User talk:Zachava96
Hi! If anyone has things to say to me, this is the place for it. I may check this page infrequently, though, as I'm not a very active editor. --Zman9600 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We keep edit conflicting[edit]
Sorry about that! If I have already left a template, do you want me to remove it or are you fine with leaving mine there? S0091 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've just been removing my template if you already responded to them, since in the edit history you had posted first. No worries. --Zman9600 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Gershoff misrepresents the original studies, but they do support the claim[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.167.213.65#March_2019
In the source already given, Gershoff says:
The few existing randomized control trials showed that physical punishment was no more effective than other methods in eliciting compliance. In one such study, an average of eight spankings in a single session was needed to elicit compliance, and there was “no support for the necessity of the physical punishment.”
And this is true, however these high numbers were true of other tactics as well (because it was focusing on clinically defiant children). However, the only other method that was as effective was an empty 4x5 isolation room with a 4-foot high plywood barrier - it has not been tested in other settings and no other method was found to be as effective.
See this for a fuller explanation of Roberts' RCTs: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=lcp
Furthermore, studies focusing on specific forms of spanking rather than it in general and that compared it against other punishments often showed insignificant negatives or even positive results:
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/15.10.49.PR0.112.3.933-975
- http://christopherjferguson.com/Larzelere%20et%20al.,%20CD.pdf
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10567-005-2340-z
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00977030
- http://www.appstate.edu/~steelekm/classes/psy5300/Documents/Benjet&Kazdin2003.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.213.65 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- The conclusion that you came to was one that the author of the source did not reach. This violates the WP:NOR policy. From the policy:
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. (emphasis added)
- If you can find a source that supports your claim directly, please feel free to bring it up on the talk page and reach consensus on this matter. --Zman9600 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, but the existing source is weaker than the paper that I gave which gives a longer explanation of the RCTs and supports my claim. Until I bring it up there, the existing claim should be removed at least. Furthermore, I did offer research that directly supports the claim that milder forms have little negative effect or even positive effects. Ender-00 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Why?[edit]
It was my first time from this IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.128.53 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- FYI - Just reported them to AIV. S0091 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's a bit of a moot point now, but I went to final warning immediately because your vandalism contained "The first s I decided to vandalize this article because I was bored." You clearly knew what you were doing was wrong, but you did it anyway. Then, you did it again after being warned. --Zman9600 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Upgrading accuracy - sorry for missing the earlier reference issue[edit]
The original quote is poorly referenced - it is a partial quote, referenced in an interview, where the original person is quoted by a second person, and that quote is used. I changed it to link to the original and complete quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |