User talk:Snuffie18

Welcome!

Hello, Snuffie18, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you need to be familiar with

Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.
Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.
Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Misandry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP experience

You seem WP:PRECOCIOUS and interested in one topic. Have you edited in Wikipedia before? – S. Rich (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, under the same name. This is my only account if that's what you mean. It is true that I only watch one topic at the moment. I got interested by looking up misandry. It didn't seem very npov and the talk page confirmed this. It is very ironic that the downplaying of misandry in society is not represented on wikipedia. This confirms that wikipedia is unfortunately bounded to society and not to reliable facts and objective sources, which i found to be displeasing and tried to ammend. To no avail. I really like wikipedia and I want to help and improve it. (Snuffie18 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The username Snuffie18 only has two dozen edits credited, so I think you mean you had a similar name. If so, you might set forth more about your editing adventures on WP on your userpage. (The community can get upset about sockpuppets, block evaders, etc.) As for misandry, I think I may agree with you (but won't say so flat out). An interesting aspect of the topic is in our elementary schools. Boys like to play rough and tumble games like cops & robbers. Teachers are discouraging this by disallowing the pointing of fingers to say "bang, bang" because it represents violence. Boys, as a result, say school ain't fun and are dropping in their participation levels. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Binksternet is a prodigious and accomplished editor. I recommend working with him to improve articles. He can be a valuable mentor as well. 19:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning gender and education, Bourdieu has written some interesting stuff about it in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction. Because women are more 'docile', they perform better in educational systems (averages, probabilities, pinch of salt etcetera). Unfortunately the discussion (and edit war) gets narrowed downed to a victims-contest; who is more of a victim, men or women? Not only is this a silly question, it polarizes the sexes. It is so difficult for us to think other than in dichotomies. Reading reviews, i feel this is exactly the point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power is trying to make. If others disagree that's completely fine, I never tried to remove the critique on the misandry page: 'Man hating among women has no popular name because it has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.' Seems a bit silly, looking at male only draft. But that's just my opinion.

and concerning Binksternet, it does feel like I'm throwing a slingshot at Goliath. I'm making sensible arguments on the talk page, no response. And he just makes edits with a short line attached. Frustration on this got me into betraying AGF and letting me get dragged into a sort of edit war, mea culpa.

Self revert

You're at your 4th revert, thereby breaking the three revert rule. Self revert or it's very likely you'll be blocked for edit warring. Tutelary (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]