User talk:Lucentcalendar

Hi Lucentcalendar! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Lucentcalendar. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Welcome Lucentcalendar!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Circumcision. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't turn this around, you are warring me. You have no good reasons for your reverts.Lucentcalendar (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting a highly regarded medical expert in that very area, find good objetive reasons why that source is wrong and I will let it go, but I am not ending this because of your opinion.Lucentcalendar (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed you at WP:MEDRS already; you're violating it. And you have been warned about edit-warring in case sanctions become necessary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not saying anything, you are just posting a link. That is not a valid argument. Again, I am quoting a medical expert from a university. I guess somewhere in that guideline that is actually seen as adequate.Lucentcalendar (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Talk:Sexism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Also WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Kaldari (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucentcalendar, the above template is a show and a warning based upon the opinion of one editor who is not an administrator. Sometimes I think editors are able to project having more authority by their use of scary templates. I received a similar template on my talk page and simply deleted it knowing that the editor, who holds as much authority as I do, can paste any kind of template they wish onto my talk page. Someone needs to do a study of editor retention related to the editing on the sexism article. I wonder how often those with dissenting opinion have the opportunity to have this or similar templates pasted onto their talk pages.

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bfpage: Incorrect. The template is simply to alert the user of the discretionary sanctions. It implies no wrong-doing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in on this, I am always pleasantly surprised with those take my opinion seriously enough to take the time to comment upon something that I have written. Thank you for the compliment. I'm not sure what was incorrect with what I wrote since I didn't mention anything about wrongdoing. When I received a similar template, I did make the mistake that I had done something wrong, but that isn't what I was talking about. The Very Best of Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other relevant information:

Talk page of kaldari Talk:Sexism[edit] Kaldari, I think Lucentcalendar needs a DS warning for their commentary on this and other talk pages; I'm actually thinking a block is imminent. Anyway, I can't find the appropriate templates and a place to log, and I gotta run. Can you please take care of it? You can always say "Drmies made me do it". Thank, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Kaldari (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC) This text gives a really nice insight into how work is done over here, and it helps to explain the decrease in editors wikipedia has been facing in the last years. I will keep it as a memory.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My response:I proudly accept this award, but I really cannot take all the merit for myself. This would just not have been possible without some editors’ tireless work to push through their personal opinion on Wikipedia and their administrator friends to help them. So thank you all!Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Kudos and thank you for your continuing effort to bring a more balanced point of view to the sexism article. I admire your tenacity. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Yoor Know Phool
	Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  10:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOCONSENSUS In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. Jim1138 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed a number of possible sources on my sandbox. I'm willing to work with you on this if you have the time. My opinion was to prioritize the lead, but after three days of non-stop debate I think it's pretty clear that one or two users are going to block absolutely anything that is not clearly biased. As was point out in the talk, the lead follows the body. So I suppose a good place to go from here would be gathering quality scholarship to justify the changes that have been debated ad nasuem on the talk.

Military service generally might be a good inclusion. It also works both ways. Women have sued the government over being excluded. Men have sued the government for being included. Transexuals are still barred from service in at least the US. Gays and lesbians have only recently been allowed to serve in the US and still face significant discrimination. Women in the services are at the highest risk of rape and sexual assault of any profession period. There's a lot of issues from all sides. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Timothyjosephwood, that sounds like a really good plan. I will work with you on that. I just have to warn you that currently I can only put a few minutes each day into this, because I am in the final weeks of my phd thesis. Your point of multi-directional sexism is nice. Women who want to serve are not allowed, men who don't want to serve are force, and inside the military a lot wierd stuff is happening, all based on gender.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have preemptively posted this on the talk page to hopefully any issues can be caught in the bud. Posted last night and no comment. I don't know how long I can sustain as much work as I've been putting into it. I think my wife is starting to get aggravated, probably rightfully so. I work tonight and will try to look into it more if nothing crazy happens. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds familiar, my girlfried is also not too happy when I put some of the little free time we have together into wikipedia, but you just need to know your priorities in life ;-)Lucentcalendar (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]