User talk:Yhwhsks

Welcome!
Hello, Yhwhsks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Dawn Bard (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Hey
Hi Yhwhsks - are you the IP who made a bunch of changes to the history section of the men's rights movement article earlier today? If so, I just wanted to say thanks; most of your changes look like solid improvements to me, and they are appreciated. As you have the time, I would encourage you to continue to copyedit the article as you feel like it - the article is written pretty atrociously and could definitely use the help.

I agree that you are right that the Sarah Maddison info should be attributed in some way, but have some misgivings about it's current version. I'll be starting a section on the men's rights movement talk page about it in the near future to see if all interested editors can't work out something mutually agreeable :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you're accusing others of edit-warring...
Let me remind you that the three revert rule is a bright-line rule. Any editor who makes more than three reverts to a page in a 24-hour timespan is subject to being blocked for edit warring. This edit was a third revert by you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comment. I will not make another reversion today.  However, I would appreciate if you also talked to the other parties involved as they are not properly discussing before deleting my edits and this source.  I intend to get a third opinion.  Yhwhsks (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that even if you don't violate the 3RR, you may still be inappropriately edit warring. A slow edit war is still an edit war, and it looks like there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the website you are attempting to re-insert.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the one engaging in an edit war. You need to discuss this source and we need to get a third opinion before anything further is done in regards to this content. Yhwhsks (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, we're both engaging in an edit war. Also, I'm pretty sure I understand the policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources.  "A single advocacy website" is not usually considered a sufficiently reliable source to make broad statements about a topic like MRM.  I have no issue with the text added remaining if reliable sources can be located.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Exhaustion
On some parts of Wikipedia a tactic of drawing an opposing editor into lengthy exchanges is used. Its effect is to exhaust and discourage. This is usually started by making wild accusations and provocative edits so sparking an initial response. A habit of minimal or no reply can often be wise in these situations. Wikipedia can be draining, one's effectiveness can be optimized by rationing the emotional energy you spend on it. CSDarrow (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is to learn the rules and edit in accordance with them. For instance, if I link to something in any of my replies, generally it's a policy or guideline, which should be obeyed unless there is a very good reason not to do so.  If you are unwilling to write pages in accordance with the rules, you should probably not edit here.  If you came here with very strong opinions about the men's rights movement, if you feel you hold the truth about it, that suggest you are actually here for advocacy rather than to write an encyclopedia.  And yes, that can be exhausting.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To demonstrate my maxim:-
 * Thank you WLU for your input, I will certainly put it under consideration.
 * CSDarrow (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saving everyone time; note that being civil will ensure you don't get blocked for incivility - but it doesn't mean your edits are appropriate, it doesn't mean they will last and it doesn't mean any of the other rules change. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * :). CSDarrow (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Darrow, are you and User:Yhwhsks the same editor? Or are you just comfortable speaking for him? Carptrash (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yhwhsks. So that is basically how it works. As you can see I have expended far less emotional energy than the others. Especially as I barely read a word a they wrote. Perhaps I should thank WLU and Carptrash for participating and allowing the demonstration of both techniques, i.e. of minimal response and of no response all. Take it easy. CSDarrow (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Refusing to read the words written by others means you will not see their rationales, and in particular the policies, guidelines and sources that justify edits. Consistently failing to note these objections while consistently pushing changes against consensus will eventually get you blocked.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on Clarence, that's the trouble with you Men's Rights Types. No sense of humor.  I knew that you two were not the same and figured that you answered messages directed to him . . ...because  . . .  .. ...... I forget. Carptrash (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you CSdarrow. As always, your advice is appreciated.Yhwhsks (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Probation notification
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 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Men's rights movement, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. v/r - TP 12:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, read WP:VAND. Accusing me of vandalism is ludicrous.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Men's rights movement. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Men's rights movement. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. v/r - TP 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)