User talk:Yoleo
Also left on what I assume is your IP's talk page
[edit]The intro of articles summarizes the body of the article. If something is supported in the body, it's baseless to remove it from the intro on the grounds of "uncited." The last paragraph of the intro is summarizing the "criticism" section that you keep moving it to, so moving it there renders it redundant. Pay attention and read more of the article instead of just the intro instead of engaging in a slow edit war to censor the intro. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Men's Rights Movement Lead
[edit]The intro of articles summarizes the body of the article. If something is supported in the body, it's baseless to remove it from the intro on the grounds of "uncited." The last paragraph of the intro is summarizing the "criticism" section that you keep moving it to, so moving it there renders it redundant. Pay attention and read more of the article instead of just the intro instead of engaging in a slow edit war to censor the intro. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Ian, thank you for opening up a dialog about this issue and I hope that it will be based on logic and civility. Wikipedia's stated mission is to share accepted knowledge. Wikipedia states, "We find "accepted knowledge" in high quality, published sources. By "high quality" we mean books by reputable publishers, high-quality newspapers like The New York Times, or literature reviews in the scientific literature...Please make sure that anything you write in Wikipedia is based on such sources - not what's in your head." Based on these standards, the item that I have removed was not based on any such sources and thus does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. In addition, your statement that the 'intro is a summary of the body' is not supported by any guidelines. In fact, the guidelines state that the into should be "a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is" not a summary. Furthermore, "One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material." Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_VisualEditor/1 Thus it's the burden of the person adding the information to provide the cite that meets these standards. Referencing the body of the document itself as support for the statement is against the policies pointed out above and is not a legitimate source. Everybody who wants to contribute to Wikipedia is welcomed but they must conform to the stated policies. What I removed does not meet any of these standards and I will continue to remove this item each time it appears. I understand that this is an emotional topic for many and that parties such as yourself want to make PC statements but Wikipedia is not the forum for this, you must seek a different outlet. The Men's Right's Movement is specifically about as the title state's Men's rights and the evidence that there are multiple injustices happening to men and that they are losing rights to equal treatment, an example of one of the outrageous injustices that created this movement is the 10 women's shelters for every 1 there is for men, that most of the homeless are thus men due to this, it is about injustices happening to men and not about antifeminism; in fact, some of the men's rights movements support and are aligned with feminist groups as they are helping them deal with the same injustices that were metered out to women. I have also included a cite in the talk page that supports that the statement removed is the opposite. Certainly, there will be antifeminist involved with the movement since it will be easy to see them as scapegoats, but it does not make the movement antifeminist just like there are also likely as many men in the mens rights movement that are also in the construction field but you wouldn't include that it is notably pro construction. It's just an irrational result for this to be include in the article anywhere let alone in the intro. If you want to put that statement someone put it in the critism section and provide a cite supporting it.--Yoleo (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.
- MOS:LEADCITE:
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.
- This is how it works in almost every other article, and any experienced editor will tell you this. You are selectively quoting an essay with suggestions on how to write articles and the help manual for the Visual Editor (which is not the true site interface but an intermediary to make things easier for new users), not policies, guidelines, or the manual of style.
- Don't try to teach grandmother to suck eggs.
- At Talk:Men's rights movement, you cited one cherry-picked journal article against three articles and seven books. This does not fit with our policy on neutrality, which is determined (in part) by due weight from sources.
- Your failure to assume good faith with regard to this topic says more about you than anything else.
the evidence that there are multiple injustices happening to men and that they are losing rights to equal treatment
is pretty solid proof -- that you are an adherent of MRM beliefs and so are the proverbial pot when implying that anyone else might be biased with regard to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Men's rights movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- You must reach consensus on the article talk page. This is not optional. Please read WP:LEAD which says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yoleo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
@ Cullen, I can not participate in the talk page as you suggest if I'm blocked. Additionally, the assailants, in this case, are experienced users teaming up on me and bullying me and not following the cite rules nor the format for the lead which I can not discuss bc I'm block. This is a controversial article and there are clear intentions to create hate language and unsubstantiated viewpoints (no cites) that are not appropriate for the lead. Thank you for pointing out the lead reference which conflicts with the other Wikipedia guidelines I pointout above that. i.e. "a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is" Also, I have no intentions of doing a revision on this item now that I'm aware of the 3 reversion rule, which does seem to be applied to the person who started the revision war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson a clear double standard. It is clear this is a tactic that they have used in the past due to the speed at which everything happened and their coordinated efforts. It needs to be about facts not PC desires of these actors. Yoleo (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Clear-cut disruptive editing with no indication of repentance or understanding why your edits were inappropriate. If you keep on attacking other editors in unblock requests the block will be extended and/or your talkpage access will be removed. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2018 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You can participate in the talk page discussion after your block expires but you must obtain consensus before making the change you wish. Please also read Assume good faith. Attacking several highly experienced editors is also unacceptable behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yoleo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like a different higher tiered unbias administrator to look at this unjustified block as there is clear bias as Acroterion has stated that I am " attacking other editors", which is false, there is no evidence of that at all. In fact, it was they who were attacking me for quoting policies and procedures. Repentance is not part of any requirement and only shows bias to justify an arbitrary application of standards. I made no attacking remarks and only made reversions to protect my changes, supported by cites, the talk page and the purpose of the intro, not to attack. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I was not aware of this policy, I stated I will not do it again and want to participate in the talk page to make productive contributions. I'm the victim here as the reversions were done to my edit, not the other way around as it is presented. There was already support for the changes I made on the talk pages as per the first and last entries on the talk page and on my post where it was stated I can make the changes. I have made changes in the past to pages but I see that I have walked into a war on this page. I don't want to be part of such a war and have made my points clearly and they are in line the policies of wikipedia. It is clear that I'm being bullied and don't see why no action is being taken against "long time editors". Additionally, my entry to report user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson was removed from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring again this shows malicious intent and bias since no action is being taken against the instigator of this whole issue and history is being removed from that page. so there is no evidence of my reporting. AND now I see Ian is posting a Discretionary sanctions notification on my talk page so the person I have the complaint about has some kind of authority which is shown to be biased and also he has likely removed my reporting of him which is certainly not allowed. I certainly don't understand what he means by being an "Editor" aren't we all or is this a special designation? And if so how do I see all the "Editors" for the page. Discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but it is because I'm not being allow to participate. Please advise.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- You didn't walk into an edit war, you caused the edit war. You were given reasons not to restore the edits and told to seek consensus on the talk page -- which you refused to do. You were given a warning to stop reverting, right above on this very same talk page -- it is your fault if you refused to read it. You keep accusing anyone who doesn't give you your way of malice, bias, and now bullying -- a failure to assume good faith and without proper evidence, a personal attack. You're even freaking out about a template that says in the second sentence that
It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date
. The template does acknowledge that you are an editor -- and that you will be held to a higher standard when editing articles on gender-related disputes/controversies. There's nothing stopping to from either abiding by policy or finding other topics where you would be more comfortable learning about our site's policies. - Your summary of the talk page is rather curious as anyone can look at it and see that every editor who responded to you pointed out problems with your suggestions. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that amounted to "support." You were told you could make changes -- but that you had no support for them and that they would be reverted. Someone who understands the concept of cooperation would have considered trying to get support.
- You really
don't see why no action is being taken against "long time editors"
...? The possibility that maybe you're going about this the wrong way and that more experienced users who know what they're doing haven't done anything wrong has not occurred to you? Is the concept that maybe people who have been doing something longer than you utterly alien, occult, eldritch, that you won't take this as an opportunity to learn? Or do you think your MRM beliefs justify your actions regardless of this community's standards? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Ian.thomson Your posting to my talk page is so inappropriate since you are the person I'm reporting and thus there is a conflict of interest on your part and you need to back off. Please stop posting to my talk page, you are being a bully and abusive with your statements, they are not factual and your statements do not acknowledge the facts I have pointed out over and over. Wikipedia is not a site of consensus but of substantiated facts. There are others on here that can deal with this there is no need for you to be involved. I did stop after I received and read the warning after you got Black Kite to post the warning, it was a coordinated effort and you are a liar and trying to spin it to cover that you started the edit war. YOU did the reversion of my edit, YOU did it twice to set me up knowing I would do it the third time. I learned your trick and will not be fooled by it again. No one is discussing anything with me they are telling me what to do and what they are doing and not acknowledging my facts and cites there is NO discussion from your gang, only from my side. Blanket statements without any rational reason is not a discussion, especially when you cite recursively the entire page as justification for the intro...this is plainly not appropriate given the citing guidelines. And you need to read the talk page it shows others that have the same concerns about the intro, you have selective vision, they are still there go read them. Not acknowledging facts doesn't make them go away. Ian.thomson LEAVE ME ALONE and stop your HARASSMENT! Yoleo (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
[edit]I have extended your block to indefinite and revoked your talk page access. This is a collaborative project and you seem unable to collaborate with others. Please see WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yoleo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23307 was submitted on Nov 19, 2018 18:15:07. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yoleo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23310 was submitted on Nov 19, 2018 23:42:04. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yoleo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23323 was submitted on Nov 20, 2018 22:15:52. This review is now closed.