User talk:142.161.182.190

Sockpuppets

I'll let one of the admins at User:Drmies's talk page decide if you're a sockpuppet a not. As for your IP foe, in regards to this edit, it's called a dynamic IP address; they're not pretending to be multiple people, unlike you. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Google the IPs, confirmed as proxy in singapore. Do some research before you make claims? That is sock puppetry by definition. Also, please see Schwartz's report. Why present one sided sources when there are more that disagree? To be fair with sources, shouldn't you present both sides or none? Also comparisons don't appear to be relevant to article. Also, Kinsey presented no sexist opinions, only a study, so that's not the issue. The other opinions, as well as the lack of a need for a comparison, are issues. Studies in articles aren't bad! Editor opinions are. 142.161.182.190 (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've hardly payed attention to the content of the article, especially since it became a much more clear-cut case, in light of User:MikeFromCanmore's personal attacks and multiple-account abuse; I simply identified you as a highly probable sockpuppet. As I said before, I'll wait for the admins to decide in that regard. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think any opinions, especially those that include sexism belongs on an article, that was the main point here. As there are sources for, sources against, so why pick and choose (selective) based on editors opinion? I try to improve the quality by removing the misandry sentiments commonly found in such articles. Also see the note I left on your talk page (where the proof is). Thanks Francophonie.

142.161.182.190 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

---