2006

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Yanksox 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, welcome to Wikipedia and I look forward to editing with you. And since you seem new, I'd like to point out some things that may be of use to you.

1) The Special:Watchlist is a particularly handy tool. When you're logged in, it appears as a link in the top right corner of your screen. You can add pages to your watchlist by clicking on the watch tab that shows up at the top of each page. Your userspace pages (user page and talk page) are automatically watched, and you can add articles that you want to keep an eye on as well.

2) At the top of talk pages, there appears a little [+] button that you can use to automatically add a new topic for discussion. To reply to existing topics, you can scroll down to that part of the page and hit the [edit] button for that section. It is customary to indent new comments to easily differentiate them from their old ones with colons (:), with one for each indent.

This is an indented paragraph.

And this is somebody's response.

3) To view any kind of code, simply click on the edit tab. You can do that for your talk page to see how I coded this response! If you don't want to make changes, simply hit the back button on your browser when you finish.

4) And finally, you can customize your signature (and a bunch of other things, including your watchlist) in Special:Preferences, also at the top right of your screen. Just click on "raw signature" and then enter your own wikicode, and it will automatically be used when you use the four tildes (~~~~).

Here is the code I use for my signature:

—[[User:Lantoka|Lantoka]] <sup><small>( [[User_talk:Lantoka|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lantoka|contrib]])</small></sup>

Which renders:

—Lantoka ( talk | contrib)

Hopefully that doesn't seem overly complicated.

Enjoy your time editing here, and feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to learn - but to date I have concentrated on content, followed by style. If I have to keep removing silly comments, though, I will get discouraged - is there an easy way to reverse somebody's goofing?Mgoodyear 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to revert vandalism if you're not an admin is to go to the page's history, figure out which edit is the vandalism, and click on the one right below it (you have to click on the date). That'll bring that version of the page up. Then you click to edit that page, make no changes, put rvv as your edit summary, and hit submit. That replaces the current version with the old version and gets rid of the vandalism.

Or if it's a really easy case, just use the diffs (that handy little feature in the edit history where you can compare two edits) and just edit the vandalism out yourself. Like you did with the comment on the unshaven pits.

If you ever get involved with RC Patrol or other forms of vandal fighting, there's lots of different tools you can use to revert vandalism, but those can be complicated to install and take experience to use well. And admins also get their own rollback button to undo vandalism. Until then, though, stick with the method outlined above. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like I need to get to know the administrators, what their areas of responsibility are, and how they work. Mgoodyear 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. The English Wikipedia has a LOT of administrators though... somewhere around 1000 right now. Most actions needing administrator attention are handled by bureaucracy. Here's a convenient list of pages that you can go to if you need help involving an administrator: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my main message is thank you for all of your recent efforts on the brassiere page. It does tend to get clogged up with rubbish, and you've improved it massively. So thank you. I'll try and contribute more myself to help improve it further.

However, I would also say that you should be careful to keep things concise, balanced and try to present a neutral point of view. Specifically the "necessity?" section concerns me. It is a fact that most women in western society (90% at a guess?) wear bras, for comfort, for fashion, for relief from pain, to improve their social confidence or personal body image....for lots of reasons. Bras do have some uses, and a lot of women wear them and enjoy wearing them. I therefore feel that the 700+ words on why not to wear a bra are somewhat unrepresentative.

There's 2 ways to go with this - put in an equal amount of text representing the opposite point of view, or to generally tone things down and try to aim for more balance. I'm not saying that facts should be deleted from an encyclopaedia, but I think some changes could be made to improve the article. The main reason I wanted to say this is because I don't want you to put a lot of effort in to expanding the article by inserting a lot which will subsequently be removed to create a balanced article.

For example, this quotation:

"Breasts were fine before the invention of the brassiere... This is similar to the myth that women supposedly need corsets to support their stomach muscles …wearing a bra…has no medical necessity whatsoever". "Except for the women who find bras especially comfortable or uncomfortable, the decision to wear or not wear one is purely aesthetic - or emotional" "If you don't enjoy it, and job or social pressures don't force you into it, don't bother." "A mistaken popular belief maintains that wearing a bra strengthens your breasts and prevents their eventual sagging. But you sag because of the proportion of fat and tissue in your breasts, and no bra changes that...If you don't like wearing a bra, don't wear one."

Dr Susan Love MD[4]

had previously been in the article, but it was removed. A huge word for word quotation like that doesn't really add any information, and can quite easily be replaced with something like:

Some people/researchers have suggested that bras are unnecessary, and academics have pointed out that wearing a bra should be a choice, and should not be considered a medical necessity. (reference) One notable proponent of this view point is the anthropologist Dr Susan Love.

Actually, who is this Susan Love, and why is her opinion so important? That’s a question that could do with an answer.

I hope you will take these comments as they were intended and not take offence. Wikipedia needs prolific hard working editors like yourself, just try to keep it balanced. At the end of the day we both want an article that reads well and provides good information. Thanks for reading this rather long post, and happy editing!

Spute ^Talk 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - who started this section? I would need to go back and look at that - I did add to that, but I agree quotations could be a link - I think I was responding to a question on the discussion page.

Actually I was trying to restore balance. Having studied this subject for some years, I found that the 'neccesary' question was the one most often asked, and women were looking for answers, and not necessarily finding them. A careful study of the evidence shows that there is no evidence for the use of bras, other than culture.

Dr Susan Love is probably the most read author on women's health, and the link to her book was alredy there. Every other physician who has written on this agrees with her.

Anyway let me mull over this - I was just about to start an area describing and summarising the medical research on bras, but that could go somewhere else. We can talk about this. O, by the way, I am a doctor, in women's health, in case you were wondering. And no I don't endorse Dr Singer's views on breast cancer.

Mgoodyear 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Probably best to continue discussion over at talk:brassiere, which i will. Spute 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Considering how massively you've improved the article, I think it stands a shot as a Wikipedia:Good Article candidate. Take a look at that page and see if you want to give it a shot. Good article is the pathway to getting the article included in Wikipedia:1.0, helping people realize its quality, getting some feedback from other editors, etc. It also reflects very well on you, considering that you've pretty much single-handedly improved the article to the great state it stands in today. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I have barely started! I will take a look. I am the stage where I need illustrations, because you cannot describe everything in words - I am experimenting with using my own website to avoid some of the problems described here.

I nominated it, but if this vandalism keeps up, it won't be accepted - what do you do about repeat offenders?

Mgoodyear 22:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's awesome. Your contributions to this article are exemplary and go well beyond the call of duty. Illustrations will give the article the aesthetic polish it needs to balance out all of that text, in addition to making it that much more informative.

In regard to hosting your images off site, it is not currently possible (nor advisable) to include images from off of the encyclopedia. Any images to be included in articles need to be uploaded to Wikipedia and tagged with an appropriate license (we perfer public domain and self-released free images, although copyrighted images are allowed under our free use policy in some cases). If you're looking to get into uploading images, I suggest you check out Help:Images and other uploaded files, which will get you started and provide information on exactly how to do that. Requiring the use of free images may prove to be an obstacle, because images with questionable source information are deleted... so try to do your homework on the images you upload to avoid that fate. =P

In regards to the vandalism, it has absolutely no influence on whether or not the article becomes a good article or even the most prestigious featured article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and as such, a fair amount of test edits and vandalism are to be expected. With this in mind, the software was designed to save all versions of a page, thus making vandalism easily revertable. And on the English Wikipedia, the biggest Wikipedia and consequentally probably getting the most vandalism, there are people that actively screen all new edits and revert obvious cases of vandalism. While I'm sure it's aggravating to find mean-spirited edits in the brassiere article, try to take them with a grain of salt; they are incredibly easy to revert once you get the hang of it.

Again, I'd like to thank you for your immense contributions to the article. If you ever need help with anything Wikipedia-related, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for now I have linked to images on my own webpage - it seemed to work. I will look into the copywrite issue. Something lie Wikipedia is a powerful (or potentially so) tool, hence my investment. Incidentally the 'sister' breast article looks pretty ricketty!

Mgoodyear 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including the images in the actual article (i.e. visible in the article instead of linked) may or may not be better. However, like I explain above, one must be careful about copyrights when uploading images. Something to think about as you continue to expand the article.

Yeah, I completely see what you're saying about Wikipedia being a powerful tool. Investing time to improve the bra article will give many people the opportunity to read a very good overview of the history of the bra and its associated cultural issues. And yeah, bra's big sister article breast could use some work as well. Perhaps when you complete the bra article to satisfaction that might be another article to tackle. ;)

Also, I found a handy page that details exactly how to revert vandalism, in case my explanation wasn't clear: Help:Reverting And also, another help page for uploading images: Wikipedia:Uploading_images

Happy editing! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 12:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see brassiere listed on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates page. Now your hard work will get some recognition. =)

As part of the review process, you can expect some feedback about the article from uninvolved editors on the article's talk page. They'll be reviewing the article and contributing their input as to whether it follows the guidelines on Wikipedia:What is a good article?. You might want to take a look at that as well. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to that, although this is stil a work in progress, and has required editing related topics for consistency Mgoodyear 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continues to reinsert their erotic paraphernalia into the brassiere article - is there a way of deling with people like that?Mgoodyear 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy seems to be pushing a pro-nude pictures agenda here on Wikipedia. His talk page is full of warnings and requests to stop doing that. However, his most recent edit in the brassiere article was just adding another type of bra. Perhaps leaving it would appease him, as it does not appear to hurt the article, and the bra's use as a fetish garment is perhaps worth a mention. I'll keep an eye on the article, although to be frank, this situation is called an edit war and has to do with differences in opinion more than vandalism. It's very hard to get administrators to intervene until the dispute resolution process has been exhausted. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that is exactly what I did. Since this time he only reinserted the text, but he linked it to a nude picture , so I took out the link. Mgoodyear 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mgoodyear,

Honeymane recently made what I regard to be controversial edits to the brassiere article. I went ahead and reverted the edits; however, Honeymane intends to restore them. What I recommend you do, if you're willing, is look over the changes that this editor made and see if you can identify and possibly correct this editor's concerns before he reverts the page again. I feel that his revisions to the page are poor and that they do damage to the article, so addressing this editor's concerns is the ideal way to deal with this.

Thanks, —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on discussion page, I wish I could figure out this person's problem. I am not sure there is much middle ground. The changes were awful. I am still looking for anything that looks constructive. Mgoodyear 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened there? Am I doing something wrong? I was trying to reduce the length of my article by starting a sub-articleMgoodyear 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start articles with content. Use the preview button, an article should never be unable to stand on its own. All you had was a template. Do it all at once. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you forgive me if I said that I wish I had never heard of Wikipedia. Why some people set out on a vendetta to turn collaborative writing into a warzone I have no idea. I am sure you know what I am referring to. Mgoodyear 15:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I completely understand your frustration and am here to help.

I think what I'll do next is spend an hour or two to give the entire brassiere article a thorough read and polish myself. I have quite a bit of experience working with Wiki articles, so I'll see if I can't polish out some of the things that could be perceived as NPOV or biased.

In reality though, I think you've done an absolutely exemplary job of comprehensively covering the subject, and that the only issue at this point is to make it sound as objective as possible. The key is to sound "encyclopedic". Wikipedia is a "tertiary source", meaning that anything we publish here should originate from reliable "secondary sources" like textbooks by prominent scholars. Your section that sounds like an essay risks:: running afoul with WP:OR; however, in this case I don't think that's a problem simply because of how much scholarly literature has been done on the issue.

Try your best to keep your cool. Part of the reason I suggested you put the article up for Good Article Nomination is that I felt that the feedback would help polish the article into an even better one. Everybody's going to have different opinions and views upon reading the article, and we want the final result to be as neutral and as objective as possible, so that it appeals to the widest possible audience. It's a chance to work with other editors to improve the article as much as we can.

With that said, though, I don't think what's his face came from the GA nomination. He's a very new user with less than 100 edits, and has only edited articles like brassiere and birth control. It's unfortunate that you have to edit an article with somebody hounding you like that, but hopefully that'll stop soon. If he's not happy with things after I edit it, then nothing's going to satisfy him. =/

Consider it an opportunity to practice your diplomatic skills. We're working together on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are a good friend. I was trying to be diplomatic, but someone seems to be on a vendetta. I am just not sure how many hours I can spend on this. It would be interesting to know what other encylopaedias have on this subject. It is not really OR, but a synthesis of what is out there, so people can go and read it and make up their own mind. Mgoodyear 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just thought I'd let you know that I'll be going over the entire Brassiere article, as promised, sometime today. My humble apologies for not doing it sooner; I was busy writing a paper this weekend. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you were listed on the Stress alerts page, so I figured I would check what was going on. You have done some truly impressive work in the article Brassiere. I hope that you will remain with Wikipedia and continue what you're doing. Great job!--Kyoko 22:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well some peer review as above makes a big difference. Some topics are bound to be controversial, but as I have said earlier, no amount of NPOV will make a case for the earth being flat. Mgoodyear 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the earth's not flat? :) I'll add the article to my watchlist, but I don't know if I'll actually contribute, because I have a bad tendency to spread myself too thinly and to get distracted. BTW, if you want to contact me or other users, you might consider leaving responses on their respective talk pages. Keep up the good work! --Kyoko 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone here was a new user at one point. If you have any more questions, I would be happy to help. --Kyoko 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you've come back to working the article. I suppose this is a welcome back. I remember it got a little rocky with the edit wars. Mattnad 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - two things if you look at Brassiere in the near future

2 recent deletions -
1. Honeymane deleted Germaine Greer - I will post a justification under discussion
2. Someone deleted references and diagrams, referring to them as 'self reference' - why, they aren't, but they are central to understanding a concept. Lets discuss.
Mgoodyear 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I saw that too. For #1 you should at least clear up the context issues by explaining/analyzing the quote, although be careful not to run afoul with WP:OR. For #2 it'd be ideal to find free images to upload directly to Wikipedia so that they can be displayed in the article instead of linked to. Links to images outside an article are highly irregular—I've never seen it before—and may even be against policy. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm starting work on the article now.

The first thing I'm working on is probably the most tedious: spelling, grammar, punctuation, making sure the article conforms to our Manual of Style, etc. The actual Manual of Style is pretty big, but it might be worth perusing at your leisure. One particular thing that might interest you is that double quotes ( " ) are perferred here over single quotes ( ' ). Another is that if there's a conflict between two editor's regional dialects and spelling, the dialect of the main contributor of the article (that'd be you) is to be used. I'm American, so my spell checker kept going off at stuff like "colour", "programme", and "organise", but I left them alone. ;)

Once I'm done with this basic polish I'll start working on the content. I'll keep you posted. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's templates you can use for references to format them into the proper style. They can be found here. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a review of your citation style, I think it'd be best not to convert over to the templates. Consider my link an FYI. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'style': I was really concentrating on content and structure, hoping to revisit things like citations later!
Mgoodyear 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine. I've pretty much done most of the style stuff for you at this point. The only reason I point this out here is so that you can make these small changes in your own writing style for Wikipedia so that we don't have to do any more proofreading of this nature. It'll also give the article the polish it needs to keep that cleanup tag off for good. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'cleaning up': I made some fairly major changes today to some sections. As long as we keep each other up to date. US spelling drives my spell check crazy too! Incidentally, if you want to talk, quite happy to call you! Mgoodyear 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may take you up on that offer in the near future, just for the chance to casually chat with somebody so different from me. =) However, something like AIM, MSN Messenger, or Yahoo Messenger would be ideal for corresponding while working on the article, since this process is gonna take awhile and we can comminuate/collaborate more leisurely via IM's. Do you have one of those programs perchance? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Important. I'm waiting for you to answer this before I move onto editing the article for content. I'd like to collaborate during the process. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'communication': I have Google/gmail (+with voice). Which reminds me - I have had a lot of problems with edit clashes, where you loose what you have just done because 2 people are editing simultaneously, how does one avoid that? I have just cleaned up the other person's recent changes. Mgoodyear 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm downloading Google Talk. That thing can IM right? What's your screenname?

As for the edit conflicts, there's no good way to handle that. It's bound to happen when somebody's working on the article as often as you are. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After you went to bed, I sat down and proofread the content of about half the article. I did things like reword awkward sentences and try to improve clarity. I encourage you to read up to where I stopped and reword/clarify anything that needs even further explanation, or that I might have misunderstood when making edits. I'll be on tomorrow evening to further collaborate with you during this process.

The article's really coming along. You should be proud. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mgoodyear, if you notice errors in my addations fix them, don't revert them. It is not vandalism. Unless it is very clear that it is.If you believe that the edits may have been vandalism it maybe, then you should write that information in the talk page. And ask for a more detailed reasoning behind the changes. I'm tried to do that in the edit summary, but that is not always possible to explane every little thing that I may have edited. or anyone else for that matter. You keep saying that you are not farmillar with the wikipedia system; rv ing any and every edit that conflects with what you wrote is demiting to that system. You keep saying we should work with you (or at least other users have been stating that) however, you seem unwilling to let anyone make anything but the smallest of edits and such. --Honeymane^{is watching} 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymane, your edits have been consistently low-quality and often, in my opinion, hurt the article more than they help it. Your spelling is atrocious (for example, above you spelled four words wrong and completely made up a fifth) and you're showing no appreciation for word choice and other subtleties in the text (for example, your edits here, where you refuse to acknowledge different schools of thought on the amount of support ligaments in the breast provide). This isn't even about the NPOV issues anymore, your edits are just generally low-quality and often have to be outright reverted. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What different schools of thought? The article was writen in such away in which there is no other school of thought; but it did imply it. What I did with those edits was make it more clear about the breast's support. For example:

"it is also often stated that primary support....Additional support" Unless you are going to state another view, or state what other non-skin supports or ligments are being used, then you can not write that section in that manner, which is something that seems to be lost on you. The original edits in that section basically implied something that wasn't given. the subtilties in the text is what is giving the article it's NPOV; again, something that's lost on you. State the facts, not some subtilies with facts mixed in. Saying that "Traditional view on breasts is..." is another way that you've failed to remove the NPOV statements from your article. Unless you can offer new evidence that the traditional/biological view that breasts have little internal support then you can not say that something that is biological fact is the 'traditional view' because it's not, is a fact; breasts have the cooper's ligiments, skin, chest muscle and fat to hold it together. What is a traditional view is that breasts cannot support themselves using just these systems.

Yes, I have issues with spelling, I know that. So my spelling isn't the best. I'm a horrible proof reader. If you see a spelling mistakes you should fix it, rather then rap to me and try and make me feel bad for it. --Honeymane^{is watching} 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mgoodyear! Just thought I'd drop by and tell you how much your work here is appreciated. Really, the way you've turned around Brassiere is amazing! Congrats on being an amazing contributor. For that, have this :-)

You are most welcome. I'm glad to hear you decided to move on; taking a breather is much better for you than sticking around and being harassed for so long you don't want to stay anymore. I am certainly glad you're sticking around, we need you :-) — Editor at Large^(speak) 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also have a user page (at User:Mgoodyear) that you can do whatever you want with. If you're looking for a place to store template code, that wouldn't be a bad place to put it. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wanted to inform you that User:Eowbotm3 tried to vandalise your user page as seen here. I restored your page to its original blank state. You're welcome to keep it that way if you like, or if you prefer, you can make it as simple or as complex as you wish, within reasonable limits. I just thought you should be aware that all of this took place. I hope you are doing well. --Kyoko 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's connected to your edits at feminism. This guy is definitely a sockpuppet, and I've made a post about it at WP:AN/I. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm glad to help. Of course, I would be even happier if vandalism didn't occur in the first place. --Kyoko 19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad some of your faith in Wikipedia has come back - I hope it stays! -- Natalya 04:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mgoodyear, you can try to silence the message of the origins of feminism on this page, but you can't silence the message throughout the web. Talk about revisionist history!

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on the History of feminism page I award you this Epic Barnstar. --TheMightyQuill 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it has a long long way to go!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brassiere&diff=91878489&oldid=91878168

Should that be changed back? I wouldn't know. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eowbotm's socks (Eowbotm1 through Eowbotm4) have all been blocked. That's one vandal down. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this guy was a special case because he was 1) indefinitely blocked on another account, and 2) still somewhat interested in editing the encyclopedia. He cared enough to stay around and create sockpuppets to do his edits (some of which were actually contributive), so getting those blocked sends him a firm message that vandalism will not be tolerated. And even more effectively than if he were an anonymous vandal, too.

I went after him with such persistence because of his trolling and the devious way in which he tried to cover it up. I am very satisfied with the resolution, and I think we've sent this guy a clear message that if he wants to continue editing Wikipedia, he needs to do so without trolling or vandalizing. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, the sacred cow 'Feminism' has been altered. Let's skip around the elephant in the room and pretend that the woman who set out the ERA bill was adamantly against abortion, or that Susan B. Anthony, Cady Stanton, Wilberforce, Sarah Norton, etc. etc, were against abortion -- strongly against it. But, don't let the ladies at Vassar, et al know.

If 'get back in the kitchen' is this person's trademark, he is very active under many differenrt ids. Should feminism be protected it is attracting so many obscenities--Mgoodyear 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is generally reserved for cases of extreme vandalism. Considering it's only been vandalized twice by him from what I see on a cursory glance at the history, I think we can handle it ourselves. I will continue to go after his sockpuppets though; we owe him that much. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O, I wasn't so much thinking about him - I find obscenities posted there every day--Mgoodyear 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case you may want to try WP:RFPP. Best of luck! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try myself and they declined. Ah well. On an unrealted note, you may want to check out a comment by User:Spute on the Talk:Brassiere page. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may want to leave your follow-up comment to the RFPP of Feminism directly on User:Husond's talk page. I don't know if he's seen it. – Lantoka (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like having many Cites on the pages you edit, perhaps you should split them into an article like Bibliography of Canadian History to save space. See how the article History of Canada#References. It makes the the article both shorter, to save space, and neater; not everyone wants to read 200 citations.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a reason they're at the end of the article. And use of tons of accurate and properly formatted citations is only to be commended; it represents a well-researched and verifiable article. – Lantoka (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blast, my link isn't working and I have no time to find it; search around wikipedia for canadian history, the article has a great deal of citaions, but breaks most of them off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeymane (talk • contribs)

Thanks for leaving comments on the Sarah Jacobson article. I do appreciate that. Once a page gets tagged for deletion its very difficult to convince the person who tagged it to undo it. If you can get other's to place comments that would help. Thanks again. --David Straub 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It totally makes sense for you, in terms of your organizing efforts (which I do appreciate), but it doesn't make sense for the article. The whole point of "See also" is to list things that weren't mentioned. We should probably make a navigation bar, but it would make sense to do that after the article has been split. To be honest, it's about ready to burst. The various divisions of the 20th century aren't even in the 20th century section any more. I was trying to clean it up a little so it doesn't get out of hand when we do get around to splitting it. Perhaps, in the mean time, you could use something like History of Feminism/links or even better, User:Mgoodyear/history of feminism to keep these close at hand? -- TheMightyQuill 02:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments which are always useful. In practice that concept of see also only really works for short articles. The navigation bar would be an even better idea. I agree about the size, not so sure about 'bursting' though?! I will double check the 20thC issues, but of course part of the point I have made early on, is that somethings don't fit neatly into such time periods - there are things that happened over the 1890-1910 period, others 1860-1914 - these might fit better into a totally different section, which is more thematic than temporal. --Mgoodyear 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that a number of the topics you have listed in the See Also section are already in the Feminism navbar on the page. I really don't see why it would be necessary to include them a third time.

I used the word bursting because it would now be reasonably difficult to place all the subsections of 20th century into 20th century. It's also 4 times longer than recommended size of an article. Large sections need to be summarized and linked to a leaf article.

I'm also concerned about topic not fitting nicely into time periods/centuries. Perhaps we should try organizing it into eras/movements? If we don't start doing this kind of thing now, it will come back to haunt us during the impending split. -TheMightyQuill 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better. Thanks again for all your effort. I was thinking, it might make sense to just move the Feminism Navbar down to the internal links section. It will have to move if we make a separate "History of Feminism" navbar anyway.

I hope I'm not being incredibly annoying to mention again that the 20th century sections are still not part of the 20th century. Also, I'm curious now about your rationale for the "List of feminists mentioned" section. Why do you feel that it's necessary? - TheMightyQuill 04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 8. Twentieth Century should include what are currently Sections 9, 10, and 11. They should actually be Section 8.1 The Edwardian era, Section 8.2 Between the wars, and Section 8.3, The postwar period and the second wave. If they are all subsections of Twentieth Century, you can ditch the "Twentieth Century I,II, and III" from their titles.

Your other changes look good. Women's History might end up being merged into this article since it contains little if anything that isn't included here. I'm not saying it couldn't contain more, but at present, it doesn't.

I sense you are working on this topic professionally. Do you mind if I ask where?

- TheMightyQuill 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I realize there aren't enough layers available to fit all those subsections under 20th century. This is the reason I suggested the article is ready to burst. If you put those three sections in another article (History of Feminism in the 20th century), you could summarize the three sections, and link to it in History of Feminism. Likewise, History of Feminism Before 1900 could be another leaf article summarized in the main article. The "Ongoing Issues" section would remain in the main article. - TheMightyQuill 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, I'll let you work and we'll worry about it later =). - TheMightyQuill 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't be so thin skinned. =) It's better to argue this now than to write it all, forget about it, and have someone destroy it once you've stopped paying attention. If we can write the article in such a way that people are willing to accept that pre-organized-movement gender conflict is part of feminism, then we've forwarded wikipedia, written a good (probably even FA) article, and done right by all the authors you've cited. It's one thing to convince feminists, but preaching to the converted will only get you so far. - TheMightyQuill 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]