Sewblon

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your suggestion regarding Biofuel. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). I've noted that you've "fact"-tagged numerous pages. Some of these tags have been errant (citations were present). In others, the pages have internal wikification directing readers to other WP pages where the sources are located. Be bold, and go beyond just tagging things. Read the WP citation policy, and provide citations yourself. E8 (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nice additions to the Biofuels page.--E8 (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

A technical note on one of your recent edits: while corn-based ethanol (what the article discusses) is a biofuel (the term you wrote), the converse is not true. Production of ethanol from corn is known to be an inefficient process, and there are other biofuels made from corn. Also, please read/discuss my comments at the Biofuel Talk page. Cheers.--E8 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for correcting me. I did not know that there are biofuels made from corn other than ethanol. Sewblon 02:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Other common biofuel derivatives from corn include pellets (for combustion, which can be made from non-kernel portions) and biodiesel produced from oil (which is often a byproduct of ethanol production). Some other options: cellulosic ethanol, pyrolytic fuels, gasification, anaerobic digestion. Send me a request for the document and I'll get it sent your way asap.--E8 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#Health

Health view is that men live less than women for the following reasons: Women's Health is favored, Disparity in Men's Health and Women's Health funding, Society considers men more disposable than women.

How does "females outliving males among other primates and eunuchs castrated before puberty outliving men who go through puberty normally in support of this hypothesis" critique those points?

You may need to edit it to have it make more sense or make it more clear as to what it is critiquing, otherwise it may get removed.

Flamous7 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Michael Flood's argument seems to assume that the life-expectancy gap between men and women is rooted in socio-cultural factors. So, I thought that it was worth mentioning that there is some evidence in favor of a biological explanation rather than a sociological explanation.

I will edit the page to make this more clear. Sewblon 22:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 

Your recent editing history at Patriarchy 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. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The sources for the homeless information at Men's rights movement are a mess, but I don't think your additions are a step in the right direction. The first source for that section is specifically in the context of men's advocacy. General government statistics about homelessness are not in the same context. The significance of this issue to men's rights needs to be made by sources, not by editors. Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, and using a source to imply something not directly supported by that source is WP:SYNTH, which is likewise prohibited. In case this isn't clear, the implication your edits are making is that the 60% homeless rate in the United States is specifically a men's rights issue. Homelessness is a problem almost everywhere, so we need to explain why it is relevant to this article. This should be directly explained with a reliable source. I have mentioned this problem on the article's talk page, also.

Also, for a controversial article like this one, when you add improvement templates you should follow up on them on the talk page. Otherwise they are very likely to be removed with no changes being made. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fair point, the article is supposed to be about the men's rights movement and the government report that I cited did not mention the men's rights movement. However, the study that contradicted the MRA position didn't explicitly mention the movement either. If sources that contradict the MRA position without explicitly mentioning the movement are going to be included, then so should sources that support its position without mentioning the movement. Sewblon 21:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not ideal, as I said on the talk page. It is, however, a response to sourced information. Since we have a source introducing this as a men's right's issue, we also have the obligation to reflect the academic mainstream assessment of that issue. This is part of our goal as an encyclopedia. While there are legitimate scholars working in men's rights, there are also WP:FRINGE advocates, and one of the ways we differentiate and provide a neutral overview of the topic is though reliable sources. Finding this balance can be difficult, and this is one of the reasons the topic is controversial. (Edits there may fall under Discretionary sanctions if they are a "gender-related dispute or controversy")

Also, you should sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes: (~~~~) per WP:SIGNATURE, as this is easier and simplifies things for technical reasons. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"This is part of our goal as an encyclopedia. While there are legitimate scholars working in men's rights, there are also WP:FRINGE advocates, and one of the ways we differentiate and provide a neutral overview of the topic is :::though reliable sources." I agree with all of that. But the source that I cited actually is reliable. IT was commissioned by the government to give an accurate overview of homelessness in the United States. "Also, you should sign :::your talk page posts by typing four tildes." I am. For some reason it won't link back to my talk-page. Sewblon 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You should check WP:SIG#CustomSig to make sure there's nothing weird going on. Otherwise, User:SineBot is going to keep signing your posts, and any it misses could interfere with automatic talk page archiving.

As for the source, there are many good Wikipedia articles about homelessness, and specifically about the US: Homelessness in the United States, Housing insecurity in the United States, Homeless women in the United States, Discrimination against the homeless, Women's shelter (especially #Male residents), and so on. Expanding these articles with information about gender discrepancy would be very, very good, but only if this is actually what the sources are saying. Simply adding more statistics won't accomplish much.

Including a source for a sentence specifically to providing context to a complicated issue is not the same as adding statistics which do not have any context at all. All sources are judged in context. This is a subtle point, but an important one: the context of a source determines the context of its use in the article. Government statistics about homelessness are not about gender disparity. They are about homelessness. The article with information about sentencing was directly about gender disparity in death sentences, so it's more suitable as a response to another source about gender disparity in sentencing as a men's rights issue. As I said, it would be nice to have a source which discusses this in more direct terms, but if we're going to discuss this as a men's rights issue, we should make an effort to neutrally explain what that issue is, or at least provide a neutral way for readers to get the bigger picture. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Government statistics about homelessness are not about gender disparity. They are about homelessness." If they just mention the homeless population in each state, and how it changes over time, then that is the case. However, once those statistics start mentioning what percentages are male and female, then they are also about gender disparity, because then they imply that men, or women, are over or under represented among the homeless population. More generally, if an argument hinges on a specific empirical claim, then public information from reliable sources about that specific claim is relevant, whether those sources intended for it to be or not. Whether or not men are over or under represented among the homeless is directly relevant to the MRA homelessness argument. I tried unchecking the "make this signature a mark up box." Let me know if it works. Sewblon 02:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks the same. Did you remember to hit the "save" button at the bottom of Special:Preferences? If so, I'm at a loss.

The existence of homelessness for any group is a problem for society, so implying that fewer men should be homeless is obvious and slightly misleading. Of course fewer men should be homeless, but this specific ratio is not significant to men's rights without source saying it is. If sources directly say that these percentages are related to men's rights, we should summarize this in the same way that they summarize it. The HUD source only barely touches on gender inequality, and makes no causal claims about these statistics. The problem is not that these statistics are wrong, of course, it's that they emphasizing one set of statistics without any reliable sources explaining why they are relevant. The article should not inject subjective claims about statistics importance as though it were an objectivly significant detail. This is a subtle form of editorializing.

Think of it this way: There are a couple of paragraphs in the article about asymmetry in domestic violence. What would be explained by me adding a line about how 40% of women in Mexico reported gender-based violence from a partner?[1] This is true, and is related to the topic, but what would this statistic add to the explanation? If it doesn't provide any context, it's nudging the article towards a POV. Why did I chose Mexico, why did you chose the United States? Do you see the problem? These things become subjective editor choices, and that's not neutral. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now I think I see what you are getting at. The author didn't make the connection to men's advocacy. So I shouldn't either. That is original research. I removed it. Now full disclosure, I haven't read the Feldman study because it is behind a paywall. However, the way it is summarized really doesn't make it clear how its finding are relevant to men's advocacy. Someone who has read it should fix that, and something explaining how it relates to the claims that Men's advocates make. Sewblon (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

IF you haven't read the source then don't make claims about what it says. Not ever. See WP:NOABSTRACT. If you cannot get a source you can check at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library or ask an editor at the talk page to quote the relevant part or to send it to you. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you be more specific? What low-quality or unreliable source did I cite? Sewblon (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you understand the difference between a literature review and a research article? Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

This was: not a secondary source per MEDRS, and the citation was terrible. Please actually read the message above carefully. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So which copyrighted material did I cite? Sewblon (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Read WP:COPYLINK Many pieces at researchgate are COPYLINK violations. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

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 recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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 any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do stop WP:Edit warring at these articles. I see that Jytdog gave you a "Notice of discretionary sanctions" above, but that apparently is not enough. I am very close to reporting you at WP:ANI because of the way you have edited gender articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Content you added to the above articles appears to have been copied from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-5871-5. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Your addition to Gender disparities in health has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sewblon,

Thank you for creating List of highest I.Q. scores ever recorded.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

more sources for this article are needed; a single source does not meet General notability requirements. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of highest I.Q. scores ever recorded is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest I.Q. scores ever recorded until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Wikinights (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply