User talk:74.39.43.150

April 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Femininity. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The idea that this constitutes vandalism - to have a legitimate desire to represent the contentious nature of the subject rather than the unquestioned statement of an ideological view (i.e. to say that something *is* something, when it actually is *argued* to be something, and not all experts or philosophies on the topics agree) - is unbelievable, as well as academically disingenuous and misleading. It would be akin to me editing it to say that femininity *is not* a social construct, stating that the view to the contrary of my own is actually blatantly false, instead of contested. This is actually the unconstructive behavior, and it is highly unfortunate that you are not able to think beyond your own ideological constructs. I fully admit that it is a contentious question, and my edit represents that. You should not be editing encyclopedic articles if you are unable to admit of differing positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.43.150 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Femininity. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I think my critique of the situation stands, and it should be clear that my edit is not only not harmful, but helpful. Sincere thanks, however, for helping me to better understand the editing process on Wikipedia. I will adhere to these standards and practices in the future for editing contentious articles. Thank you again for your help.

February 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fort Wayne, Indiana. The above and your edit summary on the edit in question indicate two things: First, this IP is static, and second, you clearly don't understand what editing Wikipedia is about. No one cares what "your critique" of the situation is. No on cares that you believe "in fact, people of Ft. Wayne do refer to the city as the City of Churches". No one wants or needs your opinion. It's irrelevant. We paraphrase our content from reliable published secondary sources. Period. Quit wasting people's time. John from Idegon (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed somewhat unbelievable that you are given authority to police what people can and cannot edit in a wiki, or that you are incapable of understanding arguments of theory and critical approach, and yet you edit such material. Perhaps you should consider how you are wasting people's time by being uncritical and not self-reflective of your own self-imposed authority to decide which thoughts you will count as opinions and which you will count as facts. You should also consider whether you have any further credentials in a wiki to actually responsibly handle content from secondary sources, as it appears you are not trained in any sort of research or hermeneutics (given the way that you speak). In fact, since you are referring to the above conversation (or lack thereof, which I suspect will be repeated here, given the lack of caliber of the editors I have yet encountered), I would encourage to actually engage in actual argumentation instead of indignation and ad hominem logical fallacies.