User talk:SeederOfTheDugudup

Male privilege

I also disagree with your removal of content from Male privilege. Per wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss it on talk:Male privilege See wp:talk page guidelines Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that I have the burden when you are the one removing reliable sources repeatedly is hilarious.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. You want to change the article, you must build consensus. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dose adding tags amount to changing the article for you? Also you need to have an argument.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reliable sources (which were already in the article before I arrived on the scene) should never be controversial and a matter of dispute.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's changing the article. If it didn't, why would you bother edit warring to restore the tags? If you want to "have an argument", start a talk page discussion on the article's talk page, as multiple editors have now asked. The sources you added included other points, and expanded and emphasized a fringe perspective. The use of sources in the lead is not automatic, and should be discussed when contested. Why should you get your way when the multiple editors reverting you are ignored? That's why what you are doing is edit warring, and can lead to being blocked. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except the sources are still on the article. And not an argument for removing the tags has been given. Common sense tells us that the article is slanted, and per Wikipedia policies should be tagged. Per WP:Ignore, I get my way.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that I am trying to show the slant of the article does not mean the tags are part of the articles themselves. Where did you get that idea from?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Ignore doesn't mean you get to decide what the best version is! Do you really think that's how it works, or are you just trolling? The tags undermine the credibility of most sections of the article, which is exactly your point. You haven't actually explained any of these POV points on the article's talk page, either. The point of tags is to improve pages, they aren't badges of shame. If you haven't explained how to improve the page or address the issue, you cannot claim to be trying to improve the article. This is a collaborative project, so if you can't work with other people, you're going to have a bad time. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whomsoever said that I'm shaming the sections! I added the tags to improve them, what else? Also, just because you label the men's rights activists as fringe, does not mean any references for their own statements should be removed. Like, what the hell. And I am working with you, I did not remove any content. And I never said I get to decide what he best version is, all I said was that what I did was sensible and therefore bypasses the rules. After all, why remove something useful?SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Privilege...

Whilst not unsympathetic to the MRA cause, I do feel obliged to point out Wikipedia is not intended to Right Great Wrongs. It is not a WP:SOAPBOX and, being an encyclopedia, relies on sources. That being said, you may want to check out The War agains Boys. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Your recent editing history at Male Privilege shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
Only warning, stop edit warring on Male Privilege, further reverts will be taken to the edit warring noticeboard. Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, this doesn't save you from the legitimacy of my point.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2017 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SeederOfTheDugudup reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YAAAAY!SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just so we're clear on this, my revert of your edit was actually an accident, I was trying to look at your block log and accidentally hit the rollback tab. I was going to revert myself after I did the block but you were reverted me so fast I didn't really have a chance. When the block expires, please follow WP:BRD or you'll just be blocked again, probably for a lot longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comparison of intersex people to guitars

Grayfell I guess I should say something too. You might bear a hatred against me, and this makes me nervous and afraid that you wouldn't even bother to listen, thinkin that all I'm going to say heere are out of insincerity and malice. Please, just hear me out. (I did not notice how malformed the templates I added were. Thanks for that, maybe you should have told me about it a long time ago?) On the talk page of Male Privilege, I laughed because you so grossly mistreated my comparison of human sto guitars ( the explanation for it is below) Sorry for calling you a dumbass, I was just angry that you labelled me as not knowing what I'm talking about. But let me just make something clear. Life is a form of matter, born out of non-life, and are decided by the laws of physics just like non-life. Nature is sloppy and flawed, because (like you said) it has no goal, and occasionally makes mistakes like a sloppily-designed factory machine. When I compared intersex people (and all humans, for that matter) to guitars, I was trying to point out that intersex people are rare and thus cannot be considered actual sexes; I was not trying to suggest that humans (let alone intersex people) should be treated in the same way as guitars. I am a human being myself, why would I compare myself to a guitar, unless it was not out of malice? They are not necessary for reproduction, unlike male and female, and thus are not considered sexes. By "regular" I meant " common". I mean no harm.

I would like to ask one thing, and it is that to forgive me. I shouldn't have edit warred, but should I deserve the fear of being ignored for a past wrong? Please.SeederOfTheDugudup (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]