User talk:Sonicyouth86

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]