User talk:Sonicyouth86

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)

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. 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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• 1987 paper by Michael S. Kimmel
• 2009 paper by Kerstin C. Wrussnig

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 September 2014

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)

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)

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)

Hi,

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)

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. 88.91.200.83 (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)

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)

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)

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:

• False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/masculinist

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 , 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)

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)

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

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

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

Sonicyouth86

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)

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)

Hi,
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)

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)