Winstonchurchill2nd

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Dakota 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Violence against women

Your recent edit to Violence against women (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dakota 23:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Urrrm, violence against men is a valid subject for an article there is even a study about it and is currently being sought through the Houses of Parliament in the UK and even the White House in the US. You're probably one of these 'feminists' that thinks that Violence against men doesn't happen, well it does and it's attitudes like yours that cause thousands of men to hide away because they are scared to come foward. I, myself am female so I am going to tell you woman to woman, to stop being so feminist.

Hello, the reverts have nothing to do with feminism. You have reverted redirects without a concensus to do so. It would be better to discuss proposed changes on the the talk page.--Dakota 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But that does actually warrant an article though - look at all the references I drew up in the links? BTW Hello too! :)

First of all, welcome. Second of all, please sign talk page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically date and sign your posts. This makes it easier for people to keep track of who is saying what on talk pages. Next, as noted above, you are creating a spinout article and changing a redirect without discussing it first. Being bold is OK. But if you are reverted, you shold probably stop and talk about it before reverting back. I suggest using Talk:Domestic violence as a place to start this discussion, so that other editors can weigh in on this matter. I'll also note that the Domestic violence against men article was recently merged with the general article, so recreating similar content elsewhere is going against that consensus. I'd encourage you to perhaps work up the men's section of the DV article before spinning out the content into its own article. As for the specifics with your article. The header is incorrect. The German study you cite and quote does not only deal with violence found in straigh domestic partnerships. It deals with ALL forms of violence against men. I urge you to read up on a few of our most common policies that will help you learn how to write good, reserached, verifiable, and reliable articles WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Domestic violence

Please try to engage in talk page discussions instead of reverting and accusing me of things. Your revert was not helpful because it removed the chages to the Christian views section. Furthermore, you didn't address any of my concerns on talk. Your edit removed a template:verify tag without fulfilling the requirements of tag removal. You also added new content without citing a reliable source. Finally, I think there is a big issue you are ignoring, DV in same sex relationships. Your edits completely ignore this POV, which statistically is more serious than the woman on man DV (you also have some capitalization issues). Once again, I ask that you stay civil, that you stick to discussing content, and that we talk this out over at Talk:Domestic violence. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)