!!!!Factocop (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you drop it. Factocop stay away from Mo. Mo stay away from Factocop. Factocop you are on the very limit here - I've warned you repeatedly to drop the battleground attitude. Now disengage from this kind of behaviour and focus on productive constructive editing--Cailil ^talk 13:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enforcement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Cailil, I am really really disppointed at your comments at my enforcement case. I had posted a comment on Rashers page in response to one of his comments at another page. That is not hounding. I was not aware that I was not allowed to post on his wall. And posting one comment, 1 comment on Mo-aimn page is not hounding. Also I was not aware of WP:POLELAC was a rule. How is posting two unrelated comments on my own wall a crime. not least breaking a rule that I was not aware of. Please help me for once, help work through these rules. You have to note that once I receive notification of WP:POLELAC from silktort, I removed the comments, but you didnt mention that in the enforcement case.Factocop (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were told repeatedly by multiple sysops (including Silk Tork) to stop the ad hominem - you didn't. You were cautioned by myself and Silk Tork to drop the battleground attitude - you haven't. Your conduct, as Tim Canens noted, wouldn't be accepted from anyone - especially from someone who has had strict conditions for unblock, as given by Silk Tork on behalf of the BASC.
My comments to the AE thread at the start based on Mo's complaint were that your edit did not require sanction. However your conduct since then as been appalling. That conduct is why Tim & I are suggesting a topic ban.
Now I've already stated that if you want to discuss an on going Arbitration Enforcement thread to do so at the appropriate notice-board in order to keep issues together, so this thread is closed.
And for your information "ignorance of the law excuses no one" it is up to you to learn the rules not test their limits. And frankly someone who posts a link to WP:5 gives the distinct impression that they have in fact read it--Cailil ^talk 18:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above conversation is closed Factocop. Please take the hint that's been given to you multiple times - drop the stick and walk away. You don't need to reply (SilkTork has already said this to you), in fact doing so after a thread is closed is considered extremely bad netiquette--Cailil ^talk 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

how is making 2 seperate edits on 2 user pages appalling? If you actually took the time to look into my edits you would see ive made constructive edits, used the talk pages and raised to rfc's and not reverted. This is a complete joke. Well done. Hound and harrass an editor like me yet ignore editors who block constructive edits to promote their POV. Appalling? That's mellow dramatic.Factocop (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

On my talk page. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE and distortion by whom?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can you please take a deeper look at "Re MBisanz and about Bin Laden-Massoud" at AE? It would be very much appreciated because this is a perfect example - easier to understand than some of the other issues - for what is happening. Decide who is presenting it right. Was Bin Laden "Massoud´s adversary" since the Soviet times (as I wrote) or was Bin Laden "evidently on friendly terms" with Massoud (as Fut.Perf. writes). A mandated external review as proposed by Salvio is the solution to stop Fut.Perf. distortion of my editing and to ease any possible doubts about my editing. Thank you, JCAla (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above JCAla I don't respond to WP:AE questions here. Nor does AE deal with content. Nor is lobbying at all a good idea in the situation you're in. If I have anything moe to add I'll do so at AE--Cailil ^talk 12:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreadable

Hi, I happened to come across your page, and the content was totally squashed and out of frame in my Safari and Chrome browsers. I've removed some of the styling that was causing this. I hope you don't mind. If you need anything, just contact me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DJ - a few ppl had mentioned this to me but I was unable to replicate the problem as the page displays fine in my older version (v4.1) of Safari on my Mac, and fine on my linux and Windows PCs. Thanks for sorting it out--Cailil ^talk 02:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Solved

I remembered the trouble I had viewing your page, and came back to see if it was still the same. Happily, it was not: and I saw the mistake that had been there had been fixed after looking through the page history. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship on gender gap?

Hi Cailil,

Back in July of this year, you wrote that you were reading and summarizing scholarship on the Wikipedia gender gap. I was wondering if you have shared those summaries anywhere on Wikipedia or any other open forum? And, if so, could you direct me to that research? It dovetails with my own.--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Georgia. It's a lit review and still WIP. It's on meta here if you want to take a look--Cailil ^talk 15:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

Hello, I made a comment, but got reverted. I am not nocal whatever it is. Could you please re-post my comment? Thanks. 71.202.122.82 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment

I just struck the comment about Noetica, since there weren't any grounds for a block under the sanction I imposed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - I'll strike my remark on that so--Cailil ^talk 16:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

As mentioned in other threads above I don't answer WP:AE questions here. These conversations, if necessary, are always best kept together at the noticeboard--Cailil ^talk 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your call for a warning puzzles me. What would I warned against doing or not doing? An editor made an edit that was inappropriate and it was reverted. A discussion ensued, parallel to an edit war (which I did not participate in) to restore the edit. Editors were warned against edit warring and that if the edit was restored anyone doing so would be blocked. The discussion on what to use for examples concluded with a list of three and it was implemented. Where does anything that I did violate any policy or guideline? (I reverted a questionable edit, I initiated a discussion, and implemented the conclusion of that discussion) Apteva (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

		The Human Rights Barnstar
		Please accept this sign of appreciation and goodwill, for improving human rights articles, and being part of the Human Rights Project, you deserve it. Keep it up. --GoShow (............................) 21:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you--Cailil ^talk 15:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Noetica fallout

see the red text at the top of the page: I don't deal with WP:AE material here. And for th record I took part at the more recent and more pertinent WP:AN discussion about Apteva (open while the AE thread was, and yes I read the previous one you linked to in order to take part in that thread). Either way as Sandstein said, it is/was irrelevant to Noetica's conduct, and yours. I agree with Sandstein the warning does not ban you from discussions anywhere - it reminds you to behave in accordance with the ArbCom's ruling. This matter is closed on my talk page but if you wish to appeal the warning itself there is a process for doing so (see the big red box at the top of WP:AE with the sub-heading "Appeals").--Cailil ^talk 14:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but one editor has already resigned over the ARBATC warnings Sandstein slapped on a bunch of us for demonstrably incorrect and misconstrued reasons, and two others are considering doing likewise. Sandstein admits to not having read the WP:RFC/U and WP:AN filings that preceded the WP:AE, which is effectively an admission that he had no idea what was really going on. By the time Apteva filed his retaliatory AE request against Noetics, community consensus at AN had already concluded that Apteva (with Wikid77 and LittleBenW, whom I had mentioned, not wanting to seem to blame Apteva for things he was not responsible for) had in fact been disruptive, tendentious, forumshopping and refusing to get the consensus point, and topic-banned Apteva as well as warned the other two. He was then at WP:AE himself and then WP:AN/I for violating his topic ban and for sockpuppetry, and is now blocked. You were the only other party at AE who supported Sandstein's idea to issue these ARBATC warnings (which are not just warnings but carry ArbCom stigma and constitute as "you can be blocked without further notice by just about anyone if they think style or article titles are being argued about" threats in effect, and which basically amount to MOS/AT topic bans, but without the community actually coming to a consensus to issue one). I have a feeling that you, also, were unaware of the AN, the other AE perhaps, and the RFC/U, and thus were also missing the context that made it clear that Apteva's filing of a AE request was simply one more example in a months-long string of WP:PARENT-shopping and forum-shopping and dead-horse beating. Sandstein has dug in and appears to be literally refusing to read up on this material much less admit he made a mistake, but his accusations, e.g. that I made unproven broad allegations about Apteva, et al., are false (at AN I proved them with over a dozen diffs, and the community already accepted this proof and issued remedies). It would be appreciated if you would state whether or not you were up to speed on what led up to Apteva's attempt to abuse AE as yet another forum for his anti-MOS campaign, or if you encountered that AE request in a vacuum as Sandstein did. Sandstein is heavily, maybe even entirely, relying upon your !vote in favor of the warnings – he claim's it's an AE consensus – which you did not really elaborate on and which I don't believe had the benefit of the context/background. What I and others were trying to convey was that there was already a consensus that Apteva was a long-term, inveterate disruptive editor and that his AE request was simply more "noise" in that pattern. We were not misusing AE as a forum to air random grievances, but thwarting Apteva's attempt to do so. None of us feel we should be censured for doing the right thing. I don't know if you care but somewhere between one a four editors feel wrongly "wikicriminalized" enough over this to quit over it. User:Neotarf has already. For the short version, see Sandstein's talk page, for the long one, including links to the salient AN material, see my talk page (in particular the second half of the discussion between me and Sandstein, after he makes it clear that he didn't even know about the AN). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AE

While SMcCandlish hasn't replied at AE yet, he replied to my notification on his talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that comment was on his own talk page, not mine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? just you.

I reverted an edit by you, once, and no one else. Can you try to stop what you are doing to what I'm doing honestly? How you feeling? okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmark12 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted Binsternet before you reverted me at 16:33 UTC today[8], so you have reverted twice without discussion. You also have a long history of warnings for editwarring. I suggest you stop trying to misattribute information to sources and removing citations from articles--Cailil ^talk 21:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

I have sent a report here about Peter G Werner and sock puppetry, inappropriate uses of alternative accounts relating to avoiding scrunity and posing as a neutral commentator.

I am letting you know as you took part in a discussion about 'Neutral POV of a sentence in the article' on the talk page of Sexual objectification, involving 'both' Peter G Werner and Iamcuriousblue .

I am sending a similar message to Grant Neufeld as Peter G Werner behaved in a similar fashion on the talk page of Sexualization (Moral panic). The Vintage Feminist —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that all of this is taking place behind my back, and I was pointedly *not notified* about any such case, and was only made aware of these accusations by a third party. If there are any POV issues with the above articles, let me know. I am not trying to push POV, but when I had edited these articles several years ago, I was actively trying to correct for subtle POV bias in the language of those articles. Considering those edits have stood for many years now without my intervention and with many other editors working on those articles, I think my edits were quite sound. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this accusation is concerned you have been 100% cleared Iamcuriousblue. I see that rather than inform you The Vintage Feminist canvassed myself and another user. These actions were inappropriate but may have been a mistake. I will remind this user of the protocol--Cailil ^talk 13:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]