77.126.47.196

Welcome!

Hello, 77.126.47.196, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What belongs in the lead

You asked a question at my talk page about material appropriate to the lead. To answer your question, the material you attempted to add might rate a mention in the lead at some point, but not in the current state of the article. The Lead is intended to summarize the body of the article, not to introduce new content that is unique to the lead. Once the body covers this with reliable sources (which you appear to already have available), then it may be added to the lead within the constraints of appropriate weight wrt the rest of the lead section, and consensus. I'd start by simply taking the content you have already compiled, and find an appropriate spot for it in the body of the article. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm, in light of your recent message to me... I'd like to point out that the "Theories of gender as a social construct" section already tackles the social reproduction of gender roles, i.e. gender socialization. It uses the term socialization multiple times, though not gender socialization specifically. If the term gender socialization was used in that section, would you view its introduction in the lead section as summarization? 77.126.47.196 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm mobile right now and it's hard for me to jump back and forth. Being bold in your editing can be a good thing, but as a new editor you should go slow while learning the sometimes arcane policies and guidelines around here. Articles related to gender are an especially difficult area in which to learn the ropes because they are scrutinized much more carefully, and missteps are curtailed much quicker and perhaps more severely (see WP:ACDS), although as a new user, you should get some slack from other editors, maybe once or twice, although no guarantees on that score. It would be a lot easier for you if you edited some non-Gender related articles first, while figuring out how things work around here.

I'll ask EvergreenFir for a second opinion and to have a look generally, and see if they have any additional advice for you. Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As a separate point, and a minor one, I don't agree with your linking the text "gender role theory" as "gender role theory" because that seems to me to be a parsing error. I wouldn't see a problem with: "gender role theory is an aspect of role theory which blah blah..." however, as that doesn't break parsing. I didn't revert because I didn't want to cloud the current conversation about more important topics, but I think you should change that link. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Mathglot. I'll undo the linking, perhaps until some future point when I figure out what to do with it. For what it's worth, I'm not all that new. I used to make some edits with a Wikipedia account, even years ago, but more recently I've found the account superfluous for most purposes and so have since stuck to editing with just bare IP numbers. Do you think that the maintenance of a registered account could be useful or beneficial in some ways that I'm missing? 77.126.47.196 (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. Well, for one thing, I can't {{ping}} you from my talk page (or anywhere else) to notify you of a new reply, or something else that might interest you. See also WP:REGISTER. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've carried out the plan; what do you think? Now that one of the lower sections not only discusses gender socialization but also mentions it by name twice, do you think a mention of it is warranted in the lead section? I've also registered a new account, by the way. It's (Redacted). 77.126.47.196 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I see you've put it back in the lead again, but actually, per WP:BRD you should not have reinstated it yet; we are past the B and the R phases, so now we are at D: discussion. The right thing to do would have been to add a new section to the talk page there, called something like, Talk:Gender role#"Socialization of gender" in the lead? and make your case for it there. Reinstating it now before a discussion about the merits is premature. And that discussion should take place there, as it is about how to improve the article, not here. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Done. Do we now just wait for others to join in? 77.126.47.196 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we pretty much just wait, now. Sometimes, a section won't generate any discussion, and there are ways to add more eyeballs by leaving notices at Wikiproject talk pages, or elsewhere. But that's premature yet, let's see what happens. There's no particular urgency about this, so I'd wait at least a week or two before looking to expand the net. (If you do decide to "publicize" the section, you're free to do so, but it needs to be done in neutral language, and in a way which avoids the impression of canvassing.) Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright then. There's just one lighthearted question I have on my mind. I for once really don't mind this, but don't you think that the lengths that we are going to because of one single sentence in an article are... amusing? :) 77.126.47.196 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And no. One could say, :Multiply this article, or this discussion, times a thousand, and then it makes more sense." Or, one could say, "It's just as much about other things, such as achieving positive results from dispute resolution from editors who, going in, seemed to have pretty different viewpoints." Is it too much to hope for, that others might lurk, and say, "Hey, if they can work it out, so can we." I believe in the process here, which is not to say that it is perfect, but good things (an encyclopedia) come out of it. And other good things, too, such as people who can discuss and compromise, and maybe transfer that to venues IRL outside WP. Seems like we need more of that in this world. See? We just went from discussing a single sentence at Wikipedia, to improving the whole world. Not bad, for a day's work, eh? Mathglot (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I like your optimism, Mathglot! Wish you all the best. :) 77.126.47.196 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Privacy concern

Hi, 77.126.47.196, just wanted to raise a privacy concern as a friendly tip. In one edit of yours in the section above, you mentioned having a userid, and gave the name. Since that might be a way for someone to discover the IP address of your userid, you might wish to keep this info private. Unfortunately, just deleting that text from your Talk page here, isn't enough, because it will still be visible in the Talk page history. (I've redacted the visible version above, but that doesn't solve the history issue.)

However, there is an administrator function called WP:REVDEL by which "oversighters" can strike an edit and remove it from the page history, so it cannot be seen anymore. If you would like to preserve your privacy, I would urge you to read up at those two links, and contact an oversighter to remove that edit. (You might first want to copy that content, minus the userid, to a new section, so you don't lose everything you added, since REVDEL removes an entire edit—they can't pick & choose (afaik): either the whole edit stays, or it goes.) If you are confused or have any questions, please {{ping}} me here, or start a new section with your question(s) about REVDEL and add {{HelpMe}} somewhere in that section, and someone will be by to help out. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the heads up. I see you really put some thought into it. It's super helpful. Much appreciated. 77.126.47.196 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

---