User talk:Sonicyouth86

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks.   An optimist on the run! 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Re your e-mail[edit]

It's possible, but more than one person uses Wikipedia in service of an agenda. Do you have a third opinion? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but it seems like too much of a coincidence that one disappears and the other shows up to pick right where the first one left off. Even their style is similar. I guess we'll just have to wait and observe. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Altitude: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Don't worry, I have placed a warning on their page for you. Chip123456 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Maybe it's time for me to enable Twinkle... *shudder* --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Saw ur message. I live there and it doesnt seem occupied to me. why cant i remove that info? I thought that everyone can add or remove content. Am I mistaken? Can I start a discussion in support of my edit? Do I need to open an account? looking forward to hearing from you. Sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Your English is just fine, no worries:) I reverted this edit because you removed information and two reliable sources. In addition to that, your edit combined parts of two sentences and made it difficult to understand: "At the endhe international community considers Israeli settlements 2010}}"
Yes, you absolutely can start a discussion in support of your edit on the article talk page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sonicyouth86. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Immortalised ; sorry, but I had to do it![edit]

It had me in such fits of giggles that I felt compelled to add it to the stable ;P Hugz! Your words lightened my day. Pesky (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm here to entertain. So anytime ;) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sonicyouth86. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stereotype, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wiley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Insulting and untrue assertions[edit]

Sonicyouth, you are in dangerous territory with this edit. Those are palpable falsehoods, and completely worthless in discussion at a talkpage that has come under special ArbCom scrutiny and is subject to discretionary sanctions. It is undeniable that the article Men's rights (under whatever name) has been controversial for ages. It is undeniably subject to article probation, under controversial circumstances. It is undeniable that the title and contents have been hotly contested: at least in an RM discussion in 2011, in a deceptively advertised RFC in 2012, and currently in a new RM discussion. Worst of all, you have no foundation for your non-AGF accusation against me. I strongly advise you to withdraw it, now. You know very well that WP:MOS is my primary interest on Wikipedia, and that titling (WP:TITLE, WP:RM, etc.) is my secondary interest. This was all declared at the top of my talkpage long ago, and still is; and my record and reputation will corroborate these plain facts. I have only a slight interest in the gender articles on Wikipedia – certainly in comparison with your own involvement with them. Please desist from slanders. I knew nothing about the move proposed in that RFC you mention, because it was not advertised. That is the basis of my complaint, and you have no ground for baldly stating otherwise. I will consider my options if you do not retract your irresponsible assertion. And in future, please declare your own interest, as you so far have steadfastly refused to do at WT:TITLE.

It's your move, now.

NoeticaTea? 12:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention to retract my statements just as you have no intention to retract your numerous irresponsible and bad faith assertions about KC and a host of other editors. Contrary to your stated belief, the RfC wasn't some evil plot to sneak the move through without proper scrutiny and there was nothing controversial about it. Knock yourself out. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You compound your errors. I did not make any claim about an "evil plot". Show me a statement I have made about KillerChihuahua that you think is irresponsible, and I will back it up from the publicly available record. You make assertions about my motivations and feelings for which you have not the slightest evidence, other than your own ill-advised assumptions of bad faith. Don't do that. I will continue to keep options open about how to deal with this, including by an approach to WP:AE.
NoeticaTea? 13:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You keep implying that the RfC was a means to game the system or, as you put it, to "conceal attempts to sneak moves through without proper scrutiny". As you made very clear in the ArbCom case and continue to imply, you believe that KC played a crucial role in that attempt "to sneak moves through without proper scrutiny". They suppressed votes, their actions had "far-reaching consequences" and their subsequent RfC to have a relevant policy clarified was "POV", or so your story goes. In fact, there doesn't seem to be one comment where you don't explicitly mention KC or allude to them. Your bad faith assumptions about editors involved in the RfC were discussed in the ArbCom case. You continue to write about "agendas" and "POV". You claim to be a master of "useful, calm, structured, and unbiased discussion sometime. One that does not start from a concealed agenda or ill-informed presuppositions" when, in fact, you've been personalizing discussions and being uncivil to other editors. Let me be very clear: This is my last comment on the issue. If you wish to pursue this, knock yourself out. Whichever venue you choose will be a good place to resume discussion about your topic ban. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, which do not show what you suggest they do. Take more care: people can check, you know. Thanks also for undertaking to comment no more. I might hold you to that! You refer to my topic ban, as if there were one. You clutch at straws: this time, a premature and unsupported suggestion by one arbitrator who did not wait to see the evidence. That evidence included my very limited and non-combative encounter with an article that you appear to have strong feelings about. Get accurate please. Note also: there was no ArbCom case; we got a very useful and self-contained record of opinions and recommendations, instead. Now, try to stick to facts for which evidence can be adduced; or comment no more, indeed.
NoeticaTea? 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You are correct in that the Arbs appeared to have little interest in your, in my opinion, trumped-up charges against KC. In this sense, it wasn't a case. You claimed to have noble reasons for presenting your grievances to the ArbCom, something about ensuring that "proper procedure" is followed when establishing consensus for moves. I found your reasoning bureaucratic at best, and, at worst, a rather transparent attempt to besmirch KC's reputation. As to the proposed topic ban: It has been noted that your ivote wasn't based on existing site policy and that your additions to the article in question breached WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as explained to you on the article talk page as well as here. You don't seem to understand that. Besides, I've watched you interact with several editors in the past few days and I think that yours is a surface civility, to put it very mildly. I didn't support the proposal to have you topic banned because I didn't want to kick you when you were down. But I do think that your edits to the specific topic area, which you obviously care about, tend to be problematic. Your actions in the past few days certainly didn't help.
This conversation is over for me. Please take your complaints about me elsewhere. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Social groups intro[edit]

Hi Sonicyouth86. Thanks for taking the time to look at the discussion surrounding the Social groups intro. In the interests of looking for a resolution, do any of the current drafts seem passable to you? There is one here that I think addresses your concerns, as well as one over here. As I have mentioned in my discussion with Bhny, I see no reason to down play the fact that the definition is a matter of debate in the lead, but will accept anything that coherently reflects the multiple definitions that are part of the article body. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I'll have a look and comment there. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Uffizi Florence Wrestlers 1.png Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.

Kevlar (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Final warnings and only warnings[edit]

Hi. In situations like this, where the user has already had a "final" warning, please report them to WP:AIV rather than give them an "only warning". Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

McDowell 1985[edit]

I got McDowell's 1985 Forensic Science Digest article. But there is also his 1985 interview in Chicago Lawyer with a different sample size. The "echo chamber" web articles frequently cite them incorrectly or interchangeably and the authors may not even have read them. (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Familiarity with Men's Rights Movement related material[edit]

Hi, You seem to be quite familiar with several sources that cover the Men's Rights Movement (while I'm still studying the associated information for the first time). I'm working to bring the article up to a good level of writing, structure and sourcing, but due to the size of changes needed I've been outlining and tracking information from sources/etc. in a sandbox/workspace at User:Ismarc/MR/Basis. Would you mind if I occasionally drop a note asking you to review a section for wording/representation of the sources? I don't expect it to be very frequent, it would more be what I would consider a draft that inclusion in the main article would improve the article and be a good starting point for others to improve from. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Probation notification[edit]

I realize you are already aware of the article probation, having mentioned it to CSDarrow, but for procedural purposes, I need a diff to mark in the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - TP 17:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

INeverCry 21:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thank you, INeverCry. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that joe dyer is not a pass master?[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If you need[edit]

a reference for that backlash spot in MRM feel free to use, [1] AS you might remember, I can't add it because . . ..... I can't. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Faludi, Susan, ‘’Backlash:The Undeclared War Against American Women’’, Crown Publishers Inc, New York, 1991 pp. 63-64
I have no idea why someone would tag a specific claim in the lead section when the body has multiple references supporting it. Perhaps they didn't read beyond the first three sentences? If people insist on redundant citations, who am I to deny them? As for your suggestion that I cite Faludi, I doubt that she wrote specifically about the MR activists we know and love (so much). You enjoy your involuntary break from the article, Carptrash! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


I gave up on the evolutionary psychology articles many years ago. There was a time when I genuinely attempted to help Memills & Co. I wanted to see the topic area improved and tried to lend a hand. All I got in return was a stump. Memills really needs to be banned from Wikipedia at this point. He's not here to help. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame. I went through the archives and it felt like there was a palpable sense of frustration among the the experienced editors. What I don't understand is why a group of good editors didn't put their foot down and enforce our core content policies. Ignore the massive amounts of original research for a minute and just look at the structure of the Criticism of evolutionary psychology article. It's embarrassing. [1][2][3][4][5][6] and so forth and that's just a sample from the first archive. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
After backing off this page for a good long time, I'm trying to facilitate some compromise on the EP page. As someone stepping into a firestorm, I'm aware that I might tick some editors off no matter what I say, and I hope you're not one of them. Please be nice. Thanks in advance. Leadwind (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackson Katz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Sonicyouth86. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talkcontribs) 03:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Men's rights[edit]

I cannot send you the whole article because of copyright, but the only sentence that mentions men's rights says, " It was only in 1993 that the National Coalition of Free Men, a men's rights group that has championed William's cause, raised the $3,000 needed to buy the transcript." (The transcript was needed for an intended appeal.) The subject of the article was perhaps wrongly convicted and excessively censored upon conviction under "under a four-year-old state law allowing charges of rape between spouses living separately." There is nothing in the article that says the Coalition or anyone else opposed the law. TFD (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is all very strange. I remember reading the source after someone added it to the mrm article in 2012 and I was surprised that the article by Young supported the statement. I'll have to check to see what went wrong there. Perhaps I'll contact the editor who added the reference. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So what is it[edit]

with "–" that makes it better than a -? It's very late but this is keeping me awake. Carptrash (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The first is an en dash, the second is a hyphen. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

87 and 09 papers[edit]

In this June 5 edit you mentioned some references you were interested in adding to the article and which could be superior alternatives to the use of Plotkin's diary to establish the historical existence of an early 1900 MR movement. I am very much interested in exploration of these two sources which discuss this which you linked, which are as far as I can tell:

You mention that the first:

discusses the responses to feminism at the turn of the century and it mentions the men's rights movement under the header "Contemporary parallels".

You mention that the second discusses Mannerrechtsbewegung (this seems like a good word to remember for German research). You mention that both:

sources characterize the 1920's version of men's rights groups as part of a backlash against the women's rights movement

What I am a bit confused about in regard to distinction though:

not aware of any sources which deal with forerunners or turn-of-the-century parallels to the men's rights movement

I'm not sure how it became a topic... why are we looking for forerunners/parallels as opposed to backlash groups? Are these mutually exclusive? Does a group that forms in response to perceived lack of equal rights with women differ too much to be considered MRM? It's a bit confusing, having trouble telling differences here, I see them as basically the same thing.

One part that confuses me is how you gathered this information as I wasn't able to pick it out of the abstract. Are there quotable aspects of the abstract that establish this? Or is it something only people viewing these essays could see? Is it permissible for us to include short excerpts from them? Ranze (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Men's Rights Movement article[edit]

I've left a topic on the Men's Rights Movement talk page, would you care to comment?Fuebar (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Boden, Unsworth


Stop outing other editors when the diffs have been revdeleted, it is grounds for an immediate block. Tutelary (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that the diffs have been revdeled which means that [redact] Please read WP:Outing and pay special attention to the part where it says "unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". You need to stop with your bogus outing claims. You made the admission of off-wiki canvassing disappear but people will connect the dots. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read the entirety of WP:OUTING: If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. You are repeating what has been already suppressed in diffs, please stop repeating it. I'm requesting oversight for the two more diffs on the talk page and here, but you seriously need to freakin' stop outing other users. Tutelary (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't repeated any information that was revdeled (such as the user, the targeted article or linked to the off-wiki thread). What needs to seriously stop is the incessant canvassing and user's intervention to conceal it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sonicyouth, I love a bit of gossip as much as the next girl, and I'm not an oversighter so I can't see exactly what was going on on ANI, but the history suggests a significant amount of "you're really not listening". Let's have no more of that. If there's anything that needs to be said and it can't be said here, email me. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Sonicyouth86. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talkcontribs) 18:36, 1 September 2014

Respect of my gender[edit]

Hello, at one of the WP:ANI pages you commented and used male pronouns to describe me or subsequently used a comment like, 'Pretending to be something they're not'. I would like to note that I am a woman and referring to me by male pronouns by mistake, and fixing it later is perfectly fine, however given the context of the situation, I don't approve of it happening when I've made it clear several times that I am a woman. ArbCom especially has already set a precedent on this in the Manning case, where editors should respect other editor's gender identities, gender, backgrounds, and the like. I would like to be respected so I am going to ask that you edit your comment to use female pronouns. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff? Is the community supposed to unknow and unsee the information about you or do we just pretend? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
[7] Tutelary (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Where are the male pronouns, Tutelary? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Where you said 'claiming to be a woman' it's false. I'm not claiming to be a woman in any context anywhere. I am a woman. That would be my primary complaint with your comment, even if it didn't have any male pronouns. Tutelary (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You are most certainly and repeatedly claiming to be a woman when you say "I am a girl" (your emphasis). I can provide diffs if necessary. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You know what I mean. The way you're saying it is that you're heavily implicating that I am a guy attempting to pretend to be a girl on Wikipedia. Yes, I am claiming to be one in the context that I am continually asserting it because editors don't really seem to get it unless I make it ultra clear. I am not 'claiming to be a woman' in the context that I am a male IRL just pretending to be one on wiki. I would just really love it if you edited your comment. Tutelary (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
They way I am saying it is that you are claiming – very vocally and many times and for no apparent reason – that you are a woman. There's no need to implicate anything about you because the evidence is so convincing (even if you had most of it oversighted on-wiki) that one can say it explicitly. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
So are you going to edit your comment or not? Tutelary (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Providing Notice[edit]

When you report an editor at a noticeboard, you are supposed to notify them on their talk page. I notified DHeyward for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that the ping function took care of that. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Masculism sidebar[edit]


I can see that you've removed my {{Masculism sidebar}} from one of the pages linked within it (Men's movement). I thought I'd clarify that the intention of the sidebar is to act as an umbrella for all men's movements and related subjects, not as a subset of the men's movement. The term "masculism" was taken directly from its corresponding bottom bar which has been prominently included in these pages for years. The term, in the way I've used it, is also currently supported throughout Wikipedia (see: Masculism).

While I appreciate that there may be a difference in definitions flying around, could I invite you to improve the sidebar to make its relevancy less controversial rather than removing it from relevant pages? Currently, it's the only sidebar broadly related to any of these subjects, and I feel that the goal it strives to achieve is a fairly important one.

Thanks! Apples grow on pines (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Apples grow on pines: Please discuss such issues on the article talk page, not my user talk page. Just as a hint: The term as you use it isn't supported by anything because you can't use (unsourced and incorrect) material from a Wikipedia article as a source: WP:CIRCULAR. The men's movement doesn't just consist of the men's rights/masculi(ni)st perspective and it's inappropriate to brand the men's liberation and profeminist men's movement with a "masculist" sidebar. By the way, the unsourced "second sentence" in the masculism article that you referred to in your edit summary was added by an IP in direct contradiction to the sources at the end of the paragraph. The masculism article is a travesty. The lead used to look like this when there were enough editors to keep an eye on the article and revert POV pushing and original research. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Sonicyouth86: I'm a bit disappointed that you chose to re-revert the edit instead of helping out with the sidebar. Would you be content with the sidebar being renamed to a "Men's movements" sidebar, keeping in mind the intent rather than its current content? Apples grow on pines (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me when you write on my talk page. I have no interest in the sidebar. From a quick look I can tell that it contains many of the "topics and issues" of the men's rights/masculi(ni)st movement (some exceptions being transphobia and homophobia as masculi(ni)sm/men's rights movement isn't interested in those issues) but excludes the topics and issues of the profeminist men's movement. I really don't care about the sidebar. What I do care about is that you plastered a men's rights/masculi(ni)st sidebar on the men's movement page although the men's rights/masculi(ni)st perspective is anathema to some strands of the men's movement. Please take this discussion to the article talk page. I will not reply here again. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Men's rights[edit]

Hi there,

I'm sorry if you think my edit was unconstructive. I edited the MR Child Custody section because I find it constructive to ensure high article quality. The issue was subject to discussionon the talk page at the end of 2013, and no new arguments were fothcoming, neither pro nor con, since my last post in that discussion. Having left it a year to hear new arguments seemed sufficient. I'v also discussed the matter on the relevant Notice Board, where it was opined (I'm paraphrasing this now, it was worded differently at the notice board) that if a claim is not stated directly in a source, the claim can be deleted; if there is some merit to the claim, it can be stated with qualifications. Could we discuss that? (I'll copy this to the MR talk page) T. (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to rehash an issue that was discussed in 2013. Several editors weighed in and didn't agree with you but I'll reply again on the article talk page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  EllieTea (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up to your comment at WP:AE[edit]

Regarding this comment. Admins can't watch over every single edit in a contested area. The best we can do is look at what people have been doing and see if they are actively working towards consensus. The distant view of False accusation of rape is that people are collaborating incompetently. Long-term, that behavior is unacceptable. I don't have the time or patience to give everyone a rating on the quality of their edits so far. I see behavior on both sides that can be criticized. But admins do have the ability to shift the incentives so that lack of competence will lead the person to be excluded from the topic. Hopefully that will focus everyone's thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment. I don't expect you to give "everyone a rating on the quality of their edits so far". But I do expect you to actually look at the revision history and discussion page before deciding to sanction all editors equally to achieve "balance". You say that you see behavior on both sides that can be criticized. Can you be more specific? On EllieTea's side we have (at least) persistent original research, misrepresentation of sources, refusal to follow the BRD cycle and restoring edits against consensus, i.e., everything sanctionable under the GG discretionary sanctions. Is there really equivalent misbehavior on "the other side"? If so, what is it? I'd much rather receive a warning for something that I actually did instead of something that I definitely and demonstrably did not do (that is, edit without consensus). Re lack of competence will lead the person to be excluded from the topic. At what cost? Sure, sooner or later EllieTea will be excluded form the topic either because they will lose interest after failing to gain consensus for their disruptive edits or because some admin will bother to actually look at their editing, notice the disconnect between edits and policy and act accordingly. But how much time and effort will it cost other editors to deal with EllieTea in the meantime? I mean, sure, I could've looked away when I saw that they misrepresented a source. Instead, I chose to explain and then explain some more. And now you want to give me and other editors who enforced our content policies a warning for editing against consensus? Is there even one diff showing either Rosclese, Binks or me editing without consensus? --SonicY (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are the pagelinks for the article:
There's a sequence of what appear to be blanket reverts between 25 April and 4 May that leave something to be desired. Notice that you, Padenton, Binksternet, EllieTea and Roscelese are all reverting a 4,346-byte segment back and forth. It's easy to tell when people are actively working to resolve a dispute. During that period it's obvious that no such effort is happening. WIth infinite admin time we could target people with individualized warnings. Lacking such time, a blanket restriction should suffice. The scheme I'm proposing should be less harmful to the article than two months of full protection, which would be another option. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Roscelese, Binksternet and I reverted content added by EllieTea, days after explaining what was wrong with their edits and asking EllieTea to post their desired changes on the article talk page so that we could discuss them prior to adding them to the article. But EllieTea (and Padenton) kept restoring EllieTea's edits. So we have two editors editing without consensus, EllieTea and Padenton. Yet you want to officially warn everyone not to edit without consensus, something that three editors (Rosc, Binks and I) didn't do in the first place. It doesn't make sense to me. I think that an edit notice reminding editors of not editing without consensus might be helpful. But warning individual editors who didn't edit without consensus? No. I don't think that it requires infinite time to read the discussion and look at the edits to the page between April 25 and May 4. I think that admins who enforce discretionary sanctions should try to dole out sanctions that are actually deserved. I'm aware that that means much more work than proclaiming "both sides" equality at fault (because there's always two sides to a story or something like that). --SonicY (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi User_talk:Sonicyouth86 I have included some of your statements in my Incident report. I thought I would let you know. All the best, Itsmeront (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please Remain Neutral in Your Editing of Masculism[edit]

Your edits of the Masculism page are hardly unbiased. A wikipedia page is not a dictionary page. It is a page used to provide background of a topic/subject. I am currently working with Warren Farrell to complete this page. appropriately. Masclism is about the men's rights movement which seeks equality of the sexes and acknowledges the prejudices against men, while advocating for social improvement. The oxford dictionary quote you've used is from a quite old version and will be removed shortly. The current definition approved and used by Oxford is the following:

Characterized by or denoting attitudes or values held to be typical of men Of or relating to the advocacy of the rights or needs of men. An advocate of the rights or needs of men.

You've entirely ignored the majority of source definitions and and selectively brought negative definitions to the page. Belnap.research (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Belnap.research: I believe that reverting your POV changes, such as your removal of definitions that contradict your view of masculinism [8][9], was perfectly neutral and unbiased. Say hello to Warren Farrel and please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles must reflect reliable sources and are not meant to be used for Advocacy. It will be near impossible to find RS that support your view of masculinism and the MRM. Also, I recommend that you discuss your edits on the article talk page instead of reverting and re-reverting to your preferred version. It's a sure way to get blocked. --SonicY (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, this user has tried to bring you to arbitration. I would consider an ANI thread requesting a topic ban of the SPA if you feel it is necessary while this case is speedily declined. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow that went from 0-arbcom fast! @Belnap.research: you would do well to read up on how wikipedia deals with dispute resolution, it's fine to have concerns about an article or other editors actions but trying to get arbcom involved is serious overkill in this situation. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It was nice of him to go to AE and draw attention to his editing before I or anyone else could do it. I know when I mess up, and this isn't the case. Looking forward to the WP:BOOMERANG. --SonicY (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: @Sonicyouth86: Hi, I apologize, I am quasi new to Wikipedia, I admit I'm unfamiliar with the process. It is a bit confusing figuring out what should be done in a case like this. I thought arbitration was a way to openly discuss a topic. My bad if this is not the case. Thanks for your patience with a noob. Also, these are not POV changes, these are changes that are cited from more modern versions of the same resource that you cite... I don't understand why you would use decades old definitions over the current revised edition available publicly online. You can start a free account at the Oxford Dictionary Online if you would like to be updated on new revisions. Also, the main issue on the page is that the article lacks a coherent topic. What this page should be about is masculism's philosophy, it's history etc. What it has become is a page filled with argumentative citations and minority (meaning a small group of individuals who hold the belief) opinions that promote discord between masculism and feminism. Generally speaking, both movements are humanist and do not disagree with one another. This is not reflective of the movement, and does not provide history and background to the term. How can we go about editing this page to reflect the history of the movement? Using the feminism page as a template for masculism can help. The first feminism definition provided is not a disputed and antiquated mention, but a modern and widely accepted definition. The same should be true of Masculism. How should I go about proposing a new framework for this article? Would it help to send all of you full edits with citations first, prior to adding them to the page? I want to be respectful, but I would also like to have the subject respected, and prevent biased deletion of content that accurately describes the movement. How can we do this? Belnap.research (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The resource that I cite is the printed und updated version of the OED that actually contains the definition of masculinism/masculism and that isn't available for free online. No, it's not the same resource at all. You're the kind of new where you find AE after 20 edits and use the ping function right out of the gate. You have strong opinions on the subject of the men's rights movement but and you say that you work with some well-known activists but, that's no how Wikipedia articles are written. Please do not comment here again. You can discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. --SonicY (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing of Masculism Page case request declined[edit]

Hi, Sonicyouth86,
You were recently named as an involved party in an arbitration case request. This is a notice to let you know that the case request has been declined by the arbitration committee (diff). Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines destinations[edit]

I've requested the article to be protected. The IP keeps revert-warring.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: Looks like a clear case of vandalism, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the place to go, but semi-protection for a few days can't hurt. --SonicY (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2015

Mail call[edit]

Dropped you a line. WormTT(talk) 07:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied. Appreciate the reminder, WTT. --SonicY (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dead Link in SIFF Page[edit]


Found another dead link in SIFF page. Would request to look into the matter.Also the city mentioned seems not supported by any reliable sources. helpline for multiple city mentioned

[dead link] Ruproy1972 (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to add Links to Save Indian Family ( SIF ) page[edit]

Dear Sonicyouth86

As I am not so good to understand about the content, but feel the below link is from reliable source and the same to be added in Save Indian Family page. Would request you , please add the same in appropriate place as you understand better and edited SIF page recently .

Men's rights group to raise marital rape issue on I-Day

'Harassed' men set up meet

Spare a thought for innocent husbands

Forum for abused men – SIF- BHAI

An abusive wife?

Husbands victimized by wives plead for helprelated to AP and new state Telangana for SIF .

Hope it will value in Save Indian Family page. Would request to add the same in appropriate place.

Found two good article about SIF , Please add the same in appropriate page.

SIF meet 180 activist represent 50 NGO

SIF NGos Demand men commission Ruproy1972 (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Emotional labor#Police work pdf[edit]

Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:

  • Catherine S. Daus, Shanique Brown (2012) : The Emotion Work of Police (Chapter 11). In Neal M. Ashkanasy, Charmine E.J. Haertel, Wilfred J. Zerbe (ed.) Experiencing and Managing Emotions in the Workplace (Research on Emotion in Organizations, Volume 8). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 305–328.

to complete your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_28#Emotional labor texts. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I'm so sorry for replying this late, User:Worldbruce. I appreciate your kind offer but I don't need the text anymore. Again, so sorry. --SonicY (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Sonicyouth86. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 5 August 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 6 September 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 18 December 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 1 December 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019[edit]