Tevincameroncarter

Welcome!

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:

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! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank Maim. I give you permission and encourage you to review, edit, modify, correct and delete my content and edits. I am new to wikipedia and though I have an academia, professional and engineering background I am not accustom to wikipedia's culture yet. You could be of good use and your opinion given your activity on this web site and the fact you reached out to me merits your genuine ethical intent. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 11:46, 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

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". 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.

Please be careful

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)

discussion from WiR talk page moved to Tevincameroncarter's talk page

A user @Tevincameroncarter lately seem to have updated article Female promiscuity there after went on to add internal links to words as follows

• ".. [[Feminism|Feminists]] usually defend an individual's right of self determination over their bodies for [[Female promiscuity|sexual]], marriage and [[Reproductive rights|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 [[Female promiscuity|sexually active women]] .."(e.g., access to abortion), while another stream views sexual liberalization as an extension "male privilege".<ref name="Rubin_1984" /> 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 Promiscuity says ".. 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)

• Thank you, Bookku, for bringing this to our attention. I share your concerns in regard to the links but I also note that Tevincameroncarter, a completely new editor, has increased the text of Female promiscuity by at least 25%. At first glance, some of the changes and additions appear reasonable while others may not be justified. It would be useful if editors familiar with the subject take a closer look at the changes. I also note that at the very least some copy editing is required.--Ipigott (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for exhibiting incorrect thoughts or biases. I will continue to contribute to this topic and other wikipedia articles. Please tell me if my edits were suffice. I am seeing little rebuttal to my posted content. I work in academia to say the very least and am of acumen and interest in female sexuality, feminism and evolution. I know I may not be dealing with members of academia but I must respect the prevailing culture on wikipedia or else my contributions will not be published. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Tevincameroncarter: "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". 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.

Thank you for addressing this Bookku. First and foremost "promiscuity as a natural topic of interest to males when discussing female sexuality" is an incredibly objectifying statement and absolutely reeks of POV, having no place in an encyclopedia. Linking women's sexuality to promiscuity, i.e. [[Female promiscuity|sexual]] implies that identity, behavior and all other aspects of women's sexuality equal promiscuity. I am 99% sure there are no sources that make this claim and if such a thing exists, it should be spelled out identifying exactly whose opinion it is and refuted with opposing arguments. Equating sexually active women to promiscuous women is questionable and one would need very strong RS to make that claim. Promiscuity carries with it body and behavioral shaming elements,[1],[2],[3] which have nothing to do normal sexual activity. Each of these edits should be reverted and fully discussed at the talk page Tevincameroncarter, as an encyclopedia especially in the case of highly charged topics should give neutral and informative data on the topic. (For the record, I have no interest in editing the article, only interest that it retains neutrality.) SusunW (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Also it is not objectifying unless you see yourself as an object. The topic if female promiscuity is interesting to men because they want to have sex with women. The topic of homosexual promiscuity would be of interest to homosexuals, even though if they don't explicitly state it. Nonetheless the idea of objectifying women has nothing to do with the topic of human female promiscuity. The topic of chimpanzee promiscuity has been an interesting topic to every one who studies chimpanzee's and many men and women have gotten their PhD. in this topic. Regardless of who it is interesting to, though I believe it is more of interest to men than women though women too are interested in the topic as well. Words are capable of misquoting improper opinions onto a subject (me) when used in a manner with an agenda. None of this has anything to do with my academic subjects of interest. Though if you want the objectification of women to be included I will include it as well. This will require a lot of research and will lead to conclusions some females may not agree with. Nonetheless this topic was created on wikipedia and is elementary and since this is the first one of its kind to be branded an 'encyclopedia' entry then our approach to it must be evolving and open minded. Let us not act like I am spewing schizophrenic nonsense. Everything I wrote makes sense and is not wrong. If it was an opinion then that was stated. If it was based on a statistic then the fact of its bias was stated. Alternative narratives were stated. Statistics and connections between various ideas and other publishments were brought into fruition through the writing process, indeed the very powerful tool of English, to bring forth knowledge! I ask you, what is your reason on wikipedia? @Bookku @Ipigott @SusunW @WomenArtistUpdates

https://pics.me.me/spartans-what-is-your-professionp-anime-tiddie-expert-i-have-29857020.png Tevincameroncarter (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What the actual fuck does that meme have to do with anything? I'm getting some vibes here and none of them are good. I suggest you read the warnings here, start making your responses concise and on topic (aka TO THE POINT) without the diatribes in between, otherwise you're likely to wind up blocked very soon. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Why did you delete my edits without inquire into each point? That was some DEEP editing the likes of which I don't think you are use to. The citations were massive, like academic massie. I read every citations I cited or the respective articles in the posted academic journal. Like as should be custom inquire is what merritts honest discourse. The page was a work of art in the making. You returned it to an unorthodox new age encyclopedia entry. Female promiscuity, as studied in several animals and chimpanzee's (which the article literally has a picture of. A LITERAL chimpanzee is on a article about human female sexuality) is a topic seen since the time of antiquity. It is seen in the Bible and is punished by death in other countries. Not all women are promiscuous but the name of the article implies, if not a bias, dissection of the topic and such occurs with statistics. $1000's of dollars went into these statistical research projects. What comes next though is the connection of various sources of information in a manner that merits the word knowledge. Think of the several ideas and citations I posted as separate nodes of information. Now start connecting them and some patterns will be note worthy and indicative of something. This 'something' is either true, false, bias, unbias or not related. This is what we need to find out. Like an engineering process we must be devoid of ideological merit. Like Freud studying homosexuality we must come to terms with the knowledge that will come into fruition and not always ideological sensitivity invoke fear into us, our subconscious and henceforth our perception of reality. The fact grinding and twerking are literal wikipedia articles that came into fruition in the last 20 years has nothing to do with female promiscuity is very hard to sell. Indeed at my university amongst the rape, partying and sexual liaisons, several studies in grinding and twerking have been conducted and is performed every night on campus. This is a world wide human behavioral phenomena never seen before in the history of the human race. You will though say I am invoking bias by writing about on the article which may be true but note I am only stating my most controversial topic. As for the stoning of women in Islamic countries, this too is our reality. I beg you to appeal not to the utopian vision you have of the world but understand it for what it is and assist me in further developing this article and other content on wikipedia. You are a good counter weight to my research and interested subject areas; Your intelligence is inherent and though I may not be as endowed as you I am in a position of deep reverence. As with any publishing community of intellectual rigor the peers of which I am neophyte. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What part of concise with no diatribes was unclear? Also 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not attacking you. Stop trying to make it look like I am attacking you so you can look good and therefore defame my name. I am not attacking you, please stop making it seem like I am so you could win. Also what do you mean by there is no association with the word "female promiscuity". The word, not merely ideas, information, synonyms and other elementary references, has to be literally stated in the citation? I know some of my sources were un-formal, I will address that. So you want me to summarize what the articles and sources say? That's fair enough. I did not state my opinions. Also what is the definition of "female promiscuity", as you know that word and idea in it of itself is subjective. What is promisiciou to one is not to another. Is promiscuity having 1 partner a year, is it 1 every 6 months, is it having more than 6 in a lifetime, is it never having one and henceforth an inquire into the psychology of such is merited? This isn't a definition, THIS IS AN ENTIRE SUBJECT. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae read above. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Jumping in to add (1) stop writing like you're attending Plato's Academy, (2) about half of your additions were citations to non-reliable sources like blogs, and (3) you are using citations that are tangential to the point being made in the statement. E.g., you used this to support the inclusion of education as a trait related to mate value, but that citation does not mention mate value. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

(1) okay, (2) I did not know the rules of wikipedia citations, by reading what you have edited in the past and other articles I figured this website was elementary and amataure so thank you for pointing that out, (3) I don't, the world does and the general population associates education and mate value as related, I will find iron clade citations then.

I am a very busy man and don't have time to work on wikipedia but in the future when I make edits and we build this articles and other articles together; I will reach out to you utilize your editing skills. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir above. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay I will try and address the neutral stance on a non-neutral topic which is exclusively female promiscuity which naturally will consist of history, feminism, past perceptions in contrast with modern perceptions and as the opposite of female chastity. Ugh, I tried writing this article from a neutral female point of view free of prejudice. You are right to say linking general female sexuality to promiscuity is general but should not reflect aspects of all female sexuality but would encompass or contrast chastity which is very straight forward (virginity before marriage, no fornication and marriage until death). Naturally their is a spectrum of promiscuity and with respect to culture their is different definition of promiscuity. I will address the linking content. The psychology of the idea of 'promiscuity' which encompasses factors leading to such behavior and the fact every man and woman phases this socially constructed word. THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE NOTED with the advent of contraception, abortion, feminism, internet dating, birth control, porn, social media, rape, power, education, socioeconomic status, culture, changing stigma, hookup culture, inceldom and the virtual elimination of traditional modesty shaming in the west this topic has drastically evolved at the very least in the past 10 years. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Did my edits suffice? I need input on my content and researched citations. Tevincameroncarter (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice

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.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Further, stop adding the female promiscuity article to every article unless its' clear it belongs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Female promiscuity

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: "“I 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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Alyssa gadson

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.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)