` February 2012 (UTC)  :I am very familiar with WP policies, what I don't understand is why you are quoting them to me.  You are the one who was aggressively pushing TGMP as a WP:RS and becoming hostile and insulting when challenged on it.  You also continue to accuse me of POV pushing and censorship when there is absolutely no evidence to support those claims whatsoever.  The ONLY edits I've made to this article in months were to remove material that was so poorly sourced it may as well have been unsourced, add that ``protector`` was one of men's primary traditional sex roles and qualify the opinions of pro-feminist sources as being pro-feminist sources.  Contrary to the assumptions you have made about me, I do want an NPOV article and care about the quality of WP, both in terms of this article, and in general.    :I see sections all over this article that begin with ``Men's rights activists believe/claim/assert...`` but then the contrarian sections written by pro-feminist sources are not qualified whatsoever but, rather, presented as accepted truth with no ideological slant/bias/lens whatsoever.  Doing this is POV in the extreme.  I am for representing all viewpoints accurately and fairly.. even the ones I fundamentally disagree with!  In order to do so we must first appreciate, and be willing to acknowledge, that there is a fundamental dichotomy here between MRA's and feminists.  Once we've done so we can accurately provide a contextualized point and counter-point presentation.  As long as we pretend that this is not the case and that ``feminism is just about equality`` we will just keep running endlessly on a hamster wheel and wasting each others time.  :If I seem defensive, it's because I am.  I know the history of this article, many of the editors who created the present probation problem and have been having all of my, very reasonable, edits reverted.  The problem with this article, like so many of WP's gender related articles, is that there's a feminist task force that goes around practicing a very formalistic interpretation of WP policies and proceedures when dealing with editors they ideologically disagree with, while coddling editors who, no disrespect intended since I appreciate you are a new editor, like you, make poorly sourced edits as long as those edits confirm their pre-existing biases.    :All that said, I look forward to working with you on improving this article.  18:09, 3`