User talk:Tsbarracks
Tsbarracks, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Tsbarracks! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Naypta (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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.
Nblund (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- For what its worth: I'm sympathetic to some of your points, and I think its great to have an advocate editing the page. You can certainly make a useful contribution there, and I'm down to collaborate. Nblund (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is appreciated. The primary issue with the page is its accuracy, its neutrality, and its fairness. I am in the process of gathering links for the various studies I collected over the years. Tsbarracks (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Might have been more helpful if Nblund had explained wikipedia rules against edit warring before going off to the administrators? At any rate, Tsbarracks, Nblund is correct that you've reverted edits 3 or more times in 24 hours which can lead to a block (a block is where you are prevented form editing for a while by administrative action). I'm hoping that since you are new to Wikipedia, you'll get cut a little slack, but it would be good for you to wait a little and try to get consensus, or at least wait a decent interval before reverting other people's edits so often. There's a rule against that kind of editing.
- Nblund and I don't always agree, but he or she is very logical and consistent in approach and supports his/her position with reliable sources (which is a good thing). I also welcome someone like you who seems versed in the data and sources - that's what make an article more trustworthy. Where you may want to be more flexible is in some of the editorial context since Wikipedia works by consensus, and other editors have expressed reservations on how absolute some of your preferred statements have been (i.e., made to penetrate is "rape" vs. "sexual violence")Mattnad (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should self-revert to avoid a block.Mattnad (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Currently the section is locked. That said, I see no reason to revert to inaccurate and contradictory information. My intention is to gather more statistics to improve the page. The lock provides sufficient time to do so. I can prepare the information and mention the additions in the talk section if people take issue with the inclusion of more accurate statistics.
- You should self-revert to avoid a block.Mattnad (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nblund and I don't always agree, but he or she is very logical and consistent in approach and supports his/her position with reliable sources (which is a good thing). I also welcome someone like you who seems versed in the data and sources - that's what make an article more trustworthy. Where you may want to be more flexible is in some of the editorial context since Wikipedia works by consensus, and other editors have expressed reservations on how absolute some of your preferred statements have been (i.e., made to penetrate is "rape" vs. "sexual violence")Mattnad (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the objections, consensus works both ways. Arguing that the act is not rape because two studies and one crime report chose not to define the act as rape is nonsensical when most of the current literature coming from experts states the opposite position. In that instance, the best solution would be remove the reference of what counts as rape and simply report what the studies find. One could then make note that some researchers do not consider the act rape and then list their research. This wholly removes the semantic argument. What does not help is other editors removing links that show experts arguing the act is rape or showing disagreement between experts on this matter. That gives a false impression the current expert position. Tsbarracks (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- As a practical matter, you then need to build consensus for your recommended approach. That article is patrolled by editors who do not share your views, and if you just make changes they disagree with, you'll head down that path again towards an edit war. Wikipedia often has debatable differences of opinion on what should be included, or how. One method to help create a forum for consensus is a "request for comment" which alerts other editors to a discussion on a talk page. I suggest you consider that approach first.Mattnad (talk)
- Regarding the objections, consensus works both ways. Arguing that the act is not rape because two studies and one crime report chose not to define the act as rape is nonsensical when most of the current literature coming from experts states the opposite position. In that instance, the best solution would be remove the reference of what counts as rape and simply report what the studies find. One could then make note that some researchers do not consider the act rape and then list their research. This wholly removes the semantic argument. What does not help is other editors removing links that show experts arguing the act is rape or showing disagreement between experts on this matter. That gives a false impression the current expert position. Tsbarracks (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am aware of the ideological bias driving the edits to pages regarding men's issues. I will, however, take your advice into consideration.Tsbarracks (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)