| Revision as of 14:21, 2 March 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Focus: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:28, 2 March 2015 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Focus: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
| : Again, thank you for your comment. I will try my best to give more focussed and neutral input.] (]) 14:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | : Again, thank you for your comment. I will try my best to give more focussed and neutral input.] (]) 14:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::i am trying to be nice here. please listen to me. if '''you''' want to add content to an article that castration is a form of violence against men because they are men then '''you''' need to bring reliable secondary sources that discuss it that way - that show that this is a mainstream view, and write content that is reasonably encyclopedic and neutral. the ] is on you. That is the main point. I mentioned the "voluntary" thing just to show that the broad statement that was in the article made no sense on its face. I should not have said that, since you and others are latching onto it instead of paying attention to the point. Which I will not repeat again. ] (]) 14:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | ::i am trying to be nice here. please listen to me. if '''you''' want to add content to an article that castration is a form of violence against men because they are men then '''you''' need to bring reliable secondary sources that discuss it that way - that show that this is a mainstream view, and write content that is reasonably encyclopedic and neutral. the ] is on you. That is the main point. I mentioned the "voluntary" thing just to show that the broad statement that was in the article made no sense on its face. I should not have said that, since you and others are latching onto it instead of paying attention to the point. Which I will not repeat again. ] (]) 14:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::and by the way, Flyer22 is a battle hardened veteran who has upheld the mainstream view in articles many, many times. I acknowledge that she can be impatient and harsh sometimes but she has been holding down the fort on key articles for a long time. suggest you strike you comment above. ] (]) 14:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:28, 2 March 2015
Lucentcalendar, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Lucentcalendar! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC) |
Your comments on the sexism article
I am a host at the Teahouse and I prefer to discuss this topic on your talk page. I don't know what kind of answers any of the other hosts are going to leave in response to your question but like you, I am quite appalled at the low quality of this article. Everything you said is true! I am choosing to become involved as an impartial editor, new to the discussion, and not as a Teahouse host. There are so many things wrong with this article, that I cannot even begin to list them. So keep your eyes open, and I thank you for bringing such a poorly written article to my attention I needed a break from writing about butterflies.
- Thank you for your motivation! We can move the discussion of the article to the article talk page. Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have not looked at the page that you are editing (or trying to edit) but let me offer one opinion (mine) as to what you might have walked into. Many articles about contentious subjects, a large number of which are about "women's issues" (probably there is a better term but this should do for now) are subject to repeated editing attacks by editors with an agenda. Usually what might be considered an anti-feminist one. they stand out because they are new editors, or attempt to pass themselves off as new editors, frequently they have a red linked user name, and typically they edit very few or just one or two articles and they often are pushing the point that sexism and violence and discrimination and objectification of women does not exist, or that men have it just as bad as women. In the surface you appear to fall into that category - red linked name and your contributions are all in the sexism article and some of the content you have tried to add (I have not read it yet, this posting is not about content). This is just my view of what might be involved here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Einar! Well, you are of course 100% correct that I created this account only for the edits on the sexism article and it is my first and only account. I did a lot of editing before, but never on such a controversial topic and I never needed an account to communicate with other users (articles on statistics are a lot easier :-)). I am currently really trying to make this article better in terms of quality. Many sources are outdated, wrongly interpreted, or just dead links. The structure would also need some serious re-work but I can't do that alone. I would want to have some more male articles in the article, not meaning 50:50 but changing from 99:1 to 95:5. If you are interested, I would be happy about your help. If you are just concerned about my intentions, I hope I could convince you that I am not a troll.Lucentcalendar (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by EoRdE6 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
A belated welcome!
Welcome Lucentcalendar!
Now that you've joined Misplaced Pages, there are 48,451,286 registered users!
Hello, Lucentcalendar. Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions! I'm W.carter, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Misplaced Pages. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Sincerely, w.carter-Talk 22:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
A brownie for you!
|
Hello, you said something to someone that I completely agree with, so here's a brownie, yum! What you said will forever remain a mystery. ;D DangerousJXD (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
And another
|
|
Hello, you said something to someone that I completely agree with. You were tactful, kind, respectful but not intimidated by accusations of wrong-doing. And so here's a brownie, only bigger and juicer than the last one. Bfpage |leave a message 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
Focus
If you want to build an article on violence against men because they are men, you are free to do that. But every time you write off topic things like "How is FGM then sexual violence?" and like " Women sex offenders "only" to to prison" you provide evidence that can be used to show that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. For what it's worth, and you are free to ignore me, I suggest that you limit your discussion to the actual topic of the article and stop making comparisons that are not relevant to the topic at hand. If the issue is that the article you really want to write is "Gender bias against men compared to women" please write that article. I believe that if this article survives the AfD it will quickly be under DS and AE, and the record will be what it is, when that happens. I am trying to be helpful to you - do as you will of course. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I see why those comparisons were not helpful, however, the statement that some eunuchs were in a good position is neither helpful to disprove a bigger problem. For that you would need an article stating that the majority of castrates willingly consented. See my point? It is often really really hard to say anything without leaving room of criticism.
- Have a look at the recent changes I made on the sexism article, I am really trying to improve things, clean up links, add good sources etc. However, I constantly feel like getting laywered and there is a strong double standard towards feminist articles. The sexism and violance against women article 70% coat hangers for often strange opinion articles. I think all of those examples should go, because there are stand-alone articles for those topics. The sexism article I did improve in some sources, and it was not reverted by extreme editors like flyer22, so I guess thats a good sign. An encyclopedia article should be about definitions, typology, antecedents, consequences, development, and ongoing research. Not a collage or buzzfeed list about what is happening. So wrapped up: I would want articles without endless lists of examples, but if thats the style of wikipedia then I don't want a bias between male and female articles.
- Again, thank you for your comment. I will try my best to give more focussed and neutral input.Lucentcalendar (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- i am trying to be nice here. please listen to me. if you want to add content to an article that castration is a form of violence against men because they are men then you need to bring reliable secondary sources that discuss it that way - that show that this is a mainstream view, and write content that is reasonably encyclopedic and neutral. the WP:BURDEN is on you. That is the main point. I mentioned the "voluntary" thing just to show that the broad statement that was in the article made no sense on its face. I should not have said that, since you and others are latching onto it instead of paying attention to the point. Which I will not repeat again. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- and by the way, Flyer22 is a battle hardened veteran who has upheld the mainstream view in articles many, many times. I acknowledge that she can be impatient and harsh sometimes but she has been holding down the fort on key articles for a long time. suggest you strike you comment above. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)