Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) Removed section, per WP:Talk. Off-topic. Will note to the editor that off-topic posts should not go on the talk page. Already gave the other edit ample warning. |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:::Do the cut the pretenses. Why you are following Shootingstar88 is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shootingstar88&oldid=700458755#Edit_on_Sex_differences_in_emotional_intelligence very clear]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 00:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
:::Do the cut the pretenses. Why you are following Shootingstar88 is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shootingstar88&oldid=700458755#Edit_on_Sex_differences_in_emotional_intelligence very clear]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 00:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
==Edit on [[ Domestic Violence]]== |
|||
[[User:Charlotte135]] |
|||
Okay I apologize, I mistook your response for something else. |
|||
I also wanted to clarify if you know the differences between primary studies, meta-analysis and reviews? On the DV page you complained how editors have deleted "huge chunks" of info but didn't seem to realize that the deletion included removing primary sources because such things are either included in meta-analysis, or if they have contradictory information to the current consensus among literature then they are not enough to be included in wikipedia..... unless they have been replicated a number of times. You understand what replication also means right? Gender symmetry is also a controversial topic and although there is a old group of researchers who do believe, half or most of newer researchers don't. They believe in Gender contextualization which is that men and women commit equal number of minor DV for diverse set of reasons but severe DV are usually committed by men. Current journals support the latter theory and gender symmetry have been criticized because it relies on old Conflict tactic scales method which does not contextualize DV. I hope we get that out of that way. |
|||
[[User:Shootingstar88|Shootingstar88]] ([[User talk:Shootingstar88|talk]]) 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[[User:shootingstar88]][[User:Shootingstar88|Shootingstar88]] ([[User talk:Shootingstar88|talk]]) 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Apology accepted. And thanks for developing the [[spatial ability]] article. Can I just say though, I have no interest whatsoever in going backwards and discussing the issue of domestic violence and I really don't think it should be placed here on this talk page do you? I realise Flyer22 and you are probably trying to drag me back into that whole mess but please stop. Hope that doesn't offend. Its just that you, Flyer22, and a few others appear obsessed with this emotive topic and could easily be construed as pushing a POV. Others have accused Flyer22 of this obsession with gender and it looks like you are going down the same path. I have disengaged from the topic and any related topics as they seem biased to the extreme. |
|||
On a totally different note, I have made some changes to the Stanford Binet article over the past few days article you may be interested working on. You obviously have an interest in cognitive abilities and intelligence testing and I'm sure we will cross paths. Thanks again for your recently added article on spatial ability. [[User:Charlotte135|Charlotte135]] ([[User talk:Charlotte135|talk]]) 17:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I will be dragging you back to [[WP:ANI]], per what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shootingstar88&oldid=700458755#Edit_on_Sex_differences_in_emotional_intelligence I stated] on Shootingstar88's talk page...if I continue to see the type of disruptive behavior from you that is noted there. Out of the two of us, I am not the one mainly editing gender topics; so if either of us is obsessed with these "emotive topics," it's you. No one but you has accused me of an "obsession with gender." You make the claim of my supposed gender obsession over and over again when my editing history and style is varied, unlike yours. You were advised by more than one editor to stay away from gender topics and show that you can be unbiased and are not a [[WP:Single-purpose account]], and you are showing the exact opposite of that. Disengage is exactly what you should do, from any and every gender topic on Wikipedia. And since I have no doubt that you will not be able to disengage and stop hounding Shootingstar88 because of your inability to accept the literature on these matters with [[WP:Due weight]], I will very likely be reporting you at WP:ANI soon...with evidence, including the evidence showing exactly why you've been following Shootingstar88. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 23:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Flyer22 please stop. '''I do not think that you and your friend shootingstar placing a discussion about domestic violence on this talk page is appropriate.''' You should know better. I want no part of this. Full stop. Please stop right now trying to drag me back into that whole mess which is so obvious to anyone! My comments above are clear. And I have no more comments to add. This is not the place. Leave me alone please Flyer22reborn! I am feeling very harassed by you quite frankly.[[User:Charlotte135|Charlotte135]] ([[User talk:Charlotte135|talk]]) 00:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Leave Shootingstar88 alone (I mean stop the [[WP:Hounding]]), and stop editing as disruptively as you do, and I'll leave you alone. You replied in this section that Shootingstar88 started; you replied with your typical gross mischaracterizations of me, and you expected me not to defend myself? Harassed is exactly what Shootingstar88 has been feeling because of you. You should know better. Keep it up, and you will not like the outcome. Furthermore, by following Shootingstar88, you are editing some articles that I have [[WP:Watchlisted]]. If I see you edit them disruptively, I will be reverting you, with every right to do so. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 00:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::You are waaayyy off the mark. I have not followed anyone, and Shootingstar and I are now working together on these '''gender irrelevant articles''' like [[spatial ability]] in [[psychometrics]]. However Flyer22, it is now obvious even to blind Freddy that you are indeed following me, stalking me. attacking me, hounding me, intimidating me and harassing me, even though I have asked you a number of times to please, leave me alone!!! Go away!!![[User:Charlotte135|Charlotte135]] ([[User talk:Charlotte135|talk]]) 01:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not way off the mark or following you. You know that, and there isn't any way you can spin it around. You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=695404790#Proposed_topic_ban_or_WP:MRMPS_.28probation_enforcement.29_for_Charlotte135 took issue with Shootingstar88], by acting like Shootingstar88 is a biased editor who is part of my supposed gang. And you've recently been following Shootingstar88; it is not a coincidence, and I highly doubt that any other editor would believe that it's a coincidence that you've been popping up at all these articles that Shootingstar88 edits; you can test that matter, but you have been warned. Feel free to report me, but there is nothing to show that I've been hounding you. There is a solid case that you've been hounding Shootingstar88, and the motive for that is clear. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 01:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, and neither you nor Shootingstar88 have yet edited the [[Psychometrics]] article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 01:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Also, since Shootingstar88 is very much still learning the ropes of Wikipedia and I've been mentoring him (or her), it would not be wise for me to leave that mentoring job up to you. Asinine edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_differences_in_emotional_intelligence&diff=700234963&oldid=700232999 this one] you made to the Sex differences in emotional intelligence article, and which Shootingstar88 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_differences_in_emotional_intelligence&diff=700359546&oldid=700358428 had to revert] because you were undermining the literature, speak volumes. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 01:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:56, 19 January 2016
![]() | Psychology Start‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Cognitive science Start‑class (inactive) | ||||||
|
As long as you know the differences between primary studies, meta-analysis and reviews. On the sex difference in emotional intelligence page, you would find that I cited the latest meta-analysis on emotional intelligence (tens and tens of studies) which suggests greater female EI (Joseph & Newman 2010) as well as three meta-analysis of sex differences in reading body language, processing emotions and reading of the mind empathy tests which all amounts to hundreds of studies. Based on hundreds and hundreds of studies analyzed by the authors of these secondary sources, the literature suggests women have greater EI. Hence that is what I put on the wikipage, just so you now know.
Shootingstar88 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Fair call. I will re-check what the sources say. By the way I've noticed on more than one occasion, your style of writing is non encyclopedic in many cases. I say that not as a personal attack, but I even tried to add a cleanup header to a couple of articles you are working on,a few days ago, but decided to revert my edit to do so, and am electing instead to just mention it to you here, as it just needs to be said. In fact, most of my edits to these few shared articles, (spatial reasoning is another) are cleaning up your style. Please don't take offence. I just needed to say that for you perhaps to review your style of writing. Good luck. And look forward to working with you. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually the writing style is similar to that of many researchers in the field of psychology. It is from a non-expressive objective perspective of data found within sources especially higher level sources such as meta-analysis and reviews. You can't blame my writing if overwhelming evidence points toward one direction.
This is freaky because I just noticed this....but why are you following me on the pages I edit? It is too consistent to be a coincidence.
Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh ok so you cant take constructive criticism. Even when I frame it so diplomatically and kindly careful not to offend. I have had to clean up much of your writing style if you look at my actual edits on these all of 3 common articles we are editing. Big deal. Why the heck would I be following you? What are you talking about. I am still concerned about your writing style though although you are trying to deflect my concerns. I'll provide some diffs to show you what I mean if you like?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Not only do spatial abilities involve understanding the outside world, but they also involve processing outside information and reasoning it through mental and visual imagery in the mind." This sentence I just copied directly from the lead of the spatial ability article. It is not succinct nor encyclopedic, that's all. I don't even know what you mean so it is hard to even correct. "......reasoning it through mental and visual imagery in the mind." I could provide 100 more examples. Do you see?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Decided to add cleanup tag and reasons. This article is sloppily written, riddled with errors as per tag.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do the cut the pretenses. Why you are following Shootingstar88 is very clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)