This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sonicyouth86. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Sonicyouth86, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Hi, please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia rules in relation to Wikihounding. Every single one of you edits since joining Wikipedia involves following User:Cybermud around the encyclopaedia and this, combined with your hostility towards the user is unwelcome and may constitute harassment. His edits appear to be unproblematic and well sourced therefore it is strange that you are following him around like this. To quote from Wikipedia guidelines "the important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as you've neglected to mention the above message in your summary of your SPI yet somehow managed to fully detail all warnings given to Cybermud, I've removed the more cautious wording in the above text on order that there is no confusion or doubt on your part. Your conduct since the warning was issued shows I was wrong to be so cautious anyway, I hope this makes things clear.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation filed by Cybermud and Shakehandsman
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonicyouth86. Thank you. (This was written by Cybermud who must have forgotten to sign)
Misrepresenting views/actions of others (aka "Wikipedia according to Shakehandsman")
Hi, I politely suggested on my talk page that you refrain from making false allegations regarding myself and mis-describing my editing yet I see you continue to make false claims. Your "summary" of the SPI was bad enough, and until then I hoped some of your behaviour was down to misunderstandings or mistakes yet a clear pattern has now emerged. You know full well I didn't submit that SPI, and furthermore you're fully aware that I have never suspected Nick Levinson of any wrongdoing on Wikipedia yet you've added a huge heading to this page suggesting I'm just as responsible for that SPI as Cybermud. In fact the situation is even worse than that as it's abundantly clear you know that I recommended on multiple pages that all allegations in relation to Nick Levinson should be withdrawn and was the first person to suggest such a thing, therefore the situation is pretty much the exact opposite as you suggest!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article
Please strike through some of your many false comments about me on Wikipedia. Also I'd urge to to strive to be more accurate in the way you describe events and the actions of other editors in future as misrepresenting such information is a breach of Wikipedia rules in relation to civility. Many thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Shakehandsman, I politely suggest you stop using my talk page as an outlet for your sanctimonious indignation. Everyone who is familiar with the stunt you and Cybermud tried to pull will see the irony in your use of words like "False allegations" and "false claims."
When Cybermud called me vandal, troll, wikihounder, "SonicSpoof," and a sockpuppet because I "vociferously disagreed" (in Cybermud's words) with him, you went along with all of it. And yet here you are lecturing me on civility.
As an administrator pointed out to you and Cybermud on Cybermud's talk page, allowing an SPI case to continue if you know that it doesn't apply is inappropriate for many reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=392880454&oldid=391910091). Cybermud was the one who jumped to suckpuppet reports to help him settle a content dispute on the Andrea Dworkin talk page, but it was YOU who tried to besmirch one more user as you suggested that Slp1 might be a sockpuppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article). What Slp1, Nick Levinson, and I have in common is that we disagreed with you and Cybermud.
If the administrator's comment that you're talking about is the one I made, please let me make it even more perfectly clear than it already was: Sonicyouth86 - your actions regarding that SPI filing were disruptive, and you are personally warned accordingly. It was quite clear by my post that no other editors were being implicated in the same manner. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I asked administrator Bwilkins to clarify that the above statement that the original comment [1] on Cybermud's talk page was indeed directed at Cybermud instead of me. Here is the section on Bwilkins' talk page [2]. I, Shakehandsman [3][4] and even Cybermud [5] have pointed out that the initial comment was "quite obviously" directed at Cybermud. I asked administrator Bwilkins to correct his comment on my talk page. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
...and as already advised, "admnistrator Bwilkins" says he's leaving it here as a reminder to just get along. Additional discussion on this topic is not welcome. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hear about "featured articles" for the first time. I decided to edit the Margaret Fuller article because it only mentions Fuller's education at Miss Prescott's Young Ladies Seminary at Groton (1824-1825) but not her education at Cambridge Private Grammar School (1819-1820) or at the Boston Lyceum for Young Ladies (1821-1822). The two sources I used were [6] and [7].
I thought it was important to correct that information and I used credible sources. The only problem seems to be that I didn't cite them properly because I'm new here. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Featured Articles can be difficult when you're still getting your feet wet. Your most recent edit changed information that was already sourced, added to it, then added a new footnote while keeping the old one. This sort of "doubling-up" on sources implies, first of all, that both sources say the same thing and, second of all, that what they say is controversial enough to need back-up support for that info. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as the format of citation, generally speaking, just look what's already in the article if it's already recognized as WP:FA or even WP:GA. Follow that model. More importantly, no matter what article you're editing, don't just slap down a web address. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The two sources that I added state something similar but not the same. The first source mentions the schools and the second mentions the dates. Margaret Fuller attended Cambridge Private Grammar School (1819-1820) and the Boston Lyceum for Young Ladies (1821-1822) before attending Miss Prescott's Young Ladies Seminary at Groton (1824-1825). This vital information wasn't mentioned in this featured article. I added that vital information. I tried to cite properly by following your way of citing sources. From your minimal correction [8] I take that the citation was okay for the most part.
My most recent edit changed information that *I* sourced and added and I don't see why this is problematic. I didn't delete anything or rewrite anything that was added by other editors.
The fact that Margaret Fuller attended two schools prior to attending Miss Prescott's Young Ladies Seminary at Groton isn't controversial at all. You can find this information in all books which mention Fuller's formal education. The only place that didn't mention those vital steps in Fuller's education was Wikipedia's featured article about Margaret Fuller. I thought I was improving the article by adding that information. Obviously, you don't agree. I have lost all interest in editing the Margaret Fuller article. If I see that the article lacks important information, I will ignore it and move on. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping I address all your comments; let me know if I miss something. Yes, there was nothing controversial about that information - which means that two sources were not needed to support it (that's the point I intended to make). You added information, but left the source that was used to support the previous information, before you changed it.
I beg you not to be upset... I never once disagreed with the content you added, only the citations. Absolutely none of your additions have been removed by me or by anyone else. If you "watch" the page, you can easily click to see the differences between edits. It might make it easier for you to see that I was helping your editing, not impeding it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your very informative reply. The previous version was this: [9] (I don't know what went wrong with the diff above). I tried to cite properly: Powell, John. "Fuller, Margaret" in Biographical dictionary of literary influences: The nineteenth century, 1800-1914. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001: 164. ISBN0-313-30422-X. Since you made only minimal changes I assumed that the citation was okay although not perfect. Anyway, I appreciate your help. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, there's serious chance of this becoming a mutual admiration fest! (I write stuff when I want to learn things; I didn't know much, so I check it out, that way I get up to speed.) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to say hourly pay because we are using OCED statistics and the statistics we are saying says
"The gender wage gap is calculated as the difference between median earnings of men and women relative to median earnings of men. Data refer to 1997 (instead of 1996) for Australia, Canada and Ireland; and to 2000 for Austria. They refer to 2004 (instead of 2006) for Poland and Sweden; and to 2005 for Finland, France, Germany and the Netherlands." [1] page 358 (page 25 on the pdf)
I do not thing it's fair to say hourly pay when we are quoting a wage gap statistics. Median earnings mean this Median household income not hourly wage. Unless you can find European Commission statistics that compare quote hourly rates it's not fair to deceive the readers. This is clear deceiving the readers.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I just finished my changes to the article. I quotes both the OECD and EC definitions and I put the EC statistics and findings in full instead of a small note before. I don't think there should be any problems. :) --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The European Commission is a very fine source. Please so not change quotes simply because you do not agree with what they say.
We are not only using OECD statistics. We are also using European Commission statistics, we are using statistics from peer reviewed studies, the Australian government etc.
This isn't about sources this about the fact we are using OECD statistic but aren't defining them. How can you pic and choose to use one but not the other. EC stats were a small sentence before I put them in full. Did you purposely ignore the first part of the source in which I quoted "Men and women often have different earnings. The “gender wage gap” (in unadjusted form) is measured as the difference between male and female earnings expressed as a percentage of male earnings. The extent of the gap varies with the position of men and women taken as reference in the distribution of earnings." It also is under definition and you deleted because you said it's not there and please keep it this Wikipedia:Civility and don't accuse me of misquoting and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The OECD wrote this: "Men and women often have different earnings. The “gender wage gap” (in unadjusted form) is measured as the difference between male and female earnings expressed as a percentage of male earnings. The extent of the gap varies with the position of men and women taken as reference in the distribution of earnings."
"Men and women often have different earnings," writes the OECD. But this is not the definition of gender pay gap. The OECD defines the gender pay gap as "the difference between male and female earnings expressed as a percentage of male earnings." So when you write in the article that the "gender pay gap (also known as the gender wage gap) is the difference in pay a women receives from a man," this is not only grammatically unfortunate, but also not consistent with the source.
That wasn't what I cared about though it was the official OECD definition. The first sentence was just me trying to put both the definitions together not just the OECD but the EC and I'm more then open to having the whole first sentence being erased and the article start with the OECD and EC definitions.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Good. Also, the sentence about the EC definition is weird. Your wrote: While the European Commission defines and calculates it as "the average difference between men’s and women’s hourly earnings is known as the gender pay gap." You say the EC defines and then you close with "is known as the gender pay gap." So I'll make changes. Please check if you're okay with them. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for your contributions. I'll add a paragraph about the United Kingdom in the next days, so stop by and let me know what you think;) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Femininity
Thanks for helping improve this article. Sorry people are so hostile there. I don't really understand it myself. Thanks for sticking around! --Aronoel (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I wish I could do more but I don't have the time.
Hi there, thanks so much for posting the link to the Abusharaf 2001 paper on Talk:FGM and giving an overview. I have looked at the paper on Scribd and I am having great trouble reading it, so since you offered :) please send me a PDF. I've enabled my e-mail address. Ethnography and contextualisation are unfamiliar concepts to me. It'll take me a while to get my head around them. Rubywine . talk20:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. And also for your support with that excellent, succinct summary in response to Jakew today. Henriettapussycat mentioned she was going to look for this and other articles in her university library and make copies. I assume that you e-mailed the PDF to me instead of posting a link on WP because of library restrictions, is that right? Rubywine . talk17:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You're very welcome;) I'm not aware of any library restrictions. I don't want to upload studies to WP or post download links because my access data (i.e., university, time and place of download, etc.) are on the downloaded files. It depends on the journal how much access information is revealed. I don't feel comfortable posting my personal information, even if it's just where I live and work etc.
Thanks for all your work on the FGM article. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need access to studies, preferably per mail. For now, I'll continue to send you the download links per mail but I'll try to figure something out. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
pregnancy archival
I really don't want to see this develop into a fight (particularly since Dreadstar is an admin, and that 's a fight you're going to lose). let's just try to tone it down a bit, ok? --Ludwigs215:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not about winning. I disagree with your revert but I hear you loud and clear: I'll stay away from that talk page. Can't say that I'll miss reading the "but I like it" arguments and accusations of prudery and censorship that are being leveled against everyone who supports the image change. Where are the folks who spread the word about WP:AGF and WP:NPA when you need them? Thanks and take care. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what "Russia-24 TV" says but The Globe and Mail, Forbes, CBC and many other sources report that Galimov is alive but in critical condition: [13], [14], [15] etc. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Relevance
If I were thank you for doing something, say for making noise, and that's notable enough to make a wikipedia article. It only follows that the noise you actually made is relevant too.
76.29.42.120 (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
IP, thank you for your willingness to discuss this. Yes, the professors in question are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. But the professors were not among the protestors and they did not write the things that the blog claims that the protestors wrote on their signs. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. You've been reverted by two editors. What you can do is go the the BLP noticeboard and ask for advice.
The controversy has its own article so if you want to add information about the protests and the way that some protestors allegedly behaved that would be the place. But remember: You need reliable sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
IP 76 has grossly violated WP:Weight and WP:Undue by spamming the Duke lacrosse story on an array of academic's pages for being one of 88 signatories, which is not a major part of their career (I have thus removed them). Redthoreau-- (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"Controversial" according to the PTC... You've been doing a marvelous job on the Rihanna articles from what I can tell. Kudos to you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to help much and I'm not really a fan (although I absolutely enjoy some of her songs). But thanks for asking! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Same. She is the only person in the music industry right now who knows how to successfully to reggae and west indian inspired songs. That's why she has done so well, it's considered Pop now because of her. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!17:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Sonicyouth86, with the Mind the Gap Award for your amazing contributions to women's and feminist subjects on Wikipedia. Your passion for your chosen subjects and your desire to help "close the gap" really shine through in your contributions. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Sonicyouth86. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
There are three other articles that need my attention first. Two editors post long lists of primary sources on the talk page and try to make their point based on those primary sources ("hundreds of actual peer-reviewed studies...!" and so on). My position is that in order to write about such a complex subject as domestic violence we need secondary and to a lesser extent tertiary sources. Otherwise, we cannot determine how much weight specific points and theories deserve. As long as users use that infamous list of primary sources as a means to stop any discussion about appropriate weight ("Who cares about what the Bureau of Justice Statistics say when here is a list of hundreds, no thousands of actually peer-reviewed studies...!!!"), any substantial changes will lead to edit-warring anyway. If, for example, I add the WHO statement about perpetration by gender, the two editors will start the same old song of "But here I have hundreds, thousands of studies" (some of which are unpublished master's theses, but now I'm nit-picking). Cheers. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough! In hindsight, looking at all the lengthy text at talk, I bet that a portion of the time you've spent on the talk page could have been devoted to the article with beneficial results. Some articles are like an iceberg such that 90 percent of the mass is back behind the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to arrange the comments (my comments too, if you want) as you see fit. Perhaps I should add that Ebikeguy organized the RfC in "arguments against" and "arguments in favor" which suggests non-sequential comments. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Ryan Gosling
My apologies for removing your edits from this article, but the IP editor just before you has been stubbornly removing/changing content in the article in a disruptive and partly unsourced manner. It was just too difficult to disentangle the IP's edits from yours. I have left a final warning on the IP's Talk page (they've been blocked before). Anyway, to the extent you wish you add content to the current article base, feel free. Sorry for any extra work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem, Bbb23, you did the right thing. The changes I made were minor anyway. Thanks for stopping by and letting me know. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Shame (2011 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (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.
I have read his "evidence". The comments he added on the talk page show him in an even worse light than the original wording. It's noticeable that, whereas those who have asserted that the word is offensive and sexist (eg. User:Colonel Warden, User:Wikidemon and myself) have provided citations to back up the statement, those who disagree have cited only personal experience or personal opinion - "It's a common word down our way", etc. The comments by several other contributors show that they have not read my evidence - why should they? - and some of them do not appear even to have read the original exchange. If they had, they would know that the word was specifically directed by Malleus at the majority of administrators. User:SandyGeorgia, for example, seems to think that the word was "not directed at specific users". I am trusting the arbitrators on this one, to read the history and the evidence clearly and to recognise which contributors are just interested in stirring things up. I've been on wikipedia since 2002. In that time I've encountered many difficult and aggressive contributors; a substantial proportion of them believe themselves superior. Most of them are long gone. I console myself in the knowledge that I will still be here after the main participants in this debate have grown tired of the project and gone away. Deb (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I am very glad to hear that this incident has not discouraged you from editing. When asked to provide evidence for his claims, Nobody Ent cites the "UK editors" and their opinion on "UK usage" as well as the characters in Trainspotting (novel). Who is this guy? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering the fact the many people who have chimed in on the various pages of the ArbCom case have very strong opinions regarding this issue, it would be best to avoid using a pugnacious/hostile tone, as it can only sour the discussion; that's why, in my opinion, comments such as this, [r]eading comprehension, Jennavecia, a useful skill, are incredibly unhelpful. You might want to consider redacting that... SalvioLet's talk about it!13:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree, Sonic. We need to weigh every word carefully when dealing with these issues, otherwise we risk being tarred with the same brush. Deb (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Sonicyouth86. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Bias towards male interests on Wikipedia
Yes, yes and yes: Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - everyone should get into that project and actually start making things happening, it shouldn't be how it is now where the only people that stay are the people who're able to deal with crap because often the more meek people have a lot to say if given the chance... Wikipedia needs to be less like a warzone where people are liable to have their stuff deleted without reason at any moment with no attempts to talk... There needs to be more social, it needs to catch up with the rest of the internet it's still in the 90's --Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks but the one I'm looking for is "'Pro-Woman, Pro-Life'? The Emergence of Pro-Life Feminism in Irish Anti-Abortion Discourses and Practices" in the Irish Journal of Feminist Studies; in the article you sent, there's brief discussion of "pro-life feminism" but it's not the focus so it would be better to look at an article where that is the focus. Appreciate the help! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thank you so much! In this specific case I must give credit where credit is due; Ms. Oaks scanned and sent me the article. But if I can help you with my university's subscription to academic journals, please don't hesitate to let me know. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
your last edit on false accusations of rape
would you consider undoing it? The Australia study as it stands places undue weight on its false classification. The procedures may very well be simply those who it threatened to file charges against. The greater context of withdrawn and not pursued is not irrelevant. It clarifies the uncertainty of these classifications.
Regarding your Rumney edit, it was clear that it was Rumney quoting Stewart. In your previous edit, you placed undue weight on criticism of Stewart by selectively quoting one of his findings.
As noted by Rumney, Kelly et al. and a bunch of other researchers, "withdrawn" and "not pursued" do not equal "false". Rumney has only negative things to say about the Stewart study. More specifically he criticizes three things: The small sample size, the fact that Stewart claimed that the complainants admitted to making a false complaints but provided "little information as to the form or circumstances of these retractions", and Stewart's use of questionable criteria in determining when a case was "disproved". I mentioned two of these three criticisms. If you want you can add the third criticism, i.e., Stewart's failure to provide information about the alleged admissions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Sonicyouth86. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Hey Steven, thanks for letting me know. I definitely have something to say about Wikipedia's dispute resolution process;) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sonicyouth86. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
