Talk:Yumi Stynes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sacked?

Can find no reference in the media anywhere that she has been sacked by Ch 10 - the noted reference only refers to Negus's show being axed and replaced which happened in 2011 and is not relevant to the current controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.222.20 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Shouldn't Polish, Jewish, and (presumably) Anglo-Saxon and Celtic be added to her ethnicity? Eligius (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, her religion should be Jewish as she is descended from Joseph Potaski144.137.9.157 (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012

Yumi Stynes also made the comment,'He must be a dud root', referring to Ben Roberts Smith IVF conception of twin girls.

210.9.189.54 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

For full quote and references see an earlier version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yumi_Stynes&oldid=554202637 178.78.100.201 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Celestra As 178.78.100.201 wrote see the references in the earlier version eg:

'I feel sick': Circle host shocked at backlash over 'dud root' comment February 29, 2012 Sydney Morning Herald

Negus says sorry for 'dud-root' remark Sydney Morning Herald, 1 March 2012

and hear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cENjKcBDg0Y

There is no need to explicitly tie in "He must be a dud root" to the interview the night before when Ben Roberts Smith mentioned IVF conception of twin girls, just the mention of the interview the night before and the crass remarks the next day and let the reader draw their own conclusions (Let the facts speak for themselves). -- PBS (talk)

-- PBS (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yumi Stynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150530075644/https://www.priceline.com.au/thebeautyofyou/meet-yumi/ to https://www.priceline.com.au/thebeautyofyou/meet-yumi/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150526022234/http://vividlive.sydneyoperahouse.com:80/program/dress-up-attack to http://vividlive.sydneyoperahouse.com/program/dress-up-attack/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080802092417/http://maxtv.com.au/Max/Article.aspx?ID=2119 to http://www.maxtv.com.au/max/Article.aspx?ID=2119

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ministerial condemnation

Hi Onetwothreeip, I urge you to rethink your objections to the inclusion of notable comments by a senior cabinet minister that were widely covered by the full spectrum of Australia's media, condemning an indefensible remark the Stynes herself was forced to appologiesed for. Additionally, you have reverted this on three occasions within the last 24 hours, I believe you must leave it for some time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC) - The ministers comments should be ignored, given they were based on widespread misreporting of critical facts (namely references to a war heroe's virility), as demonstrated by the cited apology of broadsheet newspaper publisher, Fairfax. . There is no need to slander Ms Stynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2724:500:11AD:22B1:E6A6:2F8A (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that back that statement up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the apology is cited in the previous text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2724:500:11AD:22B1:E6A6:2F8A (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources linking Stephen Smith's condemnation of Stynes' indefensible comments (she never retracted her apology, so she remains contrite) to the incorrect reporting or the actual comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I take from the lack of a response that the answer to my above question is no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, is that actually you who has responded above? Your comments from your last edit suggest that you are in fact also 2001:8003:2724:500:11AD:22B1:E6A6:2F8A.

Can one of Wikipedia's sheriffs confirm if this IP address is Onetwothreeip? It is convenient that after they had reverted notable, verifiable, neutral content from the page three times, this other person pops up and reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.69.2 (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No, none of those IP users are me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Dud Root" Comment

Yumi made these comments. No one else used these words besides her. Yes, George Negus started this topic but she chose to continue with this comment. This comment was very controversial. If you think the condemnation wasn't at her, why did you not object to the inclusion of the condemnation at all. It bears to reason, does it not?, that it does not belong here at all in such a case. It's really simple: either it was her comments, or the ministerial condemnation of these comments does not belong in an entry about her. But you, very tellingly, did not try to remove the ministerial condemnation, only to change the word "her [comments]" to "such". It was her comments, and it should not be deliberately disguised.

P.S. The fact that George Negus started this discussion is entirely irrelevant. She chose to pick it up and take it to a new level using the above colourful words. Had she left it alone, so should have we. She didn't, so neither should we. 1.129.111.167 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Stynes merely paraphrased Negus, nothing more. Again, find consensus for your position. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No, she wasn't. If someone made some derogitary comment about you, and I came along complemented this comment in even more offensive, colourful language, it is not just me trying to paraphrase the comment (which sounds like "trying to make it clearer"), is it? George Negus comments were clear enough. Stynes knew it, but she chose to add her comment. Her intention was to demean Ben Roberts-Smith. That is clear enought. Putting this comment in the context of her previous comment, another derogatory comment which did not "paraphrase" anyone. She was just trying to be disrespectful. She was not paraphrasing for the sake of it. Sick of you and Onetwothreeip removing content from this entry, then playing dumb, pretending you don't understand the full meaning of the content you remove. You don't fool me. You, like Onetwothreeip are a biased editor trying to protect her from, well, reality.

And don't you and Onetwothreeip tell me to "get consensus". I do have consensus. You two don't. 1.129.111.167 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The Controversy over the "Controversies" Section (See What I Did Here?!)

Many living people have controversies sections in their Wikipedia entry. In my opinion, the general rule of thumb should be that if a person is most known for being involved in controversies, rather than a person of notable fame who (like most if not all people) from time to time was criticised for something they did/said, then a separate section of controversies is appropriate. Also in my opinion, Yumi Stynes falls into the former category, namely people of generally very limited fame, whom most mentions in the public domain refer to controversial things they said. You will find, I think, that her wider fame came to Yumi due to her ability to "stir the pot" in a big way. In any case, many celebrities probably have such a section in their Wikipedia entry. I also believe that this entry had this section for quite a while and most didn't mind at all, until a recent removal. I therefore propose to re-instate this section for her. I welcome submissions from editors on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.53 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION makes it clear that "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies"." There's no room there for personal opinions, rules of thumb or "other stuff exists". Put simply, "Controversy" sections are out of favour. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it does *not* make it clear. It does say, "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies" ", *but* if you scroll a few paragraphs down that page, it does say: "The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about). " This seems to be a contradiction, whereby the first quote seems to back your position, while the second backs my opposing position. Also, note the word "generally" in the first quote, as in "not always", so not definitive. But, anyway, seems to be contradicted in the second quote I supplied. Trying to gauge the spirit of the page, I think the idea is not to use a section called "Controversies" to push a point of view, negative obviously, of the subject. However, in this case I don't think that it applies, the section was factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.53 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

If she is "most known for being involved in controversies" there would be a lot more than two instances to draw from, where the notable part of one of those is that Fairfax published an apology two and a half years after the incident. Compare how long the controversies described in Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) which only has the word "controversy" in one section title near the end, summarising another article by that name. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC),

A few points in response, if I may: 1. It is really closer to three controversies, as her "Is Australia Sexist?" was also quite controversial, only it was on SBS rather than Channel Ten, so presumably much smaller exposure to this scandal. 2. I personally never heard her name, watched her on TV or listened to her radio show and, indeed, wouldn't know her from a bar of soap; nonetheless, I was familiar with all three scandals, as they (or at least the two Channel 10 ones) featured heavily in the public domain in Australia. 3. In relation to "Controversies" section being, to use WWGB (talk)'s terminology, "out of favour", then I refer you and WWGB (talk) to my previous above comment in relation to what Wikipedia says on the subject (it is quite ambivalent at best, and I suspect not actually aimed at Controversies section as such as much as at biased criticism, which is not the case here), but also, importantly: notice the *twisted* chronological order of the section without controversies: it goes from 2010 to 2018, then jumps back to 2012 and forward to 2019. As I said, completely twisted. The need for a separate "Controversies" section screams at us, I would argue. So I say let's put it back. It does not violate Wikipedia policies, it will make the entry much neater, and will give a more loyal picture of the subject who, as I wrote earlier, does have a tendency to put her foot in her mouth, and there's nothing we can do about it. That's just who she is.

So is there an independent reference that says she is a controversial person? Perhaps references that the channels/shows that have hired her have done so deliberately to introduce controversy as an attempt to raise their ratings? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

After Kennerley hung up, Stynes sarcastically commented "you know what I love? White people lecturing me about racism"

Stynes accused KAK of racism for KAK's comments. Many (admittedly, prominently on the conservative side, but still), including Aboriginal activists, disputed that. It has been widely pointed out that the comments made by KAK re Aboriginals were often made by Aboriginals themselves, so what's the problem with that comment? Why is it racist? By making her comment above, Stynes exposes herself as belong to a school of thought, definitely not uncommon among the Left, that *all* Whites are racists because they have "White Privilege", which means Whites enjoy racist attitudes inherent in society which Whites may not even be aware of. In other words, if you are White, you are racist, whether you know it or not. The best chance you have, as a White person, is to simply avoid discussing racism-related issues as well. This school of thought basically says that Whites are not allowed to discuss racism issues such as problem in Aboriginal communities (which was what KAK said), due to their inherent unconscious racism. Stynes comment exposes her as belonging to that school of thought, and would, in my opinion, fully explain why she took such passionate issue with a comment that many would find acceptable, including many Aboriginal activists. In any case, her comment is relevant as it exposes her attitudes and is very relevant into who she is, which is what this topic is all about. Suggestions that it is not relevant or me trying to shift the debate from a relevant facts to making an opinion about non-relevant issues are dismissed. It is all about who Stynes is. She went on national TV and made the comments she made, then went on national radio and made the further comments she did. It was her, not me, who chose to raise the issue of racism and (indirectly) White Privilege. Therefore, it is relevant. It is not about me as just another Wikipedia editor, but about her, as the subject of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.109.84 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I know that. Wasn't trying to sway anyone's political opinions with the above, least of all yours. The above was just to explain the full meaning of the comment made by Stynes which you removed as irrelevant, and, consequently the importance of its inclusion in this entry. Again, it is not about whether you agree with any particular political opinion, but about understanding that her comment is important to understanding where she was coming from. It, in my opinion, sheds important light and context on her calling KAK "racist", which, even you should agree, was very controversial and hotly disputed, not just by KAK. In conclusion, it is relevant and important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.109.84 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The best way to describe Stynes' views is to actually write about them, not adding a quote that "sheds light" on those views. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

What an inherently absurd statement. Words almost fail me, but I will try anyway. The best way to know where someone is coming from is to listen to what they say. Not to what some commentator says, but what the person says. You really bested yourself with the above comment. Wow!

You've yet to convince anyone that the quote should remain. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a verifiable and relevant quote. That's my argument for inclusion. What's your argument for exclusion? Do you want to take it to third party arbitration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.105.84 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not relevant and you haven't convinced anyone that it's relevant. As for the Stephen Smith quote, it's not particularly relevant and it's not clear to what he is referring to. Now this has been discussed here, I recommend you read WP:BRD. It's up to you to get a consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm sitting on my own little island here: I see no value in the Stephen Smith quote, but the reference for it is a better reference for the Fairfax apology except for not saying how long they took to issue it. I am OK with keeping the white people talking about racism quote as it shows that despite growing up in rural Australia with an Australian father, she identifies as Asian (probably because she was in the only family in the town with an Asian parent - see the first reference about her early life). I think that most adults have a bit of racism, no matter how hard we try to suppress it. Neither KAK nor YS is completely above racism in the encounter, which is probably exactly what the producers wanted. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't show at all that she identifies as being Asian, especially if what you say is true that hers was the only family in that area with someone from Asia, but we might as well be putting everything she said in an interview and using that as quotes. Are you taking the quote as a racist remark? Either way if we want to use a quote to show something, we should actually be saying that thing before adding a quote to demonstrate it. Otherwise it's just there for the remarkably POV purpose as shown in the edit summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the "Wild child" reference (currently ref 4). --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent response. As someone who was the one who originally added that quote, this important aspect of this quote hasn't even occured to me, but I definitely second that. Also, note how Onetwothreeip fights tooth and nail, clutching at straws, to prevent this edit. He has been edit warring over this quote for a while, several (more than three) times reverting it. If you look at the general history of this user on this entry (and, by the way, maybe others as well), you will see very aggressive, belligerent editor who makes many reversals of other editors (many of my own edits, but many more of other editors). It is clear that this user is on some sort of a mission, frantically annoying me and others by removing any content which paints the subject as the very controversial person that she is. There is just about no negative facts out of the many verifiable, notable and relevant facts about the subject in this entry, that said user hasn't tried to remove. As I said, clearly pushing some burrow here. May have to be dealt with if persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.215 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but we need to actually have something where the quote can be used to support before we actually put the quote in. It's not a very serious interview but she does describe herself as Asian, and overall this isn't any more important than being briefly described in the early life section.

The IP user is saying ridiculous things about me and should stop threatening to report me and just actually report me. It's obviously not true that I have removed everything negative about the subject from this article. This is hopefully the last time I will have to address these spurious accusations as I would like to focus on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I may end up referring your edit wars for arbitration/report your conduct, but in the meantime I would explain here in response my issues with you: 1. In relation to the comment focused on in this section (see section title), you write: "You've yet to convince anyone that the quote should remain." You've repeated this argument later. In other words, consensus is not with me. That was when it was just me against you, so in any case, it was not with you either. HOWEVER, since, another editor joined in and sided with me, favouring the inclusion of said quote. Do you then realise and accept that the consensus is not with you and therefore the argument you mentioned is no longer valid? No, you just find another argument, which in turn is also invalidated. But neither this, nor, it seems, anything else, seems to stop you. 2. Generally, anyone who looks at the history of this entry, can see that you have intervened very, very often. Your interventions are overwhelmingly removal of content, often significant chunks of it. You are not a constructive factor in this entry. Quite the contrary. You may need referring to maybe ban you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.215 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to hear the other contributor's idea on what and how to include any other quotes from that radio interview, but it's certainly not neutral what you've put there, as indicated by your edit summary. You claim it demonstrates something, but we would have to write about that thing it demonstrates first, and then a quote can be used to support that. As for these claims that I'm doing something wrong, either report me or stop making those accusations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This quote that I added and you repeatedly tried to remove contributes to the section it is in, and does that in two ways: (a) It explains that Stynes does not view herself as a White person, but a coloured one. (b) It shows that she thinks that White people, such as KAK, should not even discuss race matters with her. That is, as I've explained, important to contextualise her comments, quite invariably. You say "it's certainly not neutral". Ummm, fact, my friend, *are* neutral. My interpretation of the fact that she said what she said (the theories I wrote above) may not be, but facts are. She did say what I said she said. Does it mean what I explained (in the Talk page, not in the entry itself) it means? Maybe yes, maybe not. How about we leave it up to the reader to form an opinion about what these facts mean, and focus on equipping the reader with the most relevant facts to do so. That is what I was doing. She said it. She no doubt thinks it. It gives an insight into her inner workings. What are those inner workings? Let's leave it to the reader to figure out, but let's not rob the reader from relevant, important information about the subject. In relation to this, your history on this entry tells a story. It tells a story of someone who does not just has an issue with one particular edit (such as the comment we are discussing in this section) published by me, but with a lot of content published by many contributors. You, in a very systematic and wholesale manner, scan this entry and try to simply remove any content that can reflect poorly on her. Just one example *OF MANY* was your attempt (repeated, as most your removal attempts are) to remove the Defence Minister condemning Stynes. Your argument was that this ministerial condemnation was based on wrongful information. This, of course, is irrelevant. It is a *fact* that the ministerial condemnation (a very rare event in Australian history, of a senior government minister finding it appropriate to condemn a low-level, relatively unknown media personality) took place, and whether you think is was warranted or not does not change the fact that this very unusual event took place. Therefore, your argument (as much as I can see its logic of suggesting that maybe the condemnation was unfair) was that because you think that was wrong, we may as well remove this fact from the anals of history. The point I am trying to make is that there is a very distinct pattern of you as an editor which would remove any content which reflect poorly on the subject of this entry, using a garden variety of different arguments which, frankly, just do not stack up. Most people, encounter the resistance that you have from me *and from many other editors* would have just backed off. You do not yield an inch without a fight, and without trying to reconquer territory you've yielded earlier in the first opportune moment. You clearly have an agenda, and your edits are clearly destructive to proper understanding of the subject, because of your agenda.

It explains that Stynes does not view herself as a White person, but a coloured one. It doesn't, but if it did, that is something we would be saying first and then bringing a quote like that in to accompany it. It shows that she thinks that White people, such as KAK, should not even discuss race matters with her. This isn't true either, but if it was then we would be establishing that and then adding a quote to demonstrate it. We don't just leave quotes lying around and then have the reader decide what this proves about the subject. The quote is just irrelevant given a complete lack of context. We might as well copy and paste an entire transcript of the interview. They can listen to the interview if they want. I wouldn't have to repeatedly remove anything if you weren't repeatedly adding them back in. The problem with what Stephen Smith said is that it's convoluted by being against George Negus as well as Stynes, and most likely regarding the accusation that they insulted Roberts-Smith's inability to reproduce which was retracted and apologised for. Most of all there's just no reason to add these quotes, at least in their current form. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"It explains that Stynes does not view herself as a White person, but a coloured one. It doesn't..." Really? Is there any way of reading the above comment in a way in which Stynes does regard herself as a White person as well?1.144.105.40 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

She's not regarding herself as anything here. Her comment was clearly a sarcastic and facetious remark. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"facetious"?! Is this why she went on a radio show to discuss a matter which the entire country was discussing - to make facetious remarks just for the sake of humour? I would have said you must be an idiot to believe that, but I don't think anyone could conceivably be so stupid, so based on that, and on your extensive history on this entry of wholesale removal of content which makes her sound contoversial I would say you are probably not a complete idiot, just a completely-biased editor who doesn't give a rat's arse about Wikipedia's integrity and you push your POLITICAL agenda, using Wikipedia as your tool of trade. I *DEFINITELY* think you should be completely barred from making any further edits in this entry based on your *DESTRUCTIVE* history in this entry. Looking forward to hearing the thoughts of other editors about whether Onetwothreeip should be completely barred from here.1.129.111.167 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of focusing on racism and controversy drawn out of a few quotes without context, you could help to expand the rest of the article. A few controversial things years apart just look out of place when they are a significant part of a short article. See WP:DUE. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

verbose edit comments

Could we all please use the talk page to discuss improving the content of the article, instead of throwing multi-line edit comments around when the effect of the edit is just a POV reversal?

My thoughts on what appear to be the hot issues at the moment:

• The Stephen Smith quote is noise
• The Fairfax apology is significant because it came over two years after the quote. There was probably some in-between action that has not been reflected in the current versions, and should be. It actually shows that Stynes was not trying to be controversial and was taken out of context.
• If the radio quote is included, it should include the "white people" part.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 02:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

An admin has semi-protected the article, so the argy-bargy should be limited hereafter. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support removing the Stephen Smith quote.
• We have the Fairfax apology about right.
• The radio quote shouldn't be included.

The talk page was hopeless when anonymous editors would make vast comments and couldn't be engaged with. It should be fine now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Calling in Sick the Day After, Then Going on an Interview and Making a Cockroach Comment

All of that is undisputed and confirmed in a link to a solid source (The Perth Now). For an anonymous editor to dispute without explanation a fact widely reported in all newspapers in Australia, and remove in the name of that dispute not only that fact, but other, more important fact which is not even disputed by the editor and is actually the main point (a direct quote of the "cockroach" comment), is entirely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.233 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Stynes has never conceded that she was sick: "Stynes revealed that she was booked to appear on the show today — but had given herself a day off. “I was booked come in to showcase a recipe from one of my cookbooks … INSTEAD, I decided to give myself the day off. This is not because of what happened today between Kerri-Anne and I. I am feeling stable and calm and like I’m on the right side of history. Everything is OK. I’m not coming in because I really urgently want to lie around and do nothing. It’s very important,” she wrote. “I told the new producer Tamara that I won’t be coming in tomorrow. I also gave her the number of my good friend James Mathison who kindly offered to fill in for me as he is available and has done the show a bunch of times and therefore I would not be leaving the hardworking team in the lurch. I have no idea if she will take me up on the suggestion and it’s not my problem.” [1] WWGB (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Even according to you, she said: "I’m not coming in because I really urgently want to lie around and do nothing." This is: (a) Not that far from "calling in sick". Normal people (which I assume Yumi is) do not call to their work place and say such a thing unless they are sick. (b) Not necessarily contradicting her calling in sick. She could have said that AND that she feels sick, which is entirely reasonable and, indeed, more reasonable than her just calling, saying the above and not giving a reason (as to WHY she URGENTLY want to lie around and do nothing), such as that she feels unwell. (c) *Someone* did claim she called in sick, as this claim appears in the title of the linked article. That someone could have been someone from Studio 10, which would probably confirm that indeed she called in sick. In any case, nothing in your argument above contradicts the claim in the provided-reference about her calling in sick. It remains extremely probable and is referenced properly in a source which is acceptable to Wikipedia. (If you have any problem with the credibility of that source, take it up with Wikipedia; but, in the meantime, this is what the source said, and it is NOT up to you to dispute reputable sources in Wikipedia without producing contradicting evidence; you have failed to do that, as I have just explained).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.214 (talk • contribs)