User talk:217.105.45.100

July 2020
Wikipedia operates on consensus among editors. Simply trying to force your opinion into the Masculinity article isn't going to work. The article has been around for 15 years, and has been developed by 1200 different editors over that period of time. So, it's not exactly going to work for you, to waltz in here, and on your first and second ever edits to the encyclopedia, just alter it to suit yourself, no sourcing, no discussion, no nothing. I suggest you go to the talk page, where you can have a conversation with other editors, and see what they think about the changes you want to make. The talk page is here: Talk:Masculinity. Who knows, maybe your arguments will be persuasive, and the changes you want to see, will be accepted by other editors, and end up in the article. But this way, is not the way. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message,. In good faith, I assume your best intentions for Wikipedia. Thank you for contributing.

My contributions to the Masculinity article cannot be called 'forcing opinions'. The changes do contribute to a more logical flow of sentences, and at the same time improve unbiased character of the article by removing a very strong (although later contradicted) statement. I assume that no discussion is required for linguistical changes of such kind, but as you've reverted my changes two times, I started a new section on the talk page. I strongly urge you to reconsider your viewpoint on this matter, as I interpret the accusations of 'forcing opinions' or 'lacking verifiability' as a sign that you are not open to changes that might weaken the representation of your viewpoints, even at the expense of same-sentence contradictions and bias. This is not a matter of finding the right sources; this is a matter of logical presentation of different viewpoints.

I look forward to your response on the talk page. 217.105.45.100 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Responses on the talk page, are for content disagreements on article content. Responses here, are about user behavior. Youi are still new here, and there is a certain ramp-up time that's needed, to learn how things work around here. One core principle, is WP:Verifiability. This means, that everything added to an article, must be verifiable by finding support for it in a specific, reliable source. Normally this is done by adding citations, in the form of footnotes.
 * Another core principle, sometimes surprising, maybe even shocking to new users, is that Wikipedia is not about stating what is true, or what is logical. What we do, is find reliable sources (first), and then, we summarize what they say. We don't add our own views; we don't reject the reliable sources if we know them for a fact to be false because we were there; we just find the reliable sources, and we portray the gist of what they say in the article, in due proportion to the majority and minority views, if there is a difference in opinion among the reliable sources. Our own opinions, or what is true, or what is logical&mdash;none of that matters.  If some day, some AI genius writes a program that can read all the sources out there, and summarize the basics in plain English, then we won't need volunteer editors anymore, because that is literally all we do here.
 * I don't have "any viewpoints" about masculinity; and if I did, they would be irrelevant. I may have a sense of what is logical, or prefer a world where different articles at Wikipedia are self-consistent, and lack clear contradictions between them, but that's not the world we live in, which is messy, vague, inconsistent, and at times, self-contradictory. It is not the role of a Wikipedia editor to ensure that articles are logical; it is our role to summarize what the reliable sources say, full stop.
 * Regarding your comment,
 * if by that you mean, copy editing for spelling, grammar, syntax, style, punctuation, and so on, you are correct. If the change you wish to make in no way changes the meaning of a sentence, then you don't need to seek additional sourcing for it. If the change asserts something different that was stated before, then you do. (That doesn't always mean it requires a new citation, but verifiability does say that it must be possible to find such a citation&mdash;i.e., you found one and it is out there and reliable, even if you didn't add it to the article (although if anyone challenges it, then you would be required to).
 * Thank you for raising the issue at the Talk:Masculinity talk page; that was the right thing to do. To the extent that I have anything to say about the content, I may respond there, or I may not. This message here, is not about that. It's about Wikipedia editing policy and whether your behavior adheres to that.  It's about learning how consensus works at Wikipedia, following WP:BRD and not edit-warring after a WP:BOLD change of yours has been reverted, and using dispute resolution techniques, such as the Talk page, for resolving disagreements.
 * Another important aspect of editing guidelines is WP:CIVIL, including assumption of good faith. Statements like
 * should be avoided. My comment about 'forcing opinions' is not a sign I am not open to changes; rather, it is a sign that you added something to the article, got reverted, and in violation of WP:BRD and edit-warring guidelines, you went ahead and put it back again. That's not how it works. When I said, 'lacking verifiability', that is not "an accusation", it's merely a description of what you did, namely, you added material to the article, without a source backing up your change. This is governed by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Furthermore, since it is a change to the WP:LEAD of the article, which has other requirements on it, this change to the LEAD would have had to be preceded by concomitant changes to the body of the article, as the LEAD is merely a summary of the body.  The principle here is, change the body first, with footnotes if needed, then, if necessary, change the lead to appropriately summarize it.
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground; please discuss calmly, assume good faith of the other editors at the Talk page, discuss civilly, take your cues from editors who have been around for some time and can explain how things work, and attempt to achieve consensus for your point of view through discussion. While discussion is ongoing, it's best to refrain from making changes to the article, regarding the points under discussion; especially so, if the changes involve the lead. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * should be avoided. My comment about 'forcing opinions' is not a sign I am not open to changes; rather, it is a sign that you added something to the article, got reverted, and in violation of WP:BRD and edit-warring guidelines, you went ahead and put it back again. That's not how it works. When I said, 'lacking verifiability', that is not "an accusation", it's merely a description of what you did, namely, you added material to the article, without a source backing up your change. This is governed by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Furthermore, since it is a change to the WP:LEAD of the article, which has other requirements on it, this change to the LEAD would have had to be preceded by concomitant changes to the body of the article, as the LEAD is merely a summary of the body.  The principle here is, change the body first, with footnotes if needed, then, if necessary, change the lead to appropriately summarize it.
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground; please discuss calmly, assume good faith of the other editors at the Talk page, discuss civilly, take your cues from editors who have been around for some time and can explain how things work, and attempt to achieve consensus for your point of view through discussion. While discussion is ongoing, it's best to refrain from making changes to the article, regarding the points under discussion; especially so, if the changes involve the lead. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Masculinity Talk Page
You brought up some excellent points on the Masculinity talk page and pointed out the problems with the current wording of the lead quite well. I suggest you continue to pursue this. I think you will have some support. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)