User talk:Trj56msn

Welcome!

Hi Trj56msn! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

700dandalv (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello, I'm Hilst. An edit that you recently made to Cleavage (breasts) seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hilst. I used a language tool to help me write, but everything has been fact-checked and is accurate as of December, 2024. In-line with your statement and request, output must be carefully checked, and it has been.

There were sentences that were written (very clearly by a male who fetishises cleavage and sees women as a sex object...and quite frankly we don't need to hear his opinions about the best cleavage, and "wet" cleavage, as this is a subjective opinion, not factually correct, and is inappropriate), which utilised sexist rhetoric, or language that was not inclusive to transgender women, and so I asked AI to "rewrite this sentence in a way which is not sexist" and it did so. With this tool, we are able to rewrite the harmful sentences without removing the important information. I used an AI tool to ensure that I was being objective and making sure that we are protecting women as a marginalised group. The rewrites are factually accurate and you are welcome to check them. The rewrites are backed up by MVAWG experts around the world, so the output is correct and inclusive. I have also added several statements myself, such as ensuring that people check any studies for peer-review and scientific evidence, rather than taking harmful theories as gospel with no evidence. I have also gone through manually and remove any harmful rape myths myself. Sources have been included, and I have not removed the previous writer's relevant source information.

I think it's important to ensure that the information on this page does not spread harmful misinformation, victim-blaming stereotypes, and sexist statements. The person who wrote this article was clearly a male, who was sexualising women at any chance they get and tend to give biased opinions on women's breasts i.e. "wet them to give better cleavage", and saying "men like large cleavage" etc which are harmful sexist stereotypes which objectify women. Plenty of men prefer smaller breasts, and regardless, a man's opinion on what a woman's breasts "should" be, has no place on a factual page explaining what cleavage is. A man's opinion on a woman's body is not appropriate here, unless backed up by scientific fact - which many statements in this article were not. The user constantly gives constant opinions of men in a sexualised manner e.g. this man/author/artist/director has the opinion that breasts are xyz, which are quite frankly, irrelevant to explaining what cleavage is. This is innapropriate for children to read, where they may then internalise harmful, false views such as that the 'gap between a woman's breasts is recommended to be xyz' by "doctors", when this is an opionion, factually incorrect, and not supported by science.

What is absolutely terrifying is that when I saw how many edits there had been, and clearly mostly by men who are fetishising women's breasts and writing an article based on their sexualised opinion rather than true, scientific facts - I was very concerned about how this may affect people who read this. The previous article was damaging and contained a gobsmacking amount of rape myths and victim-blaming with no context to explain why this is.

Everything I have left is factually accurate, and I have checked that it is in line with current MVAWG research. Please do go through the article and let me know exactly what you're not content with, what you believe to be inaccurate information etc, and I am happy to get back to you and alter things. Please do not revert this back to the original as it contains harmful rape myths which could do a lot of harm to women if people read and internalise these as correct.

Please do go through and let me know what you believe to be inaccurate. Trj56msn (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every addition you make must be verifiable. This means that you need to add inline citations to every piece of writing that could be or has been challenged.

Asking an LLM to rewrite this sentence in a way which is not sexist generates algorithmic bias in the text and goes against WP:NPOV. Please see Wikipedia:Large language models § Algorithmic bias and non-neutral point of view.

Stating that the article [was] written very clearly by a male who fetishises cleavage and sees women as a sex object is a clear violation of WP:AGF. I strongly recommend that you remove those claims. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain which additions I have made that you deeemed to be unverifiable?

Are you able to explain how writing rape myths, sexist stereotypes and subjective opinions are not biased, and are a "neutral" point of view? Surely this would be a violation, no?

Are you able to prove that the article was not written by a man/men with fetishising views of women?

Are you able to explain how the following: "men find women with large breasts attractive", describing cleavage as a "fetish", giving multiple men's opinions about what "ample" cleavage is, utilising terms such as "daring" and "ample", and relating cleavage to other parts of the female body, are NOT fetishising cleavage or delineating women as sexual objects?

I strongly recommend that you examine the article, because I will be putting this forward to UN Women, and I will be listing the usernames contributing to MVAWG. I work to protect marginalised groups...do you? Trj56msn (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: It's worth mentioning here that the WP:AGF page states that good faith must be assumed "when possible". If men are giving their opinions about breasts in a manner which is subjective, sexist, reductionist and both misogynistic and misandrist (making reductionist assumptions about what men do and do not like about women), with no scientific evidence and they have included citations which are not peer reviewed, or backed up by any scientific evidence - then I would not view this as them putting information in good faith, and thus I would not deem it possible to assume good faith in such a circumstance. The freedom of speech law in the UK is Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects freedom of expression, protects me in both having and expressing this opinion online. It is not something I have commented in the article itself, and is simply my personal opinion, protected under right to free speech, and is done in good faith, in-line with Wiki regulations. I will not debate this again, and I will not be editing the article again, as there's no point in engaging in editing wars - which seems to be what yourself and other uses may potentially be doing.

Propagating rape myths and sexist stereotypes is not appropriate, acceptable or ethical on a website which is meant to give facts, and inform the general public. Any user compliant with this is compliant with MVAWG.

I don't see the point in engaging further as I do not wish for conflict, I wish only to protect women and girls from harm - which that webpage (and many other Wiki pages about women) does. There's no point in me editing the page again because other men, and potentially women with misogynistic views, will simply revert it back to the old version. As such, i'd rather act to take this higher and hold people accountable for propagating harmful misinformation.

Please bear that in mind. Trj56msn (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unsourced LLM additions and ABF. Thank you. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cleavage (breasts). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RachelTensions (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia

It looks like you're trying to edit a couple articles. There are many articles on Wikipedia that seem poorly written, or perhaps even actively harmful in some way (for example, reinforcing negative stereotypes). They should indeed be fixed if they're poorly written. However, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that you have to work with other people. Sometimes those people will have much different views on how an article should be written. Or they'll agree with you on the core point that the article needs to be rewritten, but they want to rewrite it in different way than how you chose.

Wikipedia has several methods of dispute resolution available. They do not result in instant gratification like mashing a button to revert the article back to your preferred version. However, this is disallowed and can result in temporary loss of ability to edit Wikipedia. Instead, you need to discuss the changes you want to make with the other editors and work on finding consensus. Not everyone wants to write like this. It can be frustrating. It's a lot easier to say what you want to say without having to constantly change it to make someone else happy. If collaborating with other users bothers you, you can always write a blog post somewhere.

Using AI chat bots to write Wikipedia articles is contentious. Some Wikipedia editors – perhaps most – would prefer that people write in their own words. AI chat bots can have a stilted and kind of unnatural way of writing even when what they say is correct. They also have trouble coming up with real citations; sometimes, they invent fake citations that sound legitimate but aren't. It's may be best to find reliable sources, such as academic works, and summarize them yourself.

Behaviorally, you have to avoid assuming bad faith if you want to edit Wikipedia. If there are problems, you can raise them with Wikipedia's administrators. The administrators' noticeboard is probably the most appropriate place to do that. Please also read about your free speech rights. And, finally, if you go around making threats, you'll lose your access to Wikipedia. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to collaborate, and you have to do it without intimidating other people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I will bear that in mind. I have not threatened or intimidated anyone. I am trying to help. Thank you. 2A00:23C7:A2AA:C401:2907:F348:90B2:19CD (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please recognize that statements such as I will be putting this forward to UN Women, and I will be listing the usernames contributing to MVAWG. are interpreted as threats. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if a page contains rape myths and I remove them or rewrite sexist material to be more inclusive...and someone else changes this back, I can argue that this is continuing to propagate such rape myths and misinformation that is harmful and contributes to MVAWG. Here is a source of evidence to back this claim on how rape myths can contribute towards wider societal issues:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9380434/#:~:text=Rape%20Myths%20and%20Rape%20Proclivity.&text=Scholars%20have%20hypothesized%20that%20rape,1998%3B%20Burt%2C%201980).

Therefore, if people continue to include rape myths, sexist stereotyping and misinformation e.g. "studies" which are not backed up by scientific evidence, and are not peer-reviewed, then it is my moral duty to report this and make sure that this is resolved. I am sure you would agree.

As such, I would have every right to report to the relevant organisations who may be able to help and assist in making this Wiki page a more inclusive and factually accurate source of information. Listing the users responsible for writing rape myths so that they may be held accountable is a reasonable thing to do, and is not threatening at all. I will argue that people reverting my article back to the initial version to include dangerous and false information that is harmful to women and girls and could contribute towards MVAWG if readers internalise this information - IS threatening, harmful and morally wrong.

For anyone threatening, or harassing me for my right to report harmful behaviour and the spread of dangerous misinformation, this attacks both my right to free speech, as well as being a criminal act in itself. I will outline this below:

1. Harassment - Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If the authors of the page have engaged in repeated behaviour, such as harassing messages or actions targeting you, this could amount to harassment.

2. Malicious Communications Act 1988 - claims that I am "threatening and intimidating them" are knowingly false, as outlined above and designed to cause you distress (e.g. one user tagging the Wiki legal team to threaten me, should I report).

3. Communications Act 2003 (Section 127). Accusing me falsely of "threatening" or "intimidation" by actually intimidating me (tagging Wiki Legal links and reporting me, as well as resorting to edit wars where they would constantly revert my writing without attempting to engage or actually rewrite what I had written) and attempting to intimidate me out of reporting, and making false claims about my right to report - Reporting abusive or harmful content to relevant organizations, including UN Women, is within my rights.

I will not be engaging with this any further, as what you are doing is constituting harassment. I will not be editing the page any further as I do not wish to contribute to 'edit wars'.

I will not be responding any further, and I am asking you in writing to not respond or contact me again. Trj56msn (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca: Would suggest taking this to ANI; I perceive their messages as threats. E_F⁵ 17:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are already at ANI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. jp×g 🗯️ 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinitely for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

jp×g 🗯️ 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]