:[[User:Olehal09|Olehal09]], don't bring any article content dispute that you have with me to my talk page. If I want to comment on the article talk page, I will. And I was already going to. But if criticizing your mess of an edit, as I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masculinity&diff=638866159&oldid=638865177 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masculinity&diff=638934053&oldid=638921584 here], is insulting you, then so be it. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Olehal09|Olehal09]], don't bring any article content dispute that you have with me to my talk page. If I want to comment on the article talk page, I will. And I was already going to. But if criticizing your mess of an edit, as I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masculinity&diff=638866159&oldid=638865177 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masculinity&diff=638934053&oldid=638921584 here], is insulting you, then so be it. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
:Coming back to this, I apologize to you for not being softer with my criticism of your addition. More so the second time I reverted you. By "more so the second time," I mean that my [[WP:Edit summary]] was rougher. But regarding the first revert: If something looks like rambling to me in a Wikipedia article, I am likely to note it. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:42, 20 December 2014
CAN'T RETIRE
Flyer22 Frozen tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that she couldn't do so…
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. 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 (Wikipedia is 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.
Especially see User:Flyer22#Main type of editing style for why what you consider neutral, or what you consider needed with regard to images, likely differs from my view; don't know about you, but I'm following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines in that regard. Any questions, compliments or criticism of my Wikipedia 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.
Archive 10/block cases (from March 21, 2012 - July 24, 2012, for block case 1; December 12, 2012 - December 19, 2012, and to December 24 concerning extra comments, for block case 2; 2014 for block case 3)
Leaving over the loss of a flag would just be silly. Let's take what's happened at AN/I as a learning experience and look at the overall picture. Very few of your 149,000+ edits required the use of that flag. Rollback doesn't define you as an editor - your edits do, and those are much much more important. Please reconsider? Dusti*Let's talk!*02:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see you go...
For what it's worth I think that incident could not have been handled more poorly and am 100% in favor of you receiving your flag back if you should decide to return. —Frosty☃04:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it's just another example of admin overreach. Flyer22 did not misuse the rollback tool, but ProtonK removed it anyway. What did s/he think would happen when a provocative action like that is taken? There was no reason to remove the tool, and I can completely understand Flyer22's frustration (and even retirement) with the fact that another editor was allowed to simply remove the tool without any real evidence of misuse. Until admins realize that they're just regular editors with a few extra buttons, and not Team Wikipedia Project Police, good editors will continue to leave the project. LHMask me a question03:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your ultimate decision, I wanted to let you know you are one of the best editors I've encountered here. You've always been kind to me, mentoring me as I learned, and an invaluable resource for all sexuality-related pages. I do hope you return, but if not, I wish you all the best. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I watch several sexuality-related pages for vandalism and I have seen your valuable edits to them, which doubtless greatly increased their quality. I almost always learn something new when I see your edits. I hope that you eventually return. Best wishes, BethNaught (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to see you leave. You are one of the most valuable people on this project. With the many amazing things you have done for wikipedia. To only get a double slap in the face of two administrators. For the reason I do not like your style and attitude with me. So I will slap you. Why? Because I can. Instead of thinking hey this an editor with over 150k edits, 7 years of experience, and held in high regard by the community. maybe we should talk this through a bit more and in the end maybe even agree to disagree. I might leave as well if admins can do this without consequences. NathanWubs (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Very sad to see you go. I wish I arrived in time to comment in the AN/I thread. Thank you so much for your hard work and your help, Flyer22. There's some rich irony in the AN/I discussion; we must be extra nice to newbies but apparently our established editors with 150,000 contributions get a whole nother kind of treatment. Who will take up the slack and keep an eye on sexuality-related pages now that you're gone? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your rollback rights have been restored
Good news:
05:27, September 21, 2014 Euryalus (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Flyer22 from pending changes reviewer to pending changes reviewer and rollbacker (Per consensus at AN/I thread.)
This was certainly an overreaction of the heavy handed type. There was no attempt to AGF and err on the side of mercy. It's good that reason won out in the end. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it has apparently cost the project a good editor. Yet nothing at all will be done to rein in admin's like Protonk who take such hasty actions. And I'm still very interested in what caused Protonk to audit Flyer22's use of rollbacker to begin with. LHMask me a question05:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see this was seen as just the mistake it was. I feel slightly awkward that I was used as the catalyst for this. Can't say you were completely without fault...nor should anyone as you did call a legitimate edit, proven to be accurate, vandalism. But it isn't as if other, even in administration, don't take leaps with our policies. I actually do assume good faith an trust you honestly felt that was vandalism. But I want to at least caution you that vandalism as an accusation hurts those that are wrongly accused...as much as it must have hurt you to have the rollback riht removed. But I also temper that with my knowledge of your outstanding work. Happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me—not for the first time—that if Wikipedia paid half as much attention to the way it treats its regulars as the way it treats its newbies, this place would be way happier and a lot more productive. We bend over backwards to be gentle and forgiving to new users, and that's all well and good up to a point, although we sometimes go to such extremes in that regard that articles suffer and patience is exhausted. At the other end of the spectrum, we have administrators and other "power users" who are so entrenched that they can behave abominably with impunity, and they often do. Between these poles resides a vast body of editors who try hard to do the right thing and usually succeed but are nonetheless subject to the most shocking mistreatment when the slightest error is perceived. Whether the error is actually an error doesn't even matter; the allegation is enough. Consider wolves or wild dogs: once the first drop of blood is spilled, the whole pack leaps into action and goes in for the kill. If, by some miracle, the Wikipedian in question survives the onslaught (like, for instance, because she was innocent), her attackers don't forget. They stand ready to pounce, hoping for better luck the next time, and chances are they'll succeed. This phenomenon is woven into the fabric of Wikipedia's culture. We abuse our best and our brightest, and by and large we as a community accept that we do this. Whether this state of affairs will be sustainable over the long haul is hard to say. Each year brings a fresh crop of newbies, many of them talented and eager. If they're any good and decide to stick around, they'll soon learn that the honeymoon is brief, the respect accorded to them will quickly evaporate, and neither the quality nor the quantity of their contributions will protect them if a glib wikilawyer with lots of time on his hands takes a dislike to them. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
While it appears that I missed much of what transpired as I do not often look at the drama boards. Hope to see you back to keep up your good work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!-LHM
The Editor's Barnstar
Hate to see such a good content editor leave over an administrator (once again) thinking that their adminship is a badge to police regular editors, rather than just a few extra tools. LHMask me a question15:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We hope that you will return!
After re-logging in recently, I noticed that you had referred to me in a talk page with signzzed (or what ever the user name is), and I am impressed with how you dealt with the situation.
Yeah, the removal of rights was crap, but I hope that you return as you are very important to the community and many people have a lot to learn from your experience.
I second, third and fourth the above message. Your stewardship of various articles is beneficial to the project. OTOH if you need to step away I certainly respect that decision. Best regards to you on WikiP and especially off. MarnetteD|Talk20:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer. Whatever is going on... we need you. I need you. It's a hard-knock world Flyer. And I guess we never get the props we crave in this world and certainly not here. But a lot of people need you and want you here and admire you, so don't go. I was kicked out of the admin corps for (IMO) insufficient reason, and these things happen, and you can't worry about stuff like that too much, you just move on... as I say, it's a hard-knock world. Don't let it get you down Flyer. Herostratus (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Between what happened you and Sitush, I've come to the realization this place is run by retards. Whomever compared Wikipedia to World of Warcraft couldn't have been more accurate. Getting "got" is the prix fixe three course meal, whereas articles are a cold, wet appetizer. So fuck them. Don't return. They don't deserve you.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon22:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But we aren't doing this for them. We volunteer here because we believe in the idea of an encyclopedia. Flyer22 and I crossed paths at a few film pages, and she set an example many others could follow. I'm glad to say she even "Thanked" me once. I look forward to seeing her return. (And the longer you wait, Flyer, the more dramatic it will be...) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We once worked on Frozen (2013 film) together, you remember that? I really miss it, and I really miss you. You are among the most active users on the STiki leaderboard, this encyclopedia and the whole community owe you so much. Please come back, though Wikipedia is a voluntary work. It's sad to see so many experienced editors leaving Wikipedia for such subtle issues. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to keep this short. Flyer22, you are one of a tiny handful of superlative editors I've encountered in my 8+ years here. You are exceptionally perceptive, you have a remarkable capacity to effectively analyze a variety of topics, and you have a superb grasp of at least one extraordinarily complex, confusing, and frequently contentious content area. You also have a thorough understanding of what makes a high-quality article, and you care enough to fight for it, even when confronted by trolls, lunatics, and an unending parade of unscrupulous users seeking to pervert our core ideals in order to further their own personal or professional agendas. Those qualities have stood you in good stead as a content contributor, a vandal fighter, and a contributor to discussions. They also have made you a target—not just of the aforementioned agenda-driven users but also of various editors whose motives or ethics are less noble than your own or whose poor judgment gets in the way of making sound decisions. You're not the first editor to fall prey to their nonsense, and you won't be the last. You are, however, one of the very best. I have no idea whether blanking the pages in your user space is tantamount to posting a "retired" notice, but since various Wikipedians seem to be taking it that way and are imploring you to "return", let me say this much: please consider not only what's best for Wikipedia but also what's right for you. Whether you stay or go, I hope you know how much you're appreciated. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 25#Category:Disney_Princess
Thank you to all of the supportive comments above, and supportive emails
I thank all the editors who have offered support to me on this WP:Rollback rights drama, whether above or via email. And you as well, Euryalus, for my WP:Rollback rights restoration. I was considering taking a longer break from Wikipedia, but it's best that I go ahead and respond now, not only so that everyone knows that I'm okay and that there's no need to continue to stroke my ego, LOL, but also so that I go ahead and get back to Wikipedia work and put this drama behind me...for the record. I am not looking to be a WP:Diva, and, because I knew that I would likely return to this site, I did not put Template:Retired on my user page and user talk page after stating in the WP:Rollback rights WP:ANI case that "now I'm out of here." I knew that I needed a break from Wikipedia to calm down and to better process everything. And that, in case I didn't return, I should go ahead and clear my user page and user talk page. Because I, like a lot of other veteran Wikipedia editors (whether good editors, bad editors such as WP:Sockpuppets, or something in between), can't seem to leave this site forever, I have now put Template:Can't retire at the top of my user page and talk page. I saw it on Ansh666's user page during this other recent WP:ANI case involving me, and decided to steal it.
Like I've told fellow Wikipedia editors via email, this WP:Rollback rights matter made me reevaluate some of my approaches to the way that I edit Wikipedia, and that I should dial it back in some cases or at least return to the softer Flyer22 that I was at one point. Wikipedia hardened me, made me more cynical and a variety of other things, but I need to stop being such a bitch at this place (a sometimes-persona that contrasts how I am in non-Wikipedia life, or what some refer to as "real life"). As mentioned by others above, I deal with a lot of contentious topics on Wikipedia and various WP:POV-pushers, including those who engage in WP:Activism, whether they are aware of it or not, and it has taken its toll. My mindset changed to where I figured that I have to be harder and colder in this Wikipedia environment, dealing with the types of topics and issues that I deal with. Others have mentioned that a person has to have a thick skin to edit Wikipedia, at least if you edit contentious topics, and I feel that's true. Add that on to the fact that I battle depression, which I've been open about on my user talk page, as recently as this discussion (excuse the heading and main topic of that discussion), and it's certainly often not easy for me to edit here. Finding the right balance with all of that can be difficult. So unlike what Dusti thought, a thought which compelled him to add this addition to Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, it's not simply about "losing a flag." One might say, "Well, how about you edit non-contentious topics?" My response to that is that any topic can be contentious at some point, and that my areas of expertise on Wikipedia are mainly the more contentious topics (sexual topics, medical topics, and anatomy topics). I am well-versed in some social topics and science topics as well, and occasionally edit purely scientific topics, but I noted before that there are some things that I don't want to make into "work for Wikipedia." And as for soap operas, while I used to mainly edit in that area, I no longer mainly edit in that area, and my knowledge regarding all of that is more confined to certain American soap operas.
As for being able to take criticism and engaging with WP:Newbies, those who have watched my user talk page for months or years know that I am open to criticism. If I was not, the comment at the top of my user talk page about being open to compliments or criticism would not have been there (and would not be there now). There is a difference between being open to criticism and not agreeing with it, especially if one find's the criticism to be faulty or misplaced. I have made mistakes with the vandalism tools (which, again, are not only for reverting vandalism); I know that and have acknowledged it times before on Wikipedia. I'm certain that every other WP:Patroller has also made mistakes with the tools. I know the importance of not biting the newbies. But as was made clear before (User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Please don't bite the newbies), reverting a WP:Newbie is not necessarily biting that WP:Newbie, even if it's a revert without an explanation. In the "User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Please don't bite the newbies" discussion, editors address how it can be less than sensible to expect WP:Patrollers to leave a manual message for each WP:Good faith but unconstructive edit that we revert. We are using tools when we WP:Patrol because it is quicker and more efficient. We can revert a lot more problematic edits with these tools than without them. A major difference between WP:Rollback by itself and WP:STiki, a difference that apparently got lost to some people commenting in my WP:Rollback rights thread, is that WP:STiki, unlike WP:Rollback, does leave a WP:Edit summary when reverting. Sure, its WP:Edit summary when reverting a WP:Good-faith edit is not an explicit explanation, but it's an explanation nevertheless. Leaving a message when reverting a WP:Good faith edit is not a part of the WP:STiki design, and it's that design that I was following. If some people have a problem with that design, it can be discussed on the WP:STiki talk page. That stated, I will do better when reverting problematic edits, including more often considering to leave an edit summary for a WP:Good-faith edit. I might switch over to WP:Huggle to do that, which gives more options. But as for blanking, I will continue to revert that as WP:Vandalism if it looks like WP:Vandalism; this is per WP:VANDTYPES.
I will also be leaving my user page blank for a while, with the exception of the Template:Can't retire; this will help remind me that I was once a WP:Newbie, and would have been utterly lost on Wikipedia without the help of Elonka. The blanked user page, without my Wikipedia achievements, will also help keep me humble. I will restore it eventually; but for now...very humble is the way to go. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're back. I recall really liking the warning functions of Huggle when I used it, so I wouldn't hesitate to recommend giving it a try. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Mark Arsten, I've mentioned that I've used WP:Huggle, and occasionally use it these days; that was my first anti-vandalism tool other than WP:Rollback, but I found that WP:STiki is quicker at spotting vandalism and other unconstructive edits. And it's a simpler tool for that purpose. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question
Hi, Flyer22. I have a quick question for you. I've noticed a pattern of editors targeted by admins over the last several days. I'm curious if you think your recent loss of rollback permissions on 20 September had anything to do with your support for my unblock previously on 18 September. Your loss of permissions (seemingly out of the blue) followed soon after, followed by the current block of Lithistman, who also supported me. In all three cases, we challenged the authority of admin John. Soon after we challenged John, admin Spartaz and admin Drmies showed up to support him, with Drmies successfully filing a trumped up ANI against Lithistman. I'm wondering if you think this is just a coincidence, or if admins are working behind the scenes to target editors who challenge their authority. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances behind the recent unpleasantness are easy to see and do not involve any of the users named above. Flyer had a dispute with a returned user who then edit warred to remove certain text from Flyer's user page; the returned user then went to ANI (see ANI archive) where a big fuss occurred. That fuss drew people to look at Flyer's talk at a time when it was easy to see this section. That focused attention on rollback with the ensuing drama. It's not relevant here, but I'll mention my attitude about reverting vandalism. I once tried STiki but found it too hard because I'm a bit of a waverer who can often see some good on both sides of an issue, and STiki found many cases of dubious edits which I did not want to label as vandalism because they were essentially just cluelessness or test edits. When using rollback, I often drop {{uw-test1}} on the perpetrator's talk because it is safest—it's often correct, and it means I don't have to struggle to make up my mind whether the particular edit satisfied WP:VAND. For the same reason, I avoid calling an edit "vandalism"—if it is intentional vandalism, applying that label just provides the perp with satisfaction, and if it's not intentional, it's a very big mistake which is pretty well impossible to undo. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, coming out of two big WP:ANI cases regarding me this month, I'd rather not get sucked into another big WP:ANI case or more Wikipedia drama at this point. I'm sure that we'd all love to avoid Wikipedia drama (those of us who are sane, that is). But to answer your question without digging too deep into my feelings on all of this, I will state that I, for the most part, did not WP:Assume good faith when this WP:Administrator approached me and took my WP:Rollback rights after I got snappy with him. Yes, I felt that there was an ulterior motive there. And I also implied that another WP:Administrator perhaps sides with his fellow WP:Administrators simply because they are his fellow WP:Administrators. But Johnuniq has WP:Assumed good faith regarding the "he took my WP:Rollback rights" matter, and I always take into consideration Johnuniq's feelings on a Wikipedia matter. As for John, you already know that I feel that he is WP:Involved regarding the John Barrowman article, and I've recently told him such. I don't know what it will take for John to stop acting in an administrative role in disputed cases in which he is involved, but I'm tired of it. And, Lithistman, I very much appreciate you defending me so fiercely. Thank you. If you want me to state something regarding your block case, I will, but staying out of drama regarding John is best for me; being involved with John-WP:BLP drama does not bring out the best in me in the least, except for when fighting for what I believe in and bettering the Wikipedia community as a result (such as making sure that there is no more careless yanking of People magazine from WP:BLP articles). Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas--great theory! It is, of course, unfortunate that I stated at ANI that I did not think that the rollbacks performed by Flyer were problematic. Also, I do not believe John was involved with that discussion. Or Spartaz. Also, I think a common theory holds that I'm with the "Malleus gang", and Protonk and Malleus, that's not a happy couple. Also, Chillum and I have had our disagreements, to put it mildly, and we're no longer having cocktails together, which is a shame. But never let the truth stand in the way of a good conspiracy! Flyer, I'm happy you got your roll back. (And I actually did look at all of those diffs.) Drmies (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to hear from all sides, Drmies. So I appreciate getting your take on these matters. And thank you for your support of the restoration of my WP:Rollback rights. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback abuse is kind of a pet peeve of mine. There's too many "new page patrollers", you know, the kids with the anti-vandalism machine gunning badge on their user page, who simply hit roll back (especially with IP editors). It's bitey, it turns off new editors, it discourages conversation, and it's an abuse of a user right, so I take it very seriously, which is why I looked at those edits carefully. I don't know Protonk very well as an admin and I have no reason to doubt their expertise, but I wanted to see for myself and I just didn't see what they saw. If it were up to me, the rollback function would be separated from Twinkle and all that other stuff (it's integrated with it) so it remains a right that can be yanked if someone abuses it. BTW, I don't know if Protonk discussed these things with you, but I do suggest that you take such opinions into account, if you haven't already; Protonk has a ton of edits and lots of experience, and even if you are in disagreement you might still benefit from it. Anyway, that's all over now, right? Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) This caught my eye. I enabled Twinkle a long time ago, and I'm certain it doesn't require rollback rights. What it does do is give one the equivalent of rollback, without actually having it. I recently asked for, and received, rollback rights so that I could use STiki which I found rather good and made me think about each edit presented. The only problem I've had with it is clicking a rollback link by accident on a touch screen with my paws, but it is simple to rollback the rollback, and apologise in the edit summary. I'm glad the silly drama is finished, and sanity has resumed, or at least what passes for sanity round here. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precious
child protection
Thank you, user with significant knowledge in the social/scientific/psychological/sexual fields, for quality unbiased articles on these topics, such as Clitoris and Todd Manning, for explaining edit summaries, for your firm stance on child protection, for your collection of vandalism moments, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! - Enjoy a "bit of tea every now and again, to stop, relax, reflect and prepare ourselves to finish the tasks at hand".
Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I mentioned above that the ego-stroking isn't needed. But if it's simply a matter of stating thank you, then I thank you as well. I've seen you around, and I know that you do great work at this site. Your user page shows some of your great work. As for the Todd Manning article noted above, give it a few more months, and it will be much more improved, as drastic changes to it are being discussed at Talk:Todd Manning and worked on at User:Figureskatingfan/Todd sandbox, preparing the article for WP:Featured article status. You are more than welcome to join discussion on the article talk page of course. Flyer22 (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flyer!
The edit you reverted from "causal relationships" to "casual relationships" comes directly from the source cited in the article [1]. We're programmed to think of "casual relationships", but in this case causal is grammatical correct and reliably sourced. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jacona, thanks for explaining and reverting me on that. I had meant to check the source, but I also felt that it was likely a typo, which we are allowed to correct per MOS:QUOTE. I've seen these two words mixed up in research literature, but I agree that causal is the right word in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Asides
Regarding a couple of your comments at ANI. I am responding here so as not to set that discussion off on a tangent. First, regarding this comment,[2] yes, he edited that article three months before me. His showing up to edit there within hours of my edits would not be remarkable as an isolated incident. However, as a pattern of his behavior going back months I find it disturbing and a resorting to behavior that I and others have asked him to stop in the past, as my evidence in that discussion shows. In fact, he claimed that he was observing a self-imposed 1-way iban a couple of months ago after a similar discussion to the one going on now.
Second, regarding these comments,[3] although I do find a lot (but not all) of pornography offensive, and that may make me "anti-porn" in that sense, my intention as a WP editor is not to remove well-sourced, due-weight material, but to remove poorly-sourced, undue-weight material and more importantly to introduce well-sourced, due-weight material that balances the existing material. My observation of the articles on this subject on WP is that the pro and con material are significantly out of balance toward the pro side, not only in quantity but in presentation.
I don't know who is talking about whom, but people changing articles that I watch may get the same impression: I react as soon as see something on my watchlist, because I would forget otherwise. - We have too many good people "leaving the project", please don't do that if at all possible. I felt like leaving a few times, but every time I noticed that it was in reaction to what other people did, and I finally decided that I decide myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbreather, I know what it's like to be WP:Hounded, so I very much understand your concerns on that. I think it would have been best if you kept your replies to me on this matter at WP:ANI; it's usually better to keep a discussion jointed instead of disjointed, and it's better if others there understand where you are coming from on this topic. I see that S, as you call him here at my talk page, has replied to my description of how he views pornographic material. Would you be opposed to me providing a link there to your reply on my description of how you view pornographic material? As for pornography articles, I usually don't edit them (unless one considers a sex topic that has sexual imagery to be a pornography article), and I keep my personal feelings about pornography off Wikipedia. But I do understand the need to have more women involved in editing such articles. So if you are helping out in that area (S has stated that you are, by the way, whether one thinks that he was being sincere or not), that's a good thing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a humorous aside, the photo we've discussed, this one, is also used on this page with this many complaints: none! [[4]] As you say, it's probably not due to the relative merits of the photo, but to the lack of imagination of the people who are looking to purge WP of perceived naughtiness. (I didn't want to post this on the Talk page in question and therefore alert the campaigners to another article to harass. Think of it as an anonymity program for WP articles!) Yours, Wordreader (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Flyer22. I noticed your edits there, where you accused me of violating WP:POINT. In my view the greatest single challenge to editing here is to be able to get along with other editors with whom one disagrees. By making these accusations, to which I don't intend to reply in the article talk space as this is not an appropriate place for such a discussion, I think you risk making yourself look foolish and petty, and you do not inconvenience me in the least. I believe I have seen you complain in the past about hounding; it might be well to avoid giving any impression of hounding me by following me from place to place issuing complaints about me. I have seen many editors come and go in my 8+1⁄2 years here, and in my experience with very few exceptions those who are here to fight all the time do not last as well as those who forgive and forget and move on. Anyway, I see you have been here almost as long as me and made a fair few edits, almost half of them in the last year. I am glad you got your rollback right back, and this is not an administrative warning, just a friendly message to let you know how these comments came across. I would prefer it if you could raise any concerns you may have about my edits at my talk page in the first instance, and keep article talk space for discussing improvements to articles. Best wishes, --John (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up what Flyer wrote. Here's the "offending" portion, from what I could tell:
Like Ritchie333 mentioned above, the WP:FA standards were different back in 2007. Either way, the level of quality that is this article is what I generally see all around Wikipedia regarding WP:GA or WP:FA WP:BLP singer articles. The discussion John is talking about is a heated discussion, and it's bound to have editors going to articles that are pointed out there, including to make a point opposite of what is pointed out there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing there in any way accuses John of violating WP:POINT, though from the somewhat passive-aggressive note left here, he feels it was aimed at him. Be that as it may, that is a John problem, not a Flyer problem. LHMask me a question17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, I stand by what I stated at the Mariah Carey talk page. You can accuse me of WP:Hounding you and the like, but there will most certainly be no evidence of it. For example, it's very clear by the Mariah Carey article history and talk page history that I have been at that article and talk page long before you have. When it comes to you visiting an article that I edit, on the other hand, such as popping up at even obscure articles such as Reproductive coercion, whether the article is publicized at WP:ANI or not? That's a different matter. I'm also certain that while I don't watch your user page, you do watch mine. Lithistman is right that your above post is passive-aggressive. You should know by now that you do not intimidate me in the least, and, that if you were to block me for anything when you are clearly WP:Involved, I could get that block overturned in a heartbeat. When I know what I see on Wikipedia, I often comment on it. Getting along with an editor, as I have done with you for months until this point, is one thing; turning a blind eye is another. Oh, and make sure that you refrain from WP:Personal attacks, like this one, on my user talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you need to garner some support that I am wrong before you undo my improvements. I have been an educator for 25 years, 12 of them at the University level. I know what I am talking about regarding this issue. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver, I appreciate your knowledge. However, I'm going to revert all of your changes regarding WP:Plagiarism, pending discussion (except for your talk page comments of course). Your edits will obviously still be in the edit history and can be salvaged at any time. Like I stated at the WP:Plagiarism talk page, you should take this matter to WP:RfC. Substantive changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially the big changes you are making regarding how Wikipedia treats plagiarism, should have WP:Consensus. I don't think that they should be molded by you alone with input from one other editor. Now that I've objected, I think that these pages should be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. So that is what I am going to do. That Wikipedia policies and guidelines should reflect WP:Consensus is stated at the top of these pages. We don't automatically base Wikipedia policies and guidelines on what academia states, and certainly not on what a lone Wikipedia editor believes is the consensus among academics (no matter if that Wikipedia editor is an expert or not an expert).
You have been making a lot of changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I'm generally not a believer in WP:Be bold when it comes to these pages. Reverting you on this matter is not personal. For example, at the talk page of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, it's noted that I recently reverted additions because I think that significant changes to Wikipedia policies or guidelines should generally be discussed at the talk pages of those policies or guidelines first and that this "is indeed a good enough reason to revert, as is made clear by the notes at the top of these pages, and as has been made clear time and time again by my reverting in such cases, including the aforementioned WP:Reliable sources edit. It's been often enough that changes have been made to policies and guidelines only to be reverted months later because a significant number of editors missed that WP:Creep instance. WP:Silent consensus is too often a fail, which is why it's also only an essay. I uphold WP:Consensus until that is no longer the WP:Consensus." It took Arthur Rubin coming in to uphold my revert. So reverting on matters like these is simply how I am. If you don't start a WP:RfC on this WP:Plagiarism matter and/or invite the WP:Village pump to weigh in on it, then I will. But I advise you to do so. Simply trying to debate me on the matter will not cut it.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with " WP:Plagiarism" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, I am not sure that I understand your position on distinctive words versus distinctive phrases. Can you please elaborate?
Regarding distinctive words, I offer the following example:
John Smith was a prodigious worker, but he was also considered obtuse.
After 25 years in academia, it's my understanding that the above example contains two distinctive words: "prodigious" and "obtuse". Therefore, the following close paraphrase fails the plagiarism text:
Scholars have acknowledged that John Smith was a prodigious laborer, and that his peers described him as obtuse.
On the other hand, this is acceptable: Scholars have praised John Smith's long work history, but they also point out that many of his peers described him as "obtuse".
As noted above, I'm interested in you bringing the wider Wikipedia community in on these matters. I think that I'm not the only editor who would take issue with Wikipedia stating that I can't use a word unless it's in a quote because the copyrighted source used that same word. Care needs to be taken with such instruction. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are intentionally missing the point, because it's not every word, it's distinctive ones that function as an element of the author's original creative expression. Otherwise, what does the copyright apply to, the prepositions and coordinating conjunctions? You are absolutely wrong about this, but I imagine that the amount of energy it would take to go the distance, combined with your inevitable group of sympathetic Wikipedian's, would make demonstrating that highly exhausting and therefore unlikely. All I ask is that you provide one WP:RS that explicitly states that taking creative or distinct words from source material is acceptable in a proper paraphrase. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mentioned distinctive at the WP:Plagiarism talk page and asked just how are we supposed to define that (consistently define it, at that). So I'm clear on the "it's not every word" aspect. I think that you are intentionally missing the point. So are you going to bring the wider Wikipedia community in on this matter, or do I have to? You don't want a lot of others to weigh in on this, why? Because they will sympathize with me? On what grounds will they do so? Liking me? Not being as knowledgeable as you state that you are on these matters? Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is exactly why I don't want to spend a lot of energy on this, but I will say that if you cannot identify the distinctive words in a piece of source material, then you have no business paraphrasing from it. Paraphrasing is an intellectual endeavor, and if you don't understand what I mean there is no point trying to explain it to you; i.e., sometimes you either get it or you don't get it. But I don't know of any other way to identify plagiarism without looking for distinctive words or phrases. Anyway, I can live with the fact that the Wikipedia guideline as currently written is not at all consistent with academia or the legal world, can you? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach to me, and to any other person, on this matter would work better if you didn't engage in condescension. You know, that superior air you've been using to engage me with at my talk page. I know what paraphrasing is, and I asked you a legitimate question about applying the "distinctive" rationale to a word, as opposed to a phrase, on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia guidelines have supported the "distinctive phrase" aspect. And whether you want to admit it or not, or believe it or not, having Wikipedia come down on this matter regarding a lone word needs thorough discussion and input from a significant number of Wikipedia editors. I doubt that the reason that your "distinctive word" aspect was not already there at the aforementioned pages is because Wikipedia has never had a Wikipedia editor who understands plagiarism as well as you do work on those pages. Our Wikipedia policies and guidelines usually reflect input from a significant number of editors; that's the way that Wikipedia, which is a collaborative website, is supposed to work. I'll keep open the idea of bringing the wider Wikipedia community into this dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed to Dan56 in the aforementioned WP:Plagiarism talk page discussion; so I knew that it was that discussion that brought you to the WP:Plagiarism guideline. Like Dr.K., who reverted you here at the WP:Close paraphrasing page, another reason that I took objection to you changing the WP:Plagiarism guideline so drastically is because you were in dispute with Dan56. One of my pet peeves, and I've mentioned it before, is when an editor significantly changes a guideline or policy during a Wikipedia article dispute concerning that guideline or policy, especially if the editor then cites the text that he or she (or "they" if singular they is preferred) significantly altered during that dispute. I'm familiar with Dan56, and I've pinged him via WP:Echo to this discussion so that he will know what I think of this matter. While Dan56 has often contributed positively to Wikipedia, I do see that he has engaged in a lot of WP:Close paraphrasing at the article in question. So I understand your concerns on that front. But I don't believe that use of a single "distinctive" word, for example, should automatically be called plagiarism simply because the copyrighted source has used that same "distinctive" word. Not generally anyway. And neither has the Wikipedia community generally felt that way, which is why it has stated for some time now that close paraphrasing is sometimes unavoidable and that WP:Intext-attribution without quotes can be fine when using minor phrasing from a source. I'm not stating that I'm disagreeing with all of your views on plagiarism or WP:Plagiarism; I'm simply stating that I'm not in complete agreement with you, and that this should be discussed among the wider Wikipedia community. I don't think that it's a matter that should only involve you and me or a few editors. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I want to apologize for getting snarky with you yesterday. I am usually more congenial, and I regret taking a condescending tone with you. I took your comments about what was distinctive too literally, and I see now that you were being slightly rhetorical. I hear you about making changes mid-dispute, and I agree that it's not a good idea. Having said that, I assumed my edits were not entirely against consensus because Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Avoiding plagiarism already included the note: "even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." I fail to see why this would apply only to examples of "No quotation marks, in-text attribution", but not close paraphrasing, which seems to be essentially the same thing. From my standpoint, there is really no such thing as appropriate close paraphrasing that borrows verbatim words or phrases and places them outside quotation marks, and I contend that there is only proper paraphrasing and direct quoting, and anything in between (at least when dealing with creative expressions from non-free content) is plagiarism. What are your thoughts regarding the current version of the guideline, which includes a note suggesting that distinctive words and phrases should be enclosed in quotation marks? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, Dan56 is using your revert and the existing guideline to argue that these are proper paraphrases:
Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."
Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left"
What's interesting about the second example, is that Dan56 has placed intimate in quotes, which is exactly what I am suggesting is necessary with all distinctive words or phrases. I feel that this is a can of worms that will only spread, as now another editor has used your revert to justify that using similar phrases is appropriate outside quotation marks. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more that I found:
Source: "they were favourites before the shortlist was even announced"
Article: "Before the nominations shortlist had been announced"
Source: "The pressures of touring had increased long-standing tensions between Qureshi and the rest of the band"
Article: "The difficulties of touring early on exacerbated the growing tensions between the band and Qureshi"
It would help me judge whether I want to put any more energy into this if you could tell me if I am way off base with these examples. I see this as plagiarism, but Dan56 sees this as perfectly acceptable close paraphrasing, per our guideline. Perhaps an academic standard is not desired here, as it is too difficult for mediocre writers to uphold, but I'm not sure that lowering the bar so that plagiarism is re-defined as close paraphrasing is the best approach either. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be a nuisance, but it would be helpful for me if you explained why my understanding of plagiarism vis-à-vis close paraphrasing is not in keeping with yours or Wikipedia's? Am I inappropriately holding Dan56 to an academic standard that is not expected or encouraged here? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of that can be found in any introductory anatomy text. An article on epthelia is pretty useless without mentioning stratified epithelia. --Khajidha (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added source. I find it odd that these statements needed citing when others equally unknown to the general public are given without citation as well. --Khajidha (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha, looking deeper in the edit history of that article, I see that this one-time account removed the material without explanation. Regarding the source you added for it, I hope that the source covers all of that material, and not just some of it. And there is no need to duplicate the full reference; do see WP:REFNAME. And as for other material being unsourced in an article, that does not mean adding more unsourced material to the article is justified; that is a WP:Other stuff exists argument, and not a good use of that argument. The WP:Burden was on you to source the material in question, and if you have sourced even some of it, that is a good thing. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N0n3up, your edit on this matter, which I reverted, does not fool me; I state this because I think that you were trying to censor images of the human anus. You even censored the heading of this section on my talk page. I de-censored it so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. In short, there are many Wikipedia articles that should have a lead image. The Human anus article is one of them. If people don't want to look at a human anus, whether as soon as they visit a page or seeing it at the bottom of a page, they should think twice before going to the Human anus article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia might not be censored nor was it my intention to do so, but I felt it was better to use one of the images in the image section instead while still maintaining the same image but in the image section. In regards to what you said that there are many Wikipedia articles that should have a lead image and the Human anus article being one of them, there are various articles that don't have a head image yet they do just fine, such as Pathogen being one of them. You seemed to have gotten somewhat over-upset over the edit I did and saw it as an intention of censorship when only I was trying replace it with one of the more anatomical images in the image section. (N0n3up (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
This had no image. Offhand, I can't think of any article that focuses on an exterior human body part that doesn't have a photo of the body part as the lead image. --NeilNtalk to me02:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N0n3up, I got annoyed (not upset in the way that you are seemingly thinking) by your removal of the human anus lead image because, yes, it looked like a clear-cut invalid case of censorship to me. And like NeilN stated above, you didn't replace that image. I pointed you to the WP:Offensive material guideline obviously so that you can read it. That guideline states: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I don't see that the diagrams are equally suitable alternatives to the real-life images. And as for the Pathogen article, that is a completely different case. I am well aware that "there are various articles that don't have a head image yet they do just fine." This is why I stated that "there are many Wikipedia articles that should have a lead image. The Human anus article is one of them." For example, unlike anatomy articles, articles about mental disorders usually do not need or significantly benefit from a lead image, especially since it's not easy, and is impossible in the vast majority of cases, to display what the mental disorder looks like. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the concept in the first place, needless to say that I planned to change the lead image with the anatomical images shown below in the article. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. (N0n3up (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
What is the advantage of specifying that the prostate is in male mammals only, when it can be misleading. I can understand an objection to including females in that line. But why specify male, when that can be misunderstood? 184.77.68.158 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP. I believe that I was clear when reverting you here. As you surely know, in common usage, the term prostate refers to male anatomy, not to female anatomy. That is why the article is predominantly centered on males. Yes, the Skene's gland is sometimes referred to as the female prostate, but not nearly enough to give it the same WP:Weight by removing "male" in the way that you did. The Skene's gland has its own Wikipedia article, obviously, and that article is not titled Female prostate. Because of the common use of the word prostate, I don't think that readers will be confused by not seeing an aspect of female anatomy referred to as the prostate. Furthermore, the Prostate article currently has a WP:Hatnote pointing readers to the Skene's gland article and a section on it lower in the article. If you want to add mention of the Skene's gland/female prostate to the lead, per WP:Lead, I don't object to that. It was there before, but an IP removed it, and I responded to the IP's edit with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you
The Barnstar of Diligence
I want you to have this barnstar as a token of my respect for the outstanding work you have done for a long time in the field of human sexuality. This group of articles is essential to our educational purposes, and the project is very fortunate to have an editor like you doing this work. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen328. I very much appreciate this barnstar. And I think you already know that I very much respect and appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
provide a explanation now you stupid male
Provide a explanation now you stupid male or i will take you to WP:ANI
Well, Slightsmile, look at what is currently the majority of content on my user talk page. If I had reverted that edit as WP:Vandalism, I perhaps would have gotten my WP:Rollback rights taken from me, or more condescension regarding my use of the tools that are for WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits, including how I'm not kind enough to the WP:Newbies. There are editors who watch my user page just waiting for a moment to pounce on one of my mistakes, or so-called mistakes. I'm only half-kidding. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just reverted my edit on Survival Sex with the explanation "removed personal opinion". I will respect your decision. However, the edit was not a personal opinion, but a rather a relevant fact on the matter. In order for survival sex to be a harmful option, the option has to be more harmful than the income is worth, or someone else needs to replace the difference for the prostitute. Farley claims prostitution is a harmful option, but she never explained how the incomes are supposed to be replaced.
You mean this edit, I take it. Some of that material can stay if worded better, but what you reverted was overly promotional, so your revert was good. I see that the editor in question has a WP:COI issue there, correct? I also see that I warned the editor before. Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He's commented on my talk page saying "you have reverted activity I posted stating that it is promotional, when in fact it is press coverage in the media talking about various aspects of the LSBF business, posted to inform potential students about LSBF and current activities. Could you consider reverting this decision?" Which is really not the purpose of the page. I don't know if you want to help me explain this to him? Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Flyer22 - I saw you edited the page about me. I AM Toothless George. I am very disturbed because, very little information on that page is factual. Most is completely fabricated!
An earlier version of that page said that I had been arrested for weapons or something like that. I DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL RECORD! I was trying to apply for an apartment and the prospective landlord (knowing about my Stage Name) looked me up, and found that page. I was obviously overlooked as a candidate to move in.
I knew about this FAKE PAGE for a while, and thought it was just kinda funny. Besides I don't really want the world knowing true personal details about my life anyway. Now it has come back to bite me.
The non-helpful edits I made were to emphasize just how completely unreliable that information is. Obviously, I can't time-travel. The information on that page is so wrong from the very start. I WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES! That is how ridiculously wrong the whole page is!!!! I've tried to take down the whole page before but I'm really not computer savvy. PLEASE JUST GET RID OF IT!!!!
You used STiki to revert an edit to this page. The reversion is in error: Zhirinovsky really did say that, I watched the video in the original Russian, for which subtitles translated it correctly, and may possibly have sourced it with a link, I forget. I trust the revert was in good faith and we're not so prudish we can't use the word "whore" in comments by a controversial politician. He's a famously live wire. FYI. 72.174.164.26 (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was tagged as a likely WP:BLP violation/WP:Vandalism, and I reverted it as one/WP:Vandalism. I'm certain that any other WP:Patroller or passerby would have reverted it as such (as one or the other, or both) as well. I had no way of knowing what you added is correct, and I still don't unless you provide a WP:Reliable source for it. You shouldn't be adding anything like that to a WP:BLP article without a WP:Reliable source. My apologies if your edit was not WP:Vandalism, but it also was not constructive in the least...per WP:BLP. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going by thisVice magazine source, he stated, "She is a black whore who needs a good cock. Send her here, one of our divisions will make her happy in the barracks one night." Wow. Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's a known quantity over there going back years. Minor thing in minor article, but you can at least see why, given the rest of that commentary, I was a little surprised to see you label the simple epithet edit "unconstructive" :-/ Peace. 72.174.164.26 (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not clear already, I'm not heavy into politics. I also wonder if his rant above should be repeated on Wikipedia, at least when it comes to repeating it in full. Yes, WP:Not censored, but sheesh. It feels like a WP:BLP violation regardless of actually classifying as one. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have made my argument quite clear at all times on the talk page. In fact I suspect the edit history will show that you are the person who has been constantly deleting things, and reverting things, without any explanation to why you have done it.
I said we should add something saying the popular definition is incorrect. You removed it numerous times.
I then wrote what the popular definition actually is (sexual interest in anyone under 18). You then deleted that is well.
You seem to be in rather odd position where you're unwilling to include, on the page, that the popular definition is technically incorrect. But are also unwilling to include what the popular definition is!
I have no plans whatsoever to back down on this. The page is already a mess. Please do not delete sections of text, without an explanation to why you have done it.
Francis' policy change edit from July 30 reverted by me
Hi Flyer22,
Since it seemed pretty obvious that it was now finally time to revert Francis' policy change to NPOV Balance policy from July 30, I just took the liberty and reverted it. I also referred to your statements from earlier in the talk page explanation-dialogue when making the reversion. I hope all of that is OK with you. Thanks for your tireless work to keep the Wiki Ticking. Scott P. (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flyer22, as I described in the 'talk' session of the article, the paragraph under 'Global Urban Planning' is everything but not encyclopedic. It is actually part of the comments of the talks and it reflects the opinion of the commentators. Cf.: "No urban planning I am aware of is dealing with this on an interstate regional basis for urban clusters such as the Bos-Wash corridor let alone on an international global level. We haven't even begun to seriously address climate change let alone the urban planning for it. Cities such as Boston, New York, Washington DC., Norfolk, VA, Miami and New Orleans will be experiencing 2 feet of sea level rise by 2050 and another 2–3 feet of sea level rise by 2100."
I guess it was a mistake from the contributor who just enclosed his comment as paragraph. The topic of urban planning is pretty tricky - if you read the paragraph about Global Urban Planning, you will actually see that this is really confusing and anything but academic.
Let me know how to proceed to replace this non-academic paragraph. Thanks so much for your help! Weissespumpernickel (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer Flyer22 . So what do you think, shall we really keep the "Global Urban Planning" paragraph in the Urban planning article as it was, i.e. full of the comment of the contributor? From my point of view, as it's not following any Wikipedia rules, we should remove it and have someone writing an academic paragraph instead. Let me know! I don't want to remove it a second time and have it put back again. :) Weissespumpernickel (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weissespumpernickel (talk·contribs), it's mostly unsourced, and, in your view, inaccurate. So, yes, go ahead and remove it. You are far more familiar with that topic than I am, so I am trusting that you know better than I do when it comes to keeping that content or not. And I reiterate, "Wikipedia article content should generally be based on WP:Reliable sources, per the WP:Verifiability policy. So keep that in mind when editing Wikipedia." Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Flyer22: the edit to Nichomachean Ethics was not made in good faith! It was a nasty vandalist act to change Book I into Book II. Took me about 15 minutes and taking the book out of my library to find out. And then to discover that you already corrected the edit! Anyway, we came to the same conclusion: reversion needed. Cheers. Super48paul (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Stacey Dash 40 Playboy" pulls up some poor sources. From that search, on page 2, I came across this playboyceleb.com source that states that Dash was 40 at the time she posed for Playboy, and it shows the pictures from that Playboy spread. Is playboyceleb.com associated with Playboy? That site makes it seem like it is. I also went to Google Images to see what they show on this matter (making sure to keep the 40 number in there). A little after Dash posed for Playboy, I remember reading or hearing (or both) that she was 40 at the time. But a WP:Reliable source is needed to state that she was. I'll note all of this at the aforementioned talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2016 PRES ELECTION- GEPRGE CLOONY IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Anyone can speculate about anyone running with a few "news stories" but if you want to keep the section serious and not open the door for a bunch of clowns on the page than I suggest you uphold a high standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.202.86 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by you is not at all productive (well, except for maybe removing speculation), which is why I reverted. This one is better, so whatever.
Thanks, Flyer22. If it weren't for friends like you and several of our mutual colleagues, I don't know how I'd last. It's very nice to be welcomed back. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole
You recently accused me of being in violation of WP:Talk and WP:Harassment. I was conducting a courtesy edit, bringing the threat of being banned from editing Wikipedia if his disruptive edits did not come to a decisive end. Now, you are in violation of WP:PERSONAL. I would be more than happy to be put under the proverbial microscope by the Wikipedia administrators. Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LLArrow, I did indeed accuse you of violating WP:Talk and WP:Harassment when it to comes Bignole. And that is because you did violate WP:Talk and WP:Harassment when it to comes Bignole. He clearly does not want you posting at his talk page, as is clear by his repeated removals of your posts from his talk page, your repeated postings that are trying to provoke him. I did not threaten you as far as being WP:Banned goes. I threatened you as far as WP:ANI goes. Keep up your WP:Harassment of Bignole, and nothing good will result for you. My stating all of this is not a violation of WP:Personal. It is telling you how things are supposed to be on Wikipedia, and that I will take you to the appropriate venue if your inappropriate behavior continues. Despite your poor grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you are not new to editing Wikipedia; I know that. You have edited Wikipedia before your LLArrow account; don't bother denying it. So get with the program already -- learn how to behave yourself. And as for you being "more than happy to be put under the proverbial microscope by the Wikipedia administrators"... Well, by coming to my talk page, there will be a good number of Wikipedia administrators watching you as we speak. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user, I'm not registered here as you see, but I bother taking a look now and then at an article for it's interesting why an edit constantly gets reverted without a look inside the subject. You have mentioned the previous content being sourced, but it's funny how an empty space can be sourced otherwise, isn't it? If you find it very important to have history of Albania or Scythians be present on that subject, you may always put that See also your prefered article thing under the title. Then see if that makes sense. Thereafter it is proper to add See also History of Greece there too. Thanks for your kind attention. 46.241.133.83 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the matter at Talk:Azerbaijan–Greece relations. I'm not especially interested in the Azerbaijan–Greece relations article. Like other editors who reverted you -- Discospinster and Kethrus -- I'm interested in why you are deleting so much content and replacing it with unsourced content. Yes, yes, I know that you've justified your removal with an "unrelated" rationale. As seen here, you asked if I even read. I might wonder the same regarding you since you have yet to reply to my talk page inquiry about sourcing your material. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you getting to a lot of vandalism within a few seconds of it occurring, you're doing a good job constantly, I don't think there's been a day gone by where I haven't seen you. --I am KethrusTalk to me!12:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep an eye on FourViolas (talk), he came over to the ebola article and seems to know quite a bit, for anew person (he reverted me then knew all the procedures even took it to the main ebola talk page),????--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "User:FourViolas" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I had seen this response by you, but I didn't reply because I feel that the guideline already makes the matter clear and I was waiting to see if anyone else states something to you on that. And now I see you've decided to leave lead images alone, as also shown here and here.Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... I don't know how to do this XD I have a question, so if this isn't formatted correctly, please go ahead and remove it LOL. I was wondering if you're allowed to cite musical examples. You know those melisma edits I put on a few minutes ago? If I can't find anything in print about the use of melisma in teen pop, can I give example songs? A lot of stuff by the backstreet boys used melisma pretty apparently, especially in Brian's parts. And even Britney Spears attempted melisma early on because it was almost "required" in pop music then. Anyway... I'm sure this probably can't be done, but if it can. I'd be ever so greatful if you showed me how. Thanks! 142.177.18.105 (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP, as you saw, the Melisma article includes examples. Yes, examples are allowed...as long as they are WP:Reliably sourced and don't become a WP:FancruftyWP:Linkfarm. As noted in the article's edit history and on your talk page, I reverted you because what you added was unsourced. As for WP:Reliable sources about melisma and teen pop, Googling the matter here and here, I see some WP:Reliable sources about it, though they are usually talking about individual musical artists (Mariah Carey in particular). Similar goes for Googling it on Google Books.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Melisma and teen pop" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess examples of songs with melisma don't count as sources. Oh, well. (: Thank you for your thorough and prompt reply! Wikipedia is lucky to have such a competent and conscientious volunteer contributer. I hope they appreciate you! Have a lovely week (: 142.177.18.105 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of songs with melisma do count as sources...as long as you can find WP:Reliable sources supporting that material (noting the songs as featuring melisma). The Melisma article notes songs. However, it might be a tricky WP:Synthesis case when considering whether or not to state that a song features melisma simply because the musical artist used melisma in the song; by that, I mean a WP:Reliable source citing the musical artist using melisma in whatever song, but not noting the song as being melismatic. Or maybe it's not a tricky WP:Synthesis case, and is fine. After all, some songs, such as some noted in the Melisma article, are clearly melismatic and are the sky is blue cases.
Ten reasons why you are an asshole and shouldn't even reply to me again
You are an asshole X 10. I can't be arsed, but I can just login with my account or change my ip address if you send some stupid I will block you message... YOU are not being very constructive...
81.151.40.178 (talk)
Thank you, IP. I appreciate the asshole compliment. I don't appreciate this edit you made, however, which is why I reverted you.
Flyer22, I'd like to officially renounce my naïve pouting about your repair of Asexuality, and express my admiration for your generosity and tenacity in sticking around. Have a chocolate croissant! Because sugar and butter and hunting for dropped flakes of pastry distract one from all kinds of unpleasantness.FourViolas (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's interesting how asshole will naturally be more offensive to Americans, while arsehole will naturally be more offensive to British people. Here in the U.S., people will substitute arsehole for asshole because they think asshole is more offensive/taboo. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said it was good to be back, and I appreciated the kind words from you and other editors. But now the same editor who drove me away before with his repeated "fuck offs" and the admin who says it's OK to tell other editors to fuck off are it again. I was minding my own business, not even thinking about that foulmouthed person, and just trying to put it behind me. But within days of my return he's on my talk page, poking me a stick. And the admin is saying, literally, that if I don't like being told "fuck off" that all my past good work means nothing and that I should leave Wikipedia.
I don't know what my future is here. I've started an ANI here, and hopefully something will come of that. I just wanted to let some of the good and responsible editors here know, and that if they're interested in following what's going on, that's the link. I am disheartened as hell. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, when I was considering whether or not to ping you via WP:Echo to the #A Question: Melisma and teen pop section above, I, after looking at your latest contributions to see if you were currently on Wikipedia, saw that you had made this post to the aforementioned WP:Administrator's talk page, and I cringed. I know how that WP:Administrator is, and I do not have a good history with him, so that is why I cringed. You are better off not seeking him out....ever. If I were not as tempestuously involved with him as I am, I would have stated a lot more about his "23:04, 23 June 2014" block of you than what I stated at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Like me, I think you should keep in mind that not everyone on Wikipedia will like you or respect the work that you for Wikipedia. I think that you have to keep in mind that some people want you gone from Wikipedia, even if they act like they don't or act like they don't have any personal feelings about you. I think that you have to keep in mind that, if you have it in you to keep pressing on regardless of all that, and regardless of those who might be badmouthing you behind your back, you should. Also, I often use perception to my advantage; by this, I mean that I know how or suspect how a Wikipedia editor will react to any given situation, and that this keeps me prepared, telling me to press on with one angle, avoid another, or just how much leeway I have. It's rare that I am ever surprised by how any given Wikipedia editor will act. And I know the editing behavior of some of them so well that they fail to surprise me even when they try to surprise me. Flyer22 (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Flyer. This seems like eminently good advice and a shock to the system at the same time. I know some editors don't get along with others, but I assumed whatever was written about them was publicly visible talk pages. Even at my age, I guess I was naive enough to think they weren't emailing privately.
I did seem to detect a personal angle to all this, and I guess I didn't want to consider that a real possibility, given the impersonal and anonymous nature of our contributions. There's a lot to think about in what you say. And it's encouraging in a way — because if bad people want a good editor out (and if nothing else, my grammar, copy-editing and citation-finding have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia) then I need to stay in.
Tenebrae, emailing about another Wikipedia editor is quite the thing, especially to vent and to not have WP:Personal attack arguments thrown left and right. If you ever need to vent to me, feel free, whether on my talk page or via email. Unlike some Wikipedia editors who offer such an extension, I am genuinely open to listening. You can vent to me as much as you want. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, as you can perhaps tell from my above use of "aforementioned WP:Administrator" and linking, I got the WP:Administrators mixed up in that case. If I was not certain that things would not have turned out for you any better, and likely would have turned out worse, had we been referring to the same WP:Administrator, I would state that I "put my foot in my mouth" on this matter. I have no comment on the actual WP:Administrator you were referring to. And, besides, others saw some value in your arguments during the case in question. So hang in there. No need to take another long break from Wikipedia, unless, of course, you feel that it's needed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I wanted to apologize for last night,
I'll admit when people have a go at my support It does somewhat wind me up and I do have a habit of getting annoyed rather easily - That said, I shouldn't of reacted the way I did,
Everyone here has there differences but despite them all we need to work together otherwise this wouldn't be a fun place to edit at all,
So I apologize If I offended you last night - Most certainly wasn't my intention and I hope we can forget the past and move on (New day & all that )
Anyway again I apologize, have a nice day and Happy Editing :)
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk)16:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Davey2010. Apology accepted. As this edit summary shows, yes, I was pretty upset. Wikipedia is hardly ever fun for me these days (too many Wikipedia articles I feel concerned about, with valid reason for concern, too much burnout out from WP:Wikistress, and enough personal issues), so getting a post that comes at me with an overly harsh attitude is like the knife being dug in deeper. I realize that I could have worded my initial post regarding your support vote in a less provocative manner, however, and I apologize for having upset you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thank you,
I completely understand it definitely is stressful here at times, Usually when "stuff" hits the fan I tend to log off & have a cuppa - it works ,
Anyway apology accepted - Keep up the great work :)
Muboshgu, I've seen you around before and I think we've interacted before. Did you used to edit film articles? Anyway, as for this matter that you reverted me on, I'm not interested in weighing in on that. I came across that via WP:STiki; I reverted Wikiblanks (talk·contribs) because his edit summary of "Deleted posting that was previously approved for deletion by other wiki editors/administrators." seemed odd and the content he deleted seems relevant to me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Film? Maybe a little. I know we've interacted before, but don't remember what it regarded. Anyway, I invited everyone involved in the article's recent history to discuss the issue. I certainly understand reverting that edit based on its edit summary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deisenbe, but that link another link points to a WP:Permalink section (one that exists in my user page edit history). As for why I barely have a user page anymore, it's temporary; see #Thank you to all of the supportive comments above, and supportive emails above. But I'm liking not having one all the more, even if people glance at it without knowing my history and then assume: "Eh, she doesn't appear important or prolific." I don't feel important or prolific the vast majority of the time I'm on or off Wikipedia, so the lack of a user page is not a big deal to me these days. It can even be helpful in avoiding certain stalkers who want to check through my previous work, but don't think to look at what used to be my user page.
On a side note: I've been thinking that you based your user page design on mine. You know, when I still had information on it. If you didn't, okay then. Oh, and you forget to sign your username too often; I signed it for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are archiving discussions at the Date rape article. Don't archive the latest two discussions there; they are not resolved. Well, that merge discussion is not. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ACanadianToker. And I see that you restored it. Your having removed parts of my comment is exactly what I am talking regarding your understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It annoys me when editors throw around Wikipedia policies and guidelines in ways that are at odds with those policies and guidelines. And when it does, I will sometimes note that to the editor in question, as I did with you...without using the word annoy. Furthermore, what is civil and what is a personal attack is often debated on Wikipedia, as currently seen at the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attack talk pages. While I realize that I could have been nicer to you, there are times when I am fed up with seeing the same problems on Wikipedia and I will not be as nice as I can be. Flyer22 (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit I do not know everything about every policy, I am still learning. I realize that wikipedia can be frustrating at times but we should all endeavour to be civil and polite.
I did restore some of what you wrote based on a discussion I had with another editor. I did overreact generally, and I apologize for that.
It's best not to tamper with my comments, unless you are fixing a typo or correcting WP:Indentation, if you want me to be less frustrated with you. So I reverted you here with a note here, and then struck through the part you'd kept removed. If an administrator who is not WP:Involved (does not have a past tempestuous history with me) wants to censor my comment because he or she feels that doing so is justified, then okay then. As for the rest, not being as nice as I can be does not equal violating the WP:Civil or WP:Personal attack policies. And I generally am not very nice to POV-pushers on Wikipedia, except for in a few cases where they are clearly well-meaning POV-pushers; I reply to them in a stern, "no patience for their mess" way. As long you are not being a POV-pusher, and are following Wikipedia's rules accurately, there will be no problems between us. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs (videos) of the actual sexual activity are as good documentation as there is. Did you look at it? I don't think any better reference will ever be forthcoming. Deisenbe (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Deisenbe, I looked at it; wish I hadn't. But having looked at it is how I know that it's a porn site. Because when I first saw it (well, a different source), actually paid attention to it, it was not clear to me that it is a porn site until I clicked on it; hopefully, it didn't give my computer any viruses or spyware. I reverted you because it's inappropriate. Your edit is essentially stating the following: "In order to verify this, reader, you need to look at this pornographic material." That is inappropriate, even if the reader likes pornography and came to that article because they like pornography. The only instance I can see a porn site link being appropriate on Wikipedia is if it is a WP:About self matter, but, even then, it is likely to get removed as WP:Spam.
Also, when you have an issue with a revert at a Wikipedia article, it is usually best to bring up the matter at the talk page of that Wikipedia article; not the talk page of the person who reverted you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about forgetting my signature. (I don't understand why this isn't done automatically.) Why is it inappropriate to say that the reader looking for documentation should look at a pictorial representation of the (rather unusual) action being discussed? Is there some written policy that addresses this? It's not in WP:Spam. I will leave a note on the Talk page but will await your reply first. deisenbe (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Deisebnbe, it's just more of a WP:PRIMARY source sort of thing. We need an actual source, not a pornographic video to verify something. Plus, what happens in one video isn't indicative of what happens in all 'gang bangs' so to speak. Plus I don't think pornos are WP:RS. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Drmies, judging by this latest discussion I had with Masculinity (in October 2013), it's clear that I'm not fond of how he edits, and why I'm not fond of how he edits. In many ways, despite editing Wikipedia for several years (beginning several times in 2006), he is still very much a WP:Newbie, but there is only so much people can do to help guide him. And either way, he often doesn't seem to grasp what I and others tell him about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In that October 2013 discussion I had with him, I stated that he should be topic-banned from editing gender and/or sexuality topics; I still feel that way. As for the source in question, I'm not sure if it's WP:Reliable. Whether it is or is not should probably be addressed at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. And if it turns out that the source is fine for use on Wikipedia, I won't mind paraphrasing content from it.
On a side note: I added "and also User:Masculinity" to the heading of this section so that it's clearer what this section entails; it will also help locating it once it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In re: the ping, Drmies, I wouldn't. :) The loss of transparency to me would outweigh the risk of restoration of that single paragraph. However, some people might feel differently. (Hi!) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for working on this one! I tried to find some reception material from the season 3 episode articles, but there really wasn't anything. We could add more material from the Coda article, which has been expanded a lot, although that may not be neceessary. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, IP. Thanks for your help with the article as well. I'm usually involved with controversial or otherwise contentious articles, so working on an article like the Beth Greene article can be a nice break from that drama that I am very much tired of dealing with (whether it's a sexual topic or an anatomy topic). That stated, fictional character articles can be controversial or otherwise contentious as well. As for the Coda (The Walking Dead) article, I don't think that we should duplicate much of that article at the Beth Green article; also see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. There is no need to be too redundant, and there is enough about Beth's reception at the Beth Green article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the attribution you've given in edit summaries at the Beth Greene article, it seems that you already know about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're that far behind? Stay away from the spoilers, at least the big ones! This show is too good for people to be spoiled on. As for the "zombies vs. walkers" aspect, maybe, due to the fact that the term walker is not clear in this context to people who don't watch the show, it's better the way I formatted it. The The Walking Dead (TV series) article used to state "walkers" in the lead, clarifying that with the zombies WP:Pipelink or otherwise, but now it simply states "zombies" instead of "walkers"...even though the series never uses the word zombies.Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the Daryl Dixon article (an article that has been vandalized so many times with regard to listing Daryl's occupation in the infobox as "badass"), it currently approaches the "zombies vs. walkers" aspect in the lead by stating "zombies (dubbed 'walkers' in the series)." Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Slightsmile. You should not have been looking at that; I told you to stay away from spoilers. Oh well. I have to make sure not to spoil in my edit summaries, even if you do decide to read what I've added to whatever The Walking Dead character article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, yeah, regarding the term shipping in reference to couples, I'm sure that's a term that's far more familiar to people who regularly use the Internet, especially those who participate in discussions about pairing people and think of portmanteaus for their couples. This is especially the case with female fans. I learned of the term back when I was shipping Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer, I think. If it was earlier than that when I discovered the term, it was because of some daytime soap opera couple I shipped. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you stay onboard
A more-or-less recent edit summary sounded like you're possibly fading from here. I hope you stay. You've been attentive to areas that have needed a steady hand. I've had to cut back, too, hopefully only temporarily, since my offline files of content in other areas are extensive. It's easy for me to say that you shouldn't go crazy keeping up with stuff that happens, but the larger perspective keeps our respective efforts relevant to the larger world. I maintain my watchlist, look at a small number of pages almost immediately, and keep notes on other things for when I may get to them, and that lets me get value out of smaller time blocks. Another tactic might work better for you. Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Levinson, I'm not sure which edit summary you are referring to, but thanks. I sometimes have a difficult time balancing real-life stress with Wikipedia stress, and certain aspects of Wikipedia (including requesting outside opinions and getting none, either because editors don't want the drama, don't want to connect themselves to whatever taboo it concerns, don't understand the topic, or have no interest at all in the topic) certainly exacerbate that. But, as noted at the top of my talk page, I can't retire. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hy,how are you, thank you for talking with me ,no violation.today I wrote in my own style the main ideas, furthermore I only wrote in this section using the source ,I would also like to tell you ,you have only to check the sources for the whole article and you" ll see that before me most of the authors used the same source. I wrote only on the period after 1789 because there was a huge lack of information, the article was completely unbalance with a lot of information taken from Antonia Fraser on the period before 1789,while the information was lacking after 1789.To end please check the references of this article and you 'll see almost all references are based by other authors than me on the same source. Thank you. Aubmn(User talk:Aubmn) 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, Aubmn (talk·contribs). Thank you for replying about this query I made regarding whether or not you are violating the WP:Copyright violations policy at the Marie Antoinette article. However, there was no need to reply to me at my talk page about it; you could have replied at your talk page, which would have kept the discussion centralized. I prefer to keep discussions centralized. I will WP:Assume good faith in what you have stated above on this matter.
For side notes: This edit by an IP that you recently reverted is not WP:Vandalism; that IP was fixing your grammar. Therefore, you should revert yourself on that matter, or I will revert you on it. Also, all you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I added the time stamp for your comment above. And I altered the heading of this section by adding ": Marie Antoinette article" to it; this is because it makes the heading clearer as to what the section is about, and will make the section easier to locate once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NebY has spotted copyright violations, and has commented on the matter at the article talk page. Considering how much you have added to the article, Aubmn, I'm concerned that you might have added more copyright violations. Do be more careful on such matters (not violating the WP:Copyright violations policy) in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stalk
Having blown my cover as a (talk page stalker), I'll confess as well that I have no explanation for why your page is on my watchlist. I think I stumbled into some other problem and found you were already on it, so watchlisted in case it wasn't resolved. Usually it's simply reassuring to hover over diffs, see you still active and handling editors well, but something made me curious - if you thought there might be copyvios, then.... NebY (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, NebY. I know that I have over 230 talk page watchers at the moment, and that, because of that, sometimes I'll receive assistance or opposition on some matters (usually assistance). In some cases, I'd prefer to handle matters on my own, which is why I might not want something discussed at my talk page; that stated, I do prefer that an article content matter happen at that article talk page, and I do prefer centralized discussions. Anyway, I appreciate your assistance in this case, and I don't mind that you currently have my talk page WP:Watchlisted. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your history. Its in the bunch of links at the top of the page. Go to your user page or talk page and hit "history". You have 37 page watchers.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history is not needed. On this talk page, look in the sidebar under tools for "Page information" to see "Number of page watchers" (235). Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, 231? I stated "over 230"; you made me think that people were dropping like flies from my user talk page. Oh well, if they were. LOL. And speaking of talk page watchers, at 356, you are close to toppling 400. I wonder if you like that or hate it. But, yes, I had seen the matter you linked to, but rather at WP:ANI. And I only saw it at WP:ANI because I currently have a case there. I don't usually watch WP:ANI.
Roxy the dog, LOL, that's likely why some people are watching my user talk page as well. Well, more so because of the drama that can happen with me. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Historycurious (talk·contribs). I moved your post down to this new section I created. When commenting about a separate topic, it is usually best to start a new section instead of highjacking a preexisting thread. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Also, it is usually best to comment at the article talk page about a matter concerning that article; this is so that the discussion is exposed to a wider audience, and because the content matters concerning that article should generally be documented there.
Regarding what I stated about your image at the Lesbian sexual practices article, I stated that it is likely to be deleted because I have seen various cases of people claiming an image, including a sexual image, as theirs in the way that you have done with the licensing of the image in question, only to have that image deleted as not theirs or as having insufficient proof that it's theirs. As for why I feel that your image is unneeded for the Lesbian sexual practices: The article has enough images and is not big. In fact, it's relatively small. People have tried to pack that article with lesbian sex images, which not only hinders the text, but makes some of our readers state that the images are "too much" because of the excessive sexual visuals. They don't need every sexual act visually featured to understand the sexual act. Not to mention...they are usually already visually familiar with whatever sexual act. After all, the vast majority of lesbian sexual practices are not exclusive to lesbians or female same-sex sexual relationships. Everyone always wants to state "WP:NOTCENSORED." But like I've stated before, WP:GRATUITOUS should also be kept in mind. Your image is a real-life image, and it is therefore contrasted by the other images in the article on that basis...since the other images are paintings or drawings. Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy a Wikipedia article as much, or take the article as seriously, with real-life images of sex acts. To them, it is simply porn The paintings or drawings are also simply porn to some of our readers, but less pornographic than a real-life image would be to them (or at least to a good number of them). Our readers are less inclined to call such images "porn" when they think of them as simply drawings, artistic paintings or as cartoons. That stated, having reanalyzed your image, I wouldn't mind much if it was in the article since it documents fingering, and fingering is not currently shown in that article. But again, we don't have to show every lesbian sexual act. We don't need an image gallery in that article. The Lesbian sex WP:Commons category is linked at the bottom of the article for people who want to look at additional lesbian sex images. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for making it clear about where to post, I wasn't sure whether I could create a new topic or not...
As to the subject matter, I can assure that I am the author of said picture.When I was younger I made cash any way I could. I'm frank about it. I decided to release said image unconditionally into the public domain since it is of no purpose to me, and illustrates what I presume(d) was an unknown practice to some people.
Thanks for A) Seeing a use in my image B) Explaining to me the fine points of Wikipedia.
Before I sign off, I wanted to ask you, is it hard dealing with all this?
You're welcome, Historycurious (talk·contribs). Your image is artistic to me, but I know that readers would generally interpret it only as porn. I'm sure that fingering (the sexual practice) is unknown to some people. But, as you know, we do discuss it in the article in question, and people can click on the Fingering (sexual act) article for further detail...including for fingering images. And, yes, dealing with such topics can be difficult for me. However, the Lesbian sexual practices article generally (generally being the keyword) has not been a problem for me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic? I take that as a compliment. I suppose it's their smiles that does it too. At that time colour film was already being used for "that" type of photography. I preferred black and white ( and still do). Just a quick question. Are black and white pictures OK to illustrate articles concerning nature? ( trees, landscapes, etc...)Historycurious (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, black and white pictures are fine. If an editor disagrees with an image you add and reverts you, and you still want your image in the article, take the matter to the article talk page. To get the editor's attention, you can ping him or her via WP:Echo, like I've been pinging you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. Wikipedia's great and obviously needs people like you to safeguard it from not very PC literate idiots like myself and spammers.
Cheerio! edit: forgot to sign... Historycurious (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to artistic quality: Judging by your questioning the artistic quality of your image, it seems that you and/or your customers didn't intend for it to be artistic. But judging by the different fingering images available on WP:Commons, yes, I consider your image artistic. It does not look like simply porn to me, and certainly does not look like the common exhibitionism that can take place on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me be perfectly honest with you. When I was offered to take it, it WAS meant simply as a pornographic picture of 2 women engaging in what was back then a still highly taboo and mystified act. It was taken in 1969. I was a pretty hard up History of Arts Student, that enjoyed photography ( and still do). I strived ( and still do so) to put a pleasing aesthetic on any picture I took. And indeed I remember that one of the models said that it looked like a "modernised" version of Gustave Courbet's "Sleep". Back in the day, it would have just been considered simply as a salacious, depraving image. I'm always pleased when someone can see more than what is just portrayed in my work, especially given the subject matter.Historycurious (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you. Factoid: The person who commissioned the series, of which this is the only surviving image I have still in my possesion, originally wanted it in colour. As you can see she ended up being persuaded otherwise. Good taste can (and does) exist in nude model photography.Historycurious (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made 2 factual changed to the Youtube section of Cory Williams' page, and explained them, with evidence, and it was reverted for vandalism? Why? Do you assume that because I don't have an actual name on wikipedia I'm just terrorising the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.154.93 (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP, as you know, you were reverted by AbigailAbernathy and Stickee before I reverted you as well. I don't know why the others reverted you, but I reverted you because I saw the word "poo"; I'd missed your edit summary where you are trying to explain your case. I apologize. Given that Stickee is a good WP:Patroller that I see around often, I'm guessing that he reverted you because of the "poo" matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you because Kate lied about being hacked for attention and money. On her Facebook page she said she was a victim of identity theft yet when she attempted to explain what happened she didn't say a word about the alleged identity theft. Also she has "quit" YouTube before and then reappeared out of nowhere trying to explain technical difficulties or some other poor excuse. Her credibility went out the window after the first time she lied. And no, Cory does not call Sparta "Poo" just Moo. I watch him regularly and I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. He MAY have done that once or twice but not always. Thanks. -A Wild Abigail Appears!Capture me.Moves.18:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Space is a enormouse thing made out of millions of galaxy's and solar systems.The black that everything else is composed of is called dark matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigyinfo (talk • contribs)
Yes, as is clear by this, I am very interested in/intrigued by the many-worlds interpretation and multiverse topics. Before Prodigyinfo's post above, I recently watched a YouTube video on the topic (the first one currently on my user page); this was the day before Prodigyinfo's post. I have studied the topic and had watched other videos on it before. One of those videos (a short video) that I like and that helps explain the matter to others is this one; I might link to it on my user page. I simply cannot believe in one universe anymore. But to believe in the many-worlds interpretation/multiverse, which I do because of the science pointing in that direction, is a scary and unsettling thing. The scientists who believe in it agree that it's scary and unsettling. I mean, we know ourselves so well. But imagine the worst type of person in the world, and then consider that you are likely just like that person somewhere out there. It's mind-boggling. But it's also exciting in a way, and does take off the pressure. I mean, if you think you've failed at some point in life, then, according to the many-worlds interpretation and multiverse topics, you can rest assured that you succeeded at that certain thing in some other world. Maybe you weren't meant to succeed or fail at a certain thing in this particular world, but rather in another world. If you die today, maybe it's the you who is meant to die. I revisited all of these thoughts after recently watching the film Donnie Darko; it was my first time watching it. Then I watched some review videos of the film and "Donnie Darko Explained" videos on YouTube. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, based on what you wrote above, you must check out Fringe (TV series). It's the most contemporary version of the ideas and themes you've expressed above. Just be sure you watch all the episodes in order. It takes several seasons to build enough background info about the characters for the story arc to really take off into the multiverse, but when it finally does, it's worth it. Some of those episodes are really fantastic. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of that television series, but I haven't yet gotten around to watching it. I plan to watch it at some point. And in order, of course. I'm the type of person who will say that people have to watch a certain television show (like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Game of Thrones) in order, so I know what you mean on the order quality. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to see how these multiverse ideas play out, binge-watching Fringe is for you! I could only do two at a time, though as I like to have time to chew my cud, so to speak. :-) I think you'll really enjoy the close chemistry between the characters the most, however. The writers went out of their way to sample the best science fiction ideas for the show. The series could probably be used as a survey course for science fiction studies. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a minor clarification re my last post at Stephens page: I wasnt suggesting you were advocating local blocks as a solution, rather that was Stephens idea so that problem users were recognisably flagged. I agree with you that the simpler and more policy-consistent approach is simply to decline a local rename. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how hard it is to be a Wikipedian. I was abandoned by my family, and I had to flee to Cuba. Now I'm finally starting to feel home somewhere and this is how you treat me? you're an unhallowed monster. White male, possibly armed (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So shouldn't the proper acronym for "laughed so hard at your" be LSHaY? I can't begin to tell you the importance of using good proper form and grammar. SlightSmile18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flyer22, just to let you know that I redacted White male, possibly armed's first post at Talk:Incest and subsequently had to revision delete all subsequent posts up until my revert in order to hide its defamatory content. Since this contained a post by you I just wanted to explain that it wasn't because of the content of your post, but because the revision still contained White male's edit. Sorry if you already realised this, just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't removing your edit for no reason. Cheers, Sam Walton (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, FourViolas, you handled the sexual comment that White male, possibly armed made about you at Talk:Incest well; simply ignoring that mess is best. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both! I try not to bother getting mad at people who want me to get mad at them.
I saw your user page. I remember one particular quote about Schrodinger's cat in one of Terry Pratchett's novels. Specifically, that the wise person knows to open the box from the back. Kitties in general are not into existential uncertainty, and, if kitty is alive, he will be coming out with all claws blazing.
Regarding your new personal Fredd, Flyer 22222, have you thought to take the person in question to one of the noticeboards yet? It's hard to believe that anyone would think using your name while just adding to the number an acceptable username. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zafiraman, I'd already warned Synaptium; see here. Looking at his reply there, which I just read for the first time minutes ago, he says he was trying to help; I suppose it can be argued that whether he was intentionally or truly spamming is unclear. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Flyer22. I removed this passage from the article because I believe that it too closely paraphrases the passage from the source. I was also the editor who originally added this content to the article. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BIGNOLE (Contact me) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Olehal09, don't bring any article content dispute that you have with me to my talk page. If I want to comment on the article talk page, I will. And I was already going to. But if criticizing your mess of an edit, as I did here and here, is insulting you, then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this, I apologize to you for not being softer with my criticism of your addition. More so the second time I reverted you. By "more so the second time," I mean that my WP:Edit summary was rougher. But regarding the first revert: If something looks like rambling to me in a Wikipedia article, I am likely to note it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 25#Category:Disney_Princess. Thanks. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48
Of course, I stole the template from someone else, too, but I don't remember who. Happy editing! ansh666 00:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
)
,
