Hi Tevincameroncarter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Thank you, there seems to be many rules for editing wikipedia. I will try my best to learn these rules. Please feel free to view my edits and make revisions as you believe would credit improvment or enforcement of the rules. I give you permission to fully re-write or re-work my edited content because it will take some time for me to get to your level of wikipedia expertise and to familiarize myself with these rules. As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
A user @Tevincameroncarter lately seem to have updated article Female promiscuity there after went on to add internal links to words as follows
Feminists usually defend an individual's right of self determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices as rights. in the article My body, my choice. dif 1 She says that one feminist stream criticizes the sexual constraints and difficulties faced by sexually active women (e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege". [1] in the article Sex-positive feminism. dif 2 Such changes may be inadvertent on part of concerned users, still IMHO deserve a collective discussion so community can keep better track, hence I wish to open up the issue @ this forum. a) Article says Promiscuity ".. The term can carry a moral judgment if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships .." b) WP has article on Female sexuality, I suppose over all female promiscuity is part of Female sexuality but it is not that in every scenario female sexuality demand right to promiscuity beyond long term relationships. When a married woman refers to My body, my choice she may be just talking against domestic violence and avoidance of marital rape and not necessarily for promiscuity. c) Then usage of WP:VOICE without referring to WP:RS too is a concern. I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am new to using this platform so the lack of a U.I. troubles me. I made these edits as needed to further proliferate wikipedia with the concepts around female sexuality and henceforth promiscuity as a natural topic of interest to males when discussing female sexuality. The first star refers to the topic that is relative to feminism, sexism, women, marriage, reproductive rights, self determination, reproductive choices and My body, my choice with obvious relevance. The second star is correct and the two contrasting views in feminist thought with respect to my article will be updated on July 26 2022. The third star references the concept of female sexuality and after acknowledging contrasting views in my edits to female promiscuity I will edit the respective links of which I edited in the articles I linked into 'female sexual promiscuity' to neutral language to adhere to your concerns. With respect to a) I will note monogamy and indifference to promiscuity, b) it is true female sexuality is related to female promiscuity with respect to the woman but patriarchy sadly infers female asexuality so emphasis on female promiscuity with respect to modern women and the traditional narrative will be noted. The last letter of interest is c), I do note that opinions of particular ideologies or progressive cultures should be parallel with the opposing opinion though this infers the use of statistics and academic journals which I will supplement by edits with and update my respective sources. I know other users should be more adept at explaining the exactness of this claims though note my edits come in earnest altruism to contribute to wikipedia and not out of spite.
Hello there! Welcome to wikipedia! I recently reverted your edit to sex positive feminism, since you had linked "sexually active women" to "female promiscuity" which are not the same thing at all. Please take more care with your definitions. Lajmmoore ( talk) 15:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
A user @ Tevincameroncarter lately seem to have updated article Female promiscuity there after went on to add internal links to words as follows
I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Feminists usually defend an individual's right of self determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices as rights. in the article My body, my choice. dif 1 She says that one feminist stream criticizes the sexual constraints and difficulties faced by sexually active women (e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege". [1] in the article Sex-positive feminism. dif 2 Such changes may be inadvertent on part of concerned users, still IMHO deserve a collective discussion so community can keep better track, hence I wish to open up the issue @ this forum. a) Article says Promiscuity ".. The term can carry a moral judgment if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships .." b) WP has article on Female sexuality, I suppose over all female promiscuity is part of Female sexuality but it is not that in every scenario female sexuality demand right to promiscuity beyond long term relationships. When a married woman refers to My body, my choice she may be just talking against domestic violence and avoidance of marital rape and not necessarily for promiscuity. c) Then usage of WP:VOICE without referring to WP:RS too is a concern. I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am new to using this platform so the lack of a U.I. troubles me. I made these edits as needed to further proliferate wikipedia with the concepts around female sexuality and henceforth promiscuity as a natural topic of interest to males when discussing female sexuality. The first star refers to the topic that is relative to feminism, sexism, women, marriage, reproductive rights, self determination, reproductive choices and My body, my choice with obvious relevance. The second star is correct and the two contrasting views in feminist thought with respect to my article will be updated on July 26 2022. The third star references the concept of female sexuality and after acknowledging contrasting views in my edits to female promiscuity I will edit the respective links of which I edited in the articles I linked into 'female sexual promiscuity' to neutral language to adhere to your concerns. With respect to a) I will note monogamy and indifference to promiscuity, b) it is true female sexuality is related to female promiscuity with respect to the woman but patriarchy sadly infers female asexuality so emphasis on female promiscuity with respect to modern women and the traditional narrative will be noted. The last letter of interest is c), I do note that opinions of particular ideologies or progressive cultures should be parallel with the opposing opinion though this infers the use of statistics and academic journals which I will supplement by edits with and update my respective sources. I know other users should be more adept at explaining the exactness of this claims though note my edits come in earnest altruism to contribute to wikipedia and not out of spite." - I will re-edit as follows and I invite any and all editing to assist in conveying my message. I shall now boil tea and get to it lads.
You returned it to an unorthodox new age encyclopedia entry.you are aware that you are editing an encyclopedia, right? Entries should be encyclopedic - ie. factual, a summary of what reliable sources say, not your own research. Last, your opinions of women and why they do what they do is irrelevant - there is no source based association with "female promiscuity" and you insisting that there is, is nothing more than an obvious POV push. PRAXIDICAEđ 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
PRAXIDICAEđ 14:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I will be able to ever refute your ruling and policing of my edits. Your unbiased and hegemonic respect on wikipedia is undeniable. None the less I wish to inquire into your conviction of me and document a public statement in my defense of my transgression. You seem very intelligent and understand ideological, academic and social issues better than me and that makes me want to learn from you. With reference to the female promiscuity article. I know you are unbiased in your wikipedia editing and do not have a bias in general when it comes to ideology. Why did you delete all of my edits? Despite it seeming Draconian I believe discourse and inquire into the subject beyond the elementary is merited on wikipedia. A consensus between opposing views, opinions, paradigms and publishing creates knowledge beyond the scope of mere information and contributes to the human race in a manner that only was possible in the last 20 years. You are a leading player in the human endeavor for knowledge. The world has changed a lot in the past 20 years. When discussing this with me if you give me the time of day please and keep note: "âI should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out" - Bertrand Russell. This article was created for a reason was many unorthodox articles on wikipedia they are the fruits of the modern world which spring into reality due to the evolution of human knowledge going beyond the traditional encyclopedia. Due to the fact many articles on wikipedia would never be found in a traditional encyclopedia I need you to teach me and tell me why my entire edited content of which I put considerable time into, was deleted suddenly? Yours most respectfully, Tevincameroncarter Tevincameroncarter ( talk) 16:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC) I added it to respective articles associated with this concept. The articles I added it to are all relative and henceforth I, at least, will not add the respective article or link to future articles.
Hello Tevincameroncarter,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alyssa gadson for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
â SunDawn â (contact) 18:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tevincameroncarter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Thank you, there seems to be many rules for editing wikipedia. I will try my best to learn these rules. Please feel free to view my edits and make revisions as you believe would credit improvment or enforcement of the rules. I give you permission to fully re-write or re-work my edited content because it will take some time for me to get to your level of wikipedia expertise and to familiarize myself with these rules. As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
A user @Tevincameroncarter lately seem to have updated article Female promiscuity there after went on to add internal links to words as follows
Feminists usually defend an individual's right of self determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices as rights. in the article My body, my choice. dif 1 She says that one feminist stream criticizes the sexual constraints and difficulties faced by sexually active women (e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege". [1] in the article Sex-positive feminism. dif 2 Such changes may be inadvertent on part of concerned users, still IMHO deserve a collective discussion so community can keep better track, hence I wish to open up the issue @ this forum. a) Article says Promiscuity ".. The term can carry a moral judgment if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships .." b) WP has article on Female sexuality, I suppose over all female promiscuity is part of Female sexuality but it is not that in every scenario female sexuality demand right to promiscuity beyond long term relationships. When a married woman refers to My body, my choice she may be just talking against domestic violence and avoidance of marital rape and not necessarily for promiscuity. c) Then usage of WP:VOICE without referring to WP:RS too is a concern. I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am new to using this platform so the lack of a U.I. troubles me. I made these edits as needed to further proliferate wikipedia with the concepts around female sexuality and henceforth promiscuity as a natural topic of interest to males when discussing female sexuality. The first star refers to the topic that is relative to feminism, sexism, women, marriage, reproductive rights, self determination, reproductive choices and My body, my choice with obvious relevance. The second star is correct and the two contrasting views in feminist thought with respect to my article will be updated on July 26 2022. The third star references the concept of female sexuality and after acknowledging contrasting views in my edits to female promiscuity I will edit the respective links of which I edited in the articles I linked into 'female sexual promiscuity' to neutral language to adhere to your concerns. With respect to a) I will note monogamy and indifference to promiscuity, b) it is true female sexuality is related to female promiscuity with respect to the woman but patriarchy sadly infers female asexuality so emphasis on female promiscuity with respect to modern women and the traditional narrative will be noted. The last letter of interest is c), I do note that opinions of particular ideologies or progressive cultures should be parallel with the opposing opinion though this infers the use of statistics and academic journals which I will supplement by edits with and update my respective sources. I know other users should be more adept at explaining the exactness of this claims though note my edits come in earnest altruism to contribute to wikipedia and not out of spite.
Hello there! Welcome to wikipedia! I recently reverted your edit to sex positive feminism, since you had linked "sexually active women" to "female promiscuity" which are not the same thing at all. Please take more care with your definitions. Lajmmoore ( talk) 15:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
A user @ Tevincameroncarter lately seem to have updated article Female promiscuity there after went on to add internal links to words as follows
I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Feminists usually defend an individual's right of self determination over their bodies for sexual, marriage and reproductive choices as rights. in the article My body, my choice. dif 1 She says that one feminist stream criticizes the sexual constraints and difficulties faced by sexually active women (e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege". [1] in the article Sex-positive feminism. dif 2 Such changes may be inadvertent on part of concerned users, still IMHO deserve a collective discussion so community can keep better track, hence I wish to open up the issue @ this forum. a) Article says Promiscuity ".. The term can carry a moral judgment if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships .." b) WP has article on Female sexuality, I suppose over all female promiscuity is part of Female sexuality but it is not that in every scenario female sexuality demand right to promiscuity beyond long term relationships. When a married woman refers to My body, my choice she may be just talking against domestic violence and avoidance of marital rape and not necessarily for promiscuity. c) Then usage of WP:VOICE without referring to WP:RS too is a concern. I suppose other users can help in putting up the issue more succinctly. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am new to using this platform so the lack of a U.I. troubles me. I made these edits as needed to further proliferate wikipedia with the concepts around female sexuality and henceforth promiscuity as a natural topic of interest to males when discussing female sexuality. The first star refers to the topic that is relative to feminism, sexism, women, marriage, reproductive rights, self determination, reproductive choices and My body, my choice with obvious relevance. The second star is correct and the two contrasting views in feminist thought with respect to my article will be updated on July 26 2022. The third star references the concept of female sexuality and after acknowledging contrasting views in my edits to female promiscuity I will edit the respective links of which I edited in the articles I linked into 'female sexual promiscuity' to neutral language to adhere to your concerns. With respect to a) I will note monogamy and indifference to promiscuity, b) it is true female sexuality is related to female promiscuity with respect to the woman but patriarchy sadly infers female asexuality so emphasis on female promiscuity with respect to modern women and the traditional narrative will be noted. The last letter of interest is c), I do note that opinions of particular ideologies or progressive cultures should be parallel with the opposing opinion though this infers the use of statistics and academic journals which I will supplement by edits with and update my respective sources. I know other users should be more adept at explaining the exactness of this claims though note my edits come in earnest altruism to contribute to wikipedia and not out of spite." - I will re-edit as follows and I invite any and all editing to assist in conveying my message. I shall now boil tea and get to it lads.
You returned it to an unorthodox new age encyclopedia entry.you are aware that you are editing an encyclopedia, right? Entries should be encyclopedic - ie. factual, a summary of what reliable sources say, not your own research. Last, your opinions of women and why they do what they do is irrelevant - there is no source based association with "female promiscuity" and you insisting that there is, is nothing more than an obvious POV push. PRAXIDICAEđ 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
PRAXIDICAEđ 14:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I will be able to ever refute your ruling and policing of my edits. Your unbiased and hegemonic respect on wikipedia is undeniable. None the less I wish to inquire into your conviction of me and document a public statement in my defense of my transgression. You seem very intelligent and understand ideological, academic and social issues better than me and that makes me want to learn from you. With reference to the female promiscuity article. I know you are unbiased in your wikipedia editing and do not have a bias in general when it comes to ideology. Why did you delete all of my edits? Despite it seeming Draconian I believe discourse and inquire into the subject beyond the elementary is merited on wikipedia. A consensus between opposing views, opinions, paradigms and publishing creates knowledge beyond the scope of mere information and contributes to the human race in a manner that only was possible in the last 20 years. You are a leading player in the human endeavor for knowledge. The world has changed a lot in the past 20 years. When discussing this with me if you give me the time of day please and keep note: "âI should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out" - Bertrand Russell. This article was created for a reason was many unorthodox articles on wikipedia they are the fruits of the modern world which spring into reality due to the evolution of human knowledge going beyond the traditional encyclopedia. Due to the fact many articles on wikipedia would never be found in a traditional encyclopedia I need you to teach me and tell me why my entire edited content of which I put considerable time into, was deleted suddenly? Yours most respectfully, Tevincameroncarter Tevincameroncarter ( talk) 16:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC) I added it to respective articles associated with this concept. The articles I added it to are all relative and henceforth I, at least, will not add the respective article or link to future articles.
Hello Tevincameroncarter,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alyssa gadson for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
â SunDawn â (contact) 18:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)