Misplaced Pages

User talk:Island Pelican: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:01, 27 November 2021 editHostBot (talk | contribs)Bots406,085 edits →Island Pelican, you are invited to the Teahouse!: new section  Revision as of 00:36, 29 November 2021 edit undoStarHOG (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,400 edits →Your edits on Sexual Objectification: new sectionNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
|} |}
]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation --> ]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation -->

== Your edits on Sexual Objectification ==

Greetings. I rolled back your edits on Sexual Objectification because they were cited arguments. One of your edit summaries stated that "many would disagree with this", well, either add those disagreements to the article with citations, or make an argument on the Talk page why the arguments/sources are invalid. I think the article needs a great deal of work, and it is worded very strangely, and it may have a significant amount of bias in it, but deleting sourced material is probably not the best way to make it better. ] (]) 00:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:36, 29 November 2021

Island Pelican, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Island Pelican! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edits on Sexual Objectification

Greetings. I rolled back your edits on Sexual Objectification because they were cited arguments. One of your edit summaries stated that "many would disagree with this", well, either add those disagreements to the article with citations, or make an argument on the Talk page why the arguments/sources are invalid. I think the article needs a great deal of work, and it is worded very strangely, and it may have a significant amount of bias in it, but deleting sourced material is probably not the best way to make it better. StarHOG (Talk) 00:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)