User talk:Jayx80

Welcome!
Hello, Jayx80, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Darwinian Ape talk 03:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Discretionary Sanctions notification
Darwinian Ape talk 15:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Domestic violence article
Hi. See what I stated at Talk:Domestic violence. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Jayx80, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Domestic violence have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


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

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Shootingstar88?
Jayx80, at this point, you only somewhat remind me of User:Shootingstar88; so I'm just going to go ahead and ask if you are that editor. Are you? I can see that you are not completely new to Wikipedia editing, but I'm not sure about what past account you might have had. You're new enough, but not too new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn

That's actually really odd because I legit have never been a wiki editor before! This is my very first account haha. I keep accidentally breaking wiki rules (there are so damn many though) so I figured I'm an obvious newb. Glad that's not really as painfully obvious then. Jayx80 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I did state that "You're new enough, but not too new." For now, I will not state more on the subject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

One account and other stuff
Stick to one account. This one. Do not use two. I see no valid reason for why you are using Jayx82. Read WP:Sockpuppetry. And as for your latest additions to the Domestic violence article, it's the same issues as before. Like I noted on the article talk page, I've been over them with you enough. I suggest you make proposals on the article talk page. I can't state that I will approve of any, however. And also keep in mind WP:SIZE issues and that articles are not for any and everything on a topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that your Jayx82 account says you forgot your password, which seems odd since only a day passed between accounts. Either way, stick to one account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, you should probably just scratch proposals since I've warned you enough about editing the way that you edit. I am not interested in dealing with this every couple or few months. Except for looking to review articles instead of solely primary sources, you are not improving. And I will eventually gather enough evidence on you and report you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To some, I perhaps shouldn't sound so frustrated, especially since you are still a newbie. But what you stated before about repeated attempts to make you understand is right on the money. And don't forget this. Not only are you still adding in your preferred wording for things, some of which isn't even supported by the sources, you are formatting the article in ways that need some discussion and you are adding an awful lot of unnecessary content to an already huge article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't feel the suspicious treatment is justified because you can see from my editing history that most of it has been done on mobile. I tried switching to my desktop yesterday to edit because mobile editing is so laggy and difficult.
 * I forgot my password and had to make a new account.


 * What wording am I adding in that isn't supported by the sources?


 * I don't understand how my editing is so problematic that it necessitates reporting....but it seems you've made up your mind about that already.
 * I repeatedly read the Wiki rules and try to follow them. My intention is always to make the articles better and informative.

Jayx82 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My suspicion of you clearly isn't about the use of your new account. It's about your repeated POV editing and WP:Editorializing. Where we get men's rights editors at one extreme end, you are like the opposite of those editors at the far other end. With this link, you can see the editor Sewblon in a discussion with me. You are like the extreme opposite of that editor (as seen when comparing your edits to his), and fixing and combating both of yours POVs is tiring. For one, you don't discuss before making big changes. You should -- on the article talk page -- given how controversial the Domestic violence article is and how there has repeatedly been issues with your editing. For two, you always edit with a POV that leans towards attacking or trying to attack male domestic violence victims or research on them. I understand that women are by far the vast majority of domestic violence victims and have far more issues when it comes to domestic violence; I've argued this a number of times on this site. But it is still no justification for you editing with a "men are more so the problem" POV. Nor does it justify you editing using POV words such as "particularly" and "highly," as seen in this latest revert I made regarding your edits. If the sources use those words, then okay. As we also see with that revert, you are still adding in other wording. Where do any of the sources state "and the First-wave feminist movement"? Or "bodily restriction", or "legal services"? For "an 'abusive personality' (narcissistic, antisocial, psychopathic)," it at least seems that you added in a source. But knowing how you edit, I can't be sure that the source even uses that wording unless I read it. With this edit, I restored your gender differences material without some of your POV wording, but the Straus material is still worded in a POV way because you did not simply present Straus's research/argument first and then note that it's been criticized. You went right into noting that it's been criticized, as though it also hasn't been supported. I will tweak the way this is presented so that it begins with the research/argument and then note that it's been criticized. And something like "Males' self-reports of victimization are unreliable, as they consistently underreport their own violence perpetration." suggests that males can never be trusted when it comes to reporting their own victimization, which is a biased line without context. You noticed that I removed "highly" so that it doesn't read as "highly unreliable."


 * All in all, you need to discuss more first and wait for replies, stop editing in such a POV way, stop adding in words that the sources don't use and stop adding so much content as if the article is meant to significantly cover everything on domestic violence (such as random text about animal abuse). WP:SIZE when it comes to articles is a real issue. The "Gender differences" section is meant to be a summary since there are individual sections for men and women below that. You also need to stop adding one-sided content. And I'm not talking about WP:False balance. We don't tolerate false balance. But we don't tolerate one-sided content either, meaning content presented from solely one side when there is appropriate content to be presented regarding the other side. You also need to be mindful of WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see where you were going with "and the First-wave feminist movement," per a source. But the source is talking about more than one wave. Still, since the text is focused on "during the 19th century," I will re-add "first-wave feminist movement." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining all this. It's duly noted.

Bancroft *does* state that males' reports about their victimization by women must be treated with skepticism at first and ruled out as violent because this is common and typical for batterers to DARVO. This is stated in his book about male abusers "Why Does He Do That"... It's not about a bias against men.

Do you read the whole sources that I cite though? Hamby states in the source that males' self-reports are consistently shown to be unreliable. I could add in what Loseke stated? That both female and male reports are unreliable but for different reasons? Females underreport their own victimization. Males overreport their victimization by female partners. Kimmel and Straus also noted this. Womens violence violates their gender stereotype and so its more notable whereas mens violence is somewhat expected. Loseke states this in the source I added.

You act like I'm distorting the findings... But I do not understand how you come to the conclusion that my editing represents POV editing because as you've clearly seen, the majority of DV scholars DO conclude that men's violence is more common and more problematic. Multiple well-respected DV scholars like Hamby and Gelles and Hamberger and Bancroft and Loseke etc literally state this... Which is why Straus and his claims are so highly contested. If this is the overwhelming conclusion, then why is it a POV? Wouldn't it be misleading to NOT give this impression?

Have I misinterpreted wikis rules? Jayx82 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The way you commonly POV-edit has not a thing to do with the weight of the literature for me. If it did, I would not have also argued times before that "the majority of DV scholars DO conclude that men's violence is more common and more problematic" and that "Straus and his claims are [...] highly contested." You can see me arguing as much in the discussion with Sewblon. If the way you commonly POV-edit had a thing to do with the weight of the literature for me, I would not have stated above, "And I'm not talking about WP:False balance. We don't tolerate false balance. But we don't tolerate one-sided content either, meaning content presented from solely one side when there is appropriate content to be presented regarding the other side. You also need to be mindful of WP:Synthesis." My issue is with how you edit. Do you not recognize that you keep editorializing? Read WP:Editorializing. I've pointed out your editorializing over and over again. And you just keep nodding and doing it anyway. You cannot add in POV wording such as "highly" or anything else unless the sources specifically state it. You cannot change words to things the sources don't support. I've told you this over and over again. That is my main issue with how you edit. The other issue is with you adding too much detail or adding things that need not be included. And the last is you making things seem a certain way without context. Hamby stating that males' self-reports are consistently shown to be unreliable does not mean that males never tell the truth/are never reliable. Furthermore, Hamby is just one source. This is why I gave the material WP:In-text attribution. No, I don't think we need anything else added to that section, unless it's to note that men can also be truthful/reliable about their victimization. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay I see what you mean. And yes the editorializing. I completely forgot about that wiki rule...

Loseke, Kimmel, Straus etc reported it too. Hamby was reviewing the findings on male/female self-reports and their reliability. Did I imply somewhere that males can never be truthful about their victimization? Because that's certainly not what I had intended. I'm fully aware men can be abused by women.

I was under the impression that there is no need to mention that males can be truthful about their victimization since this is just a given? Jayx82 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Look here, where a bot reverted you at the Men's rights movement article. You added "the majority of scholars." You can't add that without a source specifically stating it. You added also "controversial." Per WP:LABEL and WP:PEACOCK, we try to avoid terms like that one and instead explain how something or someone is controversial. As for laughing at their partners, I still don't see that it's needed, but I don't strongly object to a brief mention. I'll re-add it. As for men being truthful, the current text gives the impression that they aren't truthful about their victimization because it simply states that "Sherry Hamby reports that males' self-reports of victimization are unreliable, as they consistently underreport their own violence perpetration.", and this is not qualified with a term like "often" (as in "often unreliable"). It makes it sound like men can never be trusted or can rarely be trusted about their perpetration or own victimization, and I'm not sure that "rarely" is accurate. But at least it now has in-text attribution. And if the source doesn't qualify with a term like "often," we shouldn't either. I questioned your use of "highly," but if the source uses it, we can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

More issues seen with the following: Here you added "supposedly." Here you added "notably" and "claims not supported by the data." Here you used "claim," but "said" here. Here you changed "the research" to "flawed research." Here you added "cautions." Concerning "cautions," I reverted, explaining that it was WP:Editorializing/POV language, and also should not be used per WP:Said. You re-added it. And as for you adding a source for "traumatic bonding," does your source, either of the two sources, even state "is the most likely of the types to cause" or something very similar?

Either way, I am done warning you. When it comes to biasing wording via WP:Editorializing/POV language, it is clear that you cannot control yourself and that you will not change. I suggest you prepare whatever argument you think will best suit you when I report you at WP:ANI. Of course, you don't have to show up there when I report you, but it would probably be best if you did. And I will take my time on the matter; not sure when I will report. You show back up every month, couple of months, or few months, and editors at WP:ANI like a hot case rather than a cold or lukewarm case; so I might report soon. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at A Rape on Campus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

July 2018
Do not engage in any more POV-pushing at the Domestic violence article. We don't need quotes from single researchers, lending their undue voices or similar. As you surely saw, that the article lends undue weight to women as victims is currently being debated on the article's talk page. One aspect of dispute is the "Gender differences" section that you are partly responsible for. You can vote in the RfC if you want to, obviously, but you should leave that section alone while this matter is being debated on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)