User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:21, 16 July 2012

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT

Flyer22 Frozen is strongly considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

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 below. You can have several or various WP:GA articles and honors, and the trust of many Wikipedians, but, if some believe you have abused Wikipedia, in contrast to your and others' insistence that you have not, it hardly matters. During that time, I learned quite a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you, and the experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia. My thinking about leaving Wikipedia and my block history remains on my talk page for those reasons. Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible.

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

You are a great editor: Re leaving Wikipedia

There are alot of good people on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are also alot of idiots. Don't let the latter get the best of you. Rest for a few weeks if you want, I have done it myself, but don't leave permanently over a few jerks. You are too valuable to Wikipedia as you strive for perfection. That is bound to give you grief from these few editors, but please do not give it up completely. Mugginsx (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mugginsx. But I have to leave. I'm not the same editor I was when I started back in 2007 (and what a newbie I was then). I don't enjoy this site anymore. It's more like a job, a responsibility. So many people cite Wikipedia, and it's become my job to make sure that things are well-presented and accurate so that not one person leaves this site with the wrong information. Despite that effort, of course it still happens at many other articles. I cannot deal with that anymore. I think to myself, "What is this all for? For a site that most people consider unreliable anyway? For a site where the articles are never truly stable because they are usually always changing and therefore and a Good or Featured article can become crap as quickly as it became honored? For a site that is full of edit wars, biased editors with hidden or obvious agendas, power struggles, rampant elitism, articles that are a certain way because of POV-pushing and consensus having maintained that POV? I have seen all of this at this site and I cannot take it anymore. Like I stated in the #You're welcome :) section, "This is why I feel like gaining enough strength to break my addiction to Wikipedia and just leaving it for good will help my psyche and life overall. I'd certainly get more free time back. After leaving, I'd have to make sure to keep from visiting articles I've worked significantly on or have created, though I'd ask a few fellow editors to take care of some specific articles in my absence. It would be best to not even visit Wikipedia for the quickest and/or simplest answers/information."

This has been coming since the #Rain check section and probably before then. I'm sure a few people will be happy once I'm gone; I can think of two who would see this as an opportunity to have the Pedophilia article start off with inaccurate information -- the common use meaning that pedophilia is a sexual attraction to anyone under 18. The accurate definition is a sexual preference for prepubescent children. But oh well. I have to trust that the three editors I know to care about that article will maintain its integrity. One's been missing for months (maybe close to a year), but perhaps he will return. I'll definitely alert him of my departure.

All that said, I'm not leaving Wikipedia yet. Like I stated, I'm looking to get one other article to GA status (a sexual topic), and then I'm gone. It's not a bluff because it's how I feel, and I don't see that changing. I certainly won't be returning as a newly-registered editor. I have too much pride and/or ego (whatever) to be perceived as a newbie after knowing this site inside and out for years. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that it is not a bluff but I am hoping that you will either reconsider or come back after a short rest. What you say is true, except that when an article reaches GA status, it is made so that further editing cannot be done. That is my understanding. To be sure, it is a great effort, but not impossible to achieve this status. If perhaps you could look at Wikipedia differently, as I do, as a way of expanding one's knowledge through one's own research and "trying" to give that knowledge to many people through Wikipedia, you would not get so upset. You are a perfectionist in my opinion and while that is an admirable trait it is frustrating because most people are not perfect. Some, like one on the death of CA page are completely out of touch with reality. Incidentally, I have noticed this person, in addition to having been blocked in the not too distant past,(see her talk page) has yet again been recently warned by an Administrator and I put my two cents in on his page as well since it seem an opportune time. My patience has also run out on this person.

Reconsider, if you please, your reasons for editing here and try to learn to not take it so seriously and you might learn to have fun with it, even in the midst of the chaos. What was it that Marlon Brando said in that movie about Vietnam, "Embrace the horror". (smile). Mugginsx (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugginsx, once an article reaches GA or FA, it is not locked so that any further editing cannot be done. Further editing can always be done. So even when an article is featured and needs no further improvement, more "improvement" happens anyway. This further editing and "improving" can cause an article to no longer meet the Featured article requirements and then it is d-listed. Anyway, that's obviously not the main reason I will be leaving. I will be leaving, per what I stated above. I did look at Wikipedia the way you do, and still do, but the rest of what I stated outweighs that. After you have contributed here for as long, perhaps you will then understand. I appreciate your concern and encouraging words, and even the barnstar, but I have to do what will help me. A perfectionist? I don't know. But Wikipedia does not blend well with my obsessive–compulsive disorder tendencies. Though I have never been formally diagnosed, the possibility that I suffer from it has been mentioned by at least two doctors, and I know that I suffer from it. I have to cut Wikipedia loose and cut away some of the stress in my life. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That totally sucks about the GA article information. Anyway, the most important thing I want to say is that I would not want anything to adversely affect your health, so you must do what is best for you. When you leave, you will be missed. Mugginsx (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About thinking about your leaving Wikipedia. I've been where you've been. I contributed for about nine months or so when I ran into major hassles -- one long well-researched article that I had written was deleted, offhand, by what I consider to be a biased admin (there were 70+ references although there were some problems with viewpoint); another, my Philosophy of Spinoza article, was totally overwritten by what appears to be a PhD student so it is now almost impossible to read. I felt unappreciated, unthanked. It's partly the way Wikipedia is set up -- it's not a place where thanks come readily. Many times I've worked on articles and not one person even gave one hint of appreciation. So, I edited a rival encyclopedia, Citizendium, for a while but I found there was battling there too; while the atmosphere was more collegial, few people ever read Citizendium, and trying to improve readership there was frustrating. Part of my issue was that some stuff of mine was POV-ish (I hadn't really confronted this that clearly) other stuff highly factual. So I came back to Wikipedia with a compromise -- that I would put my POV-stuff in Google Knols (see my user page if interested) and write the NPOV stuff in Wikipedia. So it's like the best of both worlds. The Google stuff gets much less readership but I have total control over it -- even my picture and name are on my articles -- while I get a kick out of writing stuff in Wikipedia which gets huge readership (sometimes 1000s of views per day). And there's a place for each. And my Google knol Mentally healthy mind has over 5000 readers which is kind of a surprise to me (but it still needs work).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But let me address your statement above. And my sense is you are taking on too much responsibility and need to approach the project more from a "it's fun" point of view. You wrote it's become my job to make sure that things are well-presented and accurate so that not one person leaves this site with the wrong information. That's too much responsibility for any one person, in my view. Your mission will make it less fun for you here. Yes, agendas battle here. Yes, there are POVs. Sometimes articles will be wrong. But my view is that, because agendas battle, over time, the best stuff wins out; it's messy but I've come to appreciate that there are lots of people contributing here who know stuff that I don't. It's not perfect. We aim for perfection but only do our best. While Wikipedia does have its problems, which you are clearly aware of, there are strong pluses too. Your contributions have made a HUGE impact on people all around the world whether you know it or not, like millions, perhaps tens of millions of people, are better informed because of your contributions. I do not see Wikipedia contributing as an "addiction", rather as a hobby; and my advice would be to take it in stride, perhaps back off a bit for a while, but making pronouncements like "I'm never coming back" -- well, you may feel differently in six months or so. Another thing: your experience here is a valuable skill which few people have. Last, if you find yourself getting flustered by the same POV-pushers, drop a line on my talk page and I'll support you if you ask. And really last: if you think there's a perfect version of an article you'd like to preserve, why not write it as a google knol? That way, it's preserved and you have total control over it. Oops, and really really last (really!) if you have any ideas about the pictures on Physical attractiveness ie via the talk page, I'm interested in which ones you like and which ones you guess would cause the least edit battling (!!!) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, plenty of people have described Wikipedia as a job and as an addiction. And that includes people who love Wikipedia. By saying "it's become my job to make sure that things are well-presented and accurate so that not one person leaves this site with the wrong information," how is that inaccurate of what Wikipedia is? I'm not saying that I try to make sure that no one ever leaves this site with the wrong information. That's obviously impossible to accomplish with such a site as Wikipedia. I'm speaking of any day I have to revert of correct something, which is quite often. You call it "too much responsibility," but that is exactly what we're dealing with day in and day out at Wikipedia. With the articles we either watch over or stumble across. We are constantly checking up on things, reverting things, and making sure that what we contribute ourselves is accurate. Those of us who are very active and/or care, that is. That is a job in my eyes. It doesn't matter that we are volunteers. It's still a job.

I admire Citizendium's setup, and I don't think that not being like Wikipedia is what kept it from becoming popular. I think it's the fact that Wikipedia did it first. Imitators are usually less popular than the originals. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, while I think most of the problem here is that Wikipedia can be a difficult environment, I think it is also important for us not to take ourselves too seriously and realize there's a fun aspect. You describe it as "a job" (even if it's a volunteer "job".) You write I **have to** revert... You didn't write I **like** to ... I think you're taking stuff here too seriously. I advise: lighten up. Smile.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your case, I think the question you should ask yourself shouldn't be whether to participate in Wikipedia but how you do so. We can wear many hats here as you know. We can choose what we do or not do. For some reason, you've gravitated towards the night watchman & policeman's role which involves tension and conflict and battling. It's a tough role. And, in my view, you're getting tired of the battling. Am I right about this?Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And while we all police each other to some extent, it's possible to wear other hats which involve much less conflict, such as creating articles, doing disambiguation pages, pictures, etc. What are the things you enjoy most doing? I try to do what I love best here, which is create new articles or improve existing ones and build readers. I avoid the FA and GA processes since these mean lots of fuss; rather, I'll take a mediocre article and try to make it good, more readable, and I enjoy even an occasional compliment. And occasional humor and jokes and jibes are fun too (although I've gotten in trouble for this in the past). It's possible to care, to get things accurate, while having fun.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I find I learn stuff from my contributions here too. For example, I contributed to articles for a record label, and when I met a Nigerian doctor recently, I queried him about such artists as Fela Kuti and Seun Kuti, and he was impressed that an American knew about Nigerian protest music. It also helps me appreciate different viewpoints on things. It's made me more mainstream.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to shrink your watchlist, and let stuff happen to articles for a bit. It's kind of Buddhist-like, Spinoza-like, to let go a bit, to shrug your shoulders. When my article (which I had worked on for two to three days) History of citizenship in the United States got whittled down, and then deleted, it didn't faze me much, since I have it preserved as a google knol (with 1000+ readers too). I like the foot in two worlds approach as I said (Wikipedia & Knol.)Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Citizendium -- you're right that it was second to the gate, which accounts for much of its lack of success. Still, Citizendium has, in my view, made additional mistakes technically and editorially which Wikipedia hasn't made. Mistakes include: idea of "expert" editors (needless segregating based on dubious qualifications), idea of "approved" version of articles vs "unapproved" (unnecessary layer of fuss), making talk pages invisible for many searches (hurts PageRank), the whole "forum" being separate from the encyclopedia (also hurts PageRank). There are a few very sharp academics in Citizendium quite skilled in a few technical areas who like the collegiality and who are great people. But I find the emphasis on "expert editors" brings a kind of elitist arrogance to the place -- I got treated as a dimwit since I'm a handyman by a few rather sour editor types there. I tried to get Citizendium to change to bring in more readers but the place was resistant to change. I experimented with ways to bring in readers, but to no avail. But a waste of time: Wikipedia is where the action is. Neither encyclopedia has solved the problem of how to rein in errant administrators, or how to deal effectively with disputes, but these are tough problems.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you decide, good luck to you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, we're supposed to take things seriously here. I don't believe there is a such thing as "too seriously" when it comes to reverting vandalism and other such shady edits on this site. Of course I would state that "I have to revert." What kind of editor would I be if I just let it stay there? But I like to revert it, too, if that's what you want to hear. I don't look at my watchlist (haven't for maybe close to a year now, if not a year already), but I do check through my contributions and I can't just "let stuff happen to articles" when that stuff is not beneficial to those articles. I can't adopt don't-give-a-fuckism, like Textorus in the #Rain check section above, unless I leave Wikipedia for good. But that's me. I take things seriously here because Wikipedia tells us to. We have a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard showing just how seriously Wikipedia takes itself. And, really, if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, then it should take itself seriously. That means us not treating it like it's a playground. It's not a place where we're supposed to have fun...even though, yes, we can have fun here. It's a place where we are supposed to work. Work seriously. The main problem is Wikipedia's setup even allowing IP editors to edit (when most of them do vandalize) and the general public not taking Wikipedia seriously. People will cite Wikipedia to advance their point of view, but then call it inaccurate and untrustworthy when it reports something they disagree with or don't believe. This site is generally considered unreliable. And yet Wikipedia says its editors must take this site seriously. That's one of my issues with editing here -- that we are going through all these edit wars and other such drama, to strive accuracy and neutrality and whatever else, when the general public doesn't consider us reliable anyway. So, yes, it makes me think it's not worth putting so much work into this site. It makes me wonder why so many of us are so passionate about what is contributed here when we are just considered one source and generally unreliable. Building good articles just to see them crumble, infighting, etc., etc., etc. Yes, it makes me wonder, "What is this all for?" I'm not fed up with Wikipedia because I have taken over the roles of watchman & policeman. I'm fed up with it because of what I initially stated in this section. It's a combination and culmination of things.

But I do thank you, Tom, for trying to help me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Flyer no. DON'T LEAVE!--Wlmg (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A different perspective

Please leave. You are a great editor, but you are also a person and not the sum of your contributions (and certainly not the aggregate of your perceived "failures") and you deserve to find out how you feel about not believing you need to make "just one more edit" to the project. Of course, I hope that you will find that you rediscover the appetite to contribute - but what I want most of all is for the encyclopedia to be a place where people derive pleasure from helping build the resource. If it cannot be that for you, then I do not think it is worthy of your efforts; I am sure that the skills you have brought here can be used in other beneficial ways, and in places where you may feel less pressurised. So, may I say, it has been a pleasure to lurk upon your talkpage, engage in a few discussions, and read what you have written. Adieu! Mark / LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard, of course I expect some editors to say "If you don't like it, then get to stepping." And that is exactly what I intend to do. Thanks for the push, I suppose. But I point out that plenty of people who productively edit Wikipedia hate it. I at least have a love-hate relationship with it. I feel that editors who fully love Wikipedia are few and in between. It's not that I need to rediscover my appetite to contribute, because that still exists. Is it there to the same extent it was before? Of course not. But what Wikipedia editor doesn't lose some degree of their appetite for editing every now and then? We are all most enthusiastic when first starting out. I do "derive pleasure from building the resource," but Wikipedia is not fun for me anymore. How can I enjoy building the resource but not enjoy Wikipedia? That may seem like a complicated answer, but it's quite simple to me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some - perhaps many - people may not "like" the process of contributing, but the satisfaction derived from the results compensates for the frustrations engendered. From what I am reading it appears in your case that the recompense no longer balances out the negative; particularly as you note that even the "result" is transient and can be quickly undone. You have reached a point where, I feel, only removing yourself completely will allow you to evaluate whether your contributions were worth your efforts, and decide whether a permanent departure is appropriate. What I hope I am prompting you to do is to stop you hanging on and trying to close things out, and poison your perceptions further in the process. As an admirer of your work I am counteracting in part all those other admirers who, in equal good faith, are trying to keep you here and potentially making any departure the more permanent. I, of course, am hoping that you go now when there is still a chance that the evaluation will result in a return. I hope to believe that you knew that. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, LessHeard, I would say that I have reached the point where the "recompense no longer balances out the negative." Though I do like contributing. Thank you for understanding and trying to help me in your own way. Separation does spur/help reevaluation. We are taught that in screenwriting, when we're too close to a script. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Amalthea 19:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, did you use multiple accounts? If so, which ones? Also, there has to be an explanation about this. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the diff that got ~~him~~Flyer blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, George and SarekOfVulcan. I am not male, and I will do my best to explain in the unblock request below. This is a very sad day for me:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Flyer22 Frozen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Amalthea, I honestly have never used a sockpuppet on Wikipedia. Never. Not only would I not be stupid enough to do so, because, knowing the system, sockpuppets always get caught, but I also respect my good name too much. I have dealt with sockpuppets time and time again and never once thought to use a sockpuppet. In fact, I despise them. Anyone who is familiar with me as an editor knows that. The only thing I can think that has happened here is that someone who is living with me (and, yeah, I know that is a typical sockpuppet response) has used this site as well. Late last year, I'd found out that the youngest of my brothers (who is 19 and is living with me until he "can get back on his feet") had signed up to Wikipedia after I'd complained to him about some issues I have with this site. He'd joked that he would sign up just to follow me and "take care of business." I did not take him seriously! I repeat: I did not think he would do it! So when I found out, I told him to either stop editing or to disclose his relationship to me on his user page. He refused to do so and did not even tell me his Wikipedia username, which made me suspicious of every new account that shared articles with me. I debated with myself whether or not to take the matter to the Wikipedia community in the event that I was ever accused of being a sockpuppet. Finally, he told me he'd been blocked and only then did he reveal to me his user account. I said something to the effect of "Well, if you're blocked, then I'm blocked!" and became dramatically upset, but he quickly informed me that he had been using proxies and thus our real IP address hadn't been exposed. Because of that, I let the whole thing go and continued to edit as normal. If there has been another account that shares my IP address, as well as articles I may have edited, then it has to be my brother. I am being 100% honest here. I never sockpuppeted. What I have had is an IP stalking me and others, supporting me on matters (see #The trolling editor at One Tree Hill (TV series)), and also emailing me with cryptic replies. I never thought to think that my brother may have signed up for another Wikipedia account and continued doing what he did before, essentially becoming my stalker and WP:MEATPUPPET, but now that is the only thing that makes sense. I ask what account has been connected to me? I also ask that you see the truth in my words. I would never abuse Wikipedia in such a way, and just having the block on my good name hurts me to the core. If I have to meet with Wikipedian authority in person to prove my case, then I will. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Flyer and/or family members;
There's a lot of Checkuser stuff we can't see, a lot of personal stuff that's been revdel'd, and some really strong emotions involved. I really, really don't think this is a matter for WP:AN, or an individual admin to review an {{unblock}} request. I suggest that you contact WP:BASC (contact info at the link). This seems above our (admins in general) paygrade, and probably better handled off-wiki. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have read WP:BROTHER and WP:EBUR, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, besides the account hinted at above, do you want me to list all the other edits you made? I believe I can make a very good case based on contributions alone to show that this was you, not your brother. I'm not sure that this is what you really want, since I interpret those edits of yours harassment. Up until now I believed the most constructive way forward would be an email discussion in four weeks to make sure this won't happen again. Amalthea 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkinss, I have read that several times, which makes it all the more stupid that I would then concoct such a story. All I can say is that I am being honest. I see that I am accused of being User:Banking honesty. Just seeing Banking honesty's edit summary style associated with mine irks me almost as much as your patronizing tone. You are aware that it makes absolutely no sense that I would create that account, and so late in my "career" as a Wikipedian, right? Or are you that eager to believe I'm lying because of your experience dealing with sockpuppets has jaded you to when someone is actually telling the truth? Or is it because we've crossed paths in not-so polite ways before? Look at Banking honesty's edits. There was no reason for me to sockpuppet at the Clitoris talk page. None! The matter was already worked out for the most part. Then Banking honesty suddenly shows up out of the blue to talk about "its rival"? Its rival, seriously? I do not talk like that. No.

Amalthea, you believe that I was sockpuppeting and even showing up in person with the culprit would not likely change your mind. Understandable since I have dealt with sockpuppets in this way before and felt the same about them as you feel about me now. I cannot say that I did these things when I did not. If I did, for me, someone who knows how this type of thing goes down every time, it would make a lot more sense to admit to it than to play the "It was my brother" game.

Sigh.

Consider me retired. As seen higher on my talk page, it's something that's been on my mind for a while now, and I believe that I can leave this site and never look back. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lightly say that you retire, giving up this hobby after 50k edits is harder then it might seem.
And don't say that you are the victim here. If you want to maintain that my assessment is wrong then I can ask another CheckUser to have a look, or we open up an SPI case (without revealing your home IP).
Amalthea 22:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just a hobby. I'm in tears even as type this. My reputation is ruined now, and I have no one but myself to blame because I could have initially done something about this. I apologize to the Wikipedia community. And goodbye. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say this situation is odd. Why would you even sock? (After all these years) It raises my eyebrow tbh... How was this decided btw?Rain the 1 23:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one, do not believe for a second Flyer used a sock. Flyer has been a valuable and helpful ally to me for nearly the entirety of my own wikipedia editing days. We both worked extensively on articles related to major crimes against children, often fighting against endless streams of sockpuppets operated by child molesters over the course of years. It 's not a fun topic and in those cases we were clearly in the right, yet I never once saw anything that even remotely suggested she'd stoop to the same tactics. You should seriously reconsider.Legitimus (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a post that alleges to be from a member of Flyer22's family, and the responses to it. There is no way to verify if any of what was alleged is true, and for the sake of her privacy, we should refrain from posting any mention of this. Flyer, I have worked with you here for years. You're a fine editor and you will absolutely be welcomed back here by me. AniMate 01:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a second message from the alleged family member and have semi-protected this page to stop IPs editing it. I'm not judging whether the comments were true, but personal information should not be divulged here by other people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've lifted the page protection now, as the family member has agreed to keep things more private. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad block

I think this was a bad block. It appears that the first Flyer22 heard about this was the block message at 19:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC). Whatever happened to the outside world's concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Or Wikipedia's own of WP:AGF? Where is the sockpuppet investigation page where evidence can be seen, weighed and discussed? It's still a red link. Regarding the unblock request: Amalthea says, "I know that two CUs looked into the background as response to the unblock request, but neither seems to have gotten around to act on it either way. I myself am the one person who /can't/ act on the unblock request" and Boing! said Zebedee says, "I'll leave you to take whatever further action you deem appropriate." So that's the end of that apparently, marked "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it."[1]

It seems that, with the best intentions, people who are used to dealing with grizzled old trolls and crusty old abusers have turned the full force of their weaponry onto a hard working long-term editor and, without any warning, discussion or 'good faith', have laughed at their efforts, their contributions, and their personal situation. I think that miscarriages of justice (such as this will turn out to be) do Wikipedia's reputation a deal of harm, and certainly do nothing to help retain and support core editors.

Flyer22 should be unblocked, an apology should be issued, and tactics that have been developed to deal with extremely troublesome, argumentative, and disruptive editors should be saved for those who are in those categories. The rest of us should continue to be spoken to as if we were human beings who are collaborating to create a world-class free encyclopedia, even if you are an administrator. --Nigelj (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the same thing in WP:AN. --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigelj, you have misunderstood me when I said "I'll leave you to take whatever further action you deem appropriate." I was talking solely about the presence of personal information being divulged on Amalthea's Talk page when it should not have been. I was *not* commenting on the block, and was *not* suggesting that there is nothing that should be done about it. My view of the block, in fact, is quite the opposite - I think it definitely should be examined by an uninvolved Checkuser. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this isn't a bad block. I have worked with Flyer22 for years and we both regularly come to each other for help with problematic articles, and even I think this is a good block. What isn't in dispute is that someone in her household has been using proxies to edit the same articles she has. We have absolutely no way of knowing that this wasn't Flyer22, and someone apparently related to this account is still using proxies to continue to edit in regards to the block and is posting sensitive personal information about her. The situation is somewhat delicate right now, and I don't think opening a public SPI is going to do her any favors. Even more so, I don't think advertising her alleged personal issues here or on noticeboards is fair to her at all, when she apparently has no choice about discussing them. AniMate 00:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happened across this rather by chance, although Flyer and I have run into each other at least once. Truthfully, I don't think very much good is going to come out of leaving anything below the unblock request in place (which includes this comment), especially comments related to postings by IPs, as more people will happen across this and probably make the situation here worse. Debating innocence or guilt here won't do anything but create more emotional train wrecks; I do think another checkuser or two should look into this, and much as I hate to say it I think Floquenbeam's decline above is probably the best advice for Flyer. I know we normally don't allow people to remove things related to an unblock from their talkpage, but here I think that would probably reduce the number of problems that could crop up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

( non-admin comment ) I'd like to "second" the suggestion that much of the preceding that's still currently in place as I write this could be removed. I can't see the redacted posts, but reading between the lines in what I can see, and assuming full good faith on Flyer22's part (since her explanation seems plausible), I agree that the removal suggested above by a particular admin would be the best plan by far. I'd actually go further, and suggest that the unblock request itself could disappear, too, at least with Flyer22's approval. Another checkuser look-see would be grand, by all means, sure. But those results can be reported via e-mail, or in some other privacy-preserving way. I know that could occasion allegations of some kind of skullduggery, but at least six admins (some not mentioned here) have looked this over now, all of them well-trusted by the community, btw, and I think we, ie the non-admin community, can reasonably rely on their collective opinion, here.

No one's reputation need suffer from this, btw. If Flyer22 still feels like it's important to do so, she can post a brief note in 30 days saying something like, "About my block: I regret it extremely, and I know it's what sockmaster's all say, but in this case it's perfectly true: A well-meaning member of my household was responsible for the edits that prompted checkusers to conclude I'd been socking. That person supposed, quite incorrectly, of course, that he was doing me a favor by supporting my edits and talk page comments. There's no way I can prove this, of course, so I'll simply close my comment on the matter by saying that I'm sorry this happened, both for myself and for the project, and that I naturally regret the disruption it caused." That should do it, I think.

Besides, a break from editing is a good plan for all of us, occasionally. It's just way too easy to take the intensity this place can generate personally, and get all tied up in knots over what other people say to or about you, or because some article is completely wrong on any given point. Despite immediate appearances, none of that really matters a hill of beans when you think about the fact that the majority of kids in the world don't get enough to eat, for example, or that loads of people get driven from their homes and land every day, simply because someone else wants it. Breaks are good to help one maintain perspective, in other words. Thus my suggestion to Flyer22, offered with sincere respect and candid trust in her account of how this problem arose, would be to take the break and use the time to engage in a positive way with the real, face-to-face world. Mow an elderly neighbor's lawn, instead, or learn html, or read Act One, by Moss Hart. ( That was a shameless plug for my favourite autobiography; it's hugely touching, and also far and away the funniest book I've ever read. ) In a month this won't seem anything like as important, truly. Finally, I'll reiterate my support for removal of the preceding, including my own comment here, as per a preceding admin suggestion. I think that should be allowed in this instance, per WP:IAR. As I see it, doing so would be of benefit to the project, as well as to all concerned. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How will those who edited alongside her know whether or not she is okay? Any idea?Rain the 1 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll just have to wait and see - if ArbCom are looking at it, they would not be able to divulge anything personal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BASC

To Flyer22 or the IP, if you are seeing this. Please contact Ban Appeals Sub-Committee (BASC) as soon as possible with your explanation on the situation, I'm sure they are interested to hear and give Flyer22 a fair review. E-mail address is arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. - Mailer Diablo 02:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC) (Redacted)[reply]

A note to Flyer22

I know we haven't spoken in some time, and I realize you may not even see this message but I had to give you a word of encouragement. Your work on this site is exceptional and I hope this block case is resolved in your favor. I've also worked with Amalthea on a number of occasions and have only known him to operate in good faith, so I hope given the circumstance you won't hold a grudge. I just hate seeing good editors pitted against each other due to unusual situations like this. As for whatever may being happening in your personal life, my sincerest hope that you come out of it happy, healthy and full of life. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal Subcommittee review

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has reviewed your block, and declines to unblock at this time. As I'm sure you're aware, your block will expire later this month. PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way for the wikipedia hoi polloi to have a look at these proceedings? Or are they strictly reserved for the Wikipedia Star Chamber? -- Wlmg (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wlmg, unfortunately I'm not sure there is. In this instance, we received an email from Flyer22's brother (or alternatively, from Flyer22, depending on which version of events you believe) which contains information that has not been made publicly available. That said, I can say that within the committee there was a range of views, and differing interpretations of events, however there wasn't a consensus to unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing the above statement, Phil Knight, and in particular the phrase "which version of events you believe", it would appear that you are in receipt of an e-mail which you, or some members of your group, believe to have been written, or possibly written, by Flyer22 pretending to be Flyer22's brother. There isn't any other way to interpret your statement, I don't think.

This being so, I'd have to say that the people who believe this are almost certainly wrong and probably underqualified, intellectually, for being on this type of appeals board for a major website, and that it's reasonable to infer that the appeals process was likely shot through with egregious incompetence.

Furthermore, it's probably not a good idea to publicize the notion that members of the appeals board think that Flyer22 is in the habit of forging emails. It's embarrassing. Not for her, but for you, since it shows you as incompetent clowns, and for us, since we are unfortunately required to be associated with you.

After all, we don't go around saying that, "depending on whom you believe", you (Phil Knight) and your precious appeals board may or may not be pig-fuckers.

But maybe we should. Herostratus (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to believe Flyer22, but since few people on wikipedia ever interact face-to-face or through any other method other than wikipedia itself, its not at all possible to say with absolute certainty that everyone is exactly who they say they are. Just because you and I (or anyone else) may take Flyer's word at face value (and be happy to do so), there is no reason to attack someones intelligence for being skeptical. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reply

Hello, everyone. As I'm home for what may be a short period, I felt that I should drop in to let you know that I'm okay, and to say some things about my block. I thank all of you who have supported me, have sent emails to me showing that you care and have believed in my words about what transpired while I was editing and what subsequently led to the block. For those who know the personal details, it's true that I compromised my health, and I apologize for that information having been publicized via a family member instead of having come from me personally and for those who were looking to make contact with me having had their emails intercepted by the same family member who was using my email account to make contact with those he couldn't contact without it. But just know that my email is back under control (new password exclusive to me) and please understand that my brother was suffering and felt that he was doing right by me by informing others of my situation. It is deeply upsetting to come back here to see him having run all over the place defending me, people reprimanding him and people thinking that it was (or possibly was) me doing this. While I don't condone his actions, I ask that you try to remember that he is a 19-year-old kid who had a great deal of guilt on his shoulders and clearly didn't know how best to cope with that. He's still dealing with that guilt. And although I am sorry for how the information got out, I'm not sorry that it is out there, with the exception of users like Kim van der Linde who felt the need to take time out of her "retirement" to make light of my situation, which in turn spurred on my brother. That bit has not yet been censored, and since it shows the conduct of someone I don't see being suitable of the title administrator, I'd rather it not be censored. I thank those who emailed me about that and for your sympathies regarding it. I'm not embarrassed about the information being public because it's not something I should be embarrassed about. For those who know how one gets to this point, the mental processes are not something that are the person's fault. What I am embarrassed about is how I let moments of feeling immense scrutiny cause me to react in a way that was detrimental to the psychological well-being of my family, in a way that I never thought I would put them through again. My emotional issues are what they are, but I have always strived to maintain a level of professionalism while editing Wikipedia and to leave any personal demons I may have in the off-Wikipedia world. I failed in that area on March 21, 2012 and, for that, I am sorry. If it helps, I want to say that despite KimvdLinde's belief, it wasn't about needing to separate my real self from my online self. My online self is also my real self, and all you have on Wikipedia is your reputation. To know that any time someone checks my block log, they are going to see "Abusing multiple accounts" and think "Dishonest editor," and that they may bring this up in some dispute I'm in with them, it's tough. I let that and people being skeptical of my situation get the better (or rather worse) of me. It was piled on top of previously existing issues and just culminated from there.

It's upsetting to see anyone I've worked with for years thinking that I did or may have sockpuppeted. I know that none of us know each other that well, unless we took the time to get to know each other via extensive talk page conversations, email or some social networking outlet, if not in person, but I feel that my true character came through in most of our interactions and that anyone who knows me through my editing and principles should know that I wouldn't sockpuppet. I can understand why there would be skepticism, especially from the ArbCom committee who only know that an IP and two alternate (registered) accounts were making edits that I generally would have made (the majority of the time) and were, at times, supporting me in disputes. But looking at my brother's first account, I can't see any rational reason that anyone would think that I would have made that account. It was created in July 2011, made a few useless comments on the talk of an article I was heavily invested in at the time, then reverted to something I reverted to before leaving me to deal with the rest of that article (which was a very stressful environment during that month and months following it). Some time later, this account showed up to heavily edit another article that I've contributed to, but I wasn't heavily editing it at the time and I had no reason to create an extra account just to edit it. There wasn't any active dispute going on, not a serious one anyway, so I can't understand the perception that I operated that account. For the second one (Banking honesty), it is just as illogical, perhaps more so, to think that I operated it. And for the proxy IP socks, a few of them having made comments (some to my talk page) that I can't fathom making, I'm possibly most confused about being linked to those. Not to mention, the notion that it was me pretending to be my brother all this time and that I would fabricate something as serious as an illness that I've battled for years.

I know that there will be people who will always believe that I was socking. It doesn't matter how many times I say that I wasn't. But being believed by some, and that includes some of the ArbCom committee (it would seem), is a good thing. I stated before that I can understand the skepticism of my innocence. What I don't understand is why anyone on the committee felt they only had to rely on my and my brother's words and edit histories. I know that IPs can reveal private information, but I sincerely doubt that it could have revealed whether or not my discussed circumstances were true. This is why I'm in agreement with my brother that assessing the case beyond our words and edit histories would have been most ideal. Either way, I take full responsibility for the sockpuppetry because I did not report it the first time I was told of it, although I wasn't sure where it was happening and didn't know that proxy IPs were being used independent of that first account until after he was blocked that first time. It's also my computers and video game system that were used for the socking. I realize that saying I was the one that socked, acknowledging why I was blocked, that further disruption won't happen again, and that I will make useful contributions in the future would have likely resulted in me getting unblocked before the set time period, but that's not something I could do. Not because of my reputation, which is harmed by this regardless, but because it just isn't true. As simple as that. I thought that I was done with Wikipedia. But, like a lot of people who find that they just can't leave it, I'm not done with it quite yet. Not until I do the things I planned to do before the block happened. I thought that if I come back to this site, I'd close myself off and become one of those editors who don't participate in discussions, revert without putting up a rationale, barely leave any kind of edit summary, and ignore comments posted to their talk pages. But those kinds of editors annoy me to no end and I generally don't view them as being of great benefit to the project. So, in short, I plan to be better than I was before. I'm well-aware that I may never be trusted in the same way again, but I'm not leaving my Wikipedia "career" as it currently stands. Those who know me personally know that I’m one to jump back on the horse soon after falling off, so I do plan to continue editing soon after the unblock. I know what's best for me, and going back to the same (but improved) routine after a difficult time is what's best (as it's always been).

That brings me to my brother. Even though he's said that he's stopped editing, I don't know what to believe. I read where he was warned and why, but he does what he wants. It's always been that way, aside from having been respectful to our parents and other authority figures while growing up. However, about eight hours ago, he told me that he had demonstrated restraint for my sake, forcing himself not to make a comment on a talk page since not doing so meant not getting my account into a more serious restriction. The talk page in question is the Anal sex talk page. He was upset that someone has removed the religious information from the lead of the article and that this goes against WP:LEAD. I can't say that I'm all too concerned about it, because although cultural issues, which naturally include religion, should be in the lead of that article, the exact paragraph that was removed doesn't need to be there. However, because my brother is often insistent upon keeping things the way I edited them, he would likely have reverted to the previous version on the spot. His editing is usually not independent of his concern for me. To put it simply, he is overly supportive (much like our 27-year-old brother), and the support is often based on our being siblings. This is why I'm not sure that letting him have an account is smart thing to do, no matter that it's been given the go-ahead by an administrator. He's shown over and over again that he can't help but track me to articles, that he will target and make enemies out of people I have either disagreed with or people he decides he doesn't like for whatever reason, and that he isn't willing to give up his proxies. He's still trying to figure out exactly how he got caught, admitting that he used Wild Tunnel as an IP in a sockpuppet investigation the day he was find out, and wondering why he wasn't caught by others who have CheckUser prior to that day since he's used that site countless times. All in all, my brother having an account worries me. My brother not having an account worries me. The latter does because proxy socking is most likely to occur. And both do because I don't know how to make sure something like my March 21, 2012 block doesn't happen to me again.

That's it for now. Thanks for reading all that. And, Ohiostandard, yeah, I'd thought about addressing people in that way about my block too. Thanks for the tips. Flyer22 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's great to hear from you and to know that you're well. While your brother might not have acted as well as he could, it seems clear that it was only out of concern for you - and a few of us who removed some of his comments did so out of concern to keep your private matters private, and we only spoke a little forcefully to him to achieve that end. Anyway, the key thing is to put yourself first now and take care of yourself - Wikipedia is far less important than your health and well-being, and it'll still be here for you to carry on contributing to whenever you feel up to it. Take care. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back Flyer. I had a problem last week and wondered WWFD? As for your bother I don't want to give him any tricks of the trade. Likely he got sloppy with multiple logons and user names. Every socker never thinks they'll ever get caught, but always do. It doesn't end well; someone is inevitably better at the game.--Wlmg (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very relieved to see you're ok. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear from you again, Flyer. Welcome back. --Nigelj (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know you are better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to echo everyone above, especially Boing! said Zebedee with regards to your brother. Now that that's resolved, would you like me to lift the semiprotection I put on your talkpage? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I again thank all of you. Wlmg, my brother only used two registered accounts. Like I stated, the first one was blocked last year without being tied to me. And we know what happened to the second one. Most of his edits were proxy IP edits. The Blade of the Northern Lights, no, leave it on for several more days, to keep my brother from posting here. He may still be very upset about this, and he's likely to rant when he's upset. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; that's why I checked first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flyer!

First off, I want to say welcome back and that I missed you! I hope you enjoyed the edits and contributions I made to some pages while you were away. Anyway, just wanted to say Hi and welcome back!! I miss you tons! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 02:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Musicfreak7676 and thank you. Are you one of the editors who talked with my mother about the block? Whatever the case, I was told of a few of your edits, such as your image changes to the Bianca Montgomery article. That change was showed to me, and I believe my brother told you I liked them. I'm not much into editing soap opera articles these days (more about sexual, medical and social topics), but it's nice to know that some of the ones in decent, good or great shape have someone to keep them that way whenever I'm gone. Someone unrelated to me, that is. Thank you! Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I do prefer the previous image of Alicia Minshew as Kendall Hart, which is why I never uploaded the image you recently uploaded, but it's not a big deal to me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't talk to your mother, I talked to your brother actually. And it's fine Flyer, I just know the article would have benefited from uniform looking images, etc. I also updated the image of Dixie Cooney and several One Tree Hill characters. As for Kendall's, I just figured the previous image was from 2003/3 and would have benefited from a more recent image is all. I plan on working on others soon. And of course! I am passionate about soaps and their characters. I always will be and it's an honor to progress such articles you've helped bring to the table as GA's. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flyer, I'm creating an article for Reese Williams, of course, for my own recreational use unless it abides by the notability of characters. I was wondering if I could use some of the sourcing you found for Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery to help me further the article, if that was okay? If not, I understand! I just wanted to ask before I did such. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musicfreak7676, I can't see Reese Williams deserving or needing an article. She's not notable outside of her romance with Bianca. Everything that needs to be stated about her is already in the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article; that's why the Reese Williams article kept getting redirected there. At least with Maggie Stone, there is a lot of character development about the character, which is better suited in her article than in the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article. As for asking me to use my contributions, you never have to. This is because whenever we contribute something to Wikipedia, it no longer belongs to us. It belongs to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page is more for me, aha. Just to give me something to do is all. And I just didn't want to take some sources from the page and then be told I'm stealing them, that's all. Covering my ground and ass. Aha. Like I said, the page is more so for my own ideals is all. Creating sandboxes for characters I believe in. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Oh, you mean for a WP:Sandbox. There's certainly no problem then. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yes for my sandbox page for her. I have like a ton of them going for a lot of soap characters I would love to see pages for or something, aha. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I cut down the General Hospital section of Todd Manning a bit. Let me know what you think! I'd attempt the One Life section, but I wasn't a fan of the series. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it of course. Had you seen this discussion about it? Is that why you decided to make the cut? As for the One Life to Live section, as I stated in that discussion, it's short enough. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's where I possibly may have read it. I just know you wanted it cut down, and I believe you mentioned it on the "History" page if they got out of control, you'd remove them all together. So I cut the GH section down. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 04:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eija-Liisa Ahtila

I recognized you are interested in articles related to sexual identity, self, and body. Would you like to contribute on the artist Eija-Liisa Ahtila? some text is also here and we need someone who watches Ahtila's films and have better ideas on the subject. I also wish someone uploads some of her works for fair use.--Taranet (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to become familiar with this person to heavily edit the article in a way that would be beneficial. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarah Michelle Geller as Kendall Hart.jpg

I have requested undeletion in WP:REFUND, and I wonder if this is better than the File:Sarah Michelle Gellar Kendall Hart ABC promo.jpg. If so, can it replace the promo image? --George Ho (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really concerned about that anymore, George. I'm not fond of the first or second image that is currently in the article. But, yes, it can replace the promotional image...and exist there just like it did before. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the promo image. I must give you this tip: Any photo may be profitable, as the Steve Urkel image (not the screenshot) belongs to Getty Image (see WP:files for deletion/2012 April 19#File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg). --George Ho (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

I'm sorry that I removed stuff from the talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladoodle (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. You didn't mean any harm by it. Just be careful to keep in mind what I stated to you about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Locke: Your perspective would be valued

There is a dispute about Sondra Locke's year of birth. Some sources say 1944 while others say 1947. Because of this dispute, both years are listed in the opening sentence of her Wikipedia page. None of the sources that say she was born in 1947 are reliable. However, there are many reliable sources that say she was born in 1944:

Sondra Locke's marriage license [2] to Gordon Leigh Anderson on September 25, 1967 (available publicly through the state archives or Ancestry.com) lists her birthdate as 5/28/44. MSN movies [3] and the Internet Movie Database [4] say that she was born in 1944. A 1989 People magazine article [5] gives Locke's age as 45, correlating to a 1944 birth year. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [6] appearing in a university production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. For Locke to have attended a university during the 1962-63 semester, she would have to have been born no later than 1944 unless she graduated high school early, which is unlikely given that she makes no mention of it in her autobiography. Locke does not mention her year of birth in her autobiography. On 28 May 2011, Sondra Locke turned 67 according to ABC News [7], Yahoo! News [8], the Associated Press [9], Leigh Valley News [10], and The Boston Globe [11]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944.

Sondra Locke's Wikipedia page, in my opinion, should only list 1944 as her year of birth. There is no question that she was born in 1944. I am requesting that you make this correction to Sondra Locke's page, because every time another user has made this correction, their edits have been reverted without merit. 131.239.63.5 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[12][13] Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your wariness was justified: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99 for details if you are interested.—Kww(talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kww. Thanks for informing me. Maybe you wouldn't mind adding a note about this on the article talk page? Also, was it really necessary to revert to this version of the article just because this editor has heavily edited it? Would you mind if I readded my changes? As shown in the first diff I provided above, there is WP:Consensus for excluding any mention of 1947 other than as a footnote. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question for you to ask yourself is whether you meet the criteria in WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors. If you feel that you have an independent reason for making the edit (aside from the contact from the banned user), and are willing to stand behind it yourself as being accurate, feel free to restore the data. If it's an article that you would never have visited or noticed without the contact, you should leave it alone.—Kww(talk) 20:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN also applies to indefinitely blocked users? Either way, it's definitely an article I would not have edited unless contacted or unless I stumbled upon it. But now that I am aware of it, it strikes me as wrong to so visibly leave in a birth year that is very likely wrong. That is the independent reason I would have for making 1947 a footnote again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grey area. Don't worry about me taking any administrative action against you one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mucous membranes

I am gonna wait for Richiez to comment first before I reply. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MEGAN FOX

I WANT THAT YOU DON´T REWRITE MY ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orgasm Citation

Sorry, I am not used to citing physical books. The book is Sex at Dawn, and the citation is on page 263, though they discuss it elsewhere and throughout the book. If you have any further questions, let me know.

Update: I have extended the citation with a relevant quote from the source. I am still not sure if I formatted the citation right, but all the information is now there. Any other questions?

-Kyle112 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Look at that to get an idea for how book citations are done on Wikipedia. And make sure to read what I stated at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 9#Using Book as Source. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

I reverted one of your edits as part of a transition edit and didn't record it in the edit summary. I should have noted it to make it clear. Someone had removed several Chinese records which I thought were relevant, and you had added some punctuation to their edit so I just reversed both of them. You'd probably figure out what I was doing if you looked at the edits, but you shouldn't really have to so I thought I'd drop you a note. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Betty, I noticed the removal, but didn't know what to make of it and didn't take the time to analyze it either. No one had reverted the editor, so that added to my thinking that it was not a big deal. So I fixed the punctuation with regard to WP:REFPUNCT instead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I restored it because my thinking on this is that given it outgrossed its original release and China was also its most successful territory are probably notable facts; probably more notable than the US performance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit in Microsoft Security Essentials

Hello, Flyer22

I just wanted to let you know that I had to revert one of your edits in Microsoft Security Essentials because no comma should not precede "however". I assure you, I would have not reverted it under normal circumstances and I don't mean to be picky; but the WP:FA guys are being very picky and they pick on my for what you did.

I am very sorry that our first communicate turned out to be about a dispute.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Codename Lisa. It's not that much of a dispute. But I'd like to know how you came to believe that no comma should precede "however." I take it that the "not" in your first above sentence is a typo? Just Googling "Comma should not precede however", or with "precede" as "proceed" (which was of course a typo on my part), shows sources that agree with my edit, such as this one. Your "however" is placed in the middle of a sentence and is used in an "on the other hand" fashion, which, from what I've learned, means that a comma should be placed before and after it. I've certainly seen a comma precede and follow "however" in various scholarly sources or simply just news articles. How does it make sense to have that one comma after it the way you've done? Flyer22 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's been some time since I've familiarized myself with grammar rules...so I can understand how I may be in error on some things when it comes to the subject. Flyer22 (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

I have good news, so please allow me to spare you of a story that at this point, amounts to an excuse. The good news is that a search in Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) returns over 10,000 results for "[n*] , however ," while it returns just 200 results for "[n*] however ,". These result come from high-quality publications. That means, from the descriptive grammar's point of view, your edit can now be safely reinstated. WP:FA reviewers cannot easily dismiss a Corpus, at least not as easily as they would dismiss a Google or Bing search.

Mind you, I do not think FA reviewers are picky for nothing. They have the right to. But again, I am sorry to have ever started such a dispute. If only I knew about COCA...

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Codename Lisa. I don't mind long stories. I asked after all. And no worries. Thank you for looking into it and reconsidering. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Hi. It is not a "long" story! You know most of it: An FA review is in progress; I thought I have no choice but to revert your edit; I discovered I have another choice, i.e. defending it; I took it; and now we live happily ever after. Take care. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Houston

Hello, I'm sorry, but this video is reliable. It shows the example of what it says. This video is even MUCH MORE reliable than the critcal source, because critics doesn't study the music. They don't really know what they are talking about. The boy who has created this video study the music. And even if he would not, the video SHOWS what it's talking about. Sorry, if I spell wrong, I'm French. SemiramideSutherland (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read over again what I stated on your talk page. What I stated there is why Kww reverted you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK So, I will not re-do my edit, because it still will be reverted. But can you explain what is not reliable in this video ? You can easily see that Whitney had a stunning breath control, a perfect control of dynamics, fabulous ornaments and flawless musicianship. Great musicianship and technique is not a matter of opinion, either you have it or you don't. It's not because you're famius, that your statement is reliable. Celebrity always talk about others celebrity in a positive way, they always do compliments, because they don't want to be considered as "bad", to tarnish their image. Something that make me really laugh, is when Celine Dion said Christina Aguilera was "probably the best vocalist in the world". So she mean that a vocalist is someone that SCREAM, and has ANY musicianship. Her belting register is awfull. Its not "powerful", but LOUD, strained, out-of-tune. You can esily hear that. She doesn't use breath support and projection in the "mask" or the head. She sing with her throat, so when she go high, her throat squeeze and tense. SemiramideSutherland (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about WP:Verifiability when it comes to the text you wanted to add. That's just the way it is. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Locke again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sondra Locke". Thank you. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not comment any further on the matter, Canoe. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I only got involved with my 1st edit of the article. I had noticed that the only year at the time was not in the info box and added it. I usually avoid BLP articles unless I am contacted by a COI or the BLP themselves. I was hoping other opinions from a new venue could help with consensus. I may just give up on discussing it myself and only add points to other comments of those that wish to continue with it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has been closed. Feel free to delete this section. I only added it because the process required it. Thanks for your patience.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on orgastic potency article

Hi Flyer22, as you have proven yourself an able critic, would you, please, be so kind to give me feedback - in the broadest sense of the term - on an article I'm preparing for Wikipedia. The article concerns an elaboration on Wilhelm Reich's views on sexuality, which I partially felt I should write to do justice to his work on the orgasm page, without taking up too much space there. That is, in the near future I hope to be able to just make a referral there to this article! The article I'm preparing can be found here and you are free to edit there or write me your feedback. All the best, and no worries if you don't have time! --Gulpen (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gulpen, I've briefly discussed it at User talk:Nigelj#Working on articles.[14] As I stated there, I was going to inform you of Nigelj's thoughts on it. It appears that your article is fine and is ready to be transferred to the main Wikipedia space once you've finished tweaking it a bit more. With the way you worked on that article, if we had you working on more sexuality articles around here, the majority of them wouldn't be in so dire need of improvement. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that the matter was discussed at User talk:Gulpen#Sex economy. What meco stated to you about why the article he created was deleted is what I'm worried about with the article you've created. The fact that it relies mostly on Reich as a source is why I asked Nigelj about it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, thanks for your time. I will respond to Nigelj's remarks on his talk page. Reich is indeed the main source of the theory, but I really put a lot of effort into finding other sources for particularly important and controversial aspects regarding his theory, so I think that this is covered. Also, thank you for your compliment! --Gulpen (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i want made an article better

My article of Megan Fox is better : my article is considerate good and contains more photos, more information...

(cur | prev) 16:37, 11 June 2012‎ Flyer22 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (53,336 bytes) (-7,853)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk) to last version by Safehaven86) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:58, 11 June 2012‎ Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,187 bytes) (+7,851)‎ . . (undo)

--Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf[reply]

Non-free and free image of Sarah Michelle Gellar as Kendall Hart

File:Sarah Michelle Geller as Kendall Hart.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Sarah Michelle Gellar by David Shankbone.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wonder if the non-free image of Gellar as Kendall Hart is irreplaceable or significant. To me, I don't see any implicit or explicit characterization of Gellar's Hart whatsoever. The only significant aspects of this image are time span, Gellar's hair, and Gellar's blank face, regardless of caption. Although it identifies Gellar as Hart, this is nothing compared to File:Nicholas Colasanto Coach Ernie Pantusso.jpg or an image of Steve Urkel. I have set up a free image of Gellar as part of Casting section. Although I understand that using a free image of Gellar outside AMC as an infobox picture is totally untrue to Kendall Hart herself, still I wonder if there is a slight difference between non-free image and free image of Gellar.

In the past, I used to believe that using a non-free image of a portrayer to merely illustrate a portrayer as a character is sufficient. However, I realize that a free image of an actor can do a better job as a body image than a non-free image of a character as an infobox image. Any objections? --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George, I'm not sure what you mean about the non-free image not being replaceable or significant or that it showcases Gellar with a blank expression. It passes Wikipedia:Non-free content. And we really should not place the free image of Gellar in the character infobox because it's not Gellar as Kendall. It's just Gellar as herself. But if you want to leave the image in the Casting and character portrayal section and let that serve as the image for what the first Kendall looks like, I do not mind you getting rid of the image that I uploaded back in 2007. You were responsible for its deletion before, then you brought it back even though I stated that I did not care if you did or not. And now you want to delete it again. That's fine. Like last time, I don't mind because I don't care that much about this issue anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to remove it until I realized that Gellar was 16 in 1993 portraying a 20-ish character, according to an article. Therefore, I guess it justifies passing WP:NFCC and keeping an infobox image of Gellar who was between 16 and 18 in this image. Since you no longer care about this issue any further, let's not discuss this any further. Instead, we'll just let this slide and leave this non-free image alone. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, Gellar was at first 16 portraying a 16-year-old Kendall. Then, for the reasons mentioned in the Wikipedia article, at age 17, she began portraying Kendall as a 23-year-old. Looking at the images, there isn't much of a noticeable age difference. However, when you look at clips of Gellar from back then, she definitely looks much younger than she does in media clips from 2007. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undid mergers of well-known characters of All My Children

Myrtle Fargate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phoebe Tyler Wallingford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mona Kane Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruth Martin (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
~~Tara Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

I have undone the mergers but left in {{afd-merge to}} because AFD said merge. Moreover, I have tagged these articles with "{{expert-subject}}", so many people would be aware that they could be notable by obscure, irreplaceable, older, and inaccessible sources. I wanted to give this news to WP:SOAPS, but I couldn't, especially since they could give me an angry tone. I wonder if you are an expert of these characters. --George Ho (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: the Tara Martin article violated copyrights of SoapCentral, and I could not find a cleaner, safer revision. Therefore, it's left as redirected. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what angry tone they could give you for letting them know that you've undone these mergers. And, as you know, the project isn't that active. I am not an expert on those characters. I was not watching the soap opera for the majority of these characters' existence, seeing as I was either unborn or very young. I am more familiar with Myrtle Fargate and Ruth Martin, but more so Myrtle Fargate, seeing as they were on the show when I was watching it as a child and Myrtle remained on the show periodically into my adulthood. My point is that their articles are very unlikely to be expanded with real-world content. If I ever get the heart to significantly fix up these articles, then there is a chance. Otherwise, don't count on any other editor doing these articles justice. That's not to sound egotistical. It's just a fact that there isn't any other American soap opera editor, with the exception of TAnthony and Rocksey, as well as Nk3play2 and Sparrowhawk8 since last year, who are willing to put hard work into creating a Todd Manning or Dimitri Marick type of article. Neither TAnthony nor Rocksey are that active on Wikipedia anymore, and I'm unsure if Nk3play2 and Sparrowhawk8 watched All My Children (at least enough to be interested in fixing up the above listed articles).

Oh, and of course the Tara Martin article would need to be un-merged if good or great sources are found for it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm a bit horrified about what's going on here. Please forgive me if I comment in inverse style and WP:OR. I started watching AMC in 1975 Erica was competing for the affection of Phil Brent with Tara Martin. Tara got knocked up by Phil siring Charlie Brent (Tyler). (Erica would sleep with Charlie Brent about 20 years later which is pretty gross but hey that's what keeps me coming back to AMC). In '75 her failure to hookup up with Philip left Erica rudderless. Mona Kane then drops a bombshell on her that she must find her first job. At this same time sweet ethical Mona saw no problem with being the other woman and ultimately stealing Phoebe Tyler's husband from her. Phoebe never even called Mona by her proper name behind her back, always calling her, "That Kane Woman."

So Erica being about 20-years-old , having no marketable skills whatsoever, seeks employment and ends up as a hostess at local upscale restaurant named the chateau owned by a middle-aged man named Nick Szabo(sp?). Nick seeing that Erica was not entirely lacking in skills in short order promoted her from the dining room to the bedroom. Nick was very kind, but he wasn't good looking and the whole thing was gross. So what's my point? I believe AMC is written with a number of denouements and inflection points and that 1975 was especially significant for this. To see AMC O.G.s Mona Kane et al. whittled down to mere blurbs is not a good development. I intend to snail mail Agnes Nixon and explain who I am and what I hope to accomplish in saving these characters' bios on Wikipedia and request her help with finding old WP:RS. I am also finally healthy enough after years and plan to consult with Pharos (the head of the NYC chapter) in real life at a Wikipedia meetup in NYC that occur periodically. He's not a soapy, but I'd be interested in his opinions about what is happening on Wikipedia as quite frankly daytime soaps steadily march to extinction. --Wlmg (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"[P]romoted her from the dining room to the bedroom." That made me laugh out loud, Wlmg! Thank you for that. So you're horrified that there likely aren't any other registered editors besides yourself who are interested in expanding these articles? You have the plot down, so you could help with that. I could help with real-world material, of course, and you could too, after finding it. Most of such material is going to come from soap opera magazines. For the notability, we have to look on Google Books and Google Scholar, which may also have some real-world material for the characters. I already know that Google Books has some for Myrtle Fargate. I also like your intention to ask Agnes Nixon for help. And it's of course excellent to hear of your improved health. Were you suffering from anything serious? Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clarification

Hello,

Just regarding the following, from your recent comments here, i.e.

"... you are constantly accusing me of having some anal sex obsession, just like you did back in 2011....you are always telling others who know better than you do about how a Wikipedia article should be formatted... I have pointed out your errors time and time again."

This is very personal, and very extreme, universalizing language, Flyer22. You and I have really had very little to do with each other and it was what, 6 months ago? A year? I remember that we disagreed in 2011 and it wasn't pleasant and that you seemed to object to any change I might suggest to the page, but I am sure that I never accused you of having an anal sex obsession. I certainly never intended to.

I was going to say that it doesn't sound healthy until I noticed your discussion about possibly taking a break on your User page. It does seem to me that you must spend quite a lot of time here on Wikipedia, and sorry but I think that even "sporadic" editing has got to be healthier than (what appears to be) almost constant editing. I know that I wouldn't be able to keep up with my gardening or looking after my cat (and even my own health) if I spent as much time here as you seem to. Based on many years of experience in volunteer community work (in the real world, organic food co-ops in particular) it comes across as a classic case of burn-out.

It really does sound to me (not that I assume you care about my opinion) like -and I don't mean this in a mean way- you need a break.--Ty rS 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you stated at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 5#advice. You repeatedly suggested that I was promoting anal sex. That definitely sounds like accusing me of having an anal sex obsession. Also refer to what I told you about that back then: "You keep citing promotion. I am not sure how many times I have to state that I am not some anal sex advocate. I don't care who has or does not have anal sex. I just like informing people on important matters regarding sexual activity. Sex experts are paid to give unbiased information on sexual activity, and there is nothing biased about something as simple as people reacting differently to anal sex. Good articles on sexuality are likely going to have thoughts from sex experts within them."

As for our interaction back then, we compromised a little. Just like recently. And you must not remember that we interacted in 2010 as well, at Talk:Gender#"Systemic bias" in regard to putting "male" before "female"?. You were wrong then, too, as noted by most of the editors who weighed in. I don't mean to be rude to anyone and I'm usually not unless they are rude to me first. I've been annoyed when encountering you because, besides your anal sex comments back in January 2011, in my view, you often misuse policies and guidelines and have apparently taken that misuse to the Sex positions article as well. You are often either misinterpreting policies and guidelines or enforcing your own beliefs about how Wikipedia should be formatted. So sporadic editing has not been good for your Wikipedia editing because you are still unfamiliar with much of how things work here. If interested in refreshing your mind on how else we interacted, there is Talk:Fetal rights#Unbalanced, POV wording in first sentence and Template talk:Rights#"Rights claimants... fetuses" contentious.

As for me personally... Yes, I am burnt out from this site, but I don't spend nearly as much time here as I used to, especially since I have to worry about a sibling using our IP or his proxies to edit Wikipedia and complicating things. Unless focusing on an article for a few days or in an extensive debate focusing on an article, I now usually edit for a few or several hours before calling it a day and take two to four days off from Wikipedia. This or my previous very active editing has not stifled my ability to edit positively and in a collegial way. Most editors will attest that I have been collegial. Collegiality is very important here, and I strive to maintain that when interacting with other editors. But I will be blunt with my criticism at times, such as when I called your editing nitpicking. And it's not an extensive break that I'm looking to take from this site. I'm looking to retire, as mentioned in the #You are a great editor: Re leaving Wikipedia section above. That will likely happen at the end of this year, after I get some more articles to WP:GA status. But I'm not naive about leaving permanently; most editors who state that they are leaving for good always end up coming back. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I understand that my statement that I hated you was inapropriate and apologize for it. However, I do not apologize for saying I was taking my edits down because you said all of them were bad, because I was only exaggerating, you've only said negative things about my edits even when you agreed with them, for example when I was arguing with Malke2010 in favor of putting age of consent in Chris Hansen's article you called the edit I put there "sloppy" and "unsourced" even though it didn't need a source because saying the men were prosecuted for having sex with minors was a sky is blue type statement. I'm not even entirely disagreeing with you, a lot of my edits were to biased and a few were inadequately sourced, though I don't think as many of them were unsourced as you said, and I've apologized for it. Also, you wrote with your account on mine constantly that you did not approve of my edits, so the other users already know that you don't approve of my edits whether I write that in my edit or not, its not like I'm sharing something confidential that people don't already know. However recently, my coverage has been more objective, and I have not personally attacked editors recently. So you have no grounds to say I made a claim against you. And I'm not going to delete what you wrote on my wikipedia account just to deprive you of a leg to stand on in criticizing me. Anyway, people are going to wonder why I'm deleting the vast majority of edits I ever even made here, so its legitimate to point out its partially because you said the vast majority of them, at least in regards to your topics, were wrong, otherwise some people might want to restore them. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Provide a diff (link) where I stated that all of your edits are bad? I did not. The fact that you keep stating it does not make it true. Have I called some of your edits bad and sloppy? Yes. And, as you know, I'm not the only one who has done so. And the only times I've stated negative things about your edits when agreeing with them has been when I saw that I needed to compromise with you. Compromising doesn't mean that I'm going to like the edit. It sometimes just means that it's better than the alternative -- the version I can't even tolerate. And as for the Malke 2010 interaction (why are you always bringing him up, especially as if he's some authority?), you are not relaying that interaction accurately, so I'm not even going to revisit that. I have grounds to state that you made a false claim against me, because you did, as I already made abundantly clear on your talk page. I did not state that I was going to block you. Nor did I state that all of your edits were/are bad. In that diff, I also told you how deleting your edits may or may not be valid. I don't care if you leave my comments on your talk page. So what? That's not something you can use for your false claims against me, since it shows what I actually stated. Just don't blame me for deleting your edits. Don't blame me for anything you do or don't do on Wikipedia. You always make it out as though I'm the big bad Flyer and as though I or Malke or even Off2riorob/Youreallycan are the only ones who have objected to some of your edits. Read again what I stated about sometimes questioning your ability to digest what is being stated to you. You need a mentor fast. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that you did not say that. I correct myself. I said that you said most of my edits were bad. At least in the topic areas you edited. And when did I say that only you three objected to my edits? And I think in off2riorob's case I respected the criticism, I said I agreed with it. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are always mentioning us, especially me, in your edit summaries or when asking others for help (even though you sometimes state "an editor"). You act as though we, especially that I, have it out to get you or ban you. I can't even ban you! First of all, banning is different than blocking, and banning is always a community decision. See WP:BAN. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned off2riorob in an edit summary, and I respected his criticism like I said, although I didn't respect yours and Malke's. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have mentioned Off2riorob/Youreallycan in an edit summary. See this. And I do believe that isn't the first time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I forgot about that, but I'm more agreeing with his criticism there. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have also stated that you agree with some of my criticism of your edits. For example, above you stated, "I'm not even entirely disagreeing with you, a lot of my edits were to biased and a few were inadequately sourced, though I don't think as many of them were unsourced as you said, and I've apologized for it." So now you are going back on that, and it was only Off2riorob/Youreallycan who was right? Also, why don't you call him by his new name -- Youreallycan? Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think he was more objective in terms of his coverage of the underage/pedo area than you were so I respect his criticism more. And also he called himself off2riorob when he made the criticism. I think he was entirely correct though. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you act as though I am some pedophile-pusher. I have protected the Pedophilia article from pedophiles for years, getting dozens upon dozens of them blocked and banned. Do you know what it's like to have to fight off pedophiles, and to actually debate with their skewed logic? I had to deal with that crap for a "good" three years here at Wikipedia, beginning in 2007, and more sparingly since then. I just don't like inaccuracy. And you have made inaccurate edits to the Pedophilia article, based on your personal POV. You've made it no secret that you believe that 18-year-olds, and not 16-year-olds, should be diagnosed as pedophiles, and you also clearly want a sexual attraction to/preference for pubescents to be diagnosed as a mental disorder and/or as pedophilia, despite the Hebephilia article being clear about the debate on that. The Pedophilia article is no place for you to push your POV, or what you believe to be the POV of most people. The same goes for the age of consent articles or any article related to it.
And Off2riorob is not called Off2riorob anymore on Wikipedia, except for when people mention an edit he made under that name or compare his edits under both accounts. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested you were a pedophile or a supporter of pedophilia. I meant your coverage in the age of consent articles was very opinionated and biased and not neutral. And its a fact that some people are trying to raise the age of consent to 18 and the age to diagnose pedophiles to 18, that has nothing to do with my personal opinion. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not acting like your the anti-Christ now. I already apologized for saying I hated you and I'm trying to be rational about this. What I wouldn't apologize for was mentioning you in the edit summary as a reason I took down the edit because you constantly criticize my edits. Now off2riorob in his case it was probably inapropriate because he only made one criticism, but I didn't mean it as an insult to him but I apologize now for using his account name. But you I do not because it seems like every time I edit in your topic area you criticize my edits. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally where did I express an opinion in the pedophilia article about what it should be. I only said that the doctors were planning to change the definition of it, I never said whether I agreed with it. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that I have been biased and non-neutral regarding these topics, except for when I have to fend off the occasional pedophile. That has been you, RJR3333. You have a clear POV that creeps its way into these articles. I defer to the reliable sources on these things, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, it's only a proposal that "18" should be the starting point for when a person can be diagnosed as a pedophile. But you act as though it's a done deal. You act as though it's a done deal that hebephilia will be combined with the pedophilia definition in the DSM-5, disregarding the fact that most researchers currently disagree with defining "Pedophilia Disorder" that way. You are always trying to stress certain things, such as how "16-year-olds aren't adults" or "most people consider pedophiles to be 18 and up." A clear POV. Yes, legally, 16-year-olds are not adults in some parts of the world. But you often stress that and other things in inappropriate ways. You are passionate about crimes against children and underage teenagers, I get that. But you have often gone about it in the wrong way on Wikipedia. That's basically all I've been stating with regard to your edits. And I point out that I have not done any heavy editing of the age of consent articles. Again, that has been you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that pedophiles having to be 18 instead of 16 was a "done deal". I never even said I agreed with it. I just said the change had been suggested and should be added to the lead. I didn't suggest the definition being changed from 16 to 18 years of age in the first sentence. I also never said I agreed with the redefinition of pedophilia as an attraction to anyone younger than fifteen. I just wanted to include mention of it in the lead. I never said the changes were "a done deal". --RJR3333 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking of what you have made clear is your POV (no matter how unintentional) and your POV-editing, such as stating "16-year-olds aren't adults" (although that doesn't apply everywhere), "most people consider pedophiles to be 18 and up" (both examples are not the exact wording, but it is what you stated), and your need to always stress that the age of consent isn't 16 years of age everywhere, even when the Age of consent article is linked for people to see that. If an article mentions that 16 is the age of consent in most U.S. states, which it is, you have a need to stress that 18 is "the federal age of consent" or something about close-in-age examples. And by "acting like it's a done deal," I mean you stating that the definition of pedophilia is going to be changed to include hebephilia and to raise the diagnosis age to 18 years as the starting point. We do not know if that is going to happen. You don't ever seem to grasp that it is a proposal. It being a proposal is why Legitimus removed it from the lead. Trying to convince me that you don't have a certain POV that we both know you have, when I've witnessed it countless times, and you've even admitted to it, is futile.
I'm not interested in debating with you any longer about any of this. State whatever else it is you feel you need to state right now and leave my talk page for now. And by "for now," I mean "drop this discussion." Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ok, I'm confused, when did I admit to having this pov?--RJR3333 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~I'm only going to indulge you once on this. Did you or did you not admit that your edits have been biased? What type of bias do you think it's been, if not for what I mentioned?~~
And another thing: Will you try to absorb the fact that all of these philias -- pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia -- are about the sexual preference for the age group? Not simply "the attraction." This is why a person who sexually molests a prepubescent child is not necessarily a pedophile. This is why a man who, for whatever reason, somehow finds a 14-year-old pubescent girl sexually attractive is not a hebephile...not unless he has a sexual preference for that age group. Same for ephebophilia. For example, a normal man may find a 17-year-old girl sexually attractive, seeing as she is biologically an adult and, age-wise, looks no physically different than an 18-year-old. That attraction does not make him an ephebophile. Sexual attraction to prepubescents is not normal, but, as scholars state, not all sexual abusers of prepubescents are pedophiles. Sometimes...other factors are involved when it comes to sexual abuse of prepubescents. I'm not sure how many times I've had to stress that to you, implying that you should stop using "attraction" so loosely with regard to these philias. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what off2riorob meant when he referred to my bias was that I put in my opinion about what the law stated without giving a good argument or source and that I kept putting in my opinion on that in other articles. That has nothing to do with what you're talking about. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Youreallycan meant, what you think he meant is a general description of what I stated of your bias above. Your POV on what definitions and laws should state on these matters. Exactly. You don't agree, or rather deny, that you have the POV I mentioned above. Fine. But I see it and so have others. We're done here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Talk:Vegetarianism~~
~~Hey Flyer, I've replied to your concern. -- Luke (Talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Time for an interaction ban~~
Perhaps you would consider asking, at AN or ANI, for a ban on you and RDwhatevernumber, under any circumstances, opening any new thread on any talkpage or noticeboard, about each other.
My wording is because I assume that you are both already editing some common articles. You would both still be free to continue editing articles or article talkpages as appropriate.
You may feel this is harshly worded regarding yourself; alternatively, you may feel it is a welcome relief.
I propose this because RDwhatevernumber has opened enough discussions, at great length, in enough places, that I am starting to get fed up with it.
Apologies if this is already proposed somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing harsh about your post, Demiurge1000. Thank you for the concern. And as I've stated elsewhere off Wikipedia, see here for what was stated at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to see what the deal is. I included diffs there. The To Catch a Predator talk page is full of diffs with User:RJR3333 acting inappropriately. And, and as you know, his current contributions show him going from talk page to talk page to discuss me with other editors, usually with a twist on what I or others stated. He has been advised by others to stop posting about me on talk pages, but he continues to do so, spamming any and every talk he can about our disputes. This is sometimes partly in an attempt to get me to comment because I banned him from my talk page.
A little back story: RJR3333 first showed up to Wikipedia, I think, last year. He was a fairly new editor and, as such, made mistakes that new editors are prone to making. Eventually, I started correcting his mistakes, only dealing with the articles we both edit, and advising him on the appropriate ways to edit. After some time of having to continuously aid his editing, he became hostile, asserting that I was out to get him. At one point, this led to him stating how much he hates me on the "To Catch a Predator" article talk page before leaving Wikipedia for a few months. Since he's been back, he has reentered the same topic space that led to our unpleasant interactions last time -- that topic space has mostly concerned the To Catch a Predator article and Pedophilia article. I've mainly stopped editing the age of consent articles, which he also edits, but he has also edited inappropriately in those places.
Basically, RJR3333's editing and conduct on Wikipedia is generally problematic, even though he is well-meaning. He is often combative, deciding to repeatedly revert instead of taking matters to the talk page, and often adds POV-laced edits or WP:SYNTH. I believe that he has WP:COMPETENCE issues because he never seems to grasp Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. Very recently, he continuously violated WP:TALK by posting to my talk page. And again by repeatedly removing a comment of his (the one where he stated that he hates me) from the To Catch a Predator talk page. This is a violation because I've already replied to it and his removing it takes it out of context. When I legitimately archived the talk page as a way of removing the comment, so that he doesn't have to worry about the text being out in the open anymore, and so the original text is left intact, he unarchived and removed the comment again, stating that it was inappropriate that I archived the old and settled discussions.
Like I stated, the editor is repeatedly focusing on me, commenting about me across various talk pages and often twisting my words (and I believe that part of that "twisting" is due to him not being able to properly digest what I've stated). I don't know whether to report him, pursue a topic ban for him while reporting him, or ask for some type of interaction ban. It will prove difficult not to interact with him since we edit a few of the same articles and I am often having to correct him/asking him to defer to any one particular guideline or policy (which he ignores until I inform him that I will be reporting his misconduct).
The problem with reporting him is that it will result in an extensive debate with him, with him twisting my or others' words. And I've been through that so much these last few days that it's horror to think about it happening again. At least simply reporting him for inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages would keep an extensive debate from happening. But not likely. He's even started another discussion concerning me at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not interested in interacting with him, but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. The editor needs a mentor more than anything, but there has been no one to properly mentor him. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~ANI~~
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Talkback~~

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page.
Message added 11:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Kudpung, I left it at what you stated because I have nothing more to state on that. And like I mentioned, all is clear from what others have stated about RJR3333's behavior regarding me and in general. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lucas Horton~~
~~~~Someone moved Lucas Roberts back to Lucas Horton. We need someone to revert it. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]~~
~~Nevermind! I moved it back! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 21:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Temporary block: Brother again~~
Hi Flyer22, I've temporarily blocked this account again, as your brother appears to be on it again while logged in as you - see the revision history for evidence. Unfortunately, if he continues to do this kind of thing, he's going to get your account permanently blocked as compromised, which would most definitely not be fair to you. I'll drop you an email too, and will unblock the account as soon as I'm satisfied that you have made him go away and you are back in control - you really need to make sure you don't leave your computer logged in while he's around, and make sure he doesn't get your password. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I have to get off to bed now - anyone else is free to unblock without waiting for me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you, Boing! said Zebedee. In this case, my absence was apparently taken advantage of. This is both tiring and embarrassing, and I don't know what to do about this issue anymore. I didn't have a block log, as in any markings on it, until this year. I discussed containing my brother with a member of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, and I explained that I can't keep him from editing Wikipedia, and even pointed to the fact that my brother is still sparingly editing under our IP address, sometimes going as far to use my particular phrasings (not sure what the phrasing matter is about...unless he wants to make it look as though I'm editing). He may even be still using proxies elsewhere on the site. But there seemed to be agreement that as long as he doesn't edit to support me in any way or create another registered account, everything should be fine as far as affecting my account goes. Even if I were to discard this account and edit under a new one, it wouldn't be a true WP:Clean start because I wouldn't be willing to leave the topic areas I edit in, which means that my brother would soon recognize me. It seems that I might need to have the aforementioned ArbCom member weigh in here, because this has gotten ridiculous and what I consider to be a more serious line has been crossed, since he dared edit under my user name. As far as I'm aware, that has never happened before. Although there were times in my earlier editing days in which I didn't look back at my contributions, that was before my brother had any interest in editing Wikipedia and I now look back at my recent contributions each and every time. My Wikipedia password has always been secure as well, as I have never revealed it to anyone. But seeing as I use this password for other things, including for my computer account, and my brother may know of it from any of the other instances, I will now need to change my computer password and my Wikipedia password. Unless knowing my Wikipedia password, if I was still logged in as Flyer22, he still would have needed to enter my computer-account password before being able to edit under my Wikipedia account.
I truly am sorry about this, and will look at and reply to your email now. Since I am the only one with access to my email password and it is different from the above mentioned one, you can trust that it is me you are talking to. At least I hope that you do. My editing should at least prove it afterward. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got your email - as you say you have now secured your computer login again, I have unblocked your account. I wouldn't worry about having a couple of blocks in the log - you have the evidence in this talk page history to show it was someone else's doing (and some of our best contributors have lots of blocks :-) And I don't think you need consider a clean start either - you haven't been doing anything wrong yourself. Should you have any related problems in the future, there are a few of us who know what's behind it and will be able to help (and you have my email address, so you can always contact me independently of this account). Cheers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. I understand what you mean about the block log matter. As you may remember, at the recent Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion concerning my interaction with User:RJR3333 (per above on my talk page), as well as at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333/Archive, I mentioned that a lot of good Wikipedia editors have extensive block logs. So I know that blocks don't necessarily signify whether an editor is a good contributor or not, and I've gotten better about not being hung up on it in my case. Mine isn't excessive yet anyway, and I can assure that it will never be.
Your help and support has been much appreciated, and I'm just glad that he only made that one edit to the talk page. If we go by his word, he's never vandalized Wikipedia. So I suppose I can at least take comfort in the fact that he's not a vandal, aside from my talk page of course. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 401: / Line 401: @@
 :::Got your email - as you say you have now secured your computer login again, I have unblocked your account. I wouldn't worry about having a couple of blocks in the log - you have the evidence in this talk page history to show it was someone else's doing (and some of our best contributors have lots of blocks :-) And I don't think you need consider a clean start either - you haven't been doing anything wrong yourself. Should you have any related problems in the future, there are a few of us who know what's behind it and will be able to help (and you have my email address, so you can always contact me independently of this account). Cheers. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
-::::Thank you again. I understand what you mean about the block log matter. As you may remember, at the recent [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] discussion about me and [[User:RJR3333]] (per above on my talk page), as well as at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333/Archive]], I mentioned that a lot of good Wikipedia editors have extensive block logs. So I know that blocks don't necessarily signify whether an editor is a good contributor or not, and I've gotten better about not being hung up on it in my case. Mine isn't excessive yet anyway, and I can assure that it will never be.
+::::Thank you again. I understand what you mean about the block log matter. As you may remember, at the recent [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] discussion concerning my interaction with [[User:RJR3333]] (per above on my talk page), as well as at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333/Archive]], I mentioned that a lot of good Wikipedia editors have extensive block logs. So I know that blocks don't necessarily signify whether an editor is a good contributor or not, and I've gotten better about not being hung up on it in my case. Mine isn't excessive yet anyway, and I can assure that it will never be.
 ::::Your help and support has been much appreciated, and I'm just glad that he only made that one edit to the talk page. If we go by his word, he's never vandalized Wikipedia. So I suppose I can at least take comfort in the fact that he's not a vandal, aside from my talk page of course. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 09:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)