User talk:Shootingstar88

Edit on Sex differences in intelligence

Hi, when making changed in articles like this it is best to adhere to WP:MEDRS to make sure we are getting the best possible evidence. I know that the statement you added is covered by newer secondary sources. A primary source from 1998 holds very little weight compared to a newer high quality review.

If you want a tip is to look for review articles from the past 5 years. Please update the statement or it is very likely be removed. CFCF 💌 📧 14:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check over the gender differences in empathy column to make sure all my edits are acceptable? I cited them with very credible journal sources and I don't want them deleted.

Wikiprojects

You may also be interested in the following WikiProjects Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Post a comment on the talk pages to the projects and you are likely to be met with a warm welcome :). CFCF 💌 📧 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doe1994, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Doe1994! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing sex differences in intelligence NOVEMBER 25 NEW POST

For: User:CFCF User:Monochrome Monitor User:Flyer22 Reborn User:Peleio Aquiles User:Agnes Browne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

Some of the sources on this page are from the 90s which seems pretty outdated. The latest sources seem to be from early 2000s even though newer studies have been published since then. I want your permission if I can cite a 2008 study on sex differences in intelligence with a sample size of 7000....and I am asking this because I don't want my edit undone.This is the study I want to cite and edit with:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660770_Sex_differences_in_latent_cognitive_abilities_ages_6_to_59_Evidence_from_the_WoodcockJohnson_III_tests_of_cognitive_abilities

I also want to delete the sources from 1999 and 1998 because they are too old and update them with other newer sources that I have. What's your take?

User:Doe1994

Please sign with 4 tildes like this : ~~~~ and you will be able to ping properly.
I here take the liberty to ping Monochrome Monitor, Flyer22 Reborn, Peleio Aquiles, and Agnes Browne properly. I have also moved this section to your talk-page, as other users should not be editing your user page.
Anyway, that study, while moderate in size is still neither a meta-analysis nor a secondary source and may very well be controversial. I would therefor try and see if it has been mentioned in any review articles post-publication. As a general rule, if not or if it has received extensive criticism you would do best to omit it.
I can quickly tell you that in the English language literature I can only find 1 review citation in: General and specific effects on cattell-horn-carroll broad ability composites: Analysis of the woodcock- johnson III normative update cattell-horn-carroll factor clusters across development - making it quite low-impact. I would refrain from using it.
So, to the question of the 1990's and early 2000's articles, yes they should be removed, but as so much of the article builds upon them, it may be best to replace them with higher quality sources as you go along. Unfortunately these articles are in a state of disrepair and because they are controversial work is slow, but if you get hold of high quality reviews there should be no problem. CFCF 💌 📧 12:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF

I don't see any problem with your cited review and my Woodcock study. It says to include both the g factor and test specific abilities which I intend to do. My edit would also simply be Visual-spatial ability favouring males and Psychometric G favouring females. My Woodcock study also appears on the 2008 Journal of Intelligence which you know it's the most credible literature on IQ.^[1] Being published in the Journal of Intelligence meant it did get reviewed and accepted as a credible study.

I also talked to Professor Timothy Keith who was the head researcher of the study on Woodcock-Johnson III, this was what he said:

Actions Keith, Timothy Z (tzkeith@austin.utexas.edu) Add to contacts 05/11/2015 Keep this message at the top of your inbox To: feynmantoronto@outlook.com

tzkeith@austin.utexas.edu

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Sarah. In my opinion, Raven’s is a good measure of g, but as you point out, also measures some specific qualities that are not g This is the problem with any single measure and the reason to use multiple measures of abilities to allow an examination of differences on the latent construct

Best regards Tim Keith

^[2] <----- His college faculty profile

So yes, based on his professional opinion it's a good idea to add latent constructs and variables to the wiki page on sex differences in intelligence. G or the general factor is the variation across different measures of IQ which includes Culture fair as well as Woodcock-Johnson

This study also consists of a 6900 participant sample (which is very large) extending from the ages 9-59 years old with multiple races. So it's a very diverse and large sample. I'm sure we can add non-meta analysis since we have already done so in the past.

I also happened to find another study which correlates with this one. A 2006 Woodcock-Johnson sex difference multi-study (Camarta and Woodcock 2006) from the Journal of Intelligence which included a sample size of 14,000 participants from 3 separate studies. The results were an increase in boys lower performance in Gs (General factor- Processing speed) in developing age. These two studies put together would form a participant size of 21,000 people which is as good as a meta-analysis.

^[3] - Sciencedirect abstract version with reference to Journal of Intelligence

^[4] - Fully study version

Doe1994 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)User:Doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to combine studies, it's WP:SYNTH. You're doing a fantastic job though (trying to not sound patronizing). --Monochrome_Monitor 19:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Monochrome Monitor

Yeah I won't. But I was just trying to say that both Woodcock Johnson studies consist altogether 21,000 participants, but they are left out from wikipedia sex difference intelligence section...since the page doesn't seem updated. I think we should include both these studies but of course separately.(uncombined)

Doe1994 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)User talk:Doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF

Also the Woodcock Johnson test measures The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory factors based on 9 broad stratum abilities which are: Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-Term Retrieval, Visual-Spatial Thinking, Auditory Processing, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed, Short-Term Memory, Quantitative Knowledge and Reading-Writing. So it is an excellent test.

Doe1994 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[User:Doe1994]Doe1994 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That says nothing about the quality of the source. CFCF 💌 📧 19:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF

My source or study is a publication from the 2008 issue of Journal of Intelligence. As you know, that's the best journal on human intelligenceor mental abilities, and it's publications are also processed through a scholarly committee.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607001328

Doe1994 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[User:Doe1994]Doe1994 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still a primary source - I have already suggested you read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. If you follow the suggestions there you will find it is much easier to contribute to Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 21:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF

?? But it's not a primary source since it builds upon Camarta(2005)^[5] which also had used Woodcock Johnson test to check for sex differences. That study used a sample size of 4253 and found same sex differences.

Not to mention this study also builds upon the past literature on sex differences in intelligence, even going up to citing Lynn.

So which part of the study do you think is a "primary" if it already has been done before?

Doe1994 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)User:Doe1994 Any new data provided in a source is primary research. That established methods are used in no way makes it less of a primary source. Wikipedia generally considers review articles or professional textbooks to be quality sources, and all you need to know about this is available at WP:MEDRS. I have explained this, and I would again suggest you read the guidelines, I do not think I am alone in having my patience tested.CFCF 💌 📧 23:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF

Alright, then I guess you won't have a problem if I cite meta analysis.

23:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Doe1994 (talk)User:Doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd be delighted. :) CFCF 💌 📧 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The angle of your edits

User:Flyer22

Should I remove them if it's not a primary source? Those are not my words but from the Journal of Human Molecular Genetics.

At least, I caught your attention. You have not responded to my messages for days.

Doe1994 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)User:Doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Source

User:CFCF

Can this be considered a secondary source?

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265859585_Empathy_Gender_Effects_in_Brain_and_Behavior

Doe1994 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)User:doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yupp, excellent. An easy way to check is to look at pubmed and find the article. If under "publication types, mesh terms, grant support" it is classified as a review you are good to go. Keep in mind that even review articles should be given appropriate weight, and if there is another qualitative review with other conclusions you should probably include both.

Also, remember you can link/cite articles by entering the Pubmed id such as PMID 25236781: PMID 25236781 or in the visual editors autogenerator which is very useful for others who are looking for more information on the article. Pubmed also allows you to search for only review-type articles, which makes finding them much easier. (Linking the full article through researchgate may actually be Wikipedia:Copyright violation.) CFCF 💌 📧 20:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF

For some reason wikipedia won't let me cite researchgate.com. It automatically converts it into a sciencedirect.com abstract.

User:doe1994

Yes, its seeing it as copyright violation. Use the pubmed ID instead. CFCF 💌 📧 20:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way you cited in Sex differences in intelligence is perfect:

A 2011 meta-analysis from 242 studies published between 1990 and 2007, representing the testing of 1,286,350 people found no overall gender difference in Mathematics performance. The meta-analysis also found that although there were no overall differences, a small gender difference favouring males in complex problem solving is still present in high school.^[1]

<ref>{{Cite journal|title = New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis|url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057475/|journal = Psychological bulletin|date = 2010-11-01|issn = 0033-2909|pmc = 3057475|pmid = 21038941|pages = 1123-1135|volume = 136|issue = 6|doi = 10.1037/a0021276|first = Sara M.|last = Lindberg|first2 = Janet Shibley|last2 = Hyde|first3 = Jennifer L.|last3 = Petersen|first4 = Marcia C.|last4 = Linn}}</ref>

References

^ Lindberg, Sara M.; Hyde, Janet Shibley; Petersen, Jennifer L.; Linn, Marcia C. (2010-11-01). "New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis". Psychological bulletin. 136 (6): 1123–1135. doi:10.1037/a0021276. ISSN 0033-2909. PMC 3057475. PMID 21038941.

CFCF 💌 📧 20:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF

I ran into a problem in the wiki article "Aggression"^[1]

In the section "gender", someone had edited in that past:

Many studies have found differences in the types of aggression used by males and females, at least in children and adolescents. Females between the ages of 10 and 14, around puberty age, show a more extreme rate of relational aggression compared to boys. These findings are true for Western society, but are not true of all cultures. In countries such as Kenya it has been found that young boys and girls have very similar rates of physical aggression^[2]

Yet it does not conform entirely with the study cited by the editor which had stated:

Boys reported being more physically aggressive than girls across all nine countries; no consistent gender differences emerged in relational aggression. Despite mean-level differences in relational and physical aggression across countries, the findings provided support for cross-country similarities in associations between relational and physical aggression as well as links between gender and aggression^[3]

So what should be done about this? Should I re-edit it to conform it to the source or leave it alone?

Doe1994 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)User:doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have better sources, especially when the old source is a primary source feel free to remove old content. CFCF 💌 📧 21:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

___

Reference errors on 3 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Neuroscience of sex differences page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About primary sources, and formatting

Doe1994, regarding this edit you made, keep in mind that primary sources are allowed. Review the WP:Primary sources policy again. It's just that we generally should not rely heavily on them, and should usually avoid them for medical/health content. WP:MEDDATE shows exceptions; as is clear by WP:MEDDATE, in some cases a medical topic is not heavily researched and so we may rely on primary sources more so for that topic.

Also make sure to keep MOS:HEAD in mind; lowercase for section titles. And make sure that you space between sentences; sometimes you don't.

On a side note: Thank you for improving as an editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the sex differences in intelligence page

User:Flyer22

I wanted to divide the Current Research section into subsections consisting of those in favor of male advantage in intelligence (Lynn and rushton) and those who are not (Colom, Flynn). Then I also wanted to add another subsection on the latest findings and theories of sex differences in intelligence (Johnson) because it is more sophisticated. I also want to distinguish between the different types of IQ tests because the page uses the word IQ too loosely for example not highlighting male advantage in IQ only on the WAIS and Raven's and not other types of test such as PMA, Woodcock and Catell's Culture fair. So as a result of these changes, the page will be easier to read and understand the trends on sex differences in the last decade and up till now. Wanted your opinion and advice on this:

Doe1994 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)user:doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC) your opinion and advice on this matter.[reply]

You divided the content. I don't see a problem with that, except that we use "and" instead of "&" for headings, unless the "&" is an official part of the title. Also keep in mind that, per MOS:Paragraphs, subheadings usually are not needed for a little bit of material. Too many headings can also make an article look significantly bigger than it is and therefore make it harder to navigate through from the table of contents. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neuroscience of sex differences, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frontal gyrus and Temporal gyrus (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) 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Doe1994, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Neuroscience of sex differences has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without 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.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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) 23:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Sex differences in intelligence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mechanical

Sex differences in psychology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caring

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any tips on how I can de-orphan an article?

User:Flyer22 I have already added a lot of links at the bottom of my wiki articles. But the "this page is an orphan" notice still pops up. What can I do more (aside from linking it with similar articles) to de-orphan them?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Ping didn't work; you have link my full name (Flyer22 Reborn) for it to work. That stated, I have your user page/talk page on my WP:Watchlist; so there is no need to ping me to your talk page. I just noticed you because of this edit; I see that you changed your username.

As for how to de-oprhan articles, see WP:Orphan, and especially the WP:CANTDEORPHAN part of it. Linking to related articles and removing the "orphaned" tag is usually all it takes to fix the problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flyer22

I solved the orphan issue so thanks anyway

Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the name of an article?

User:Flyer22

I misspelled the title of one of my articles by mistake. How do I change it's name?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK-nomination

Hey, I wanted to let you know that your article Sex differences in cognition passes the requirements for WP:DYK. Running it through that process will allow it to be featured on the Main page. CFCF 💌 📧 00:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF

How do I create the "Did you know" template and what do I do after?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:DYKN and follow the instructions there. Good luck! CFCF 💌 📧 00:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Your addition to Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Any further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Diannaa

Removing copyright source. Restoring my deleted edits (Except for the copyright materal).

Shootingstar88 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 19:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Shootingstar88 (talk)[reply]

You have restored copyright material copied from http://cjwolfe.com/MSCEIT%20Resource%20Report.pdf. We don't have the right to display that material here, whether you cite it as a source or not. I think you have misunderstood how copyright works. Please stop. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Diannaa

So can I restore it after I get permission? I personally know both David Caruso and John Mayers who are the authors of that material. I will contact them, screenshot our exchange here and then can I restore the page?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the owners of the copyright material wish to donate it to Wikipedia under license, they will have to contact the OTRS team via email and get an OTRS ticket in place on the article. Instructions as to how they can do this are at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa

Why can't I just screenshot our conversation and his email through hotmail and copy/paste it here as evidence?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a screen shot on a user talk page does not give a good permanent record of the donation. The permission email has to be sent by the copyright holder directly to the OTRS team, and they add an OTRS ticket to the donated copyright material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Sex differences in emotional intelligence

User:Charlotte

Revert back the changes. That is not what the current literature on emotional intelligence is. There is only two tests of EI and they are MSCEIT and TIE. Women outperform men on both both as indicated by the latest meta-analysis at the bottom section of the page. Here is current meta-analytic literature on gender and emotional intelligence:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41087511_Emotional_Intelligence_An_Integrative_Meta-Analysis_and_Cascading_Model

Also take note that the page is based on ability tests. So self-reporting assessments are not included. Women outperform men on both but I excluded the self-reporting because it is not accurate. Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar88, you might need to ask Mark Arsten (the editor who imposed Charlotte135's domestic violence topic ban) about Charlotte135 (talk · contribs)'s behavior. From what I see, Charlotte135 is following you to articles, and this can be a form of WP:Hounding. Charlotte135 has gone from one field (domestic violence) where gender differences are strongly noted and/or debated to other fields where gender differences are strongly noted and/or debated, and is not sticking to the literature with WP:Due weight. This type of thing is why I requested some sort of WP:MRMPS (probation enforcement) for Charlotte135. Although Charlotte135 has repeatedly rejected claims of being a men's rights editor, all of those articles are of interest to men's rights editors. A ban from gender topics can be imposed on Charlotte135 in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flyer22 Reborn

Wow, I didn't think Charlotte was a men's right activist until I clicked on your link. When I saw him linking this http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm, I knew for a fact he was MRA (most popular MRA reference for DV). This guy is trouble. Admin need to keep an eye on him.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley or Guerillero, two administrators who weighed in on the topic ban discussion, might be willing to help too. You need to be careful to stick to the sources with due weight, do what Diannaa advised you to do above, and don't WP:Edit war. Well, you can get away with one or two reverts. But it's best to stop after one revert and then make your case on the talk page. You can also seek a form of WP:Dispute resolution. If the matter becomes a case you feel you need to report at WP:ANI, you can ask me for help in assisting you with that. You can also ask me for help on other matters. It's best that Charlotte135 and I avoid each other, though; we are like oil and water. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello shootingstar. The appropriate steps to take if you disagree with another editor is to comment on the talk page of the article. Or and please feel welcome in future, comment on my talk page. I am more than open discussing your editing with you and my edits with you. Why Flyer22 has become involved is perplexing? And I wish no discourse with Flyer22reborn. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't personally attack me by bringing up an irrelevant matter. I don't appreciate it. Let's discuss. But do it formally. Thank you and I look forward to working with you constructively, respectfully and in good faith.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to flyer. Why would I be following shooting star?? Makes no sense. I have never had any involvement on any article with shooting star! Period. I have expertise in psychometrics Flyer. Full stop.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charlotte135

As long as you know the differences between primary studies, meta-analysis and reviews. On the sex difference in emotional intelligence page, you would find that I cited the latest meta-analysis on emotional intelligence (tens and tens of studies) which suggests greater female EI (Joseph & Newman 2010) as well as three meta-analysis of sex differences in reading body language, processing emotions and reading of the mind empathy tests which all amounts to hundreds of studies. Based on hundreds and hundreds of studies analyzed by the authors of these secondary sources, the literature suggests women have greater EI. Hence that is what I put on the wikipage, just so you now know.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Respectfully would you kindly take this to the article talk page. I say that so all editors in the community have an opportunity to discuss. thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way shootingstar I'm a woman, not a guy. Show some RESPECT would you please!Charlotte135 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a pattern here. Charlotte135, you are editing articles in a single-topic area in a manner that is closely tracking an editor with a lot more history in this area. I suggest that you stop. Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Charlotte135 as to why I became involved, look higher up on the talk page; I've been in contact with Shootingstar88, and we've edited some of the same articles (including the Sex differences in intelligence article). You knew that. You saw Shootingstar88 editing domestic violence articles, and you even complained about Shootingstar88 editing the Intimate partner violence article. You stated, "Disturbingly though, while this witch hunt goes on and on, much to the pleasure of Flyer22reborn and her colleagues, editors are quietly continuing to quickly delete significant sections of the intimate partner violence section, basically in an attempt to convey to readers that men are the only perpetrators of IPV and women the victims. As anyone here can obviously see that is just not what the science says! Is this what Wikipedia represents? I'm a woman, but I'm also a scientist, and it is clear that the frantic additions to support a topic ban above, is about this censorship and agenda on Wikipedia and it appears."

You recently started following Shootingstar88; anyone with common sense can see that. And when I report you at WP:ANI for WP:Hounding and more disruptive editing in the gender field, others will see it as well. And by the way, I don't believe anything you state about being a scientist, or what you state now about having expertise in psychometrics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar88, per WP:Talk, I removed this section (followup edit here) because it was off-topic and had diverged into a back and forth argument between me and Charlotte135 about Charlotte135 hounding you and Charlotte135's claims to the contrary. I gave Charlotte135 ample warning in that section. If I see Charlotte135 continuing to hound you and/or edit disruptively on gender topics or gender aspects, as in this case you had to revert, I will report Charlotte135 at WP:ANI. Or you can report Charlotte135 there and WP:Ping me (remember to type my full username of "Flyer22 Reborn," not just "Flyer22"; otherwise, I won't get the ping). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full transcript [1] that Flyer22reborn took it upon themselves to remove (authority?) with all the personal attacks, assumptions, baseless accusations, intimidatory and bullying techniques, and inaccuracies. I would and can clearly defend my recent editing so if you wish to take it to ANI for scrutiny and possible boomerang and your own editing, and possible POV also scrutinized by the community please, do so. Otherwise stop the childish nonsense Flyer22. I'm over it with you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telling the truth is not engaging in personal attacks. You can keep thinking that people are so stupid that they cannot recognize the pattern of your editing, but, as the aforementioned topic ban discussion shows, they are not. People are not so stupid that they cannot see that you have been following Shootingstar88 and why you have been doing so; the motive (your own commentary about what type of editor you pegged Shootingstar88 for) is clear. Denying it makes you look bad and ignorant of other people's intelligence. The stalking pattern will be analyzed by editors should I report you, likely with one of the analyzer tools as well. There will be no WP:BOOMERANG should I decide to report you if I see more asinine edits like this, and you popping up at more articles that Shootingstar88 edits. I will carefully present my case, just like that last time. In the meantime, like I told you, feel free to report me for my supposed "personal attacks, assumptions, baseless accusations, intimidatory and bullying techniques, and inaccuracies" towards you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there was no need for you to link to "the full transcript" since I already had; it's the same exact link. I have nothing to hide when it comes to what I stated in that discussion. I will indeed link to it should I report you again at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So be it. On that report I will note Shootingstar's entire editing history, your POV, and any other factors. Please do read my own talk page though first Flyer22 and the only reason I corrected Shootingstar's 3 recently created articles and the actual diffs I have made. Because as far as I can see you are accusing me of gender editing??? How exactly, what edits, exactly?? I have made grammatical, spelling neutral tone etc edits only. Not gender edits!!!! I have learnt your tricks to discredit other editors. When you point out my history I will carefully and meticulously line up ALL of the huge number of occasions YOU have been dragged to ANI since you joined Wikipedia by now Flyer including all of your sockpuppetry. At some point, and after your long, long history of being the subject of ANI incidents, the boomerang effect may just come back and bite you on the bum. Time will tell. This time I will defend myself vigorously, believe me. Shootingstar's own editing history will also be scrutinized remember. So be it.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated, feel free. Most times editors have dragged...or tried to drag...me to WP:ANI, they've gotten a WP:BOOMERANG or close to it. Editors can obviously check all of the times I've been to WP:ANI and what for, and they will at no point see that the threads were consistently closed with the conclusion that Flyer22 is WP:Disruptive; they will see that those threads usually concerned disruptive editors that Flyer22 had to put up with. Unlike you, experienced Wikipedians know how to do their homework on matters. For example, I already told you that I was cleared of the sockpuppet cases; my block log has clear statements about that (only those with poor comprehension skills fail to notice it); I was unblocked by the WP:CheckUser who blocked me. Just about all of what you state there about me will be irrelevant. Not to mention...inaccurate. No gender edits, you state? This is a gender edit, and it was wrong; you keep ignoring that, but it's a shining example of the type of biased, unable-to-adhere-to-the-literature editing you engage in. Shootingstar88 is heavily involved in editing articles about sex/gender differences or aspects relating to that. You previously badmouthed the editor. You've been following the editor. Easy to see. You defended yourself vigorously in the previous WP:ANI thread I started on you, believe me. Didn't work then; won't work in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. Is this edit [2] what this all over??? I have been scratching my head wondering what you are talking about bringing gender into the equation. Oh, my goodness. Look at my edits Flyer22. You and anyone will clearly see that shootingstar in the articles they have recently created and articles they have edited, has a tendency to use non neutral tone. Significantly so. I have pulled them up on it. Corrected it. And I think we have moved on. But you have not. That is my point. YOU are hounding me! Go away please. If you do report me based on me simply correcting non neutral tone based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch remember this, yours and Shootingstar's work will be on show! Or maybe, just maybe back down, take a deep breath, and drop the childish threats and then, go, away! Please! Up to you.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a neutral tone; that is undermining the literature. Many of your other recent edits leave much to be desired. You can deny, deny, deny all you want and assert, assert, assert all you want that I am hounding you or otherwise treating you unfairly; it never works. So do cease and desist from such silly claims. As for going away, you wanted me to go away in this discussion; I did, per what I stated above. You then decided to come here to this talk page and rant with more silliness and denials. You cannot ban me from another editor's talk page. I already told you, "since Shootingstar88 is very much still learning the ropes of Wikipedia and I've been mentoring him (or her), it would not be wise for me to leave that mentoring job up to you." I've been at this talk page all along, and have been mentoring Shootingstar88; he (or she) has significantly improved as an editor, unlike certain others. And you are the last person this editor needs fouling up their edits. But do feel free to make your grammar corrections and edits based on WP:Words to watch. Just take note that it's a guideline, not a policy, and states at the very top, partly in bold, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Also keep in mind everything I stated above; I know I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me with all of the diffs indicating which of my "other recent edits leave much to be desired" ? That's very insulting Flyer22! Surely you could provide them here so I can improve my own editing (if needed). I'm open to constructive criticism. That's what adults do Flyer22. And by the way is there any other edits whatsoever which show me editing in any gender biased manner, in any way possible??Charlotte135 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to write to me on my own talk page instead. This is another editor's talk page. Also given you doubt my vocation, would you like me to send you my list of journal publications and CV? Again, how insulting! Your personal attacks don't stop. Diffs please either way?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick question I forgot to ask shootingstar earlier and was missed in translation and all this nonsense. Both of you stated "There is only two tests of EI and they are MSCEIT and TIE" Have I heard you both correctly? That is, do you both truly believe there are only 2 published psych tests for EI? Keen to hear from both of you on that question please. And the diffs please Flyer22 rebvorn.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Charlotte135

Yes there are only two ability tests for EI. All other tests or inventories are based on self-reporting.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Since I dislike when Charlotte135 misrepresents me, I'll go ahead and relay that I did not state "There is only two tests of EI and they are MSCEIT and TIE." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you have no actual diffs, apart from the single one above Flyer22reborn? That one single diff you presented is what you believe I should be banned from all gender topics for!! What a joke! What a bully hiding behind a computer screen, especially with your very long history of sockpuppetry and blocks! Even though you said it was your brother in your parents place, not you, I'm not so sure. And you have the nerve to bring my recent history on one single topic where you and your gang successfully got me banned for trying to present what the scientific empirical research unequivocally showsLeave me the hell alone, and take your baseless claims and utter crud elsewhere. As I said earlier, if you would like a copy of my published journal articles, resume and birth certificate proving my gender and my credentials as a respected scientist, please, just let me know! Why don't you stop threatening other good faith editors on Wikipedia that challenge your agendas, and get on with editing and show some RESPECT.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charlotte135

I'm sorry but stop lying. You're not a scientist, or else you would have know the differences between different studies such as reviews and meta-analysis. Secondly, your "empirical research" on domestic violence that you linked is NOT from a journal. it is from a controversial university professor's site and therefore not peer reviewed through an editorial board. Thirdly, some of those studies were from the 80s and 90s and therefore used the old Conflict tactics scale 1 and not the new Conflict tactics scales 2 that actually contextualizes DV. The fact that you cited that link tells me you are a Men's rights activist because they are known to cite that link and is even found on their controversial AVoiceformen's website.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest discussing this very specific topic of domestic violence and intimate partner violence, and won't engage. Sorry. You obviously have a passion for it though based on all your edits. Which is great.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think you meant to say ....systematic review and meta-analysis. Just a note. It's a common mistake first uni and school students sometimes make too.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Shootingstar88. I was alerted via email that Charlotte135 is also telling all sorts of falsehoods at the Charlotte135 talk page to Biscuittin, who appears to believing Charlotte135's every word. Oh well.

And, Charlotte135, I couldn't care less what you think about my block log, since you continue to misrepresent it...either out of bias or because you have some problem reading the edit summaries there in the block log. If you think that's a long history of blocks, goodness knows what you would think in the case of an editor who actually has a long history of blocks. But you are more than free to ask checkuser Alison about my sockpuppet blocks; she is the one who had the discussion via Skype with me and my brother about what went on. Alison also thoroughly checked other matters to firmly conclude that I was not socking. If you don't believe her or think I fooled her somehow, oh well. But you would be mistaken. Continue to try and deflect by bringing up my history; I'll ignore you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flyer22 and shootingstar. Your "I was alerted via email......" comment Flyer22, is rather interesting. Who, I wonder, alerted you to that? Would you care to name the person? Perhaps Biscuittin may be interested too for a number of reasons.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am interested. Biscuittin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason= User:DiannaaWhat??? What did I even get blocked for!?? Shootingstar88 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

You introduced into Sex differences in crime material copied word-for-word from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255579144_Are_Girls_More_Violent_Today_than_a_Generation_Ago_Probably_Not. This happened after warnings were issued to you on December 19 and January 17. On January 17, I specified it was your final warning. — Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason= User:Diannaa

Noo I did NOT. This is exactly what I wrote: However the increase is not due to rise in women's violence, but net-widening policy shifts that charged physical attacks with marginal seriousness.

This was this study's original quote below

However, UCR police counts show a sharp rise in female-to-male arrests for criminal assault during the past decade or so but that rise is not borne out in NCVS counts based on victims’ reports and in MTF counts based on self-reported violent offending. Net-widening policy shifts (e.g., policing physical attacks/threats of marginal seriousness that girls in relative terms are more likely to commit) and more gender-neutral enforcement have apparently escalated the arrest proneness of adolescent females for “criminal assault https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255579144_Are_Girls_More_Violent_Today_than_a_Generation_Ago_Probably_Not

How on EARTH IS THIS WORD FOR WORD???

Shootingstar88 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

See below, material that is identical is marked in bold.

Your text:

However the increase is not due to rise in women's violence, but net-widening policy shifts that charged physical attacks with marginal seriousness

Source:

Net-widening policy shifts (e.g., policing physical attacks/threats of marginal seriousness

Please read our copyright policy Wikipedia:Copyright violations and the guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Shootingstar88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Diannaa Aw come on you're seriously going to ban me for three identical words? You could have just told me to change them. It's three words! How long am I ban for anyway? Shootingstar88 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am unblocking your account, because you confirm you now have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to abide by it in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just needs some solid mentoring

Diannaa, from what I see, Shootingstar88 simply needs some solid mentoring in this regard. Moonriddengirl, the main go-to-person on copyright violation or plagiarism violation matters, can help if she's not too busy. She has been clear that it can be tricky trying to summarize material so that there is no copyright violation or plagiarism violation; this is why the WP:Close paraphrasing essay states, "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding 'John Smith wrote ...,' together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph.", and has the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrase permitted? section. Moonriddengirl has worked extensively on that essay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22reborn, this editor was warned repeatedly, from what I can see, and continued without a care in the world. You should have stopped them yourself rather turn around and have a go at Dianna and their fair judgement call. It is not as if shootingstar did not know what they were doing, as you are trying to make out! Why do you and your friends think there is one set of rules here on Wikipedia for some, and not others. This type of bias needs to be stamped out. That is a rhetorical question by the way, and I do not wish to engage with you in any way on this. I know you will turn around and personally attack me for saying this, but please, for once focus on you and your friend shootingstar and the fact that they were warned repeatedly and unambiguously and chose to continue, with impunity.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte135, you, of all people, should not be gravedancing here. You are one of the people who is disrupting any number of articles with a tendentious-defended POV. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw. Not gravedancing. This needs to be said. True to form you or Flyer22reborn or Gandydancer jumps right in and bullies me and tries to intimidate me personally, instead. Which is what bullies do. This bullying and type of systemic bias needs to stop. Flyer22reborn is so obviously trying to use their influence with other editors and administrators and placing pressure on Dianna for making what I think anyone fair minded would agree was a fair call. My points are fair too. Stop bullying me Montanabw, Flyer22reborn and Gandydancer!Charlotte135 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone here is bullying it is you Charlotte135—the fact that you followed Shootingstar88 around between articles is enough to show that. CFCF 💌 📧 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I am conducting a campaign against bullying on Wikipedia and I support what Charlotte135 says. Biscuittin (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Biscuittin. I forgot to add CFCF who has bullied me beforte too and is a key member of Flyer22reborn's gang. Another term for this type of bullying is mobbing. What they are all trying to use here are classic bullying tactics. Trying to discredit me to take the focus away from what I am actually saying.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte135, this section was not for you to weigh in on. And it's easy to see that Shootingstar88 would rather you not comment at this talk page. I am not interested in your mischaracterizations and falsehoods, such as the ludicrous claim that I was having a "go at Dianna." I am not interested in those you can actually fool into believing that you are being bullied because various well-respected editors have prevented, or tried to prevent, your disruptive editing. Shootingstar88 is a valuable newbie who needs guidance. A newbie who you want to stay indefinitely blocked so that you can more freely continue your disruptive editing, and so that there is no one adding accurate literature to all these gender topics you are so concerned with. Above, I advised Shootingstar88 to listen to Dianna. From what I see, Shootingstar88 tried to do so. I am waiting for Moonriddengirl to weigh in, and I'm sure others are as well. If another section is needed just for that, and to get Moonriddengirl's commentary away from your silliness, that will be done. Or better yet, the above bickering you caused in this subsection will be WP:Hatted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa

How long am I blocked for?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar88, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. The short answer to your question is that you can successfully appeal a block once you exhibit an understanding of the reason you were blocked and agree not to do that any more -- and are believed to be sincere by those reviewing your request. So far, your appeals above don't indicate that you understand the policies. It is rough, but the problem is that you made a newcomer's mistake, but then kept making it after warnings. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa User:Montanabw

Oh..I didn't know that was procedure. Very well, I understand that even copying three notable words from a source is considered plagiarism. I apologize and thank you for clarifying, I won't do it again.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read our copyright policy Wikipedia:Copyright violations and the guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism, that you understand their contents, and intend to abide by these policies in the future. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa

Yes I confirm.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unblocking your account, because you confirm you now have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to abide by it in the future. Any further copyright violations will result in your account being re-blocked. If that happens, it's highly unlikely that you will be unblocked a second time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

Shootingstar88, please do not speculate on another editor's gender, race, religion, nationality or basically, any personally identifiable information that they themselves haven't disclosed. If you have evidence of misconduct, please bring it to an admin or noticeboard or, if warranted, email the information to ArbCom. But WP:OUTING is one of the policies taken most seriously on Wikipedia and attempts to discern the real-life identity of an editor will be met with consequences. I'm hoping that this was an idle comment and that you will move on to less confrontational editing. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Liz

Yeah sorry about that, won't happen again.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shootingstar88. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted Shootinstar88. I hope I never, ever have to explain myself and my real world persona again, from any editor. Lessons learnt. Lets just try and work together on common articles in future without the personal attacks. I will also remain civil and respectful toward you and your friends. You are obviously extremely passionate about these gender articles you work on, which is great! I just don't share the passion that's all and only focus on what the empirical research says. Anyway as I said apology accepted. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, given that I'm reading your definition of WP:Outing as a broad definition that I don't usually see, and Shootingstar88 is no doubt reading it just as broadly, I think it would help Shootingstar88 if you gave better context for how you view that policy. For example, on Wikipedia, I've been called a feminist (an identity I do not identify with), usually by men's rights editors who do not like the fact that I am adhering to the literature with WP:Due weight, and editors have assumed/speculated that I'm heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or asexual...depending on the topic I'm editing. But I wouldn't call any of that outing. It's also common for editors at WP:AN or WP:ANI to call editors a certain type of editor or imply that they are a certain type of editor, as reflected by MarkBernstein's comment. It seems you were originally going to address Shootinstar88 for civility issues, but that you decided to focus on outing issues because of what one editor stated in the aforementioned WP:AN thread. I read Shootingstar88's debated comment as a civility issue and not as an outing issue. But, again, it seems we have different definitions of outing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was this assertion by Shootingstar88 that Charlotte135 was a men's right activist masquerading as a woman. At first I judged it to be a civility offense based on this policy comment, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. (Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?). I changed it from civility to outing based on the phrasing of the statement.

But the may is important here. I viewed Shootingstar88's comment to be an assertion about the real-life identity of the editor but not strictly outing since no personally identifiable information (real name, location, occupation, photo, etc.) was posted. Hence, my comment was a warning, to discourage pursuing this line of inquiry, not a block for outing.

I'll admit that this can be a gray area, especially if the complaints involve concerns about conflict of interest editing. This is why I encouraged Shootingstar88 that if they had a evidence of misconduct, they should take their complaint to the appropriate noticeboard or to ArbCom if it involved privacy concerns.

If you believe that comments directed toward you involved speculating about your real life identity, I think you should file a complaint on WP:ANI or bring them to the attention of an admin if you do not what to draw attention to the remarks. I hope these comments address your concerns and I also accept that another administrator might have had a different response to complaint on WP:AN than my own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thanks for taking the time to explain. I understand how you arrived at your viewpoint on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Also, we've been through this type of stuff with other editors. Editors can identify however they want to, it's the edits that count. It doesn't matter if the editor is a male or a female if they are pushing a fringe MRA POV. Or if they are female or male making great edits to help the project. There are male feminists, and female Nazis. But if other editors make sexual identity accusations against other editors, it takes away from the editing issues and becomes personal. Dave Dial (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Shootingstar88. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

And feel free to email me any time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too-close paraphrasing

Hi Shootingstar88. As you may recall, I have been monitoring your contributions and found some examples where I believe you could have done a better job of paraphrasing the material. In particular, material in this diff and this diff needs to be more thoroughly paraphrased, as the content you added is almost identical to the source material. Please do this right away. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that other editors have removed these additions. Please however take to heart the fact that your paraphrasing was not adequate, and you will be locked if such violations of our copyright policy continues. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

Hello, Shootingstar88. :) User:Flyer22 Reborn asked me to stop by and have a word with you about close paraphrasing, so I just wanted to offer some input. I admit I have not read your talk page due to my current time limitations. I also noted that the dates are several weeks ago, and I don't want to assume that you would need the same kind of input that might have been helpful in the past. I'm just going to share some high level thoughts, and you can let me know if you have questions or if I can expand on anything.

As a general rule, people run afoul of paraphrasing issues when they work in good faith to put content into their own words but simply don't alter their source enough. Creativity in a source can exist in many dimensions - most people realize that creativity exists in language, but not everyone realizes that creativity may also exist in which facts are chosen for presentation and in what order they are presented. For this reason, it can be very, very difficult to properly paraphrase if you try to draw too much information from a single source or if you try to follow lock-step in the order of the information in a given source. The best practice is generally to read several sources, draw information from each, and synthesize them into your own presentation. Where you must draw from a single source, you need to think about whether the information is presented in a non-creative fashion (that is, are they the same details that anyone would present when writing about the same subject, in the same order?) or whether, to avoid closely paraphrasing, you need to more narrowly summarize the information - omitting some details. Too closely paraphrasing your source can be a copyright infringement, if you wind up taking substantially from your source. There's no hard definition of what that means, I'm afraid - it's not a word count or a size. Substantial similarity can happen if you take just a little bit, but what you take is the heart of the source.

In terms of the US law (as I understand it - IANAL), quotation marks and attribution don't make much difference in copyright terms, but in the issue of plagiarism they do. (And in some countries, they might.) To avoid plagiarism, if for some reason you need to follow the language in your source, your best bet is to just quote that passage. (To avoid copyright infringement, keep your quotations brief and use them for good reason - transformatively. Some people quote because they want to share the information - that's not a good reason in itself. There should be some reason why the original words are the ones you need to use.) To avoid plagiarism, you can also sometimes follow more closely on your source in a brief passage if you name your source in the text, with an indirect quotation: "According to historian John Smith...." But that shouldn't be done if what you're doing is actually quoting. In that case, quotation marks are essential. :) I wouldn't do that if I were taking more than a few consecutive words from a source, and I wouldn't do it if those few consecutive words were an "apt phrase" - a particularly appropriate or striking way to describe something.

I've always found that Purdue describes how to avoid close paraphrasing pretty well. I hope that, and the information above, is helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Moonriddengirl

No problem. Thanks.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

I have removed your addition to Rape that was copied from here. One part of the sentence had the order flipped but the wording is almost identical.
Copying material within Wikipedia requires attribution. This is required by the terms on the CC-by-SA license. The way to do this is (at a minimum) to say in your edit summary where you copied the material from. Please see this edit summary for an example of how it is done. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
Material was copied from Aristotle's views on women to Misogyny without providing attribution. Some of the material you copied over was copied from this book, which was published in 1999. I have removed it from both articles.
Material in Rape on the topic rape in wartime was copied from somewhere too, but I didn't investigate further as your addition has already been removed from another editor. — Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Material in Wartime sexual violence was copied from Rape during the occupation of Germany without providing the legally required attribution, which was already explained to you several hours ago. Did you not understand that this is a copyright violation and a violation of the terms of use of this website? Please clarify why you failed to do this. Continuing on your present course will result in you being re-blocked. — Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Diannaa

Oh I apologize I honestly thought you can copy text from one wikipedia article to another since they are all owned by wikipedia. I also didn't notice this comment until now.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar88, Diannaa means that when you copy content from one article to another article, you should note in a WP:Edit summary that you are copying the content from another article. That is, unless you are the author of the text you are copying; see WP:NOATT. I recently gave attribution to another article when it concerned copying material to the Lexa (The 100) article; see my edit summary with this link (at the top in pink). Unless you are copying content that you wrote, you should be giving attribution in an edit summary. From what I've seen on Wikipedia for years, the vast majority of editors do not give attribution for what they've copied from another Wikipedia article; the vast majority of editors do not know about the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. But you can do better, and you are being monitored by Diannaa; so you must do better to avoid being blocked. And do what you can to avoid close paraphrasing unless there is no way to uniquely reword the text. By that, I mean that Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism states, "Plagiarism is not a concern where the content lacks creativity." It then goes on to list examples. And Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing states, "Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact." As you've seen, Moonriddengirl tried to help you on this above. If you think that any of your cases of close paraphrasing are allowed per what the aforementioned plagiarism guideline and the close paraphrasing essay state, you need to make that clear to Diannaa in this section so that she can assess whether or not you are trying to heed her warnings and so she or others can guide you in the right direction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Flyer22 Reborn

Yeah I apologize for that. Is copying my own edits over pages against policy as well?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood. Copying within Wikipedia is not against policy; it is permitted, but it requires proper attribution. This is a requirement of the CC-by-SA license. What you have to do (at a minimum) is say in your edit summary what article you copied the material from. Here is a sample edit summary. When copying your own prose, attribution is not required, but it's still a good idea, so that patrolling admins will know where you got the material and will not have to hunt through the history of the source article to find out who wrote it. — Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar88, you asking "Is copying my own edits over pages against policy as well?" makes me think that you didn't fully grasp what I stated above; I clearly stated, "Unless you are copying content that you wrote, you should be giving attribution in an edit summary." Notice "unless," meaning that you copying yourself without attribution is fine. I pointed to WP:NOATT for more information on that. But like Diannaa just told you above, it's still a good idea to note that you are copying yourself via an edit summary "so that patrolling admins will know where you got the material and will not have to hunt through the history of the source article to find out who wrote it." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Rape against females

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rape against females. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rape. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rape – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. In veritas (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shootingstar88, there is no need for a Rape against females article, since the vast majority of the rape literature focuses on females. This is why the Rape of males article exists; for where this was previously discussed, see this section at Talk:Rape by gender. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, I also stated that this matter is similar to the Bodybuilding article mostly focusing on males because the literature on bodybuilding mostly does, and there being a Female bodybuilding article to specifically discuss female bodybuilders. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flyer22 Reborn

Oh alright. In that case, you can delete the article.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete the article; I'm not an administrator. You have to note on that article talk page that you now agree with deleting the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it there for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hi,

I noticed that you added two wikilinks to FBI when you edited Rape. It's generally not necessary to add multiple links to the same target in an article, and probably not the same section. I've removed one if you don't mind. Happy editing! Me, Myself & I (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Diannaa

Which article did I copy text into without verifying permission??

Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you because some of the content you added to Misogyny was copied directly from the book The Specter of Sex: Gendered Foundations of Racial Formation in the United States. For example the material on Kant was copied from page 25. This demonstrates that you still do not understand copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Diannaa

Book: ...Man had right and duty to protect the "weaker" sex and woman had the right to man's protection.

My edit: Although women had the right for receive protection from men and men the duty to protect women....

Book: He granted women to be in charge of the household but spared her the weighty judgments for which was ill-equipped by declaring men to be in charge of running the world.

My edit: Kant argued women's role to primarily be in the household and men in charge of running the world

Book: According to Kant, only white men had the intellectual and moral capacity for political and leadership roles.

My edit:Immanuel Kant declared that only white men had enough moral and capable intellect for leadership roles such as in politics

Is it really that similar? And I thought plagiarism only applied to creative texts and not common use of grammar like this?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shootingstar88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits were not the same as that from the book. For example:Book: ...Man had right and duty to protect the "weaker" sex and woman had the right to man's protection. My edit: Although women had the right for receive protection from men and men the duty to protect women.... Book: He granted women to be in charge of the household but spared her the weighty judgments for which was ill-equipped by declaring men to be in charge of running the world. My edit: Kant argued women's role to primarily be in the household and men in charge of running the world Book: According to Kant, only white men had the intellectual and moral capacity for political and leadership roles. My edit:Immanuel Kant declared that only white men had enough moral and capable intellect for leadership roles such as in politics Shootingstar88 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are further demonstrating that you don't understand how copyright law works. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Shootingstar88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok so I went over the copyright policies and understand that even slight similarities of "creative authorship" can be considered copyright violations. I apologize.I keep messing up because it's very hard sometimes to judge whether a writing is creative or not in order to risk being blocked for copyright infringement. I will try my best not to do it again and use as many different vocabulary as possible to re-word my edits. So is it possible to get unblocked again? Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Ok so I went over the copyright policies and understand that even slight similarities of "creative authorship" can be considered copyright violations. I apologize.I keep messing up because it's very hard sometimes to judge whether a writing is creative or not in order to risk being blocked for copyright infringement. I will try my best not to do it again and use as many different vocabulary as possible to re-word my edits. So is it possible to get unblocked again? [[User:Shootingstar88|Shootingstar88]] ([[User talk:Shootingstar88#top|talk]]) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Ok so I went over the copyright policies and understand that even slight similarities of "creative authorship" can be considered copyright violations. I apologize.I keep messing up because it's very hard sometimes to judge whether a writing is creative or not in order to risk being blocked for copyright infringement. I will try my best not to do it again and use as many different vocabulary as possible to re-word my edits. So is it possible to get unblocked again? [[User:Shootingstar88|Shootingstar88]] ([[User talk:Shootingstar88#top|talk]]) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Ok so I went over the copyright policies and understand that even slight similarities of "creative authorship" can be considered copyright violations. I apologize.I keep messing up because it's very hard sometimes to judge whether a writing is creative or not in order to risk being blocked for copyright infringement. I will try my best not to do it again and use as many different vocabulary as possible to re-word my edits. So is it possible to get unblocked again? [[User:Shootingstar88|Shootingstar88]] ([[User talk:Shootingstar88#top|talk]]) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Comment: Diannaa and Ohnoitsjamie, looking at the comparison between the texts above, I see a genuine effort on Shootingstar88's part to avoid copyright and plagiarism violations. It's certainly better than Shootingstar88's previous efforts. Furthermore, I commonly see Wikipedia editors (including the experienced types) reword such text in those ways. How does Shootingstar88's rewording not fall under Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing? Moonriddengirl, any opinion on the text comparisons? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa

I know I made a mistake, but you gotta understand that I'm one of only genuine people who contribute vast amount of literature and information to wikipedia. I'm willing to mend my ways and get back to work.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you understand why your edits are unacceptable. Your first unblock request says that I am the one who made a mistake, even though your own examples are loaded with copyvio, presenting the same ideas in the same order, and using practically identical terminology, as the source material. Edits like this one are very concerning, though the source is inaccessible to me, as it looks to me like the copyright holder's intellectual property is being presented in Wikipedia's voice. That's plagiarism for sure and I have no way of checking for copy vio. I don't think you should be unblocked. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Diannaa

Which source is inaccessible?

Also some material is hard to write it in any other way and hence they resemble some similarity. Now I understand that wikipedia is like super super touchy about even the slightest form of similarity or resemblance even though you can probably get away with these kinds of stuff in college.

My own examples are of what I considered "non-creative" material. I didn't think you would interpret those material out of the book as creative. Like for example, I couldn't think of any other way to word "He granted women to be in charge of the household" other than "Kant argued women's role to be primarily in the household". Because that's what many of Kant's specific quotes were about. It's hard to word it any other way. I guess in the future I would simply not add any such material if I can't find any alternative methods of expressing it through a different version with no hints of similarity.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block review, advice and other commentary

Shootingstar88, do you want me to request a review of Diannaa's latest block for you at WP:AN or WP:ANI? This way, more opinions (by administrators and non-administrators) will be given on the matter. If the community does not generally agree that your latest changes fall under Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing, you are unlikely to be unblocked. I see a review as your last chance of an unblock at this time. Otherwise, there is the WP:Standard offer deal, in which case you will have to wait six months. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Flyer22 Reborn

Yeah sure, that would be great.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The review is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review: Shootingstar88. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Diannaa

Ok so I'm trying to learn better ways to re-word certain material so it doesn't violate copyright policies. I made a new rewording of the Aristotle quote you had criticized earlier, would you mind checking if it would be good enough?

Original quote from the book: "...resulting from their lack of heat. He claimed that women's coldness transformed male embryos into females, thereby thwarting their development into the pure human type. To Aristotle, women were essentially misbegotten males, cursed by nature with lamentable physical and emotional deficiencies, and useful only for reproduction."

My new rewording: "According to Aristotle, women's bodies comprised of more coldness and less heat. He argued that the coldness of women's bodies stopped male embryos from growing into a full male and instead changed them into the female sex. As a result, he believed women were as quote "deformed males" who had inferior physical and emotional traits and were only suited for the sole purpose of reproduction"

What do you think? Would it still violate copyright policies?

By the way, why did you delete my pasted Rousseau quote on the Misogyny article page? I quoted it so it wouldn't violate any copyright policies.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, Drmies closed the discussion as consensus existing to endorse your block. What you can also see there is that not everyone viewed all of your edits as a copyright or plagiarism problem, and that a number of editors (such as Ivanvector and John) view you as a valuable or promising contributor and hope you can return. Personally, I think that, given the arguments in that section, there is a strong enough case to reduce the length of your block. That stated, there is nothing else that can be done now, except for you waiting six months and appealing your case then, per WP:Standard offer. Make sure that you do not WP:Sock in the meantime (so many editors are tempted to sock in cases like these). You'd be caught soon if you did, especially since I can easily recognize you. The only other thing I can do for you is agree to look after some or all of the articles you created or heavily worked on and ensure that certain POV-pushers do not use your block as a chance to dismantle and twist your work, and push a POV that is at odds with the literature; you know the main POV-pusher I am talking about in this regard. Whether one views you as a WP:SPA or not, you were doing things that needed to be done. I thank you for your time here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Flyer22 Reborn

Six months? I thought the block would be shortened?

Can't I just create a new account and start over with my edits? Or is my IP address blocked as well?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar88, your "5:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)" comment is an example of why it seems you do not listen well, at least as far as reading what has been stated to you goes. I just told you above: "Make sure that you do not WP:Sock in the meantime (so many editors are tempted to sock in cases like these). You'd be caught soon if you did, especially since I can easily recognize you." Did you not take the time to read WP:Sock? If you had, you would have seen that you cannot validly create a new account and start over with your edits. In this case, WP:Clean start does not apply to you. You are blocked; that block applies to you as a person, not just to this account. If you edit Wikipedia while this account is blocked, that is a form of WP:Block evasion and WP:Sockpuppetry. As for your block length being reduced, it seems that Drmies did not interpret the consensus that way. And no one proposed an exact time length to replace the indefinite block anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to learn Wikipedia, and I know that it is extremely unreasonable to read all the policies and guidelines. I think this block was very harsh and not at all in order, but I suggest you wait a few weeks (not necessarily 6 months) before appealing again. Also please do ping me when you chose to appeal, I believe you have done good edits and would support you if you prove you understand the policy sufficiently. Also Flyer22's latest comment includes some very important points, WP:Sock is an important policy and if you do evade a block your IP will be blocked with very little chance for appeal. CFCF 💌 📧 08:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that in this context, "indefinite" means "of no fixed duration". It does not mean "forever". In your case, you're blocked because of a good-faith misunderstanding of policy, unfortunately it is one that the community cannot yield on as it has legal ramifications, so the only choice we have right now is to prevent you from editing. If you can show that you understand the WP:COPYRIGHT policy and that you understand why your edits were problematic, and can demonstrate that your future edits will comply with the policy, then there's a good chance that your next block appeal will be successful. But you should discuss this and be sure that you understand before you use the unblock request template again, because it's considered disruptive to make frivolous unblock requests and you may have your talk page access revoked too. Unfortunately I can't help you much here as my own copyright knowledge is apparently weak, but I hope somebody takes the time.

Also, as Flyer22 said, do not try to edit around your block (what we call socking). People who sock rarely get unblocked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals and other commentary

Diannaa, I don't know the advantages of blocking anymore. Here's what I propose: you call the WMF (and Moonriddengirl) and they set up an online workshop on how to avoid plagiarism. Student passes, they're unblocked. Sorry, gotta run. Maybe more later. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, that Moonriddengirl is the go-to person on copyright and plagiarism issues is why I brought her into this; I was hoping that she could mentor Shootingstar88, but she noted that she does not have much time for mentoring these days. She provided what help she could in the #Close paraphrasing section above. The only other person I know of who might have the time and patience to mentor Shootingstar88 on copyright and plagiarism issues is SlimVirgin; she has worked on the WP:Plagiarism page as well. As seen in this discussion, she and I didn't fully agree on the "In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material." aspect, though.

If Diannaa is ever willing to unblock Shootingstar88, there is one other proposal I thought of soon after seeing CFCF's comment above hours ago: Shootingstar88 could post their text on the talk page of articles first and ping me or someone else to the talk page in question to compare the source's wording to Shootingstar88's wording to ensure that there are no copyright or plagiarism issues. I or someone else could reword the text beyond what Shootingstar88 offered, if Shootingstar88's rewording is not enough. Only after ensuring that the text is not a copyright or plagiarism violation would the text be added to the article. This would mean that Shootingstar88 would not be editing any articles, not until it's clear that Shootingstar88 has a good grasp on how to word text to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues. It would clearly require time and patience on my or others' parts to help Shootingstar88. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flyer22 Reborn, I'm going to use this website called Copyscape from now on, which is a tool that allows you to cross check plagiarism and similarity between two documents. Shootingstar88 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar, I hope you don't mind my editing your response some: layout is important and I got confused. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa, I don't want you or MRG to do any more work: I want the WMF to make a tutorial. They can buy one too, but I think they should prove they're good custodians of the money who have editing and writing expertise in-house. Holy shit, there's 230 working there? Can I just ping Heather (WMF) or Steven (WMF) and wait for things to happen? Drmies (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: When I suggested to MRG in 2015 that the Foundation should pay for someone to help clean up the enormous backlog at WP:CCI, she replied, in a nutshell, that the Foundation cannot get involved in editing content because it puts them in a bad position legally (Here is what she said). I think your idea of the Foundation getting involved in tutoring people might run into the same roadblocks. There are already some on-site information pages such as WP:Plagiarism, which has some useful material in the Further Reading section. Users with copyvio issues (including Shootingstar88, who rec'd it on Dec 19) are often recipients of {{uw-copyright-new}}, which offers a link to that page as well as ideas as to how to learn to edit Wikipedia in compliance with copyright law.

The way it stands right now, anyone who is unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright policy is in an untenable position, as we can't ignore violations, and have to block, or encourage the user to voluntarily leave the site and find another hobby. I personally cannot act as mentor or tutor, because once I begin to interact daily with the user, I am not longer in a position where I am able to block, because I am involved. As one of the only administrators working in copyvio, that's not a good option. — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I see. That's not what I had in mind, though--the WMF writing up a tutorial doesn't mean they're getting involved with content. Shootingstar, the ball is in your court. My suggestion is that you study this issue better than you have before, that you find some way to practice this, and that you can make an unblock request afterward in which you will show the knowledge you have attained. If I were you I'd browse around online to see if there are any tutorials out there. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Drmies, Yeah I'm going to use copyscape and "anti-plagirist" app to assist in all my edits from now. In addition I'm going to crosscheck each edit manually in comparison to it's reference to reduce similarities as much as possible.

I think I'm usually good with re-wording sources, but the last one which I got banned for was based on a small author analysis of a third party quote instead of a bigger one. I think if there was a bigger author analysis I could have had greater flexibility in re-wording it, so next time I'm going to make sure to get a bigger analysis over a small one.

If I absolutely have no other alternative to re-word it differently, I'll just quote the author in reference to his/her name and publication. Is that okay? Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's better to be safe than sorry, so yes. But I think you should practice--not here, but elsewhere, and then come back and file an unblock request. If you didn't understand it before, or if the perception was that you didn't, no one is going to accept that this would be different overnight. Patience. Go be a writer for a little bit, then come back. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the offer I made in my "17:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)" post above still stands; but as we can see, Diannaa has not accepted it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I don't want to get all ABBA here, but take a chance on me? I mean, on Flyer? Drmies (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Drmies. There is another issue, one that I will likely have to deal with. When I made this edit summary, this (which indicates anticipation for an immediate return after a topic ban) and this (which indicates an attempt to manipulate Diannaa) are the type of things I was referring to (I'd been alerted via email that a certain editor was clearly still watching this talk page like a hawk). Per the #Edit on Sex differences in emotional intelligence, #Just needs some solid mentoring and #Outing sections above, it should be clear that this particular editor who has been in conflict with Shootingstar88 needs to stay out of this. This particular editor, who cannot stop focusing on me, my supposed gang (consisting of CFCF, Montanabw, Gandydancer, and most recently Shootingstar88), and gender topics, not even if it meant saving a life, is correct that I will intervene if I see this particular editor going after Shootingstar88's edits. As should be clear from previous discussions about this particular editor, it is highly unlikely that this particular editor's concern is truly about protecting Wikipedia or an author's work. This particular editor wants all of Shootingstar88's edits gone for one reason, and one reason alone. And since that's the case, this particular editor should not underestimate my determination; if need be (meaning if there are actually any copyright and plagiarism violations), I will reword every piece of Shootingstar88's text. Diannaa has my promise on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, thank you very much for your generous offer to mentor Shootingstar88, and to work on cleaning up the copyright violations already present in the encyclopedia. I have placed in my sandbox a contribution survey, similar to what we use at WP:CCI. This survey lists over 600 edits to articles by Shootingstar88. They are organized from the most complex at the top to the simplest at the bottom. The ones that are at the bottom are the least likely to contain copyright violations and the ones at the top the most likely to do so. Each edit has to be examined for violations using the sources provided in the edit, along with potentially googling snatches of prose in unsourced passages to try to figure out whether or not a violation has occurred. I have done quite a bit of work at WP:CCI and estimate that cleaning all these edits would take (working several hours a day) anywhere from one to three months to complete (this diff alone, with its 39 citations, would likely take several days to review). Most of the source material is behind paywalls at places such as here or available free at ResearchGate, but accounts are only available to researchers who can provide an institutional email address. If you have access to these sources and are still interested in helping with the clean-up, we can ask user:MER-C or user:Moonriddengirl to proceed with setting up a case page at WP:CCI. User:Charlotte135 expressed an interest in getting involved in cleaning up the copyvio as well.

As far as your idea of unblocking the user and working on material in a sandbox, I am disinclined to give the okay to add copyright material added to any part of this wiki. Placing copyright material in a sandbox, even temporarily while the material is being worked on, is a copyright violation. — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you can go ahead and set up the process. I will need Shootingstar88's help or help from a medical editor (like Doc James, Jytdog, CFCF or Legitimus) for access to a number of the sources, though. A number of the sources are a WP:SOURCEACCESS matter for me. As for unblocking Shootingstar88, my proposal was not that you unblock Shootingstar88 and we knowingly let Shootingstar88 post copyright or plagiarism violations. I stated:

"Shootingstar88 could post their text on the talk page of articles first and ping me or someone else to the talk page in question to compare the source's wording to Shootingstar88's wording to ensure that there are no copyright or plagiarism issues. I or someone else could reword the text beyond what Shootingstar88 offered, if Shootingstar88's rewording is not enough. Only after ensuring that the text is not a copyright or plagiarism violation would the text be added to the article. This would mean that Shootingstar88 would not be editing any articles, not until it's clear that Shootingstar88 has a good grasp on how to word text to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues."

By that, I mean that we place a "no edit" restriction on Shootingstar88, and make it so that any text Shootingstar88 is thinking of adding is reviewed first, with the rewording (and explanations for the rewording) taking place there on the talk page (or in a sandbox) if any copyright or plagiarism violations exist. After Shootingstar88 has gotten the hang of how to add text with no copyright or plagiarism violation, Shootingstar88 can edit articles again. You would be the one to decide if Shootingstar88 is ready to edit articles again instead of simply editing talk pages and/or sandboxes. And given Shootingstar88's latest comments above, about the precautions that will be taken if you allow an unblock, there are unlikely to be any copyright or plagiarism violations anyway. Certainly no significant ones. I would be willing to review any addition proposed by Shootingstar88. So I think you should take one more chance and unblock Shootingstar88, making the "no edit" restriction clear. We would follow any rules you lay out for the restriction. Since Shootingstar88 wants to edit again and is still trying to learn in this very section, it's clear that Shootingstar88 would agree to your conditions.

As for the other editor being involved, I must reiterate that it is not a good idea...per my "08:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)" comment above. This is why I think it would have been better had you not pinged that editor to this section, inviting commentary from that editor here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<squeeze>Flyer22 Reborn if you need me to provide you any sources, just let me know.Jytdog (talk)

Thank you, Jytdog. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that Shootingstar88 would put their proposed additions on the talk pages of the articles concerned, and you would assess them in conjunction with users that have access to the sources that are behind a paywall. I still have the same objection, which is that Shootingstar88 could potentially be adding copyright material (albeit on talk pages) with every edit. Like I said before, I am disinclined to give the okay to add copyright material to any part of this wiki, because whether it's in a sandbox or on an article talk page, it's still a copyright violation. Maybe I am misunderstanding your proposal, because I don't see how that's any different than working in as sandbox (from a copyright point of view). I don't know how to set up a CCI case page; one of the clerks or a more experienced admin will have to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, yes, that's what I'm asking, especially since Shootingstar88 has said that they (Shootingstar88) will be taking precautions, and since I think there is little chance there will be major copyright or plagiarism issues now. Shootingstar88 steadily (though not fast enough for Wikipedia's cause) improved when it came to copyright or plagiarism issues, and has shown further improvement by suggesting precautions above. Look at Shootingstar88's above suggested precautions in this section and let me know what you think of them. I think that now the most we will have to worry about is limited close paraphrasing. And as noted at Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, limited close paraphrasing is allowed. Despite that, Shootingstar88 is now cautious of engaging in limited close paraphrasing too. Reviewing Shootingstar88's edits will not be that much different than you reviewing the text here on Shootingstar88's talk page or in the aforementioned WP:ANI discussion, which consists of copyrighted text. As you know, copyrighted text is allowed here, so long as we follow the rules. And it seems to me that Shootingstar88 will do their best to follow the rules if given one more chance. The "no edit" restriction could entail Shootingstar88 proposing one change to one article (just one article) per day, so that we can more easily keep up with everything. I'm suggesting that this type of thing go on for at least two months to improve Shootingstar88's editing skills. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Diannaa User talk:Flyer22 Reborn

For me, the biggest risk for copyright issues stem from distinguishing the level of similarity that wikipedia will allow. A classic example (similar to the one I got busted for) is this future edit that I'm currently working on. Can someone tell me if this violates copyright?:

Quote from book : In approaching the question of nature and the role of women, Acquinas builds upon Aristotle's idea of the innate inferiority of women. However Aquinas develops this idea through a Christian framework. When he discusses woman's "subjection" to man, he views this as integral to God's plan for creation. Subjagation in this sense is not understood as slavery, which involves the subjagation of one person to another, but as a hierarchal structuring of human relations which is good for all members of society. "Her subjection is inevitable because of the distinct natures of men and women;the power of rational discernment is by nature stronger in man, and thus he is the "natural" ruler of woman." "Women is understood as man's helpmate,but as Genevive Lloyd points out, this notion of "helpmate" should only be understood in relation to the function of procreation"'

My own revision: Thomas Aquinas drew ideas from Aristotle and adopted his view of female inferiority through a Christian perspective. He argued God subjected women to be under the authority of men because men were more rational and thus higher in the natural order of hierarchy. Women's role was to be under the authority of men and work alongside in order to give childbirth.

The reason I suspect this might get flagged for copyright is due to the similarity of "Aquinas drew ideas from Aristotle and adopted his view of female inferiority....." with the book's quote "Acquinas builds upon Aristotle's idea of the innate inferiority of women".

Would this revision be flagged or no?

Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte135's involvement

Thank you very much Diannaa, for letting me know this clean up is underway. I think your estimate of several months or more, is accurate and the job does need to be done meticulously. I am concerned that this may take so long, that perhaps flyer22 may give up on the mammoth task at hand. I will try and do what I can around my own research work during the day, and at least will try and point out entire sections where this editor shootingstar has copied from other original author's work, and pasted into Wikipedia articles. A lot of damage has been done, that now needs to be undone, some how. Hope that helps. Let's just try and work together on this Flyer22.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Diannaa User talk: Charlotte135

Diannaa I know all of my past edits and can easily cross check them all and fix any possible copyright issues.

"Charlotte" you are already another problem on this site who cause problems with users. Don't get yourself mixed up in this one.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)User talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look shootingstar, we are all trying to clean up the mess, ok. It will take several hours a day, as Diannaa has correctly estimated. I would suggest you keep your bad faith comments to yourself and let us try and sort this mess out. A lot of damage has been done to the project by your edits and will take months to clean up, to bring it to the standard required. Don't attack good faith editors who are trying to help and I remind you Diannaa invited me and other editors to do what we can. I also have to say I am helping here for the sake of Wikipedia, not you. I am disappointed such widespread copyright violations were allowed to continue for so long to be honest. Copyright violations are serious, and have the potential to open up Wikipedia to outside litigation by original authors whose work you have used, without permission.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte13, I have no need for your help. And I do not want it. I can handle this with editors I trust. I, and various editors, have made it explicitly clear why we do not trust you editing these articles. And I made it explicitly clear above why you should not be involved in this particular matter. So there is no putting differences aside and working with you when neither I nor Shootingstar88 can trust you. You are steadily posting about me on your talk page with all sorts of inaccuracies and have not let anything go. Your grudge against Shootingstar88, me and others is still very fresh; you are not an unbiased editor when it comes to Shootingstar88. I also do not have confidence that you fully grasp what are or are not copyright or plagiarism violations by Wikipedia standards; for example, like I noted above, limited close paraphrasing is allowed. If I see you steadily removing chunks that conflict with your POV instead of rewording things and making sure that the rewording does not stray from what the literature means, we will bump heads. Diannaa, has just opened the floodgates by inviting you to help. That invitation should be rescinded. It has done nothing but inflame this situation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Diannaa User talk:Charlotte135

I can fix all of my edits in a single day. It would be very easy for me.

As for "Charlotte135", I already told you that you are another problem. You stalk other users and disrupt other edits. You should have been banned a long time ago for your maliciousness.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)user talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shootingstar88, calm down. Don't focus on Charlotte135; that will only muddy this section. It is best to ignore Charlotte135 for the very fact that things are still sour between you two; this is why, above, I tried to warn against Charlotte135's involvement. Charlotte135 should move on to other things and stop focusing on you, the articles you edit, me and others I commonly associate with on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi Diannaa, it is very clear that this editor does not get it, by saying "I can fix all of my edits in a single day. It would be very easy for me." I am just being attacked here Diannaa, after trying to help at your invite. Can you please explain to shootingstar and flyer22 the mammoth task at hand and the importance of how meticulous this task needs to be, given the 600 edits shootingstar has made. I just keep getting bullied and attacked if I try to explain. I am disappointed that these blatant copyright violations have been allowed by Flyer22 and others for so long, quite frankly. Also Flyer22 please just try and work with me here. There is a lot of work to do. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte135, I did not allow anything, any more than you did by following Shootingstar88 from article to article and never saying a word about a copyright or plagiarism violation. You kept up with Shootingstar88's edits far more than I did. I do not have to be reminded of the task at hand. But you clearly need to be reminded that we do not know what, if any, copyright or plagiarism violations exist in Shootingstar88's remaining edits, and that you should not assume that all of the remaining edits are problematic. You clearly need to be reminded that, as a trusted editor who can easily find assistance, I can handle this. Jytdog has already agreed to help above, for example. I don't need you. You are not a neutral editor in this case, as is clear by Shootingstar88 being distressed by you posting here. I've been very clear about how I feel when it comes your involvement in the aforementioned matters. The #Edit on Sex differences in emotional intelligence, #Just needs some solid mentoring and #Outing sections above, and this section, are clear why you should disengage. You need to stop posting to Shootingstar88's talk page right now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about being distressed, your comments and attacks on me here are more than distressing. In fact, my stress response is triggered right now, and my hands are shaking as I type this. Thanks so much Flyer22!! I know you will only attack me further for telling the truth here about how I feel. I genuinely would have, and could have tried to work with you, as so much needs to be done to clean this mess up. However I have no interest in doing so now and have contacted Diannaa on my talk page. I have not been watching this page by the way, or shootingstar's edits, but as is very clear now, to anyone, if I had tried to correct shootingstar's huge array of copyright violations across all articles they have edited, you would then have attacked and bullied me and chased me away for doing so! What hypocrisy!

No doubt, your comments to stop posting here, right now, is another cunning trap to then try and falsely accuse me of harassment or hounding. I will not keep posting here, but remind you Diannaa invited me to help, in good faith, and I responded in good faith, despite your attempts to discredit me. No doubt you will just further attack me now, instead of getting on with the work, at least a few hours a day for up to 3 months as Diannaa accurately estimated, if the job is done right. That estimate seems accurate, not a "single day" as shootingstar bragged about above. I will leave you to it you then. I need to get back to my real work anyway and try and calm myself down a bit.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First you post this, which includes false claims. And now you post more false claims above. The evidence on your talk page and in your contributions prove that your claims are false. You have been watching this talk page, as is clear by this and this edit before you were pinged by Diannaa. Of course, you would claim that those edits, which coincide with posts made to this talk page, are just coincidences; you know, like you stated of your edits that were clearly stalking Shootingstar88. You don't know how to drop an issue when it should be dropped, but you will learn. If you keep mentioning me on your talk page in the inaccurate way you have, for example, you will find yourself at WP:ANI again. Does Shootingstar88 need to tell you stay off this talk page for you to get the point? If so, have at it, Shootingstar88. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And let's be very clear here: The only reason Diannaa pinged you is because of this obvious manipulation attempt you made. You went to Diannaa first, and those of us familiar with your editing style know why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:Charlotte135

600 edits? You do realize that it's because I made multiple edits on single pages right? That would mean many of the edits have been changed over the newer edits I had made.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)user talk:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896/36/6

[2] ttp://www.edb.utexas.edu/education/departments/edp/about/faculty/keith/

[3] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002839329090141A

[4] ttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/222702039_Sex_differences_in_processing_speed_Developmental_effects_in_males_and_females

[5] ttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/222702039_Sex_differences_in_processing_speed_Developmental_effects_in_males_and_females

[6] Lindberg, Sara M.; Hyde, Janet Shibley; Petersen, Jennifer L.; Linn, Marcia C. (2010-11-01). "New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis". Psychological bulletin. 136 (6): 1123–1135. doi:10.1037/a0021276. ISSN 0033-2909. PMC 3057475. PMID 21038941.

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

[8] ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21433/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+have+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+5th+December+from+10%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+05%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+18%3A00-22%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

[9] ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21433/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+have+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+5th+December+from+10%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+05%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+18%3A00-22%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]