User talk:Charlotte135

Welcome!

Hello, Charlotte135! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. ^{(talk to me) (contributions)} @ 21:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello

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

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

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

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

Domestic Violence

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

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

Questions & Answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Arsten Hi again Mark, how are you? Quick question please. Once my restriction is lifted on these topics soon, what can I edit, and what can I not edit please? Are there any further restrictions on me in any way? If so, what restrictions exactly? I say this ahead of time, because I feel that if I dare to edit these articles, in an unbiased and neutral manner, adhering to all Wikiperdia policies, I will be still jumped on for no reason and unjustly. Administrator Diannaa has very fairly said I can edit whatever articles I like and no-one can, or should interfere. This seems objective and unbiased, given all other editors who have actually been blocked from editing all articles for instance, can edit again freely, after being unblocked. I say this now Mark, just in case I do wish to edit these articles again. I'm really not sure if I can be bothered to tell you the truth, but I should be free to do so? No? Thanks. I look forward to and value your objective policy based response as an administrator.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charlotte, unless you've been placed under discretionary sanctions that I don't know about, you are free to edit anything you want once the topic ban expires on the 15th. I can't predict how other users will treat you though. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately, so I might not be the best resource if you run into issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. Thanks for your answer. It is exactly what another administrator Diannaa said also. I will refer back to this advice and my question, if I do decide to edit these articles again. I'm not sure if I can be bothered, as I said. My choice though is the point and I'm at liberty to do so. Hope I would not have this thrown in my face though, once I have done my time. How would any editor like to be reminded of their previous sanctions. If I do I'll definitely give as good as I get, as I'm learning how to deal with bullies here on Wikipedia, not mentioning any names. I mean if another editor who has actually been blocked from all articles, for a given time period (for any reason) can then freely edit again, after their block expires, then obviously we all should be able to edit whatever we like, once our lesser sanctions have expired. Thanks again Mark. Appreciate your help.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi, how are you? Diannaa can you please give me some guidance/tips as to how to make policy based and neutral edits on domestic violence type articles, in a few days if (and I stress if) I wished to do so. Don't know if I can be bothered. It seems that some editors primarily edit on topics like horses or sexual type topics and then cursory minimal edits on other types of articles to blur their POV pushing. Is there a policy on this I can read please? I have edited many different topics, but I'm wondering how some editors can edit a tight range of topics like horses as a random example, and then point the finger at others when they don't like what the reliable sources might say on a topic they hold an obvious POV? Your advice is very welcome although I fear my talk page may be monitored by others keen to gang up and ban me again, if I even dare go near these topics. If I am falsely labeled a mens rights editor again, as a tactic (and as many good editors have been falsely attacked and labeled) could you possibly suggest how to deal with that issue too? I am not a blinkin mens rights activist, by the way Diannaa. But that doesn't seem to matter it seems to a tactic some POV pushers use to discredit editors who try to add reliable sourced material that goes against their agendas here on Wikipedia. Therefore I'm asking all of this ahead of time. As I say though, if I can be bothered anyway. Thanks Diannaa. You seem like a very neutral, fair and objective administrator.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charlotte135. Here is some general advice:

Approach the material this way: First find a reliable source, then add content to an article using that source (don't decide ahead of time what you think the article should say and then go hunting for sources to back up your opinion). Be discerning as to which sources you use; the more contentious the subject matter, the higher the quality of the sourcing needs to be.
Per the WP:BRD cycle (not an official policy or guideline, but a widely accepted behavioral norm all the same), if your edit is challenged, immediately go to the talk page to discuss. If consensus is against you, graciously drop the matter and move on. It's surprising how easy this is to do after a while! Besides, each new day brings some new mini-crisis, and if we take them all too seriously Wikipedia changes from a relaxing hobby to a stressful place to work.
This one is hard: Don't make comments on other editors' behavior or speculate on their motives, even if they do so first. If someone makes assertions about your behavior or motivations, don't respond; it's sometimes used as a tactic to remove the focus from the content and shine an unflattering light on you to make you go away. Stick strictly to discussing the content and sources, or if the issue (or article) is not especially important to you, walk away and find something else to work on.
It's a big wiki. Try working on simple maintenance tasks when you get stressed out. You might look at Category:Wikipedia backlog or Wikipedia:Maintenance for ideas. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi Diannaa. I really must thank you for your time taken to respond to me like you have. It is very much appreciated. I am going to adhere to your well constructed and thoughtful advice and guidance and respect your experience and objectivity as an administrator and editor of the project. You have also largely restored my faith in this place along with a number of other editors who have also provided me with respect and advice and assumed good faith as to why I am here. I also hope that my own editing across a number of different topics now has contributed in some positive way also and can begin to be seen by the community as constructive and positive. Anyway thanks again Diannaa.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi again Diannaa. I regret having to ask of your time again but could please tell whether editors are restricted to certain articles when they are under no sanctions? Recently I edited Sex reassignment surgery with this edit [2]. I thought it was good. I also edited this article as I was reading it yesterday, and after watching a recent provocative TV program on the topic of gender reassignment.

I was then falsely accused by an editor who must have every article on Wikipedia (exaggerating) on their watchlist of daring to edit this article and following them? Which I definitely was not doing. Could you please give me some advice. I just keep getting setup, entrapped and attacked by this very experienced editor, who I keep trying to work with constructively. I wish they would treat me and my editing with good faith and decently. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi Diannaa. Look, please don't worry about replying. I don't wish to drag you into this situation and appreciate your previous advice. Particularly, your advice not to retaliate.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Mark Arsten Hi again. Look I've thought about this ban and strongly believe that a miscarriage of Wikipedia justice has occurred here and was emotion based as no evidence was provided and a group of editors/friends at User talk:Gandydancer see here [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] who were called upon/pinged and asked to give a blind vote to get/boost the numbers up for a ban, a practice I had thought was banned on Wikipedia? I mean can I or other editors on any article look at other editors/friends to do that? Then these related group of editors/friends numbers were counted and whoala, I'm banned! Hmmmmm? There were other reasons why I think there was an injustice here too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good advice from a NPOV editor

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

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

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

your recent edits about Spatial ability

Hi, you removed 2 dead link in the External links sections. It is usually best to find out why dead links are dead. One was dead because there was a missing space between the URL and the description, making the URL erroneous. The other link was dead because the page had been remove. In this case, try to find out if the page had been archived on the WayBackMachine [12], and it was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shootingstar having a go at Biscuittin

User talk: Biscuittin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme bullying, bias and POV by Shootingstar

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

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

Shootingstar88 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)User talk: shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Reform of Wikipedia

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

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

Reform of Wikipedia article is now at User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. You might be interested in this too.[13] Biscuittin (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diannaa Hi. Don't want to get involved with this shootingstar person, nor their friend Flyer22, and have stayed well clear of their recent block, but I have noticed today, that not only the sections of articles you have already cleaned up/deleted, but nearly all of the articles this person has ever edited, contains serious copy violations, and opens up Wikipedia to possible legal action by concerned original authors. Could you and others, please clean this mess up! This is not constructive editing IMO, but destructive editing. If I try and start cleaning this mess up, Flyer22 and her gang will again likely bully and harass me, and frankly, I don't need the stress, but these extensive copyright violations in an array of articles needs to be addressed. Thank you and I ask you this in good faith and for the benefit of the project.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi again. Thank you for your meticulous approach to this major issue, which is obviously needed. I have been bullied and chased away in classic workplace bullying fashion, after your invitation to participate. I have no interest in helping out now. However Wikipedia is open to litigation by leaving these blatant copyright violations made by this editor remain on so many articles, as you know, and any other experienced editor and administrator who genuinely cares about Wikipedia, knows, this is a critical component to the project and these violations must be addressed promptly and meticulously, not downplayed by any editor who may lack respect for the project and its long term viability and respect from online readers. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Hi. I am wondering if I can, or should, start to clean up the articles where this editor has so blatantly violated original author's copyright. Someone needs to, that's all. The longer they remain strewn through a wide array of Wikipedia's articles, the more open the project is to litigation. This is something I am genuinely concerned about and needs to be rectified as a priority and obviously not by the blocked user. Could you propose a solution to this mess please Diannaa. I ask this in good faith, despite being accused otherwise. I don't care who cleans up the mess, only that someone does, and as soon as possible. Hope that sounds fair and makes sense. Again, I wish to make it very clear to any other editors, I say this in good faith and out of respect to the reputation of the project. If others who say they can and will do the job, well, get on with it then please. There is a lot of work to do. But as I said, someone needs to clean this damage up and not ignore it. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now left wondering should this request for clean up of all the articles whereby copyright violations by this editor have been committed, be posted on another noticeboard as well?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in helping with copyright clean-up. The centralized location for copyright clean-up is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. There's instructions on the page as to how to request a case to be opened. — Diannaa (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa. Will carefully look over this location for copyright clean-up. I'm very hesitant to try and do some of the work myself. The problem is that this editor has chosen some major articles like rape, to edit and insert copyright violations, and original authors are very likely to notice their work being used without permission. This point seems not to be cutting through to a couple of other editors, without mentioning names. And then I am being gagged and having my hands tied, by these non administrators, which is just blatant bullying, pure and simple, all the while no action by them is being taken to clean the mess up. My question to you please Diannaa, is if I try to start cleaning up would this be ok with you as an actual administrator? I will not do so, if you don't advise me it is ok. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need administrator permission to request that a case be opened, and you don't need administrator permission to assist in copyright clean-up. I have no opinion as to whether or not you personally should get involved in cleaning up this particular case. There's many cases in the six-year backlog (155 cases, 76,501+ articles awaiting checking); if you wish to browse around and pick one to work on while you make up your mind what if anything to do about the Shootingstar case, any help is appreciated. — Diannaa (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I will do that. I am happy to help the project out and have access to most journals etc through my work. What do we do when we find such blatant cut and paste copyright violations as this editor has committed? As for this other editor's violations, I think I will wait a bit and instead work on some of this backlog.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's instructions at the top of each case page. See for example Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche. Look for a case page that has subject matter you find interesting (this makes the task more pleasant), and one where the sources are readily available online. You will likely need to learn how to use the copyvio detector and the Wayback Machine (to retrieve dead links). Make sure the source webpage is working before you plug it into the copyvio detector; there's no point comparing against a dead link. The script has organized the material so that the articles most likely to have copyright violations appear at the top of the page, and those least likely to contain violations are at the bottom. I prefer to start at the bottom, because the work initially goes quickly and many articles can be cleared in the first few days. The second reason for starting at the bottom is because the material there is simpler, and it gives me a feel for the editor's writing style and level of competence with the language so that the more complex material at the top can more readily be assessed as to whether they wrote it themselves or copied it from somewhere. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looking at the pile of work there, it is even clearer to me now how vitally important making sure copyright violations do not occur in the first place. It is probably the most important guidance for editors not to breach. And if they do, there should be little room for second chances. And definitely no room for third and fourth chances. Too much damage can be done and so hard to undo that damage once done.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn Hi, don't want to discuss anything personal, only content please. I am just letting you know that there are a very large number of articles where the blocked user has committed copyright violations of original author's intellectual property and you promised you would be cleaning them up each day. But, you have not even started! There are so many instances where this blocked editor has just cut and pasted original author's work. This type of damage is serious and opens the project up to potential litigation. As is clear from administrator Diannaa's advice to me above, she has said it is fine for me to start to clean up this damage caused by this editor, however I am now looking at the backlog of other copyviolations and will be assisting over there with the current backlog. If I see you and Jytdog doing the work (estimated by Diannaa at 3 hours a day, for up to 3 months) I might hold off. But if not, someone needs to do it. Please assume good faith with my concerns for the project flyer22. I would not be contacting you if you had actually followed through with your promise to clean this mess up.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn Hi again. I don't think this editor's edits necessarily should be deleted, but it will take meticulous work as outlined by administrator Diannaa to firstly uncover all of the original author's work that this blocked editor has plagiarized, copied and pasted and then very carefully try and re-word if that's what you think is best Flyer22reborn, and strictly adhering to Wikipedia policies. Up to you how you approach the task. As a non administrator please don't try and stop other good faith editors to help out. Looking at all the articles this editor has edited since joining there appears a very clear pattern, so this might help. I'm here to help Flyer22, if that's ok with you?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Yes, again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've closed the above thread as outlined here, and slightly clarified here. Please have regard for the restrictions imposed by this close, which are also logged at WP:EDR.

I appreciate that this may not be the outcome you would have preferred. Am happy to discuss if required, preferably on my talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus You said "Charlotte135 is topic-banned for three months from articles relating to sexuality or gender, broadly construed, not because their edits are disruptive in content, but because they are making them to hound another editor." I have edited very few gender articles. My edit history shows evidence for this.

Can you please explain then exactly why I am topic banned from gender or sexual topics? Does not make sense. Given that the other editor who has also been interaction banned has chosen to target these very specific types of articles, literally every single sexual and gender related topic on Wikipedia, (hundreds and hundreds of them) why is the Wikipedia:Ownership of content allowed. And once my topic ban expires, what articles can I then edit? Both administrators Mark Arsten and Diannaa said any damn article I want. Period. Do you agree?

I have now compiled over 55 separate occasions of extreme and serious bullying, watching my talk page, posting about me on other editors talk pages, harassing me and hounding me since I joined Wikipedia. Can I list all of these occasions at ANI? What are the rules on this that all editors need to equally be bound by. It seems a bit unfair that I have been topic banned when all of this very strong evidence, not hearsay, but actual evidence to prove my point.

You also said, "It was suggested in good faith that a topic ban be imposed under the Gamergate DS, but these sanctions do not apply in this case. Although Gamergate DS refers to gender-related articles, a ban under this clause would require edits to those articles that were credibly related to the Gamergate issue, or to positions identifiably taken by factions in the Gamergate dispute. The sanctions are not a general catch-all for any disruptive editing in gender or sexuality topics. In this thread the issue is hounding as defined by the policy on harassment, and not Gamergate POV-pushing or article disruption.

As you said, I have never gone near those type of gender based articles. So again, why the topic ban on gender articles? Especially given my edits were not disruptive as you and many others have been forced to admit. Seems a bit unfair, doesn't it, that some editors suggested this and got it so wrong. Seems like classic bullying to me to bring in gamergate, to try and discredit me. I repeat, I have not been anywhere near friggin gamergate and gender articles related to it.

But as you and everyone have been forced to admit, there was no actual disruptive editing on my part and no evidence whatsoever was ever produced by anyone to indicate there was. Everyone had loads of time to find the evidence, but there was none.

Would really appreciate some clarification on these issues EuryalusCharlotte135 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would really refer you to the closing comments, which address most of these points. The ANI thread was not about the content of your edits. It was about the consensus view that you were making those edits for the principal purpose of annoying another editor. That editor mainly edits in gender and sexuality-related articles. Please stay away from these articles for the duration of the topic ban. Please also stay away from this editor on any other articles, for the duration of the interaction ban. Once the topic ban expires you will be free to edit any article you like, subject only to the "warning" mentioned in the close.

If you have a complaint of bullying and harassment, you are free to lodge that as an ANI request. Provided your case is well-supported by evidence, I would strongly encourage you to do so. And on Gamergate, as the thread indicates, this was not my suggestion. Another editor proposed there be a sanction under Gamergate Discretionary Sanctions - my closing comments made clear this was not applicable in this case. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I will certainly compile this extensive and detailed ANI request against this other editor in question. It is just a matter of when. I will also include their group of friends here on Wikipedia in the bullying and harassment charge. The case is very strong. I just need to present it in a way that is undeniable and an administrator will need to act on based on policy, and what is best for the project, and apply strong sanctions on these editors. Please note I make no mention here of this group of editors names. I will leave it at that.

It was interesting in my case that independent administrators like Liz, and editors like Timothyjosephwood, had an entirely different perspective on things, and in no way supported a topic ban. It is interesting also that despite me disengaging, based on administrator Liz' fair advice to both myself and this other editor the topic ban was still applied.

I take your point though that: ".....the issue is hounding..... and not Gamergate, POV-pushing or article disruption"

So your conclusion as well, was that I was not POV pushing, disruptive, or in any way related to the whole Gamergate controversy despite a few of these interrelated editors attempting to discredit me in this way. Glad they were proved wrong at least. Seems to be a common and dirty tactic used by some long term editors to throw mud on editors that disagree with their own obvious POV. Will include this as just one of my many points in the impending ANI request. Thank you for clarifying that important point. Just need that final and considered opinion by you Euryalus, to be made crystal clear here on my talk page for anyone to see.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus Hello Euryalus. Firstly, can you please tell me exactly which articles are covered under this topic ban? Given your conclusions which were based on all the actual evidence that I was not POV pushing (true), was not being disruptive (true), and that I was in no way related to the whole Gamergate controversy (true again), wouldn't a 2 way interaction ban have been enough, if sanctions needed to be applied at all, given that I now hold over 60 diffs to be presented in due course, at ANI for the extreme bullying, harassment, hounding, personal attacks, stalking by this other editor, and you have encouraged me to do so. I really think we should have just gone with Liz's original advice to be adults, and just stay away from each other, wherever possible. In other words, a warning. The whole thing could have just been settled there and then. But given you have chosen just to punish me, I have rights on Wikipedia and will apply my rights and in the process, am learning the way things go here.

If I chose to, how can I appeal this gender and sexual topic ban please? I have no problem with the 2 way interaction ban, which does makes sense and seems fair. I've accepted that part. I think I do need to appeal though, or ask you to reconsider, and at the same time present my very strong counter evidence and counter claims as discussed above, if you choose to keep the topic ban in place. The evidence I have now compiled is so strong that it will not provide administrators any option, but to apply sanctions. Fair's fair, don't you agree. If after my appeal, the topic ban is upheld, I will accept it. But we all have rights to appeal on Wikipedia. I have made some very constructive contributions to the project so far. Or perhaps you could just reconsider the logic in what I am saying and Liz's original advice and just keep the interaction ban in place instead. Look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, been away for a day or two. The consensus for the topic ban was to prevent the disruption caused by you following another editor to the pages they usually edit, for the purpose of annoying them. The topic ban might reasonably be defined as any page that specifically or broadly relates to gender or sexuality, as well as any specific parts of other pages that also relate to the topic. There's more information at WP:TBAN. This was accompanied by a warning, which I hope is unnecessary, not to follow that editor to any other page for what might reasonably be seen as an attempt to annoy them there either.

Like most topic bans, this one may be appealed at any time at the Administrators Noticeboard. Its also 'possible' (though unlikely) to appeal a topic ban direct to the Arbitration Committee. If required, there's more information at WP:UNBAN. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus. Thank you for your reply and options for appeal. The Arbitration Committee seems the most likely place I will take all of this. There are bigger issues relating to some controversial articles I will make the committee aware of at the same time. There appears to be some entrenched and complex issues with some editors that only the Committee could possibly deal with, for the sake of the project. For instance, copyright violations that are being selectively ignored by editors who know better, and putting the project at risk of serious litigation. I am continuing to gather and organize all diffs in a manner that the Arbitration Committee will clearly see what's going on and can then act on. I may write to Wikipedia staff offline too. Probably the best chance for an objective hearing on these issues. It's just a matter of when. I'm sure when I do, these editors won't see it coming, nor the extent and manner I plan to present the case to the Arbitration Committee. There are many serious issues involving certain editors, which I will present. Hopefully the committee can then deal with these editors and clean the mess up. It needs to stop. I may also post my appeal at Administrators Noticeboard. Just a matter of when. But will make sure the case I present is so strong it provides administrators with no option but to follow policy. Enough said.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New issue and question

Euryalus. Hello Euryalus. I've been noticing some interesting behavior at a specific article page where very obvious sockpuppets have emerged of recent times. Strangely, their obvious behavior as sockpuppets, have been completely ignored by some editors who would normally spot them a long way off. Anyway, for whatever reason, there seems to be a blind eye being turned, and I am wanting to know how exactly I can bring these suspected sockpuppets to administrator's formal attention. It may also tie in to a larger pattern of behavior involving other editors which I have been noticing for a long while now. Time will tell on that, I'm sure. I will keep watching, and gathering evidence on this issue for the time being, for the sake of the project. Is there a specific noticeboard and process involved in reporting suspected sockpuppets please? Your attention and advice on this issue would be most appreciated. Thanking you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI -- Euryalus (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will continue to watch, and gather evidence then, and only act when the case is very strong and clear. Also please note Euryalus, or anyone else reading this, not to assume what article, or editors, I am talking about please. Perceptions are often incorrect, and hard evidence is everything IMO. I also do not wish to cast aspersions on any editor, unless I have enough hard evidence to show administrators as conclusively as possible what seems to be going on and then they can decide what to do.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity

Do you know who Doc James is, in Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog No, I don't. Who is he? Why do you ask anyway, my interaction has been nothing but civil. What is your issue Jytdog? Are there some editors you cannot respectfully discuss content with? I don't understand why you post this here. Please enlighten me.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have said the person in WP has by far the most edits across all medical articles, the de facto leader of WP:MED, the person who more than anyone in this whole place upholds the quality of our medical content and who started a foundation to get our medical content made available in the developing world, is promoting fringe and what.... was it you wrote? oh this..., making edits that were "counterproductive to the project." Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, Doc James and I have already settled on a compromise on the issue over at Talk:Skin cancer. Here is Doc James' comment [14] and here is my final response to Doc James [15] which I had left about about a half hour, before, you chose to then post your comments here, on my talk page. You have clearly misrepresented what I was saying, and it was a good discussion between two WP editors IMO. End of story. Move on.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better to be safe than sorry

Euryalus. Hello Euryalus. Another brief question, if you wouldn't mind. I am wanting to make some edits, and add some reliable sources to the parenting styles article, and I'm just letting you know ahead of time. Reason I say that is it seems this other editor has made a minor edit or two, about 6 months ago. I assume this is okay me going ahead. It is not explicit sex topics or gender related articles, which is this other editor's primary area of interest on WP, as you say, so I assume this is ok. If not, just let me know. Although I cannot imagine why not. But better to be safe than sorry, I always tell my children. Thanking you.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus. Hello Euryalus. Just noticed you are on Wiki leave. I have read through the rules of the no blame 2 way interaction ban you decided on between myself and the other editor, and it is clear that only the explicit human sexuality related articles and gender and Sex differences in humans type articles that as you said are this other editor's primary areas of interest on WP, are off bounds. That's fine with me. Apart from these sex and gender articles, when I edit any other article I will quickly check that article's editing history, and if this other editor has actually edited the article in the last 3 months, even a very minor edit, I will happily stay clear of that article too for the remaining 6 weeks or so. Just to be safe, and to show how I am following the 2 way no blame, interaction ban you decided on. I think this is very fair, as this editor has edited a massive number of articles on WP, mostly with minor edits, and your intention was only their main areas of interest, these explicitly being human sexuality and gender articles. If you do read this, or any other administrator reads this, and does not agree this sounds more than fair, then please feel free to post your concerns or comments here. Otherwise Euryalus have a happy holiday.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus. Noticed you have been editing again and have not responded here. So I will assume everything I said, sounds fair and will continue editing as per my above comments. Will refer back to this section, if I run into any trouble.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My time is presently a bit limited, so if you need a really definitive answer on the conditions of the topic ban you should probably raise it somewhere like AN or ANI. Please note, as I'm sure you already have, that the topic ban is in response to a community consensus that you were deliberately following another editor around. So regardless of where your editing interests take you please make sure this doesn't happen (or appear to happen). Beyond that, and within the bounds set by the bans, happy editing.-- Euryalus (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus Hello. Yes, happily staying clear of the gender and Sex differences in humans type articles that, as you said, are this other editor's primary areas of interest on WP. I am wondering if there is any time limit for reporting at ANI or higher places, this other editor following me around, harassing me and hounding me Euryalus. I now have well over 70 diffs proving this without any doubt. Appreciate your response. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically. If the denizens of ANI think incidents being raised are too old to be considered, they will let you know when you raise them. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you Euryalus. I may decide to post it there then, or alternatively at the Arbitration Committee as you suggested.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Forgive and forget

Euryalus Hello Euryalus, I hope you are traveling well. Rather than take all of the collected instances and diffs outlining how I had been personally attacked and harassed to the Arbitration Committee, as you suggested, I was reading this article a while ago Wikipedia:Forgive and forget, and considered it the best approach moving on, now the 2 way interaction ban between Flyer22reborn and myself, has officially ended several days ago. After all, we are all here trying to build an encyclopedia, and I for one, would much rather adopt this forgive and forget and olive branch peaceful approach from here on. I hope Flyer22reborn may also view this approach as helpful, but that is up to them to decide. No need to respond Euryalus. I just wanted to let you know and thank you for your help. Have a good day, or evening, depending on when you receive this.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus Hello again Euryalus, I hope you are keeping well. I really don't mean to bother you, but today I was pinged out of the blue by Flyer22reborn, who quite obviously seems both obsessed with me and obsessed with stalking my edits, hounding, harassing, threatening, bullying and personally attacking me, rather than accept my olive branch and apply a Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach to any future interactions and simply work together, or avoid, (Flyer22reborn's choice). Since joining Wikipedia it appears there is some overlap at least, between my interests and Flyer22reborn's. Other areas much less so.

I note for example that among the major types of mental disorder and personality disorder articles, like major depressive disorder, as just one example, Flyer22reborn appears not to have edited at all, or very sparingly, whereas I have clearly edited many mental disorders articles. It is clear that Flyer22reborn wishes to continue the conflict 3 weeks after out 2 way interaction ban between Flyer22reborn and I ended. Please offer some advice? I love Wikipedia and should not be chased away by Flyer22reborn, for no reason but their grudge against me, especially as a female editor who has contributed widely for nearly 9 months now, with no block history, unlike Flyer22reborn's block history.

As you and other editors have noted, I hold no POV, and the only issue was my conflict with this one editor who refuses to just Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach and get on with editing; collaboratively, and stop their Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Why should I be made to feel fearful of this editor?

Can you please offer some advice to both Flyer22reborn, and to me Euryalus to cool this editor down? Why won't this editor just work peacefully and collaboratively on articles where we share common interests?

Euryalus Hello Euryalus. When you get a chance please. This needs to stop. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bans have expired, so you are free to edit whatever you like. The policies on hounding remain in place, so everyone should aim to avoid recurrences of this issue and simply get on with improving articles. I'm not filled with confidence by your references to "dealing with" another editor, or highlighting their unrelated block log, but hope springs eternal.

If you do have an issue you wish to raise regarding another editor's conduct I suggest you do so via ANI. But really you could also just put it all behind you and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Euryalus. I've noticed that many editors have similar interests. Since joining Wikipedia 9 months ago my areas of interest relate to statistical analysis, epidemiology, mental disorders, human intelligence and cognitive abilities, psychometric testing and psychometric tests, family violence of all forms, psychology, psychiatry, suicide, suicide prevention, parenting, bullying, psychological abuse, child neglect among others. I will continue to edit all of these topics and related articles. Why shouldn't I. As you correctly pointed out: "you are free to edit whatever you like." So I will continue to adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach and get on with editing our great Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO, do not edit my comments on your userpage to change their meaning, as you did here. Do this again and I will block you for disruptive editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus Hello Euryalus. When you said "The policies on hounding remain in place, so everyone should aim to avoid recurrences of this issue and simply get on with improving articles." I have already said I will continue to adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach and get on with editing. However if Flyer22reborn continues to hound, harass and stalk me, what do you suggest please?Charlotte135 (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you have a credible issue to raise regarding another editor, you should take it to ANI. If you don't have a credible case, you should stop claiming you do and stop referring to that other editor on this page. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: continually make unsupported allegations of wrongdoing against a fellow editor can itself be a form of harassment. Having spent some time watching this issue, I do not believe you are being stalked or hounded by Flyer22 Reborn. As above, if you believe otherwise you should cease making vague assertions here on this page and present your case to ANI so it can be properly considered. If you do not believe you have a legitimate case, you should stop asserting that you do and go back to editing. Fair warning that if you ignore this advice and continue to make allegations against others without presenting evidence, you risk sanctions for harassment. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not unsupported by any means. But yep, no worries at all. Fair warning taken. Will not comment here again Euryalus.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus Euryalus, I outlined my main interests above for a reason. I listed them so other editors know where I stand. No surprises then if I turn up at any of them, or any related articles. I'm just giving fair warning here on my talk page. Some may even overlap with this other editor. Big deal! My readings of our relevant policies all say, so what if there's some overlap with other editors, and we all need to try to get along and improve the project, and edit whatever we like. You also said I am free to edit whatever I like Euryalus. And whoever else may be reading this should also clearly understand that like them, I can edit whatever I like on our great Wikipedia! So let's all just get on with it and adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Flyer22reborn

In reply to Flyer22reborn, who can't just drop the stick, and continues the completely unfounded allegations..sigh...ah well! For 9 months I have edited significantly to many areas of interest relate to statistical analysis, epidemiology, mental disorders, human intelligence and cognitive abilities, psychometric testing and psychometric tests, family violence of all forms, psychology, psychiatry, suicide, suicide prevention, parenting, bullying, psychological abuse, child neglect among others. Many of these topics you have not ever edited!

So no Flyer22 Reborn not "suddenly appear" at any areas of common interest, no, no, no, by any means. You have no evidence for that either and I take it as a personal attack. Stop it. And as far as you continually bringing up my past, as you just did recently on your talk page, which is completely irrelevant do we really, really need to bring up your extensive block and sockpuppetry history?? and your brother did it excuse, again!. They are also in the past and irrelevant, just as my history with you, and you alone, is in the past. The only difference is I have never been blocked nor pinged for sockpuppetry like you.

This is a note to Euryalus too who can see you Flyer22reborn bringing up my irrelevant past first, so I fought back by bringing up Flyer22reborn's irrelevant past. I really wish you would not continually bring up my irrelevant history though Flyer22reborn and I would not need to bring up your irrelevant history.

Woman to woman though Flyer22reborn, why don't you just drop the crap and get on with editing! Is that possible? Neither an olive branch nor suggestion to just adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach works with you does it. So I will just ignore you if we cross paths on any common interests.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in being pinged for this kind of post; if you have something that requires administrator attention please take it to ANI. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call. Hope Flyer22reborn just drops the stick and can adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach and we all get on with editing. I've been here for almost a year now and have contributed to many topics. I plan to just get on with editing and have decided to completely ignore Flyer22reborn who appears unable to stop bringing up the irrelevant past. That's why I brought up their irrelevant past. But I am beginning to see a pattern here of being dragged back into a dialogue with this editor, when all I want to do is ignore them and our past.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 RebornIt's a shame you refuse to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and simply adopt the Wikipedia:Forgive and forget approach to our past two way interaction ban. The only difference between our past interactions and conflicts was I chose not to report you at ANI with the 70 plus diffs I had gathered to prove the bullying, stalking, harassing and hounding of a fellow female editor over many months. You should have counted yourself lucky for my forgiving nature, rather than self proclaiming your innocence. I've now moved on. However it seems you are still obsessed with me, by constantly posting on your talk page.

Given Euryalus and many other editors have clearly stated I was not POV pushing, why are you falsely accusing me of that please? Have you any recent serious evidence in the form of diffs please? "Serious accusations require serious evidence" as our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy states. And I do take that as a personal attack FYI Flyer22reborn, and my patience with you has worn thin. So I am now giving you fair warning before I take it further, and am providing you an opportunity to produce some serious evidence or apologize and leave me alone from here on. I also take your unsupported allegations of wrongdoing as a form of harassment.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn I take it then, that you have no recent serious evidence in the form of diffs at all, for your unsupported allegations. And your entirely baseless claims are simply that. Basesless. I take them then as another form of harassment from you and another personal attack.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Anthropology research

Hello Charlotte135, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely,Stelba90 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on Good Articles

1) Do NOT use Bare URLs 2) do not add a bare url that already exists as a fully cited, named ref. 3) do not update the lead without updating the body first.

Do not waste other editors's time cleaning up your sloppy editing, and especially do not do that on a GA. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this comment you made too Jytog "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage."

My reply:

Jytdog Do children and adults reading your comments on the article page really need to be exposed to your filthy foul mouthed abuse?

These highly abusive comments were made because I used Bare URLs!

Now I know, I will not use bare URL's.

I've been on WP for just under 1 year, and am still learning.

I'm also a mature aged woman and find your tone and foul language absolutely unacceptable. I would in any voluntary or paid workplace too.

Is that it? I mean, is that why I copped your foul mouthed verbal and psychological abuse?

Simply because no-one had said to me before this (in a civil manner) don't use bare URL's?

Are you kidding Jytdog? Are you okay? Seriously are you okay? It sure doesn't seem like it.

As I said at the article, if you had read the body of the article, you would have seen the 30% statistic globally was already in the text. So your "do not update the lead without updating the body first" and "WP 101" comments are null and void. But no, you had to come to my talk page and unleash your foul mouthed abuse at me.

I will not reply in turn.

What do you have to say about this?

Jytdog I note that you choose to ignore my good natured offer to explain yourself, and sincerely apologize to me. If you think I won't take your foul mouth verbal and psychological abuse further, without you sincerely apologizing while you have a chance, you are mistaken. Please read our policy here too when you get a chance so other newcomers are not bitten, especially female editors! We are a minority here at Wikipedia Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Charlotte135 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply:

here is your edit. 1) you added a bareURL ref to a Good Article where that ref was already defined. That is just lazy. 2) The content you added was "Pesticide self poisoning is the most common form of completed suicides worldwide, with around 30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries." The bolded part of that was not in the body of the article. You added that only to the lead.

I added that bolded part to the body in this dif. I was in the midst of fixing your lazy bare URL when you reverted (incorrectly, per the diffs above), making me lose some of my work and spending yet more time cleaning up after you. Don't make other editors clean up after you. And update the body first. Jytdog (talk)

You are very very far from a newbie. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply:

Jytdog I have been editing for 11 months. I'm a relative newbie Jytdog, and am still learning so Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

I was just about to add that "most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries" bit to the body of the article too, but you jumped on me before I could even finish my editing.

So for the record, the only thing I did not do, and I learn quickly, is add a bare URL. That's it! Nothing else. I didn't realize. Sorry. Won't happen again.

Now let me be very clear Jytdog. I take offence at your "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage." Any woman would! and now instead of apologizing, you call me "lazy" simply because I didn't realize we couldn't add bare urls.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Reply:

Eleven months is plenty long to know what a good article is, and how to format a citation. Who the hell do you think you are to make such lazy edits to a GA? Somebody has to fix them when you do that. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply:

Jytdog No, not "lazy" at all, and your comment "waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage" is totally unacceptable and highly offensive to a mature aged woman. Do you talk like that to women in your real world life? I've noticed plenty of articles where a bare URL is used when quoting a website. I honestly thought that was how it was done. Now I know. Fine.

However your filthy, foul mouthed verbal abuse is completely unacceptable. You should be more civil toward our female editors. You obviously are unable to accept blame or see how your comments are hurtful and not acceptable at Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, I realize I questioned you why, after we all reached consensus on a point on the suicide article and had all moved on, that then 3 or 4 days later, and after you and Flyer22reborn communicated in secret off Wikipedia came back to the article and suddenly changed the consensus established edit.

I just think, and still do think that this undermines the consensus building process by communicating in secret. Why couldn't you and Flyer22reborn just discuss it on-Wikipedia? That's all I'm saying.

Also, as an obvious act of vengeance, you warned me of edit warring, then seconds later reported me above?? Could you explain why, if this was not revenge? I didn't even have a 1 minute chance to review your warning! That's not fair.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned you were previously warned about edit warring.[16]

You continue to make additions to the article that are either based on primary sources or not supported by the references you provide. For example the ref does not support the text here[17].

The two to four is global stats yet you continue to try to make it out like it is not.[18] Simply put this is disruptive.

Doc JamesCan you please provide the source stating 2-4 global for suicide attempts? I can't see it anywhere?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide attempts and self harm are between two to four times more frequent in females.<ref name=EB2011/><ref>{{cite book|last1=Stern|first1=Theodore A.|last2=Fava|first2=Maurizio|last3=Wilens|first3=Timothy E.|last4=Rosenbaum|first4=Jerrold F.|title=Massachusetts General Hospital Comprehensive Clinical Psychiatry|date=2015|publisher=Elsevier Health Sciences|isbn=9780323328999|page=589|edition=2|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=y5nTBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA589|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Krug|first1=Etienne G.|title=World Report on Violence and Health|date=2002|publisher=World Health Organization|isbn=9789241545617|page=191|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=db9OHpk-TksC&pg=PA191|language=en}}</ref>

The last one is definately global in scope. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc JamesOkay, thanks. I was looking at the 2 primary sources you provided, so I discounted them as countless other primary sources state otherwise. No, I mean the wording "suicide attempt" by the WHO. I can't find it? That's why we changed it to the wording suicidal behaviors which is the wording CDC and the WHO use. Can you please show me exactly where you are looking where the WHO says suicide attempt I can't find it? Thanks.

They are all secondary sources. You do not appear to understand the difference between the two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{U|Doc James} Oh, given the other 2 sources are USA based only. As I said. So again, can you please show me exactly where you are looking where the WHO says suicide attempt converse to suicidal behaviors, I can't find it? That's why we changed it to the wording suicidal behaviors which is the wording CDC and the WHO use. We had consensus. We all moved on to other articles. Then suddenly 3 days later you changed global suicidal behaviors to global suicide attempts. So please just show me exactly where the WHO states the wording suicide attempts. It was pretty obvious by walking after reaching a compromise that I was not edit warring too.

So, just the WHO source please? Could you possibly copy and paste the exact sentence from your WHO source please. That would seem helpful.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flyer22 Reborn brought their concerns to the talk page. And we did discuss it their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your communication was in secret, all I'm going on is Flyer22eeborns comment here " If I did, I would not have alerted Doc James to an edit of yours he recently reverted at the Suicide attempt article." Are you saying Flyer22reborn didn't contact you? Is she lying to me? I'm confused.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Doc James but these are very honest good faith mistakes. The stats are extremely confusing as you know.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, but after this, accusations about Flyer22 are probably best avoided. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No accusations. Flyer22reborn said she communicated with Doc James off Wiki and Doc James is denying that she did. Just black and white facts. I'm confused that's all. Hoping Doc James can clarify this too?Charlotte135 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied text "around 30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not paraphrase this part, "most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries." but I did not cut and paste either. I was going to use quotations. Apologies.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Charlotte135 reported by User:Doc James (Result: ). I see hasty and unccoperative editing here, some on both sides, but apparently more on your side. There is a risk that the next admin may go ahead and close this with a block of your account. In my opinion, you could avoid sanctions if you will agree to take a seven-day break from the topic of suicide on Wikipedia. If you agree, you can post your agreement in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Hi EdJohnston. As you said, if any edit warring has occurred, Doc James was also involved in edit warring. That's okay I don't think you will block Doc James. And I also only want to take responsibility for my own behavior and not point fingers. I said there was no evidence I breached the 3 revert rule. If there is, could you please give the diffs to me again? I'd appreciate it. I don't think I can be blocked based on the 3 revert rule, that's all. There isn't. So if you are going to block me (first instance ever) could you consider a cooling down block or 24 hour block or something which fits my editing? I was looking at our blocking policy and given I have never been involved in edit warring before. Thank you very much. Charlotte135 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Thanks for responding, even in some way.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Hi Charlotte, I've noticed that your name is raised repeatedly in relation to gender disputes, yet you seem not to have been alerted to the gender-related discretionary sanctions. Apologies for the template, but this is how we are supposed to alert people. The sanctions were triggered by Gamergate, but they apply to any gender-related dispute. If you read the template, it's self-explanatory. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Charlotte, I see that you're being considered for a topic ban on AN, and that you said it had something to do with Gamergate.

Just to be clear, the discretionary sanctions (DS) described above (which mean admins may impose certain types of sanctions) and the proposed topic ban are separate procedures. The discretionary-sanctions template was simply to alert you that DS are active in this area. The topic ban that is being considered is a community topic ban. Same outcome (perhaps), but a different process, and nothing to do with Gamergate. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that SlimVirgin. But my point is that given I have had nothing to do with gender topics for months, what topics would I be banned from?Charlotte135 (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus for a topic ban, you'll be asked not to make edits or involve yourself in discussions related to gender, including the kinds of edits you made recently at Suicide (more men than women do x, etc). SarahSV ^(talk) 18:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirginThanks. Is it possible to appeal a topic ban like that, at the arbitration committee or is it worth walking away and another female editor being bullied away from Wikipedia?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirginThanks for responding. Even in some way.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to bait people, someone is likely to block you indefinitely and remove talk-page access. If you want to stay and be a useful editor with this account, now is the time to show that. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

As a result of this discussion on the administrators noticeboard, you are now topic banned from from all sex/gender-related editing, including making sex/gender-related edits on topics not mainly about sex/gender (e.g., Suicide), for one year. For further information about what this entails, please see WP:TBAN. Any further edits in violation of this ban may result in an immediate block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

NeilN As no reasons were given, and no evidence, just a vote from related editors, can you tell me exactly why?

Can you tell me which articles I can edit? Please be very clear so I can comply. For instance, how is suicide related to gender?

How can I appeal?

I ask these questions, as any editor, including your self would, and should, so they can comply. And their rights as any other editor.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of topic bans were outlined in this page away back in April. The topic ban might reasonably be defined as any page that specifically or broadly relates to gender or sexuality, as well as any specific parts of other pages that also relate to the topic. As a current example, this would include (say) edits relating to the gender of suicide victims. As you know. there's more information at WP:TBAN. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were ample reasons given and plenty of evidence. You chose, as seems to be your wont, to ignore them. Information on appealing is at WP:TBAN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a whole section devoted to evidence here. If you intend to appeal I suggest waiting some time and being on your best behavior during that time. If you were to appeal right now they would just confirm the ban (based on what I've seen in similar situations). On the articles, there isn't a specific list that you can and can't edit: you just can't edit anything related to gender. So you could edit the Suicide article if you wanted, as long as you don't edit anything related to gender or mention anything related to gender on the talk page. Make sense? ~Awilley (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reply

What I mean by no evidence being presented is no evidence relating to POV.: Did I edit with a POV in relation to gender? Did I...in relation to gender? As many editors, without mentioning names, edit gender, I'm wondering why I was targeted. Nothing presented here talks about POV relating to gender, nor does it even indicate POV. And Euryalus, you said a while ago, no evidence of POV in the area of gender was found? Many other editors also said they found no evidence of POV. It was my interaction with Flyer22reborn which led to my last topic ban, and 2 way interaction ban, as Flyer22reborn edits these articles (freely)?

So, yes, I am left confused? Was it supposed edit warring over gender? NeilN? In that case, should I have only received a short non punitive block at worst?

The discussion over such a minor issue on talk, was settled through consensus and compromise, which I have often achieved in other WP articles. Everyone had moved on. Then Flyer22reborn suddenly showed up, demanding the issue to be re-opened. So, we all started discussing it again, after it had been settled for 3 days.

I kept pointing to the WHO source that I provided, as I was asked to provide the source. And when I did provide the source, it was ignored, and to this date, remains ignored by Doc James and Jytdog, who were asking me to provide the source. Funny that. Here's my evidence through these three diffs. [19], [20], [21]. In fact, I kept providing a source. The WHO. And it kept being ignored. However those diffs were left out in this highly subjective cherry picked group of diffs, presented here.

I now provide this example, because what was presented, as 'so called' evidence, related to me supposedly ignoring the request for a source and then formed the basis for my 1 year topic ban on gender, and me being a tendentious editor? Holy moly!

So there it is. Me supposedly ignoring the request for a source, (which in fact I kept providing and was ignored) from Jytdog and Doc James, and then being labeled a tendentious editor. And that's why I was given a 1 year topic ban on gender related articles? Huh? Rather unusual. Also bearing in mind, numerous editors there also did not vote for a ban, nor could see the reasoning for one and also said huh? This can be seen here [22] here [23] and here [24] just as examples of this not making sense to them either!

So, Awilley and NeilN, still my question directly above, remains a mystery. Why gender, and why such a lengthy topic ban on gender? An area where administrator Euryalus, and other editors in the past have said I hold no POV. It's just that before I can appeal this at the arbitration committee (with a much stronger case than briefly outlined here) I just need to know why?

Normally for such a harsh penalty the reasons are very clear. However, based on these points, and diffs just provided, why gender, and why a 1 year topic ban, and why labeled a tendentious editor when I have had such good interactions with other editors on so many other WP articles for almost a year looking at my edit history.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat what was said by editors who believed you should be topic banned. All I'm going to say here is if the topic ban has no merit, you should have little trouble convincing Arbcom to overturn it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. As I said, I will not keep badgering on then.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]