User talk:Ya Mans

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ish Ya Boy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page The Bedroom Tour Playlist have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ish Ya Boy, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Ish Ya Boy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Ya Mans. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Bedroom Tour Playlist (July 6)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Bedroom Tour Playlist[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

UY Scuti Talk 11:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Formatting[edit]

Hi. Going forward, please learn how to use a bulleted list instead of listing them with <br> tags. See H:LIST. Also see WP:MOSALBUM. Per the Personnel section, do not include the "composers" title if your source is AllMusic. Thanks. --Jennica / talk 10:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Nothing Was the Same, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ya Mans (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I should be unbanned because what I did was not harassment. It was a light-hearted joke that I said once. The admin who banned me has no evidence that I was repeatedly threatening or intimidating anyone. Ya Mans (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you can't see how your behaviour was inappropriate, perhaps you'd be happier on another site for a few years. Yamla (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ya Mans (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

According to Wikipedia:Harassment, harassment is "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to be a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." Asking someone to "marry" me as a joke is not offensive behaviour. If you're going to accuse me of harassment, please provide evidence of me harassing someone (aka repeated offensive behaviour). If not, unblock me. Ya Mans (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature". Max Semenik (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ya Mans (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

You still do not have any proof that I was making repeated offensive behaviour. The whole point of the decline reason is to actually EXPLAIN your reasoning. No one has done this. Quoting the part of the guideline that talks about sexual harassment does absolutely nothing to prove your case. I am currently banned for nothing because no one can explicitly explain what I have done wrong. Please unblock me. Ya Mans (talk) 5:39 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock account.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

  • @CambridgeBayWeather: This user has not been previously blocked, nor he was warned. Can you provide diffs that show pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Vanjagenije No, but in this case once was enough to my mind. If you think this sort of remark is OK then feel free to unblock. I see that two other admins declined the unblock. Perhaps you might want to check with Jennica about how she feels. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: Those two admins' reasons are clearly inadequate and, like I've said, do not prove that I was harassing. You yourself cannot prove that I was harassing. Unblock me. Ya Mans (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That "Will you marry me?" thing is the kind of creepy sexist crap that women have to put up with constantly from juvenile males, and it's not acceptable on this site. "Lads" responsible for it might think it's funny, but women who endure sexist comments and unwanted sexual advances almost every day of their lives almost never do. I strongly oppose an unblock without seeing some genuine understanding of that (and I see none whatsoever in the unblock requests so far), and a committment to never again treat other editors differently because of their gender. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: Please explain how jokingly asking someone to marry me on a free encyclopedia website is sexist (discriminatory on the basis of sex). You can't. I have been blocked for harassment. I have proven that I haven't harassed. The admin who blocked me has admitted that he has no proof of me harassing. Therefore, this block is unjust and I should be unblocked. End of story. Ya Mans (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you need to ask why it is sexist says an awful lot about you, and your insistence that it was acceptable behaviour just reinforces the reason why you should not be unblocked. That's my opinion, at least, and if I'd arrived here first then your latest unblock request would have been declined too - but that decision is down to Vanjagenije now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (This is a revised version of my initial reply. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: You are completely missing the point. I have given you a completely justified reason to unblock me and you aren't even acknowledging it, yet you have the nerve to call me juvenile. Ya Mans (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
No, in my view, you have not given a completely justified reason to unblock, because you have shown no understanding whatsoever of what was wrong with your behaviour. At this point, I would suggest you stop digging your hole deeper and spend a little time thinking about what I, CambridgeBayWeather, and RickinBaltimore (all very experienced Wikipedia admins) are trying to get you to understand. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: "You have shown no understanding whatsoever of what was wrong with your behaviour" Please read Wikipedia:Harassment and tell me how what I did is considered harassment in accordance with that. I'll help you: you can't. What you don't understand is I am blocked for something I didn't do (harassment). Now you're trying to pretend that I was blocked for "sexism" which I wasn't. You still can't even explain how I was sexist. Ya Mans (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
What consitutes harrassment is subjective and hard to state objectively, and Wikipedia's policy is descriptive and not prescriptive (which means it reflects what the community does rather than dictating it). Ultimately, disputes are solved by consensus, and I see a consensus emerging here (five admins so far, against one who is questioning it) that your behaviour was unacceptable and that your block was warranted. And that is what you need to deal with rather than just continuing to insist that you did nothing wrong. Anyway, that's all I'll say at this point and I'll leave it with the reviewing admin, in the assumption that Vanjagenije will consider the consensus here before deciding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I will say that I could accept that you made an innocent youthful mistake, but I think you need to recognise that mistake and understand that casual sexism of that nature is not acceptable here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee:

All I'm saying is that I've proven that I was not harassing, and even the admin who blocked me has no proof that I was. The sexism argument is unrelated. If Jennica is upset or threatened by any of this then of course I am sorry and I will steer clear of what the general consensus of sexism is. I still do not believe that what I said was threatening or sexist but if that's what five other admins are telling me then, for the sake of contributing to this community, I can promise to not do it or anything like it again. I still strongly believe that this block is unjust. Ya Mans (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

To be blunt, this is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia, period. The fact you do not recognize this is concerning if you are to be unblocked. You may have been joking as you thought, but this is a serious matter with how female editors have been treated here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • CU note: I've updated the block to reflect that this is a confirmed sock account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, in case you're considering denying you're a sock, I can actually see you requesting an unblock on your master account, and when that didn't gain traction creating this one. You then posted the bogus "retirement" tags and declined your own appeal at User talk:Wackslas, and then edited from this account only after that point.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Okay, WHAT THE HELL? Why is it whenever I prove that I'm right, the reason for my block changes? First you say I am harassing, then I prove I'm not. Then you say I'm sexist without explanation. I agree to not engage in said behaviour (although I don't believe in it). NOW, you claim that I am another user, and I assume it's because I've managed to battle off 5 admins and survive and now you pick some random blocked account and say that it's me? You don't even have any proof (again). Ya Mans (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you're still demanding? You won't waste our time any more because I've revoked your talk page access. Feel free to request an unblock from your original account. Max Semenik (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)