User talk:Charlotte135

Welcome!

Hello, Charlotte135! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 21:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello

Hello. I saw you mention that you are a new user and that you have been having some difficulty on certain articles with a particular editor that is opposed to your edits. This can be an intimidating place and difficult to understand when editors are aggressive and wordy. Sometimes it really is best to disengage and not feel like you need to reply to every accusation they've made. I see that you have run into a situation where you are making good faith edits and do not understand why you keep getting reverted - this is a difficult situation to be in, especially when it is an established editor you are having trouble with. One word of advice though is -- do not edit war, even if you are sure you're right. It will just get you in trouble. There are other ways to address the problem and get the community involved, and I would be glad to help you explore those options and help you learn the ropes around here. Just let me know if you'd like some help. You can also email me through my user page if you would prefer to communicate that way. Thanks and good luck. Minor4th 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Tried replying but it had been deleted? Anyway thank you, especially the way you have let me know. You are right about feeling intimidated by this other person. So much so in fact, that I was ready to leave Wikipedia before I even really began. However you have kind of restored a sense of decency that I have read all editors should afford each other. Thanks again.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I got edit conflicted and then it posted twice and I couldnt figure out what the heck was going on! We got it sorted out though :) Minor4th 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

Your request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard was closed in accordance with your withdrawal request. However, I don't think that you chose the wrong forum. I think that you chose a right forum for a contentious dispute where you were asking for a neutral editor to try to work with the parties. You will notice that you may refile if you wish. If you want a different forum, then for content, you may request Requests for Mediation, which is essentially a more formal counterpart to DRN. Like DRN, it is voluntary, so that opening a case will require the agreement of the other editors. Another possibility, if you have specific issues about article content, would be Requests for Comments. Requests for Comments, unlike DRN and RFM, are binding. They work best when a straightforward question is asked in a neutral form. If you want to discuss editor conduct, rather than content, you can go to the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI, but first read the boomerang essay, because the filer's conduct as well as those of the reported parties will be scrutinized. You might want to refile your request for dispute resolution after all, but that is your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon that all sounds very reasonable.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions & Answers

Hi Charlotte, I've closed the discussion at ANI and have found consensus for a three-month topic ban from the subject of domestic violence, effective immediately. Please take care not to violate this restriction, as it applies to the subject of domestic violence, not only our domestic violence page. I would encourage you to continue to make constructive edits to other topics during this time. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten Hi Mark. So I don't get entangled and embroiled in this agenda driven, emotionally charged and biased domestic violence article again, exactly what articles am I now not able to edit? Could you please be extremely precise now and respond here on my talk page?

Bearing in mind it was a purely content related issue, as numerous objective and unbiased editors clearly pointed out, not editor conduct, as absolutely no evidence was presented at all, by anyone. But lets not go backwards, I'm not wanting to discuss it in any way further and accept the outcome. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say exactly all the articles that could be covered, since you're banned from the topic in general rather than a specific page. Blocks for topic ban violations are a matter of admin discretion, and some admins give users more leeway than others when it comes to possible topic ban violations. That being said, in my opinion you will probably be Ok if you avoid everything in Category:Domestic violence. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless Mark states otherwise in advance, it would only be whatever pages are included in this category (which can change from time to time without notice so you'll need to check it regularly).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think common sense would say that the 12 categories that Cebr1979 kindly pointed out would be covered, rather than all of the categories Mark Arsten pointed out, which cover a large number of unrelated articles. If any administrator reading this, disagrees with the 12 article assumption, please feel free commenting here. Otherwise I'm going to take Cebr1979's good faith interpretation. Anyway thanks to both of you for replying.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark Arsten's interpretation is correct - there is not a definitive list of articles covered by a topic ban though in this case it would certainly cover anything justifiably part of the category "Domestic Violence" and the various subcategories. Topic bans also traditionally cover parts of articles on the topic. For example, a public figure may have a biography which you would be free to edit. But if that public figure was involved in or spoke about domestic violence, you may not edit the section of their article relating to that specific topic.

Or the short version: best to simply stay away from anything related to this topic for the duration of the ban, rather than trying to define an article list. There's 5 million other pages to edit over the next three months, so there's plenty to do while you wait. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Any related article is pretty loose. What I have noticed is that most editors seem to edit articles within a scope. And there is even some editors that actually only edit in very specialized areas like, for example, horses. But yes, if the appeal process fails based on Flyer22reborn. Gandydancer and other's canvassing and vote stacking in a desperate attempt to get it over the line, fails, then yes Euryalus, I will edit topics like snails or ring worms, topics I know absolutely nothing about. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The ringworm article could use some work. More seriously, yes topic bans can be very broad. But there's surely other topics that you have an interest or expertise in. There's also plenty of other gender topic areas not relevant to domestic violence. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is and I see your point. And I have, and will continue to edit other articles. However letting these other editors off the hook, who canvassed each other to get the numbers and stack the vote, needs to be addressed. I'd do the same in the real world and stand up to bullies. If I present their behavior objectively with the diffs below and it is then ignored, I will accept it as I was going to do, before thinking about the abuse I've copped so far by Flyer22reborn Wikipedia gang. I did think though that Wikipedia valued female editors more. What are your thoughts on the diffs and points I have presented below, by the way?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten Hi again Mark. So I don't get entangled and embroiled in this agenda driven, emotionally charged and biased domestic violence article again, exactly what topics am I still able to edit? I just don't want to be jumped on by any passionate womens or mens rights type editor if I dare to edit another gender related article. I am gender neutral but would like to have the same freedoms that any other editor here enjoys. Could you please be extremely precise now and respond here on my talk page? Another editor told me this

"But there's surely other topics that you have an interest or expertise in. There's also plenty of other gender topic areas not relevant to domestic violence. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark, is this advice provided to me by Euryalus accurate in your opinion please? It is just that when I dared to edit another article completely unrelated to domestic violence shootingstar and their friend Flyer22 jumped on me for daring making just one, single, neutral edit to an article (which appears to be written by POV pushers) THis edit [1] was to provide a NPOV, rather than a POV which is how it was presented in the article. Then based on one single neutral edit Flyer22 threatened to ban me from all gender related articles!

So, rather than risk becoming the victim again, after the fact, I am asking this clear cut question right now instead. Hope that seems reasonable to you and any other editor who may peruse my personal talk page. Thank you very much for your time Mark Arsten.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Passing comment, while you await a reply from Mark Arsten. The topic ban specifically relates to domestic violence. You should avoid the articles in the category "Domestic Violence" and avoid making any edits to any other article where your edit could reasonably be related to domestic violence. I note you've recently been accused of following another editor to the article "Sex Differences in emotional intelligence." People may or may not wish to pursue that in dispute resolution, but your edits there to date don't breach your domestic violence topic ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. There is a recently closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Bullying of Female editor by Shootingstar88 case where Shootingstar was warned about the ramifications of outing other editors too. And yes, I have an interest and some expertise in cognition and noticed that Shootingstar had written a new article on spatial ability. Quite a decent article. I then noticed the sex differences in emotional intelligence aarticle written by shootinstar too and made some neutral edits including the edit above. Full stop. Nothing more to it. Did not follow anyone.Similar to shootingstar I am a relatively new editor and am trying to act in good faith and follow other more experienced editor's (like you) advice. The reason I posted this question to Mark is so I can avoid getting set up by editors like Flyer22 who appear bent on getting me banned. It would be nice to be given benefit of the doubt as a new editor as well, similar to shootingstar getting let off an indefinite ban. Thanks again. Will wait for Mark's response too.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Active, evidence based Wikipedia:Canvassing, by Flyer22reborn and friends, to get the numbers up for a ban

@Mark Arsten Hi again. Look I've thought about this ban and strongly believe that a miscarriage of Wikipedia justice has occurred here and was emotion based as no evidence was provided and a group of editors/friends at User talk:Gandydancer see here [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] who were called upon/pinged and asked to give a blind vote to get/boost the numbers up for a ban, a practice I had thought was banned on Wikipedia? I mean can I or other editors on any article look at other editors/friends to do that? Then these related group of editors/friends numbers were counted and whoala, I'm banned! Hmmmmm? There were other reasons why I think there was an injustice here too.

Point is that if this large group of highly interrelated editors/friends tag team of sorts, were not included in the vote, I'm pretty sure the ban would not have got across the line!

Anyway I was not given any option of appealing the topic ban (for a purely content related and sourcing dispute) as I have seen now people who are blocked from editing are given. Could you please let me know what my rights of appeal are, if any. With thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I have just looked at this article titled Wikipedia:Canvassing it is very clear based on evidence/diffs provided above that canvassing has occurred here to influence the consensus/number of votes to get me topic banned. And with this evidence I am going to appeal.

The article states "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

Look forward to your reply administrator Mark Arsten. Thanks in advance.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you've asked Mark Arsten to reply, but in case he's busy elsewhere - topic bans can be appealed by posting a request at the administrators noticeboard. There's more information at WP:UNBAN. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks Euryalus. Will also wait for Mark Arsten's comments as he closed my topic ban. And his comments here are wanted. Charlotte135 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten Also I'm interested as to why Mark Arsten did not provide me with these options of appeal here when he notified me of the outcome and closed the case. Not sure if it's standard to notify editors. All quite disturbing, to be honest. So looking forward to hearing from you Mark Arsten?Charlotte135 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for forgetting to mention the appeal options, that slipped my mind when I was closing the discussion. As to the canvassing question, Flyer mentioned Gandydancer in her post at ANI, so some form of talk page notification was probably appropriate. You are, of course, free to file an appeal if you disagree. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Charlotte: I was referring to the article, wondering if more women might be interested, not the ANI. Gandydancer (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good advice from a NPOV editor

Thank you for your objective comments below Kingsindian, as to what actually happened at the domestic violence article, and then your sound advice, which I have followed.

Firstly, one needs to concentrate on disruption. I see a lot of diffs in Flyer22's report, but I fail to see what exactly is disruptive about them. There has been a lack of WP:DR pursued by both people. I notice that when Flyer22 opened an RfC, that particular dispute was settled, and Charlotte135 did not challenge it. Similarly, when Kaldari stepped into a dispute and supported Flyer22's position, Charlotte135 did not challenge it. Secondly, I was very briefly involved in an WP:RSN discussion of a source. I will not attempt to summarize it here, but what Charlotte135 is saying, over and over again on the talkpage is that there are some sources which talk about the balance of some forms of domestic violence. Those sources should be presented in the article: not as the dominant viewpoint, but a significant viewpoint. That is certainly a defensible position (whether it is right or wrong cannot be decided here). Thirdly, both Flyer22 and Charlotte135 should stop with WP:TLDR. Fourthly, both editors have cast aspersions on one another, but Flyer22 has done by far the bulk of them, repeatedly ascribing political motives to Charlotte135's edits. Even if they were true, that is irrelevant. To sum up, I do not see enough disruption here. I would oppose any topic ban for Charlotte135, but would suggest they use WP:DR much more than as usual. Open an RfC, make WP:drafts and ask people to comment, use WP:3O, use WP:DRN etc. I see that Charlotte135 has offered mediation, perhaps that could be pursued. I do however see that Charlotte135 has made a LOT of edits to the talkpage; they seem to have become somewhat obsessed with the subject. One option could be to take a break from the article for a few days. Wikipedia is very big. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Here is me giving you unsolicited advice regarding your topic ban. Feel free to ignore me if you wish.

• The main advice is to drop the WP:STICK. Just let it go. Take a break if needed.
• You can of course appeal the topic ban, but the consensus was clear, and I don't see any hope of your appeal succeeding. Even if you remove the two people who you think were canvassed, the consensus was still clear. By the way, it was not canvassing.
• WP:ANI is a slaughterhouse for newbies, so you should not feel bad about being topic banned.
• Topic bans apply to all pages, including article talk and user talk pages. So simply don't mention anything about this topic anywhere on Wikipedia. Just stay away from anything which could be construed as being related to this topic.
• You say that you are not a WP:SPA. Now is your chance to show your work in a different area. Wikipedia is very big. Try to find something else which interests you. With decent work in a different area, your return after the topic ban would be much more easily accepted by the community.
• Try working on something less contentious to build up some experience. Feel free to ping me if you need help, and I will help if I have the time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Learning difficulties (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

your recent edits about Spatial ability

Hi, you removed 2 dead link in the External links sections. It is usually best to find out why dead links are dead. One was dead because there was a missing space between the URL and the description, making the URL erroneous. The other link was dead because the page had been remove. In this case, try to find out if the page had been archived on the WayBackMachine [11], and it was.

I also removed a couple of obvious commercial links which had been added.Charlotte135 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You did a great job at fixing spelling and grammar errors, but you changed the meaning of a sentence. i.e.: from "Spatial visualization is especially important in the domains of science and technology." to "Spatial visualization may be important in science and technology.". I think we can all agree that spatial abilities are more critically important to a rocket scientist (no pun intended on spatial) than an English teacher for example. So the "may be" should be reverted. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. No problem.Charlotte135 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dhrm77 I think we need to be mindful of peacock language too and a neutral tone. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch You included this "Spatial perception is also very relevant in sports." I had simply deleted the word "very" to make the tone more neutral and encyclopedic. I have not reverted. Are there reliable sources that say "Spatial perception is also very relevant in sports."? This same point applies throughout the recently created article. That's another reason I placed a cleanup tag on the article page. Thanks. Look forward to hearing your response.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you removed the word "highly", I replaced it by "very" which is a little less emphasizing. Spatial ability is very relevant in many sports. The success of a golfer highly depends on his ability to process the space around him. It's a little different than what a mechanical engineer need when visualizing a 3-D shape in his mind, but nonetheless, it is very relevant in the world of sports.

I don't want an edit war as much as you don't want one. Could we have someone else's input before we settle on a consensus? Dhrm77 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not reverted. Why would I? If you want to leave "Spatial perception is also very relevant in sports." after I simply pointed out points made in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch up to you. You could put "massively" relevant in sports, if you wanted, and I can assure you Dhrm77, I will still not revert. The editor who wrote that article and I have discussed their editing style and I pointed out the neutral tone we need to use and other spelling, grammatical etc errors after I looked at a couple of other articles they have recently created as well in order to fix unambiguous errors or violations of similar Wikipedia policy as I quoted above, or correcting related problems on the other articles they recently created. I think they now know why I looked at these articles and we can move forward. Thanks. If you want someone to help, sure.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

Hello. I see you are a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. One of the issues I am tackling at User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia is bullying on Wikipedia and I thought this might interest you. If not, just ignore it. Biscuittin (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biscuittin. Thank you. I will comment there, and help any way I can. Please keep me in the loop. However I feel that, as a female editor, if I don't agree entirely with some other female editors, on every thing then I am bullied into submission or chased away from Wikipedia. Just my subjective impression thus far. I've been attacked from every angle by Flyer22reborn and her friends, if I dare to bring what the empirical research actually says on some major societal topics. I feel like I'm back in high school!Charlotte135 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Charlotte135. I know how you feel. I get the same from some male editors. I thought bullying was mainly a male characteristic but perhaps I was wrong. I'm afraid that some articles get taken over by a cabal of editors who won't let anybody outside their group edit them. If you haven't already seen them, you might like to look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Cabals. The bullies always seem to get away with breaching the rules and getting the victim banned instead of the bully. This is one of the problems I am trying to remedy. Thanks for your support. Biscuittin (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Biscuittin. Thank you for your encouragement. I went to an all girls school and remember a pack of bullies similar to Flyer22reborn and her friends Gandydancer and Montanabw here on Wikipedia. They were pretty fierce and I remember a particular incident whereby they beat up another girl very badly as a pack. I probably identify as a feminist (but am certainly not a typical example, if there is one) although not to the detriment of truth in science. I wish that just one administrator here on Wikipedia would have the courage to stand up to Flyer22reborn, who seems to get away with such abusive behaviour and constant attacks against so many other editors without any repercussions. It is disheartening to say the least and Flyer22reborn and her friends must think it is all terribly funny.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This all sounds horribly familiar. I see that they are giving you the same patronising "advice" that they give me: "Stop saying what you think and start doing what we tell you". I'm a scientist too and scientists are not popular on Wikipedia because we actually know what we are talking about. I'm trying to form a group of people who want to reform Wikipedia but it's a slow process. I don't think it's a cabal because I am doing it quite openly. All the best. Biscuittin (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biscuittin. All rather interesting isn't it. All good research takes time as you know. I'm up for it though, if you are. I love Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Charlotte135. I'm just going to observe for a few days and see what happens. Biscuittin (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Charlotte135. If you want to compare your bullies with mine, have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Climate_change_denial. I think the only difference is that your bullies are a bit more clever than mine. Biscuittin (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shootingstar having a go at Biscuittin

User talk: Biscuittin

There is no neutral point of view in a discussion where the scientific consensus is clear. Climate change is a fact, there is no neutral position.(talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88

Shootingstar, this is not what Biscuittin is saying. However I will let Biscuittin speak for themselves. You may consider posting on their own talk page, rather than mine.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Shootingstar88. If you want to talk about climate change, it would be useful for you to contribute at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Biscuittin (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not something Shootingstar is likely to do, I'm sure. Problem with my bullies Biscuittin, is that they are very established at Wikipedia, and is systemic.

Is there any way I can prove my gender so I am not attacked by Flyer22 and her gang, including Shootingstar, her most recently appointed lieutenant?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've put Category:Male Wikipedians on my page User:Biscuittin. You could try putting Category:Female Wikipedians at User:Charlotte135. Biscuittin (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Biscuittin. I will do that. I think current female editors like Flyer22 only want new female editors that entirely agree with them. In my experience with workplace bullying and training we have done, through our research department, other females are very often the culprits of bullying in the workplace. Is Wikipedia classified as a workplace I am wondering? I don't think it matters if it is not for profit. If so, workplace bullying should be banned immediately and stamping it out, made a priority. A policy should also be developed very quickly by Wikipedia staff to counter systemic bias caused through bullying by established long term editors like Flyer22 and her gang. A cause you are currently involved with and I respect you for very much. You obviously have a great deal of integrity and like me obviously love Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Charlotte135. My experience is that males are just as bad. Wikipedia has a page Wikipedia:WikiBullying but it begins with: "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" so it appears that Wikipedia has no anti-bullying policy. I believe that Facebook and Twitter have anti-bullying policies and I think Wikipedia should have one as well. This is one of the things I am campaigning for. Biscuittin (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biscuittin. I think that having a formal anti-bullying policy is critical. Of course the bullies won't agree with that and will likely reject such an idea as it appears very entrenched. Bullying has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with control, in my opinion.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Extreme bullying, bias and POV by Shootingstar

Charlotte, it's pretty clear to most editors that you're masquerading as a woman so you don't arouse suspicion editing the gender articles. We know you're really a men's rights activist especially given some of the things you have cited in the domestic violence thread and disrupting sex differences in emotional intelligence.

When I came here, I had trouble with the other editors too. But I discussed the issues and got over it, because in the end if you cite good studies that reflect the majority consensus in scientific literature then no one can revert your edits. Good research means you have to read a lot of scholarly reviews or replicated primary studies from pubmed or sciencedirect.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Leave me alone!!!! Who do you and Flyer22reborn think you are? This is the most obvious and extreme bullying and mobbing possible. Maybe just one single administrator can do something about Shootingstar's extreme POV and extreme bias throughout all gender articles they are editing and extreme personal attacks on me with no justification or evidence. Would someone like my birth certificate!!! Seriously. How do I prove I am a female. Why am I being so harassed and bullied by Shootingstar and flyer22. I am going to report you shootingstar. I have had enough!!!!!!!!!Charlotte135 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on your very limited knowledge of science and indeed empirical research, you are probably a senior school student or first year uni student. Also if you or Flyer22 had spent even one week in the workforce you would likely have had training in workplace bullying. Your bullying is more akin to schoolyard bullying.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page and grow up!!!Charlotte135 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Shootingstar88. I have never met Charlotte135 but I have no reason to believe that she is a man masquerading as a woman. I am in favour of having more women contribute to Wikipedia. Does that make me a woman masquerading as a man? Biscuittin (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reform of Wikipedia

Hello Charlotte135. QuackGuru has taken the lead on reforming Wikipedia and he has a new page at Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. He has put some new life into the project and I will still be around too. Biscuittin (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Biscuittin. Thank you for letting me know. I would like to be involved and sure like the "...new life into the project" concept. Well overdue and I think will move Wikipedia into the new era. I was also looking at Facebook's anti-bullying policy you pointed out and there seems to be some background that is likely to be relevant to the project too. Will make some comments at Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Reform of Wikipedia article is now at User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. You might be interested in this too.[12] Biscuittin (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Biscuittin. I may add a few more reasons based on my own unique experiences. Stay strong and stand firm. Reforms always meet with resistance from those that have most to lose.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biscuittin. Are you still interested in attempting to get a formal anti-bullying policy up and running for the project?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Do you have ideas about how it might be done? Biscuittin (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Harassment is an anti-bullying policy. It just needs to be enforced. Biscuittin (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks, but IMO bullying it's a lot more than just harassment and there should be a zero tolerance similar to an anti bullying policy in a modern workplace. A quick look at Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia it seems the separate bullying section, which was originally included, was deleted too. Will have a closer look at what went on. I think that the issue of female editors being discouraged needs to be addressed specifically. Some of the editors that are female (without mentioning names) are closely linked, similar to a gang in the school yard, and if you disagree with the agendas and POV they are pushing, they explicitly alert each other and then stack the votes, so to speak. Systemic bias is real. It's all a cultural thing and it's the culture that drives women away from editing. In the end it will only damage the very real issues facing women in society, like domestic violence, because attempting to fill articles with content that astute adult members of the larger community clearly see as inaccurate or biased, will continue to damage Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)