User talk:Antixt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect[edit]

Look at the page history. -- Avi 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok --antiXt 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital mutilation[edit]

In answer to your question, the term "female genital mutilation" refers to the same procedure(s) as "female genital cutting". No disambiguation is therefore needed, though a "see also" for genital modification and mutilation is reasonable.

The WP:POINT remark was in reference to your edit summary, which requested "gender symmetry". I realise that you think that the terminology ought to be the same, but Wikipedia must reflect the real world. In the real world, the vast majority of people do not use the same terminology for male and female circumcision. "Female genital mutilation" and "female genital cutting" are commonly-used terms for female circumcision. "Male genital mutilation" and "male genital cutting" are not commonly used.

Your edit, therefore, did nothing to assist the reader in using the encyclopaedia. It only served to promote your belief in using equivalent terminology for these procedures. It was thus a soapbox WP:POINT. Jakew 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV doesn't dictate that we treat every subject in exactly the same way as other subjects that we believe to be equivalent. We have to work with the available sources, and use the terminology they use. We can't invent our own terminology. Within those limits, we should certainly avoid endorsing any particular point of view.
Consider this: we have an article on ladybird, but not gentlemanbird. Is the terminology sexist? Perhaps, but there's nothing we can do about that. Maybe it would make sense to use the two terms for the two genders of that species, but unless and until those terms are widely used in the real world, we can't use them here.
If it were not for the fact that the term 'fgm' is so common, we wouldn't need an article of that name at all. But the term is very frequently used, and we need to bring people to the main article. Hence the redirect. But if you look at the first section of the female genital cutting article, entitled 'Debate over various terms', you'll see that we carefully document the history of the terms, and carefully cite prominent international organisations (UN agencies, etc) that use the various terms. Jakew 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab case[edit]

Hello, you were a participant in a Mediation Cabal case that has been re-listed as possibly needing a new mediator. The case is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Male genital mutilation. As some time has passed since there was last any activity on this case, I'm checking in to see if this is still an active dispute that requires mediation, and if so, to indicate that I am willing to take it up. Please let me know. Otherwise if this is no longer an active dispute I'll simply de-list the case, and thanks for your time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested this mediation months ago. I tried to accomplish some neutrality, but I've noticed that POV-pushing from pro-circ editors on circumcision and related articles ans redirects was too strong to fight. And some of this editors are admins. So I decided that it is better for me to give up dealing with such editors, than to uselessly lose nerves.
But if you want to try to make this articles more neutral, go ahead! Because answer on your question is yes, there is still still an dispute that requires mediation.
Even if you decide to de-list the case, thanks for showing the interest! Good luck! --antiXt 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. Unfortunately neither of the other editors seem interested in continuing with the mediation, and with only one participant you can't have much of a discussion! At this point it looks like i am going to have to de-list the case. I'm sorry to hear that the experience didn't go well for you but it sounds like you handled it admirably by disengaging and not letting it get to you. Often that's the best way to handle it in the end. Happy editing, ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Force[edit]

I saw your tag and comments:

it should be merged into field line since lines of force are special case of field lines

(and sometimes this name is mistakenly used for ALL field lines))

Right now I'm reading Fields of Force by William Berkson and Forces and Fields by Mary B. Hess. From my readings I can state that Lines of force is a notable phrase with a history and meaning quite distinct from the more general term and article field lines. It originated with Faraday's field theory, which differs somewhat from (but also has a lot of similarities to) Einstien's field theory, but usage of lines of force is not limited to just Faraday as Maxwell and others have extended and elaborated its meaning. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W' boson and Z' boson[edit]

There's a difference between an apostrophe and a prime mark. Unless there's something in the Manual of Style that says to use apostrophes instead of prime marks (or major sources that use the apostrophe instead of a prime mark to refer to these particles), your revert was unwarranted. —Werson (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do use apostrophe insteas of prime mark - see references and external links in current revision of Z' boson article. And there are NO sources using prime mark. --antiXt (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are three sources listed in the article:
  1. a peer-reviewed journal article that does use the prime mark (the summary page linked to does not, but the actual article does; the summary uses the raw TeX source, as most online summaries do)
  2. a lecture paper, not published in a peer-reviewed journal
  3. a poorly formatted website written and published by one person
These is not adequate to refute the massive library of articles that use the prime mark. Is twenty enough?
Nevermind the fact that using an apostrophe as a variable modifier in physics or math is absolutely unheard of, and that the articles themselves qualify the terms "W-prime" and "Z-prime". —Werson (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antixt&oldid=1057728419"