Jump to content

User talk:Sonicyouth86: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
Line 740: Line 740:
</div>
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0484 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0484 -->

==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. Apparent 3RR violation. [[User:Memills|Memills]] ([[User talk:Memills|talk]]) 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:02, 24 March 2013

Rollback

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)[reply]

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

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Re your e-mail

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

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

May 2012

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)[reply]

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

Katzrin

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 108.162.13.146 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Talkback

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Immortalised ; sorry, but I had to do it!

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)[reply]

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

Talkback

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

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)[reply]

Insulting and untrue assertions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Social groups intro

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)[reply]

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

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

WP:MMA

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Final warnings and only warnings

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

McDowell 1985

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. 71.191.154.109 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

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)[reply]

Article Probation notification

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Apparent 3RR violation. Memills (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sonicyouth86&oldid=546759160"