User talk:2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0

October 2024

Hello, I'm Joyous!. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Duluth model seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joyous! Noise! 18:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I most certainly agree that articles are required to be objective, but the model is rancid and non-scientific. It must be appropriately described. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous, please do not revert without cause or understanding of the model. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Duluth model. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Alith Anar 18:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of proof.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.03.002

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9862-7

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01030-0_14

DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.10.4.517

70 Mont. L. Rev. 125 (2009)

Beyond Duluth: A Broad Spectrum of Treatment for a Broad Spectrum of Domestic Violence 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Duluth model, you may be blocked from editing. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factual statements are mandatory. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Duluth model. Alith Anar 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Duluth model shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Duluth model

If you would read the (many) notices here, you might notice that the information you want to add is not the problem. There are three different editors trying to tell you that the sourcing is the issue. If you have published, reliable sources, simply add them as footnotes with your material. If you need help formatting a source, please see this page, or ask at the Teahouse. Joyous! Noise! 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> the information you want to add is not the problem. There are three different editors trying to tell you that the sourcing is the issue

If I re add the prior statements with the these sources, will the issue be resolved? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:54B5:39B:CEF1:203F (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would certainly help. I can't access the articles to see what they say in detail, but the summary looks as though it supports what you're trying to say. Now the key is tone. I can tell that you feel strongly about this, and it's wise to try to dial that down a little. There's a difference between "This model is clearly sexist" and "Critics have indicated deep concerns about sexism in the model, stating X, Y, and Z." (reference). Joyous! Noise! 18:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.