User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:01, 26 February 2013

This user may sometimes share an IP address with Halo Jerk1.

Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. If you want to know more about me, see my user page. My work, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was even blocked. See the block cases. Having WP:GA articles and honors, and the trust of many Wikipedians, does not matter if some of the site's editors believe you have abused Wikipedia. Your and others' insistence that you have not abused Wikipedia hardly matters. And it's during that first block case that I learned a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible.

Any questions, compliments or criticism of my work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.

Statement by Flyer22

Hey Flyer22. I noticed that your statement is 986 words long, but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request. Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Hahc21. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, correct? One difficulty cutting parts in my word count tool is that the Wikipedia links and diff-links add to the word count. Also, does the 500-word limit only apply to the initial comment? I ask because I see others adding comments under their initial comment, usually when replying to others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you left a message with another editor that addresses adding additional comments, so it seems that I have my answer about that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used Microsoft Word to get the count without the diffs. And, yes, you should keep your section below 500 words including the additional comments and responses, not only the initial statement. Usually, statements are to provide a short overview of your perspective to the arbitrators; the whole thing will be provided in the evidence page of the case of the arbitrators accept. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. And about calculating the word count, I had realized that I could simply remove the WP:Pipe linking and the diff-links to see how many words I truly have. I didn't do that at the time because once I got low enough in the 500 word-count range, it was easy to calculate that the word count without the diff links is within the limit. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for archive: This is what my statement looks like now after different tweaks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female promiscuity

Hi Flyer,

If at your leisure would you please place looking at this article at the bottom of your to-do list. I see the article as all over the place. The article feels more like an over-cited opinion piece. But what bothers me is how many times the word "study" is used. Well anyway take a look if you can.--Wlmg (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen it and some concerns you expressed with it. I've now made a mental note to help out with that article at your request, but it is definitely somewhere at the bottom of my to-do list. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why hello

Thanks for your message, I hope you're doing well too. :) Siawase (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

I think every woman likes sweets. I only want to thank you very much for your article about asexuality. The topic is of paramount interest to me. Your work allows me to become familiar with the state of research in this new area of sexology. I should certainly learn English. Such materials as your article give me information that I can’t get in my native language. Many thanks indeed! SU ltd. (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you, SU ltd. You're welcome. It's not my article, since we don't get to own any articles at Wikipedia, but I understand what you mean. And like I stated here, you know English sufficiently enough (I just read your last reply in that section, by the way). But I understand about improving. And I wish that I spoke several different languages. Barring any illness that prevents us from doing so, it's never too late to learn more languages, but it does get more difficult as we age. It's significantly easier on the brain to learn multiple languages when just starting to learn one's native language, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		Thank you for helping the Asexuality article reach GA status. Well, I know this article doesn’t belong to you. And yet you’ve added some very interesting sourced and information. I’m just looking for these sources on the Web and reading them with great interest. (Unfortunately, you don’t always add url, so that I have to search for the articles indicated by you.) The article is very interesting indeed. --SU ltd. (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're welcome. As for the urls, I usually add urls if they are available. The exception is when the url isn't helpful, such as when it doesn't go to a page in the book...but rather just the description page (sometimes with snippets that aren't too helpful or aren't helpful at all). So sometimes, I don't add the url in those cases. Most of the references in the article were already there before I started significantly working on the article; the urls not being there for any of those instances are because others didn't add them.

Again, thanks. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Killer punctuation

Thank you for correcting my punctuation on the Serial Killer article, My writing skills aren't have declined over the years, and I'm not completely update to date on the new policies. Thanks «»Who ?¿? 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde article

Why do you keep reverting the page? The content I removed is unsourced information. Leave it alone. SwediePie (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and others keep reverting you at the Blond (not Blonde) article because you keep removing valid images that actually are sourced on their description pages and are only doing so because you don't believe that black/African people can have naturally blond hair (without substantial white/European blood).[1][2] Your relatively small edit history shows that you've been repeatedly reverted on this matter since last year; one would think that you would have learned not to remove the images by now. But given my prior experience with you at the Adolescence article, I should not be surprised by your lack of understanding regarding the way things are supposed to work here at Wikipedia. If you do not revert yourself soon, or if you revert again during the current 24 hours shall someone else revert you, I will report you at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; you have already violated the WP:3RR policy and will most assuredly be blocked if reported.

Also start signing your user name (not just signing it, but signing it properly), as I've just done for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you watching this article so closely anyway? SwediePie (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about watching the article "so closely"; it's about watching it, period, just as many (likely most) Wikipedia editors watch certain Wikipedia articles. My main reason for having taken an interest in this article, after wanting to see what it looks like, is seeing all the WP:OR (unsourced) text, personal commentary, vandalism or other unconstructive edits, being added to the article. I have clearly remembered your persistent removal of the one image (when it was just one image of a black person instead of two, if these individuals are more accurately categorized as black). But it's none of your business why I am watching the article. Just know that I am, as you already do, and that I will not tolerate your invalid removals.

And you still did not sign your user name properly. You aren't supposed to do it manually, giving a different time than the Wikipedia time. To sign your user name, and as SineBot has told you more than once, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I've just corrected your timestamp. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this piece here for a note of your sockpuppeting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my page! It's true though, I do revert quite a few funny posts in articles... Lova Falk talk 06:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And LOL. I was going to mention that revert to you there on your talk page, but then I decided to wait because it occurred to me that you may be watching your user page (which means that your talk page is also automatically watched by you). The main reason others used to spot vandalism to my user page before I did is because I didn't have my user page/talk page on my watchlist. I've only recently, since some point in January of this year, started using a watchlist again after almost two years of having stopped using it. There were a lot of articles I had to drop from it, considering that my watchlist was in the 3000s. It's currently in the 1000s, but most of the articles apparently aren't that active because I don't have too many articles popping up and overwhelming me at this time. Instead of removing most of the remaining articles from my watchlist all at once, I'm removing articles individually, gradually as they pop up (the ones that I don't want to watch and/or am confused about why they were ever on my watchlist). Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do watch my user page! My watchlist is presently 3,433 pages and growing, even though I try to unwatch whenever I can. But then again, there is so much that I find interesting...

Lova Falk talk 08:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About my sources in the Asexuality article

Thx a lot for your proofreading, Flyer22. It’s very nice of you. I’m always grateful to anyone who corrects my grammar errors, so helping me with my English. It’s difficult for me to learn your native language, but I need it very much.

As for my sources, I’m quite aware of the fact that they aren’t reliable just as an anonymous author’s book “Asexuality: A Brief Introduction” is not a scientific investigation :-) But I only wanted to point out some recent events that were of paramount importance in the asexual community. Besides, I don’t always think much of the sources I add. This must also be said of the so-called reliable sources. For example, I disapprove David Jay’s attitude to the LGBT community and disagree with those researchers who consider asexuality a sexual orientation. Of course, asexuality can’t be a sexual orientation just as the absence of delusion is not a particular form of delusion. In contrast to various sexual sins and orientations, asexuality is a normal state, the inborn virtue of chastity. Unlike the members of AVEN, I was not asexual from the very beginning. I had been struggling against sexual drive for many years before I achieved (unlike Anatoly Wasserman and other unmarried people) the state of asexuality. But WP is not meant for original research. Taking this rule into account, I have to add bibliographical items to WP independently on my personal opinion about them. I very often add external links to WP simply because I’m interested in them myself. --SU ltd. (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SU ltd., like I stated on the Asexuality talk page before, now seen at Talk:Asexuality/Archive 4, I'm sure that reason it's considered part of the sexual orientation category by some researchers is because it has to do with sexual orientation (how people feel towards sexual activity, etc.). "It's an orientation that strays away from sex, therefore making it a sexual orientation." I'm not completely sure whether or not I personally consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation, considering that asexuals, for example, can also be heterosexual or homosexual (what they call heteromomantic or homoromantic, the romantic aspects of those sexual orientations). In this case, I use "homosexual," a word some take offense to, because it goes better with the heterosexual counterpart than the words "gay men and lesbians" and to better demonstrate the alternative term "homoromantic."

As for sources, the aforementioned text and sources you added, SU ltd., should be removed until WP:Reliable sources can be found to support it. That's just the way that this site works. The only thing I can do to help you on that is advise you not to add such poor sourcing anywhere on Wikipedia, and to help you look for suitable sources. If I don't find any, that text and its sources will be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wasn't concerned with the book you used; I am concerned with the fact that you used WordPress.com as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Dean

Hi! I am curious, and not questioning you. Was there a reason why you didn't warn User:The Twilight Zone Spiral after your revision of his mass deletion? This guy looks like trouble to me, and if it was an oversite on your part I will be happy to follow up on it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gtwfan52. When I reverted that user, he or she had already been sort-of warned by ClueBot NG and I knew that an editor would warn him or her soon, which is what happened. I often do my part by helping to revert in cases such as these and leave the warning messages up to others. My reasons for doing so come down to knowing that the matter will be covered soon by another editor, my sometimes being too lazy to issue a warning, and my being aware that edits like the ones The Twilight Zone Spiral made are not being made with a WP:VANDALISM intention. Sometimes, I will leave an article and let others repeatedly revert; this is because when it's not vandalism, repeatedly reverting can leave me in the position of the type of WP:Edit warring that can possibly get me blocked. In the case of The Twilight Zone Spiral, who is also obviously this IP that I reverted, WP:Disruption obviously applies; but like I stated, others already had it covered. I sometimes will warn a user, especially in the case of vandalism, and I did so recently, as seen in this link, but not usually when I know that someone else will soon. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, he will be gone soon enough i figure. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thefreedictionary.com

I understand your reasoning; but why do we have to cite a no-name Internet dictionary for that purpose? Why not use one of the established ones, like Merriam-Webster? Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Nyttend. Like I stated, my point was "to show that 'child' is generally defined, by dictionaries at least, as 'between birth and puberty.'" Citing one dictionary, unless it uses the word "generally" for the information, doesn't show that this is the usual, non-legal definition that is given. But citing a source that shows more than one dictionary defining it that way does. And the Oxford English Dictionary source that's there doesn't use the exact wording "between birth and puberty." Their definition of "a young human being below the age of puberty" for the biological aspect is close, but not very close, and you know how some people at this site are very strict, or odd rather, about things being supported by the source. Simply because the word "birth" isn't used, they might state "Wording not supported by the source" (though I can understand removing "birth" in that case). One might even remove "biologically," even though the definition dealing with puberty is about biology while the legal definition is about being legally deemed no longer a child. I don't understand the rationale that wording in a Wikipedia article needs to be word-for-word the wording used in the source, which would be a WP:COPVIO unless it's put in quotation marks or is so generic (like "between birth and puberty") that it doesn't need to be (for example, limited close paraphrasing may be permitted), but I have seen such editors seemingly display that rationale (even if not a word-for-word rationale, but rather a "words not used in the source shouldn't be used" rationale that is not applied in a way that is supported by WP:Verifiability or WP:Original research) and I'd rather avoid dealing with them. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

creating controversial content

I wrote an essay inspired by another editor's past effort to add new sexual orientations. Edit or post as you see fit. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay, Nick. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check Out My --Contributions

Could you help me out by [creating??] checking out my wiki --contributions-- where I have begun to create articles for notable people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.9.177 (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP. I take it that you spotted me at the Michael Malone article after I tweaked things following your edit to it.[3][4] Checking out your contributions, I see that you mean soap opera-related articles. While I used to be heavily involved in editing soap opera articles or soap opera-related articles, I don't edit them much these days. And I never edited a lot of biographies having to do with soap operas. But I might follow your contributions and help with a few things. You should also take the advice left on your talk page about creating new articles. Make sure the people meet our WP:NOTABILITY guideline first and foremost.

Also, remember to sign your user name when you comment. To sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pedophilia and jurisdictions

hi, thanks! I'm not an expert in this field, I just stumbled upon this paragraph, when looking for some data related to a debate in Poland I read about yesterday. Thank you for adding the source, I know it may look like an overkill, but I am a good example of someone who is familiar with Wikipedia and still found it lacking. Even now I see the statement as problematically vague: beyond any doubt, the article makes a claim about some particular jurisdiction (no-one has the data for convictions worldwide), and since many American states treat the age of consent as a hard-and-fast rule (that is, a 18-year old person hitting on a 17-year old person is a child molester), I intuitively suspect that the numbers reflecting convictions in this claim are representative to some country(ies) only, while are read as a statement about all nations. However, I don't know how to amend this, I have no better sources, and since the claim is a direct quote, let's lay the blame for the vagueness on the source itself, and not try to fix it on Wiki :) Pundit|utter 07:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you left the same response on your talk page. The only thing I feel the need to state to you is that pedophilia (the sexual attraction) is not the same thing as child sexual abuse (the act); that section addresses this. And even in America, most people don't consider an 18-year-old guy with his 17-year-old girlfriend to be pedophilia. It's usually when the guy or woman is at least in his or her 20s or much older than the 17-year-old that some people confuse age of consent/age of majority issues with pedophilia. Like the article is very clear about, however, a sexual attraction to or sexual preference for post-pubescents is not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 ==pedophilia and jurisdictions==
 hi, thanks! I'm not an expert in this field, I just stumbled upon this paragraph, when looking for some data related to a debate in Poland I read about yesterday. Thank you for adding the source, I know it may look like an overkill, but I am a good example of someone who is familiar with Wikipedia and still found it lacking. Even now I see the statement as problematically vague: beyond any doubt, the article makes a claim about some particular jurisdiction (no-one has the data for convictions worldwide), and since many American states treat the age of consent as a hard-and-fast rule (that is, a 18-year old person hitting on a 17-year old person is a child molester), I intuitively suspect that the numbers reflecting convictions in this claim are representative to some country(ies) only, while are read as a statement about all nations. However, I don't know how to amend this, I have no better sources, and since the claim is a direct quote, let's lay the blame for the vagueness on the source itself, and not try to fix it on Wiki :) [[User:Pundit|<span style="color: blue;">Pundit</span>]]|[[User talk:Pundit|<span style="color: green;">utter</span>]] 07:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
-:I saw that you left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pundit&curid=14987815&diff=540536267&oldid=540532989 the same response] on your talk page. The only thing I feel the need to state to you is that [[pedophilia]] (the sexual attraction) is not the same thing as [[child sexual abuse]] (the act); that section addresses this. And even in America, most people don't consider ab 18-year-old guy with his 17-year-old girlfriend to be pedophilia. It's usually when the guy or woman is at least in his or her 20s or much older than the 17-year-old that some people confuse [[age of consent]]/[[age of majority]] issues with pedophilia. Like the article is very clear about, a sexual attraction to or sexual preference for post-pubescents is not pedophilia. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 07:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
+:I saw that you left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pundit&curid=14987815&diff=540536267&oldid=540532989 the same response] on your talk page. The only thing I feel the need to state to you is that [[pedophilia]] (the sexual attraction) is not the same thing as [[child sexual abuse]] (the act); that section addresses this. And even in America, most people don't consider an 18-year-old guy with his 17-year-old girlfriend to be pedophilia. It's usually when the guy or woman is at least in his or her 20s or much older than the 17-year-old that some people confuse [[age of consent]]/[[age of majority]] issues with pedophilia. Like the article is very clear about, however, a sexual attraction to or sexual preference for post-pubescents is not pedophilia. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 07:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)