Hello, Jayx80, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Darwinian Ape talk 03:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Darwinian Ape talk 15:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jayx80! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC) |
Hi. See what I stated at Talk:Domestic violence#Recent changes. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jayx80, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Domestic violence have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Jayx80, at this point, you only somewhat remind me of User:Shootingstar88; so I'm just going to go ahead and ask if you are that editor. Are you? I can see that you are not completely new to Wikipedia editing, but I'm not sure about what past account you might have had. You're new enough, but not too new. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That's actually really odd because I legit have never been a wiki editor before! This is my very first account haha. I keep accidentally breaking wiki rules (there are so damn many though) so I figured I'm an obvious newb. Glad that's not really as painfully obvious then. Jayx80 ( talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Stick to one account. This one. Do not use two. I see no valid reason for why you are using
Jayx82. Read
WP:Sockpuppetry. And as for your latest additions to the Domestic violence article, it's the same issues as before. Like I noted on the article talk page, I've been over them with you enough. I suggest you make proposals on the article talk page. I can't state that I will approve of any, however. And also keep in mind
WP:SIZE issues and that articles are not for any and everything on a topic.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
14:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that your Jayx82 account says you forgot your password, which seems odd since only a day passed between accounts. Either way, stick to one account. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, you should probably just scratch proposals since I've warned you enough about editing the way that you edit. I am not interested in dealing with this every couple or few months. Except for looking to review articles instead of solely primary sources, you are not improving. And I will eventually gather enough evidence on you and report you. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
To some, I perhaps shouldn't sound so frustrated, especially since you are still a newbie. But what you stated before about repeated attempts to make you understand is right on the money. And don't forget this. Not only are you still adding in your preferred wording for things, some of which isn't even supported by the sources, you are formatting the article in ways that need some discussion and you are adding an awful lot of unnecessary content to an already huge article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Jayx82 ( talk) 21:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining all this. It's duly noted.
Bancroft *does* state that males' reports about their victimization by women must be treated with skepticism at first and ruled out as violent because this is common and typical for batterers to DARVO. This is stated in his book about male abusers "Why Does He Do That"... It's not about a bias against men.
Do you read the whole sources that I cite though? Hamby states in the source that males' self-reports are consistently shown to be unreliable. I could add in what Loseke stated? That both female and male reports are unreliable but for different reasons? Females underreport their own victimization. Males overreport their victimization by female partners. Kimmel and Straus also noted this. Womens violence violates their gender stereotype and so its more notable whereas mens violence is somewhat expected. Loseke states this in the source I added.
You act like I'm distorting the findings...
But I do not understand how you come to the conclusion that my editing represents POV editing because as you've clearly seen, the majority of DV scholars DO conclude that men's violence is more common and more problematic. Multiple well-respected DV scholars like Hamby and Gelles and Hamberger and Bancroft and Loseke etc literally state this... Which is why Straus and his claims are so highly contested. If this is the overwhelming conclusion, then why is it a POV? Wouldn't it be misleading to NOT give this impression?
Have I misinterpreted wikis rules? Jayx82 ( talk) 00:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay I see what you mean. And yes the editorializing. I completely forgot about that wiki rule...
Loseke, Kimmel, Straus etc reported it too. Hamby was reviewing the findings on male/female self-reports and their reliability. Did I imply somewhere that males can never be truthful about their victimization? Because that's certainly not what I had intended. I'm fully aware men can be abused by women.
I was under the impression that there is no need to mention that males can be truthful about their victimization since this is just a given? Jayx82 ( talk) 02:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
More issues seen with the following: Here you added "supposedly." Here you added "notably" and "claims not supported by the data." Here you used "claim," but "said" here. Here you changed "the research" to "flawed research." Here you added "cautions." Concerning "cautions," I reverted, explaining that it was WP:Editorializing/POV language, and also should not be used per WP:Said. You re-added it. And as for you adding a source for "traumatic bonding," does your source, either of the two sources, even state "is the most likely of the types to cause" or something very similar?
Either way, I am done warning you. When it comes to biasing wording via WP:Editorializing/POV language, it is clear that you cannot control yourself and that you will not change. I suggest you prepare whatever argument you think will best suit you when I report you at WP:ANI. Of course, you don't have to show up there when I report you, but it would probably be best if you did. And I will take my time on the matter; not sure when I will report. You show back up every month, couple of months, or few months, and editors at WP:ANI like a hot case rather than a cold or lukewarm case; so I might report soon. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 11:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at A Rape on Campus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Natureium ( talk) 02:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Do not engage in any more POV-pushing at the Domestic violence article. We don't need quotes from single researchers, lending their undue voices or similar. As you surely saw, that the article lends undue weight to women as victims is currently being debated on the article's talk page. One aspect of dispute is the "Gender differences" section that you are partly responsible for. You can vote in the RfC if you want to, obviously, but you should leave that section alone while this matter is being debated on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jayx80. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)