User talk:Rebbing/Archives/2016/May

A kitten for you!
Hi Rebbing, thanks for your thanks over my edit(s) at Talk:Gemma Booth. also, agree with the article not needing an infobox, sometimes(?), i just go into automode with my edits ie. "no infobox, tag it, next!"

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Aw, thanks for the kitten and the cheeriness. Wikipedia can feel awfully serious at times—usually in a good way—so it's nice to have a little levity. And no worries! I'm glad to see someone maintaining project tags. Also, Gemma Booth is my baby—I fixed it up from a doomed user draft I saw at MFD—so I was just happy to see it in my watchlist at all.  Rebb  ing   06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations
On censoring people who don't agree with you instead of trying to argue your point. You are a great example of the fight for free speech. Worst kind of people. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not about agreement, and I think you know it. Your comment was inappropriate in that it discussed the topic rather than the article. Such comments are commonly removed regardless of tone. Additionally, your comment was clear trolling.  Rebb  ing   18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not trolling at all, and I'm really offended at you insulting me like that. The point I'm making is totally absent in the article while is obviously the real reason so you could say I'm talking about the article in itself. You know just as well as I do that no amount of blaming men or encouraging women will change the fact that there will never be more than 10-15% of female contributors to Wikipedia. They just have other priorities. So I'm just stating a fact.
 * Besides, you're obviously hiding behind a stupid policy to enforce your censorship. People talk about the subject of the page on virtually every talk page on Wikipedia. Even the talk page of talk page guidelines is full of it.88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The point you're supposedly trying to make is mentioned explicitly in :
 * Your comment was clearly trolling: "[W]omen in general just don't care. They'll use the wiki but just won't contribute. We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves." Your remarks about other talk pages are unpersuasive: I regularly see TPO enforced to remove off-topic, "forum" threads, and I would have removed your comment if you'd been critical of Wikipedia's gender bias.  Rebb  ing   18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comment was clearly trolling: "[W]omen in general just don't care. They'll use the wiki but just won't contribute. We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves." Your remarks about other talk pages are unpersuasive: I regularly see TPO enforced to remove off-topic, "forum" threads, and I would have removed your comment if you'd been critical of Wikipedia's gender bias.  Rebb  ing   18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. I fail to see where your quote of me is a troll. I'm just stating facts. Also, there is nowhere else for me to bring this up so you're effectively trying to censor my point of view. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong template: on its face, uw-notcensored2 (and WP:NOTCENSORED) is about articles, not talk pages. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a forum, and you don't have an inherent right to share your point of view here, especially not in the condescending manner you chose, so your protests about censorship and free speech are inapposite. This is an encyclopedia; Reddit is that way.  Rebb  ing   18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that the article is biased and subjective, which is not right for an encyclopedia. There is a clear misandrist bias there which offends me hence my strong reaction. Now, you using my lack of command of Wikipedia's tools to treat me as a lesser contributor is also disgusting. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't mocking your Wikipedia naïeveté: it says right there in the text you used that it's about articles. Did you even read that template before trying to give me a big, scary warning?
 * Anyway, if you want to fix the article—in line with our guidelines—rather than belly-aching about "the mens," go for it. Perhaps you could find other articles similar to Ms. Mac Donald's? Also, your assumption that I agree with all of Ms. Gardner's points is very much mistaken. I'm a woman Wikipedian, and I have yet to see misogyny or anti-woman prejudice in anything said or done by established members of the community. True, there's bias in the choice of topics: Wikipedia has far more articles about men than about women. But that's not an accusation against men (or anyone else): editors are free to choose their topics. However, Ms. Gardner's points 2, 3, and 4 seem reasonable to me (and have little to do with men). Best wishes.  Rebb  ing   19:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I obviously knew that this thing is used for articles not talk pages, it's just the best I could find in a limited time, trying to counter your Wikipedia proficiency.

I never assumed anything about you, I just pointed out your censorship of my comment.

Now if we're arguing Sue Gardner's points:


 * 1, 4, 5, 9 imply that women are somehow more affected by the conditions offered by Wikipedia, which is derogatory towards women in my book.
 * 2 implies that women are busier than men, which is misandrist.
 * 3 is derogatory towards women.
 * 6, 7 are gratuitous attacks on men.
 * Not much to say about 8, it could be a factor, but at face value I wouldn't consider it a huge one.
 * All the while ignoring the obvious main reason, which is that women probably are just a lot less interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Not everything has to always be 50/50. Different populations behave differently, nothing wrong with that.

So all in all, I see most of her reasons either trying to paint women as frail victims or men as sexist aggressors. Which is so common these days in the media, and I'm fed up of it. No wonder this grinds my gears. So yes, I reacted strongly in my comment only to be wiped out a few minutes later, hence my eagerness to "fight" it.

Last thing I will point out: Sue Gardner's article has almost the entire section "Causes [of the gender bias on Wikipedia]" dedicated to it when it is only a blog post, while Heather Mac Donald's article on Slate is only given a brief mention on the "Reaction [to the Causes]" section.

P.S.: I know my formatting is awful, if you want to change it, I have no objection.

P.S.2: Don't worry another editor will probably delete my comment on the talk page anyway. It's just very unfortunate that there would be no obvious place to discuss these things.88.174.108.198 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia as elsewhere, you'll find people are more likely to listen to you when you remain calm and polite. To recap: your initial post described the article as shit ("What a load of..."), disparaged the article as being motivated by "political correctness" that prevents people from facing the truth, and seemed to suggest that anyone looking for women on the Internet would be best sticking to porn sites ("We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves."). Even with less controversial topics, such antics are rarely effective. I accept now that you were sincere and that your comment was a misguided and inartful yet honest attempt to improve the encyclopedia.


 * You're right that Ms. Gardner's piece is covered rather extensively; the weight may be appropriate because of her involvement with the topic (Wikipedia) in the same way a "mere" blog post by an archaeologist might be given more weight than a news piece in an article about one of her findings. (Sorry for the crummy example.) But that's something that could be explored politely at the talk page.


 * As for your claims that several of Ms. Gardner's points are sexist, I must disagree: facts aren't sexist. If it's true that women are more easily discouraged from editing Wikipedia, have less self-confidence than men, or are busier than men, those points can't be derogatory or misandrist. Similarly, points 6 and 7 are not "attacks" on anyone. If you want to look at political correctness and hypersensitivity, you ought to find a mirror.


 * Your formatting is fine.  Rebb  ing   21:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your recap is accurate except for one thing: I did not meant porn sites at all, what I meant was social media (facebook, twitter, reddit, instagram, tumblr). I did not mention them by name because I knew people would brand me sexist for it (even if it is the truth, as soon as one categorizes people (s)he's the devil)... in the end, you filled in the blanks with something way worse... so I guess it's my fault.
 * I do believe facts aren't sexist, or racist, or anything but facts. In my opinion, the sensitive part is not the facts but what you do with them. The problem is, it's far from being the opinion of most in this day and age.
 * Saying Wikipedia is misogynistic and sexual is totally unfounded and stupid, and it's also an implied jab at men. As I said in my earlier answer, in this day and age men are always portrayed as either stupid, oppressors or creepy predators. I'm not offended in the sense that I can't handle it, I'm just fed up of being wrongly portrayed all the frigging time everywhere I look. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your clarification. All the "LOL stoopid womenz" trolling I've seen in my online life led me to assume "We all know . . . let's not fool ourselves" was insinuating something more offensive that what you meant, and I apologize.


 * I don't think anyone could reasonably brand you as sexist for saying that women, overall, spend more time on social media than men do. (The very premise of the article is that women spend less time editing Wikipedia than men.) Now, if you said, "All women care about is getting 'likes' on Instagram," yeah, that might be sexist—but it's also false.


 * I don't know your friends, peers, or community members, but, in my experience, reasonable people don't think facts themselves are sexist; I don't think anyone I know would object to someone saying that there are differences between women's and men's typical interests. More importantly, reasonable people don't regard most men as stupid, oppressive, or predators. I am by far both the most misandristic and the most cynical person I know, and even I don't believe that. It's also not the portrayal I see on television and in the media. I flip on the TV, who's presenting the news? A man. I flip to ESPN; who just knocked that too-sweet fastball out of the park? A man. I go to the theatre to watch a new release; who are the main characters? Men. Men—and nearly all of them portrayed as competent, decent, desirable, and not at all creepy.  Rebb  ing   01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just as people would be prompt to tell me that I can't understand their problems because I'm a white male, I think you and I might have a different reaction to how men are portrayed in the media. It is especially visible in domestic commercials (those with "typical" families). The mom is portrayed as the smart and responsible one while the dad is almost always the butt of the joke, and portrayed as stupid, goofy and immature. It's also totally OK to hit/hurt him, because it's... funny?
 * Here's a YouTube playlist of 20 commercials, but there are many, many others. I invite you to watch those, and then keep an eye out when you're watching TV... eye opening.
 * Here's the link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fwTtJZ6Db4&list=PLE8EBCB20AC614D6D
 * You also cite an example about sports on TV which I disagree on. Men are simply the bigger, stronger, faster gender, that's biology not sexism. Since sports are about physical competition, people want to see the best and therefore male sports garner more interest than female sports. That's meritocracy, they're on TV simply because they're more entertaining to watch and thus generate more money.
 * I will also refute your last example about male main characters in movies. That is simply wrong in regards to : the whole Hunger Games franchise, the whole Divergent franchise, the whole Alien franchise, the whole Twilight franchise, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Lucy, Mad Max: Fury Road, Frozen, Brave, Sucker Punch, Juno, Pretty Woman, Erin Brockovich, Silence Of The Lambs, Alice In Wonderland and its sequel Alice Through the Looking Glass, Pitch Perfect and Pitch Perfect 2, Bridesmaids, Charlie's Angels and its sequel Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, Million Dollar Baby, Thelma & Louise, Black Swan, Flashdance, Basic Instinct, the whole Underworld franchise, the whole Resident Evil franchise, Gravity, The Devil Wears Prada, Aeon Flux, Sex And The City and Sex and the City 2, Tomb Raider and its sequel Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2, Jackie Brown, The Help, Chicago, Fifty Shades of Grey, the upcoming Ghostbusters reboot with a full female cast, the upcoming Wonder Woman movie, the upcoming Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, etc, etc, etc...
 * 88.174.108.198 (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that men are often made the butt of jokes in the domestic sphere, and my argument isn't that men are always shown in a positive light but merely that men aren't, as you put it, "always portrayed as either stupid, oppressors or creepy predators." If men were widely considered to be any of those things, they would have a hard time being taken seriously as news anchors, voice-over narrators, film protagonists. Advertising is not kind to either gender.

To clarify: I would agree that men are regarded as messier and less domestic than women. I would also agree that men, as a whole, are considered by both women and other men to be more violent, more criminal, and creepier than women. (My experiences and observations of women and men and the evidence from human history leaves me no room for doubting the veracity of this assumption.) However, I do not agree that society considers most men to violent, criminal, creepy, or stupid.

As for film presence, that's a side issue, but I think the ones you listed are not representative. Are you actually contending that mainstream Western films tend to be about women (not men) and more often portray their story from their women characters' perspectives than from men's? Rebb  ing  06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe "always" wasn't the appropriate word in the sentence you quoted, but for sure it is happening more and more. I could go into several examples, like how some universities have instated mandatory consent classes to teach men not to rape (as if by default we are rapists?), or how when people are depicted as racist or sexist in fiction, they're always white males...
 * Half the things shown in the commercials I linked would be totally unacceptable if it was women getting that treatment. Why is it OK or even "funny" when it's men? Have you seen the YouTube video about domestic violence in the streets? People laugh when it's the woman assaulting the man.
 * Also, you have less and less male teachers because of suspicion of being predators. Did you know that studies have shown that female teachers give lower grades to boy students? Adding to that minority quotas which essentially are active discrimination against better qualified white men, and also the very anti-male atmosphere in universities in general, the consequence is that a girl born today will be 75% more likely to go to college than a boy of the same age.
 * Now, what do people do when they realize that there's a proportionally larger population of men helping build this encyclopedia? They waste no time jumping to the unfounded conclusion that men are so "misogynistic" and "sexual" that they create an atmosphere so toxic that it explains such a gap in participation... an atmosphere, that, of course, is nowhere to be found. That pisses me off.
 * P.S.: I made that list of movies simply to refute your assertion "I go to the theatre to watch a new release; who are the main characters? Men." Not to say that females are the primary heroes of movies. I never said, or intended to say that. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Antamajnoon
Although this editor has been blocked, I feel compelled to provide a response.


 * Background : Last week, I used the "What links here" feature on Wedlease, a small article about a form of marriage contract proposed in jest by an estate attorney. (The proposal: "Why don't we borrow from real estate and create a marital lease? Instead of wedlock, a 'wedlease.'" ) Neither the concept nor the term are widely used—the article's AfD was closed as no consensus—yet it was being linked from hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I dug around and found that it had been inappropriately added in a number of ways: "wedlease" had been added to the "family" (diff), "wedding" (diff), and "anthology of kinship" (diff) navboxes; there was a wedlease category to which actual forms of temporary marriage had been added; and Nikah Misyar, a "traveler's marriage" in Sunni Islam intended to permit short-term couples to have coitus, had been rewritten to say that it was designed to "allow[] a couple to engage in wedlease in a permissible . . . manner" (diff). I removed all of these, but I did not examine the user's other edits.


 * Wedleases are hypothetical : It appears Antamajnoon may not have read Wedlease, as that article describes a "wedlease" as "a proposed form of marriage contract."


 * My edit summaries
 * I take pains to justify my edits in my edit summaries and to mention whatever guidelines or policies I consider relevant. I often use language like "I feel," "in my opinion," or "in my view" to indicate that my action is based in part on my own reasoning rather than blessed by policy or consensus. If anything, my practice improves collaboration by explaining my reasoning and emphasizing that the rationale is subject to debate.


 * Original research
 * I take OR seriously, and I work hard to ensure my edits are free of original research or impermissible synthesis, no matter how tempting it is to cite a source and draw an obvious and useful conclusion. Much of my work lately has involved tracking down reliable sources for other editors' original research, so this unsupported allegation strikes me as being particularly inapposite.

Rebb ing  17:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:HATEXAMPLES
Did you read the guidelines at hatexamples prior to your revert? Antamajnoon (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not. However, I don't believe those examples help your cause. A "wedlease" is a hypothetical marriage proposal, not an actual form of marriage, so I don't believe it merits mention outside its own article. However, I'm often mistaken, so feel free to open a thread at Talk:Marriage about it. Rebb  ing  23:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your editing habits
My problem with your editing is that it seems that you're making up your own rules as you go along. For example, when you say "I feel" as you did above, it seems you're not on wikipedia with a collaborative spirit, but rather going by your own emotions. As for "hypothetical", even if it was hypothetical, which its not, hypothetical articles are widely covered on wp; for example graviton, which is covered on two templates, Nemesis (hypothetical star), covered on 2 templates, Original position, 1 temp, and there are 10,000 more such examples. I feel that your edit summaries are especially detrimental to wikipedia to newer editors since they might feel that your made-up rules are a wikipedia policy or guideline and may imitate your behvavior. I ask that you read Wikipedia's mission statement that demands collaboration and that you read up on at least some wikipedia policies and guidelines. That way, it reduces frustration by editors who may consider they're being stalked and eventually quit out of a sense of WP:HARASSMENT. Antamajnoon (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if you continue to introduce WP:OR into wikipedia articles, I will ask for someone to review your editing competence. Antamajnoon (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your username has been mentioned at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Antamajnoon (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)