User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

CAN'T RETIRE

Flyer22 Frozen tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that she couldn't do so…

CAN'T RETIRE

Flyer22 Frozen tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that she couldn't do so…

Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. If you want to know more about me, see my user page. My work on Wikipedia, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was blocked; see the block cases. It's during that first block case that I learned a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible. Especially see User:Flyer22#Main type of editing style for why what you consider neutral, or what you consider needed with regard to images, likely differs from my view; don't know about you, but I'm following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines in that regard. If you have any questions, compliments or criticism concerning my Wikipedia work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.

Archive

• Archive 1 (from May 8, 2007 - June 20, 2007)
• Archive 2 (from June 24, 2007 - November 3, 2007
• Archive 3 (from December 20, 2007 - November 4, 2008)
• Archive 4 (from November 10, 2008 - June 6, 2009)
• Archive 5 (from June 10, 2009 - October 9, 2009)
• Archive 6 (from October 9, 2009 - March/April 2010)
• Archive 7 (from April 2, 2010 - January 20, 2011)
• Archive 8 (from January 21, 2011 - July 27, 2011)
• Archive 9 (from July 27, 2011 - March 20, 2012 )
• Archive 10/block cases (from March 21, 2012 - July 24, 2012, for block case 1; December 12, 2012 - December 19, 2012, and to December 24 concerning extra comments, for block case 2; 2014 for block case 3)
• Archive 10 in general (April 25, 2012- August 31, 2012)
• Archive 11 (September 4, 2012 - April 3, 2013)
• Archive 12 (April 5, 2013 - September 10, 2013)
• Archive 13 (September 14, 2013 - December 29, 2013)
• Archive 14 (December 30, 2013 - May 5, 2014)
• Archive 15 (May 6, 2014 - May 27, 2014)
• Archive 16 (May 29, 2014 - September 21, 2014)
• Archive 17 (September 20, 2014 - December 30, 2014 )
• Archive 18 (December 31, 2014 - April 3, 2015 )
• Archive 19 (April 3, 2015 - July 14, 2015; this archive has a lot of Cali11298 material, especially WP:Sockpuppeting material)

Todd Manning

Hi Fly, I know we haven't spoken for a while, but I have been keeping an eye on your always entertaining talk page, so I know you've been busy this summer. Things have been busy with me as well. I wish that I had more time for article development; it seems that all I've been doing is maintaining existing articles and community stuff. Good work on your sock puppet diligence.

I would like to, though, move forward with Todd's article. To sum up, you wanted to create a storyline section--something I didn't think was entirely necessary, but out of respect for your knowledge of all things Todd, I acquiesced and agreed. I still feel the same, and was waiting to improve the lead until you completed a storyline section. As I've said, I think that the article, in its current state, is ready to submit to FAC. I'm willing to wait a little longer, but not much. Are you still committed to writing a storyline section? If so, do you think you can complete it in the next month, like mid-August? If not, I'll go ahead and improve the lead, then submit it, and take the lead for dealing with the reviews.

I'm a little sorry that I told you to watch The Flash based on Howarth's appearances. I doubt that his character will be back, alas. It was nice seeing him on the show for a while. With Tony Geary leaving GH this summer, Howarth has been rare there as well. Ah well. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Christine (Figureskatingfan), I've been meaning to get back to you on the Todd Manning article. Sorry for the wait. As you know, I am very lazy these days when it comes to Wikipedia articles I've set my mind on improving. Yes, I am still going to do the Storylines section and will be finished with it this month. As for the lead, I thought you were done with it. What more do you want to do with it? There are other parts of the article that need minor tweaking, but that can also be done during the WP:FA review.

As for The Flash, I'm glad that you and Bignole recommended it to me; as you can see, it's currently listed on my user page as one of my recent favorite television shows. I also talked with Bignole about the season finale. Flyer22 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I was done, but I was waiting for you to include your storyline additions. I'll definitely look over the entire article before submitting it to FAC, especially the lead. I'm looking forward to what you include this month, thanks. I just looked at that conversation with Bignole; how fun. I love Tom Cavanagh, too, so I was also happy to hear that he'll be back. Do you watch Arrow, too? In some ways, I like The Flash better. Although my husband says I like Arrow because it's full of hunky men engaging in what's basically sword fighting. Our joke is that if a TV show or movie, no matter how bad it is, has ships (space or sailing), he's all in, and if it has swordfighting, I'm in. But anyway, I digress. Glad to reconnect with you again, pal. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Christine. And, no, I don't watch Arrow; I might someday. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the pictures

For me it is a pleasure. Thank you for the compliments --Bart ryker (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi. I'm looking for help in writing Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon‎. I was born many years after the event, but from what i can gather, the Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance is second only to the Beaumont children disappearance for South Australians and ranks alongside the Beaumonts and the Disappearance of Eloise Worledge for Australian child crime history. Paul Austin (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul Austin, I'm not interested in working on that material. I see that you contacted others about it. Maybe one of them will/can help you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I'm sorry. I was feeling kind of desperate. Paul Austin (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar lessons (or, follow your own advice and quit acting like you know commas...)

Your own example of "His father, Jeremy Bieber, is characterized in..." is EXACTLY the same as, "The 2007 film, Cougar Club, was dedicated to..." so stop taking out correct commas. Wikipedia is a collaborative project where we should all collaborate to keep things correct. Thus, we don't want errors like the ones you've been making. I'm glad we were able to have this talk, I've also gone and cleaned up your "mess." Have a good day.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, the last time you visited my talk page, I was clear to you that you are a highly problematic editor that I do not want to work with. Considering that you have been repeatedly told by others that "Wikipedia is a collaborative project," it is ironic that you are stating that to me. And given that you continued on that problematic path, as is clear from postings to your talk page since then (you know, the ones you delete), it's clear that nothing has changed. "His father, Jeremy Bieber, is characterized" is not the same thing as "The 2007 film, Cougar Club, was dedicated to" wording. As you know by now, I've taken this matter to the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember ever being to your talk page before, (<--look! a comma!) you clearly weren't worth remembering. Peace out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebr1979 (talk • contribs)

Cebr1979, as various Wikipedia editors know, I have a very good memory. So don't take it to mean that you are special because I remember you, especially since, as is well known, problematic editors are quite easy to remember. The day you are indefinitely blocked will be a good day for Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You're just a wiki God, Flyer. Thank the Heavens we have you as the "experienced editor" you seem to love reminding everyone you are. Gag. Don't ping me anymore, I'm busy trying to forget you again.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, considering that you are roaming outside of your usual soap opera areas and popping up in areas where I edit and I see you behaving in a WP:BATTLEGROUND way each and every time, with multiple editors trying to talk sense into you, I can't promise that I won't WP:Ping you again. Not any more than you can promise to stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, WP:Personal attacks and WP:Edit warring at every turn. Flyer22 (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. 'Cause I totally and absolutely went to the Cougar (slang) page just to see you, Flyer. Like, I totally knew that's a page you edit. <--that's all sarcasm, by the way - you may not know what that is but, wikipedia has a page for it--> I'm curious, Flyer, should I check with you in advance when deciding to edit a non-soap opera page or are we in agreement that this is https://en.wikipedia.org/ and not flyer22.com?Cebr1979 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

SOS !

Hello Flyer22! Have you had the time in your busy life to check this [1] ?

It is impossible to add anything decent to article: all work is being immediately rejected/reworded/reverted by my *opponent*! Is there a way to put a stop to it?

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue Indigo (talk · contribs), of course there is something we can do. That is why I made this comment offering my assistance. Your response surprised me a bit, considering that Aubmn is not an editor one can work with (not for long and without serious and/or frustrating complications anyway), as is demonstrated all over that talk page. I will see about getting him banned from that article (an article ban) since he is completely WP:OWNing it. Given what has occurred at that talk page, that he has been blocked for his WP:Disruption at that article, and taken to WP:ANI for it, it should not be difficult to get him banned from editing that article. In my opinion, he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, thank you for returning to me. I did not jump on your offer to step in immediately because, after my last long post at MA's talk page [2] I thought that our dear friend might decide to behave a little bit more courteously by stopping his (1) insulting manners on the talk page; (2) disruptive behavior editing the article; and it is what happened from 10 June to 17 July; at which date the situation began to escalate [3]. Ever since, attempting to edit has turned into a duel, which I am sure you could foresee (!) Anyway, that's where we are now & I have come to the conclusion that trying to bring any amelioration to the article is a waste of time, with the added dumb risk of being blocked for edit warring, which I am sure is his goal. His edit history seems to follow the same pattern he has been using at MA's article: arming himself with the misinterpreted rules & regulations of Wikipedia to always find something wrong with other contributors, forcing his opinion down our throat, and, on several occasions, giving a source that says exactly the opposite of what he is putting in the article. Finally, the habit he has of jumping on last editor's last edit robs that editor of the freedom to check his latest entry & correct it, if necessary. It also comes across as total surveillance.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

With editors like that, my WP:Assume good faith usually leaves quickly. I have no more faith in them after a certain early point, WP:Newbie or not. Years ago, my faith in other editors would last longer. Not these days. Too much experience with problematic editors; too much bitterness there for me. I know very quickly if an editor is the type of editor who is at all good for Wikipedia. Some such editors are good for Wikipedia in certain ways, but not in other ways; that goes for a lot of us. For example, an editor might state or feel that "Flyer22 is not patient enough to deal with this particular matter." It's true that I have had enough of certain types of editors and might be quick to want that editor gone because I can see the net negative there, even if I don't yet have enough evidence to ensure that the editor is indefinitely blocked or banned. Sometimes that makes me look like a bitch, but I call them like I see them. I don't like affording a second chance to people it will be wasted on. And with Aubmn, I'm not seeing any net positive there. He's had more than one chance to reform.

I see that Aubmn's first block was a result of Thomas.W's report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive243#User:Aubmn reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 36 hours). His second block was a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#User:Aubmn and sockpuppetry. Again, I will get around to proposing a WP:Article ban for Aubmn, if someone else doesn't beat me to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What I was referring to RE his edit history was an article in which Aubmn practiced his talent, albeit on a smaller scale, at what was be done later to MA's article. His first edit [4], some descriptive on 20 Sept. 2014, which led to back & forth reverts thru Oct 2014->January2015, vocabulary & tactic used later at MA [5]. Then there was the Napoléon period which he ran thru with his Panzerdivision, blowing up whole sections, "trimming" them to the bone. Someone quickly put a stop to it [6]. It is about that date that he came full time on MA's article. Of course, the above has nothing to do with the Marie Antoinette case, but it does show a pattern of extremely disruptive behavior.

Between us, I can hardly wait for him to move here [7].

My apologies for the sarcasme on your talk page. --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I waited that long to call your attention back to this *SOS* and this [8] is proof that trying to achieve anything on article IS mission impossible - which you knew. There is no use wasting any more time on this poor article as long as other editor is standing guard over it with his refusal to accept anyone's contribution. By the time you read this, he probably will have again reverted me, then will not return to article & leave it as is until someone else tries to edit it. That is his game. Also, I will not accept his 'invitation' of discussing anything with him on article talk page: the page is filled with months long discussions with other contributors & myself that lead to nowhere.

Have a good day, --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This is where article was at when I began note to you [9]. It has since been reverted. --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Anilingus discussion

I have started a new discussion, which seems related to a 2013 discussion you were part of. Feel free to weigh in, or not. Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 00:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Peter Chastain, please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Viriditas, I appreciate the feedback. On the other hand, I was trying to fix a problem in the article. Can we please continue this discussion on the article's talk page? Thanks. Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 00:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. I think you misunderstood what "talk page stalker" (tps) means. Since you started this thread, you're not a talk page stalker. Since I'm stalking this page, and I responded to a question asked of Flyer22, I'm the tps, which is why I used the template. In any case, I have no interest in taking part in the talk page discussion, which is another reason I identified as a tps. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Chastain, I'm not interested in that matter or discussing it. I've mentioned before that the Anilingus article is one of the articles I'm least interested in; that's still the case. But I'll go ahead and discuss your intentions a little... As for you creating a section at that article called "Slang synonyms," make you sure that it is appropriately sourced...per WP:Reliable sources. IMDb, which you've mentioned at that talk page, is generally regarded as a poor source on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Also consider combining your slang section with the barely-there Etymology section, so that the section is titled Etymology and terminology; I propose that because the Etymology section is a single sentence, and, per MOS:Paragraphs, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text [...] Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." I also propose it because, in my opinion, "Terminology" is more encyclopedic than "Slang synonyms."

On a side note: I remember we talked before; see Talk:List of paraphilias/Archive 3#Update for DSM-5. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language/Archive 1#Transsexual, transgender. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, yes, I did misinterpret the tps template. I was trying to figure out the mechanism whereby something that you wrote here resulted in my receiving a notification. I guess the software must do that automatically, when it sees a User wikilink. Thanks for the clarification.

Flyer22, yes, our paths have crossed a few times, and I have seen you on WP even more often. There being so many editors, that always surprises me. Thanks for your suggestions, all of them both useful for the article in question and helpful in my quest to become a more proficient editor. Peter Chastain ^{[habla, por favor]} 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Periods

Yes periods may begin as early as 8 among normal girls. Your wording is still fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, regarding this, this and this edit at the Menstrual cycle article, the reason that I changed the text, other than to correct the typo, is because I thought that the "They may occationally start as early as eight and still be normal." sentence was stating that the girls may still be normal. That's why I stated, "And whether or not the girl is normal is not exactly the issue; it's the process." My point was that a girl might have an irregular/non-normal period, but that doesn't mean that the girl is not a normal girl. I was stating that the focus should be on the period. I then realized that the focus was already on the period. The "they" part is about the periods. Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Yes the girl may be normal and still have periods that may or may not be normal as early as 8 years of age. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WLIT-FM Edits

Hello! I recently saw you undid my edits to WLIT-FM. I understand you feel that my edits to the format and the music it plays were unconstructive and incorrect. However, in footnote 6 of the page, the station pushing a Hot AC format is mentioned with the station's updated playlist. It is also mentioned in the Adult Contemporary page on Wikipedia that: "Hot adult contemporary radio stations play a variety of classic hits and contemporary mainstream music aimed at an adult audience. Some Hot AC stations concentrate slightly more on mainstream pop music and alternative rock to target the Generation Z audience, though they include the more youth-oriented teen pop, urban and rhythmic dance tracks."

WLIT-FM's format is heavy on current/recurrent music, and therefore its playlist is closest to the Hot Adult Contemporary format. The My FM branding is also used on other iHeartMedia owned HOT ACs such as WLGX in Louisville, KY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.241.115 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to restore your material then. I wondered if I should have simply reverted your edit as a WP:Good faith edit. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

___

References

Your contributed article, MOS:Neo

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, MOS:Neo. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – MOS:NEO. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at MOS:NEO – you might like to discuss new information at [[Talk:MOS:NEO|the article's talk page]].

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the template, Twinkle templated automatically. CSD'd it because the same already exists with the MOS:NEO shortcode, and the convention is all caps I believe. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Naypta, that redirect doesn't need deletion. It matters not that a completely capitalized version of it exists, just like it matters not that a completely capitalized version of WP:Neo exists. Some of us get tired of capitalizing a policy or guideline throughout and/or feel that the lowercase version makes more sense. WP:Redirects are cheap. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of how cheap redirects were! Will remove the CSD. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Naypta, thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Welp, @RHaworth: deleted it just as I hit save to remove the CSD. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And restored it: "(Deletion log); 08:19 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) restored page MOS:Neo ‎(2 revisions restored: redirects are cheap)." Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Todd Manning, Part 2

Trevor St. John never portrayed the character. I'll get that info removed.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like a case of owning and not fully realising what you're doing. I'm going to go re-link those characters you unlinked (as per standard wikipedia linking) and also change the cast members page name back to the right one. As for St. John, that'll be a discussion. I already know what the consensus will be. Everyone agreed about Drake Hogestyn being taken out of Roman Brady's infobox. Talk soon.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Another example would be like when Kelli Giddish was hired to play Dixie Cooney on AMC but, then turned out to be a new character named Di Henry. Or when If you like, you can start consensus talk. I'm okay with that. I'll wait a bit and see what you decide.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, I knew it was a matter of time before you started editing one of the few soap opera articles that I edit. Per our latest previous interaction noted in the #Grammar lessons (or, follow your own advice and quit acting like you know commas...) section above, I am not interested in discussing this matter with you at all. You are wrong...again. This case is not like the Kelli Giddish/Dixie Cooney matter at all, since Kelli Giddish was never officially Dixie Cooney. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I altered the heading of this section with ", Part 2," so that editors are not taken to an identical section heading above when editing this section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. It's your talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Previous account

I managed to dig up my previous account on Wikipedia. Here you go Userpage and contributions --Iady391 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Iady391, do you think I'm a fool? Does what I outline on my user page about knowing when an editor is a non-new returning editor sound like I can be fooled on matters such as these? There is no way on this Earth that the Typehumor (talk · contribs) account gave you enough experience to edit Wikipedia in the experienced way that you edit it. I stand by what I stated in our previous discussion. You remind me of one editor in particular, and you will have no luck throwing me off that scent. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're a fool, but I do think that this conversation is getting unproductive. I'll just leave it now. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

apology

I am here by to make my guilt..... my edits won't dissapoint u in near future.... sorry for those Edits..... Jannat khalsa (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

derek shepherd

i have no clue if i'm doing this properly (sorry) but derek is actually referred to as mcass quite a bit, especially in the fandom. i wasn't trying to be offensive in any way, i just thought it could be added. Katerpleena (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for what I wrote on the RfA talk page. I mentioned the whole outing thing because I wanted to stop the incorrect accusations of lying that were flying about, but I felt uncomfortable about the possibility that I could have been revealing personal information that Liz would not have wanted revealed. As a result I overreacted when you asked how they found out her identity. Sorry about that. Brustopher (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Brustopher. I accept your apology. I understand how trying to accurately convey one's meaning and intent via text can come across muddled and/or completely inaccurate. That is what happened between you and me. Seeing your reply and Liz's reply, I also understand that my questions on the matter were not the best for her well-being, especially if someone had revealed something that could have caused her harm. So it would have been better had I not asked. Sorry about that, Liz. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an RfA, Flyer22, it's a stressful situation all around. Pass or no, I'm looking forward to Tuesday morning. I hope you're having a good weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. You're handling that matter very well, outwardly at least. As for me, I just got back from my youngest brother's wedding (the one who used to edit Wikipedia, and probably still does as IPs or under a different account). It's 11:21 PM where I'm at right now. But, hey, it was a nice cap to my weekend. Hard to believe he's married at 21, though. Married before me, and to a lovely young woman, and the first of my four siblings to get married. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are u mate ? Do you know anything about operation blue star

Tell plz Pritmaan128 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello: Math

Are you a mathematician? (or a physicist etc.). I have several questions about some articles on mathematics in English wiki, but I don't know whom can I ask my questions. --Tamtam90 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Tamtam90 (talk · contribs), I reverted you here because your edit was inappropriate. As for math, as noted on my user page, I generally stay away from editing Wikipedia math topics.

On a side note: I added ": Math" on to your heading so that it is clearer as to what this section is about, and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As for where you can go to ask about math on Wikipedia, you can query the matter at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Tamtam90 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SOS 2

Flyer22 - you may not have read the post + PS I left earlier today, as you are a very busy person. [10]; [11]. However, since you had written this: Again, I will get around to proposing a WP:Article ban for Aubmn, if someone else doesn't beat me to it first. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC), and since no one else has beaten you to it, I am asking you to (please) step in because this situation is insufferable and, as is, Wikipedia might as well blank out or lock the Marie Antoinette article - which is turning out to be the worst piece of wiki Mumble Jumble. This afternoon (afternoon in my little village in Europe ([12]), Aubmn has added another piece of his literary & historical talent here [13]. Yesterday, I had managed to bring the article down to around 112000 & was planning to get it much lower after having gone thru last sections & removed more unnecessary verbiage; but A has brought it up to over 115000 with a bunch of unintelligible rehashed tear jerking material. In addition, when he reverted me earlier today, he put back some huge inexactitude(s) of his - that I had corrected -, which shows his total ignorance of the workings of the French government in the Ancien Régime: using a title that never existed and, to boot, for someone who would have never been able to have such a title because of his low birth and the fact that he was a foreigner - unacceptable in an encyclopedia. All that is left to say is that I tried... and ended up like everyone else before me. Dommage!

If you feel your talk page is not the place to bring this up, please let me know, or move discussion somewhere else. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw it. It's just that I'm currently not in a proactive mood to deal with this case. Yes, I know this is a change from how I previously was regarding this editor. But, on Wikipedia, when I see others not caring, I can sometimes cease to care. He's been disruptive for months, and the problem has yet to be dealt with as successfully as it could have been. You can go ahead and write up a report at WP:ANI about this disruptive editing and WP:Ping the relevant parties (including those who complained about Aubmn) there. I would support your commentary on this there. If you do this, make sure you point to the past and current problems regarding Aubmn's editing (such as WP:Copyright violations, falsifying text, WP:Edit warring, WP:Socking, the WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior, and the fact that he's been blocked before for editing disruptively at that article). Be clear about how it has driven away editors. I would recommend that you be concise with your report, since people's attention spans are often poor and they have a WP:Too long; didn't read mindset (including those helping out at WP:ANI), but a thorough report is fine in this case. If your report is significantly long, then consider using Template:Collapse. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, thank you for returning to me, also hoping that you are not putting me in the category of those who do not care :( as caring is what this has been all along with me. It is just that I wanted to amass enough (additional) evidence, which I believe I have succeeded in doing.

Thank you for pointing out to me the marche à suivre and I will contact others when they are back from their summer holiday.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Let me know if you change your mind:)

No, I know that you care. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Merci! :)

Have a good day! --Blue Indigo (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 - waiting for others to come back from holiday was not that good an idea after all[14] as, in the meantime, I put myself at risk of being blocked or kicked out of Wikipedia, which would be quite ironic!

Anyway, all was done on my part for the good of the cause, and if I get blocked because of trying to save an article from ruin, well! that's that! Will get back to articles whose main contributor is waiting for my review & editing - also to my own work with a deadline at the doorstep.

Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reported at WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I want to thank you for this, you handled it much better than I would know how to.

Best to you, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, thank you again. --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

SpaghettiCali

Good call. Thanks for helping me put the pieces together. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for trusting me on that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yunshui, he might also have WP:Sleepers; just noting that in case you didn't do a sleeper check. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing else on that IP or the IPs of the other Cali socks I matched it to. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

KTC, regarding this, mind letting me know what he stated? Feel free to email me the details if you'd rather not repost the material here on Wikipedia. And don't worry; I'm quite used to his abusive language; see the "05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)" post in that link. I like to be in know when it comes to these things so that I might cite them and/or use them against him in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, policy does not allow me to release the information either publicly or in private. For that matter, I no longer actually have access to the edit since it has been oversighted. All I can tell you is that it was a highly offensive personal attack against another editor. -- KTC (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

KTC, thank you for taking the time to reply. I have been sent oversighted material before. I don't see where the oversight policy is clear that you are not allowed to send me details on this matter. If the attack were about a different editor, I would understand you not releasing the information. But seeing as the material was about me (I'm sure it was), I don't see the problem with you informing me of what was stated. I suppose I should imagine it was worse than his "05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)" commentary. Anyway, again thanks for replying. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the statement were made against a different editor. -- KTC (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Surprising. I appreciate you letting me know. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: For documentation, Password12 (talk · contribs) is a WP:Sleeper account related to this case; the account tried to save one of the Cali articles I tagged as WP:G5. See the talk page commentary for evidence; only WP:Administrators/higher-ups have access to that now that the article is deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On the look-out for sock puppetry

Hi, you do not know me but I am Darkknight2149. On this site, I mainly edit articles pertaining to fiction (esp. the subject of comic books). I recently noticed a sock puppet of Cali11298 edit the article, Prometheus (comics), which you reverted. After doing my homework on this user, I reverted two of his edits here and here. If you know of any comic book related articles that this user has been known to edit (I already know about Merlyn (DC Comics)), I can keep an eye out for possible sock puppets. If I see any suspicious activity, I'll let you know, as you are much more experienced with this user than I am. Darkknight2149 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Darkknight2149. Thanks for the offer to help. This editor has a portion of my life that I can never get back; I've dealt with him so often now that it has seemingly overshadowed all the other sock cases I have worked on. I'm now "the catch Cali11298 editor" to some people. I seriously would have moved on from this editor by now if it weren't for the fact that he keeps editing in places that I edit, is aspiring to be a WP:Administrator, and is learning more and more about how to appropriately use WP:Policies and guidelines by watching me and others; this has made it so that he is starting to blend in with the good editors better than he previously did. I mean, his run as Spaghetti07205 (talk · contribs) shows some improvement as an editor. But clearly not enough to have kept off JzG (Guy)'s radar as a problematic editor. The last thing Wikipedia needs is Cali11298 blending in well enough to be seen as a decent Wikipedian; and I state that because I don't think he can ever be improved enough to actually be a decent Wikipedian. He will always be a wolf in sheep's clothing to me. If he were to prove me wrong on that, then at least Wikipedia would no longer be at risk with him editing it. As for reverting his edits per WP:Block evasion, yes, you made a good call here. I likewise didn't revert all of his edits; this is because some of them were improvements that should stay (like sourcing uncited material) and because others were caught up in intervening edits (edits by others). I reverted enough of them, though (improvements included), and I had his articles deleted per WP:G5, so that he continues to get the point that he is not supposed to be editing Wikipedia and, because of that, his edits have a higher chance of being obliterated. I also meant to take care of this bit you took care of. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: What makes you think he edited the Merlyn (DC Comics) article? Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to contribute to the perception that you're the "catch Cali11298 editor." I'm just concerned that if he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia and has made disruptive edits in the past, he may make them again in the future. My goal is always the betterment of whatever article I edit, so you can understand why this is a concern.

As for the Merlyn article, I double checked the revision history and a Cali sock puppet didn't edit it after all. I thought I remembered seeing one of the sock puppets edit it when I was researching him but I guess I must have it confused with another article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You reverting an edit of mine (4 August, Civility)

Hello. I challenge a recent edit of yours, in: Wikipedia talk:Civility#Incorrect revert. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries correctly

You removed Spaghetti's edits from Chris Christie but removed other people's, too. Do not use inaccurate edit summaries. This can confuse you for a vandal, who sometimes uses inaccurate edit summaries intentionally to hide vandalism. Thank you. No names left!! abcd (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No names left!! abcd (talk · contribs), you are referring to this revert. I feel that it was a correct edit summary, though I agree that it failed to note what else I reverted. I noted in the #On the look-out for sock puppetry section above that I was careful about reverting that WP:Sock's edits. With regard to your edit, I don't see that it was needed. So that it got caught up in the WP:Sock's edit didn't seem problematic to me. And as you can see from this edit, another editor doesn't see your addition as necessary or an improvement. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No names left!! abcd is a confirmed sock. Was obvious to me at first glance, but I don't always have the leeway to accuse a person on the spot. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Good job, but not good faith edit in first place. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

William Lynch speech

That was copyvio, it's found on a number of websites but this is its origin. Doug Weller (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that, Doug Weller. Flyer22 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious edit by anon on humoral immunity

I'm investigating the following suspicious edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humoral_immunity&diff=prev&oldid=624707821

in which

Humoral immunity, also called the antibody-mediated immune system ...

became

Humoral immunity, also called the antibody-mediated beta cullularis immune system ...

On a quick search, I can only find echo-chamber articles containing "beta cullularis" or "beta cellularis". It appears to be completely made up.

A while back you reverted the following edit as "good faith".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transamination&diff=prev&oldid=608577987

which you attribute to 59.96.232.143 but which my subject (69.50.69.34) also appears to have made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transamination&diff=prev&oldid=550195949

First things: both versions of this statement are probably wrong as (apparently) authoritative sources tend to include proline on this list.

Second thing: I lack enough knowledge of this subject to pursue this investigation further, as to whether this user's edits in general are fully constructive.

Here's another one that is perhaps a step in the wrong direction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circulatory_system_of_the_horse&diff=prev&oldid=443612550

I've now taken this as far as my time permits, so I would be pleased if you could pick up the thread. — MaxEnt 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

MaxEnt, I can see why you find the "beta cullularis" addition suspicious. So do I. I could ask about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and/or WP:Med if you like. Biological terms are things I'm very familiar with, but not that "term."

I think it should be pursued, if you are willing to do so. It's scary how eclectic neologisms inserted into Wikipedia instantly permeate a Google results page, seemingly from many different places, but not at all. Beyond my scope. My formal biology ended with a high school AP. — MaxEnt 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As I wandered off from that last edit, something in brain began to wonder if Flyer22 pertained to the Mike Knuble Selke award. After skimming your user page, my stray hypothesis seems less likely. I had Non-24-hour sleep–wake disorder for thirty years (25.5 hour circadian day) until a year ago I discovered that sustained-release melatonin packs an extra punch over any formulation I'd previously tried. I was teetering on the cusp of victory, then I added 20 minutes of the Philips goLITE BLU pointed at our translucent shower curtain during my morning shower, and that seems to have finally nailed it. Oh yes, I also dabble at creative writing (definitely not a novel) and I have a page in my personal wiki titled "writing sex" where I collect the attitudes of various writers to the problem of writing a sex scene that advances the narrative. There's an entire group of writers who advise saying as little as possible so as to leave the reader alone with their prurient thoughts—how could the author possibly improve on that? This is not a model of story telling that I endorse. David Schnarch in Passionate Marriage (simultaneously a mind-bogglingly weird / illuminating book) says that people fear sexual intimacy because it's fundamentally too revealing. But then you see so many novelists (novelists who strive to reveal) discretely turn out the lights before the reader becomes scared stiff about their own hang ups. It's totally weird if you ask me. With all your other skills, you really find grammar difficult? The only place grammar is difficult is when we try to gussy up constructs of Saxon or Celtic origin as make-believe Latin, and the debate degenerates into foolish consistency. Elsewhere on your user page you seem well fortified against foolish consistency, so I don't quite get this self evaluation. Anyway, if you'd like to continue with any of these threads IRL, drop me a note. We have more than a few things in common. — MaxEnt 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the "facial artery" edit at the Circulatory system of the horse article, that is fine. Like our Facial artery article states, it is called "external maxillary artery" in older texts. See this and this Google Books search. Besides, if it had been wrong, Montanabw would have reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

On a quick inspection, it resembled an unsophisticated editor having a bias toward unsophisticated-but-possibly-incorrect language. As a attempt at a quick triangulation on this editor's modus operandi it left me wanting. Thanks for the double check. — MaxEnt 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

MaxEnt, sorry for the late reply; I finally queried the WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology about this matter.

As for grammar, I don't necesarily find it difficult; on my user page, I simply mean that it's one of my weaker points. I'm not especially good at it, or even plain good at it. I'm mediocre at it; sometimes poor at it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know

who you mean at[15] - if you want to email me about it, feel free. Doug Weller (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, what are you confused about? You interacted with that editor, and also commented in the thread I linked to in that post. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, very tired for some reason. Either my sleep apnoea or a very painful arm at night. I've figured it out. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingshowman

I recommend disengaging. Clearly this user has a grudge against you, and nothing you say will change that. Other users may be able to walk him off the ledge (doubtful), but I fear that you're just fuel for his fire at the moment. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiDan61, thanks. I have disengaged more than once when it comes to him, but he does not make it easy to do so. And I did tell him that if no one indefinitely blocks him, I will see to it that he is indefinitely blocked. I stand by that now as well. Any editor trying to reason with him is wasting their time. That is also clear from User talk:24.46.196.22. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sirico

Dear Flyer22, I wrote a message to you here (on Robert Sirico and his "work" but it appears to have... dissapeared... Am I making an eror saving? Did you get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.244.15 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your vandalism; see WP:Vandalism. I don't know what you mean by "I wrote a message to you here" unless you mean that vandalism of yours. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, in a previous message that I wrote 10 minutes ago, here in this talk page, (a message that was probably not saved correctly by me since it dissapeared) I was just saying that you were indeed right to make that modification. My comment was not "constructive". But it was true. Also you can call that "vandalism", but it was just a legitimate reaction at a person who dares calling names to entire nations in the most abject way. I think that such a brutally injust and injurious nazi type declaration such as Robert Sirico's Acton Institute paper calling one entire nation as "a nation of sex trafficking" should not remain without proper reaction. It seems, that you are a little overreacting to my "vandalism".. don't be so harsh. Anyway you might want to help Acton Institute as well since all their webpages seem to be down as we speak. I can only express my delight that the poison is not spreading for the time being. I strongly believe that all these insults to entire nations should not remain without reaction, even if you call it "vandalism". Anyway, congrats on your work on Wiki, you are really doing a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.244.15 (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Coal

Hi Flyer22, I reverted your repeat of Kingshowman's mass delete, because he deleted contributions from several editors, including myself in addition to his own contributions. I am currently trying to get a discussion going on what exactly should be in the lede and what sources we can rely on for estimates of additional deaths due to coal-related pollution. I'm not happy with the current sourcing, but I doubt that the figure given is the wrong order of magnitude. Based on what I can find, several hundred thousand additional depths per year seems very likely, but I am hoping to find a usable source that actually states this. Mikenorton (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mikenorton, the vast majority of this content you restored should comply with WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, re: coal and your needlessly antagonistic position towards me and my edits, thought reading this might be helpful for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admitting_you%27re_wrong

Sometimes, admitting when you've been wrong is the first step to moving forward. Best wishes!Kingshowman (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Kingshowman (talk · contribs), various editors at this site know that I admit when I am wrong. But to state that I was wrong about your edits is to go back on my statement that your edits were poor. They were/are poor, as others have also told you. I was clear here and here. I told you, "You don't listen to anyone about how poor your editing is (whether we point out your unsourced additions, poorly sourced additions, WP:Lead violations, WP:Synthesis, WP:Editorializing, WP:Activism or whatever else); it does not align with Wikipedia's ways. And you WP:Edit war to maintain that poor editing." All of that is true. On the point that you don't listen, take this wannabe gloating post, for example. Some of your edits got restored for reasons I already made clear to you: How WP:Patrollers work, and that you had deleted others edits with yours. And yet your latest gloating post is making it sound like your edits were just fine and dandy. They were not. And still are not. You also proceeded to blame me for your WP:Disruptive editing.

I am not interested in discussing anything with you, considering the way you behave and your vile WP:Personal attacks against me, which started with User talk:24.46.196.22. You will eventually be indefinitely blocked. Those trying to mentor you are wasting their time. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You began with vile personal attacks on me and on my editing, calling all of my edits "poor, pure and simple" without any reason whatsoever. I don't even understand what the hell your problem is, from the instant I got here and changed anything on your beloved "childhood" page. And you keep threatening to "infinitely ban" me for no reason. You're obviously a paragon of civility. Kingshowman (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Kingshowman (talk · contribs), my so-called personal attacks against you consist of me calling your edits poor (while pointing out why, despite you stating that I have no reasons for why) and noting that you are a disruptive editor; these so-called personal attacks pale in comparison to what you have stated about me. I suggest you cease and desist from commenting on my talk page. I've left your talk page alone so that you can gloat in ridiculous fashions. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised: Aubmn again... multiplying

Flyer22, English not improved. Same tactics:

[16]

[17]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Indigo (talk · contribs), it seems that you are stating that Whiteflagfl (talk · contribs) is Aubmn (talk · contribs). It is not surprising that he would move to a different account after the latest WP:ANI thread about him. Take the matter to WP:Sockpuppet investigations, since this a WP:Scrutiny matter. If you feel that you do not yet have enough evidence for a WP:Sockpuppet investigation against him, or would rather have more evidence than you have, then do what I do: Wait. Gather more evidence. Even if it takes months. Patience is often a virtue. Not much evidence is needed in this case, though. No long wait needed.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Aubmn again" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Also, I've been meaning to tell you that there is no need WP:Ping me at my own talk page. Same goes for WP:Pinging others at their own talk pages. Since it's my talk page, I get an alert without you WP:Pinging me. When you WP:Ping me at my own talk page, I needlessly get two alerts. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, side note first: I think that I finally got a couple of things straight. (1) Whenever your name is mentioned somewhere, you automatically get an alert. (2) WP:ANI page, only when you "open a case" against someone, must you go to that person's talk page & tell him/her. I figured it out after I had done my boo-boo.

You are correct, it seems that I am stating the obvious: he opened a new account on 12 August & has been following me, reverting me & getting reverted by others, which seems to ruffle his feathers a bit.[18] He began with accusing me of seeking "self-promotion" by editing the article on Chartres, which he has decided must be the region where I live - his statement is confused/confusing: does he mean that I am promoting myself or doing ad-promotion for Chartres? If he knew what my work outside Wikipedia is - and he could easily guess if he went thru the history of my edits - he might feel like a fool for speaking about me the way he does.

Did I mention somewhere that I participate at Wikipedia for relaxation? Did I write that? Well, one gets to do interesting things with interesting people also. However, getting things done can be quite a challenging affair!

Thank you for the advice. --Blue Indigo (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22,

[19], [20], [21]

You may have to go back or forth as guy(s) [22] [23] working very fast & links may not be up to date by time you get there.

Have a nice day, --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

1+2=3+1=4 [24] --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, you may be interested to know that I have raised the issue of edit warring at the Chartres article at WP:ANI. There is also a sockpuppet investigation related to the edit war that has been opened, linked from talk:Chartres. Feel free to comment. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots. I reported him at WP:ANI again. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi, here is a glass of bubble tea for you. You did very well in the face of the harassment by a blocked user. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, thanks. Though I could have done things differently that wouldn't have made that situation worse. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's alright. What has been done has been done. The best thing to do is to apply what we've learnt from it when a future vandal pops up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

a question about the JR Chandler and Babe Carey article

I saw you reverted some vandalism and I looked at your user page. On your user page you said you created the JR Chandler and Babe Carey article. Curious who these people are I looked at the article. And read the lead paragraph. I was struck by the word "dock". What is a ship's "dock"? Ships don't have docks. Ships do have decks. Is this a typo? Also, I looked at the revision history for this article. Something has happened where all the revisions from September 2014 back to 2008 are crossed out and can't be seen. I have never seen this before. How did it get this way? -GroveGuy (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

GroveGuy, the JR Chandler and Babe Carey article is not my best work; it was created when I was a WP:Newbie. Feel free to work on it, if you don't already. As for why so much of the edit history was wiped out, see WP:Revision deletion and WP:Oversight (privacy issue). Flyer22 (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask what article you noticed me at? Flyer22 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

GroveGuy, I've been meaning to state that a little after you asked me the above question, I had the WP:Administrator who WP:Revision deleted the JR Chandler and Babe Carey edit history undo that WP:Revision deletion, since the privacy matter was taken care of. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "POV" issue on Effects of Pornography article

Hello Flyer22,

I apologize for the POV tag mistake which you had to revert twice, unfortunately. And as you have mentioned I am not a newbie and I am well aware of the Drive by tagging policy. But the second time you saw me putting the POV tag above that specific article was not intentional by any means. It was actually due to an application error on my device (android tablet). I must also inform you that I personally always try to talk about an issue before tagging it with a template. I hope you understood what I am trying to say here. And thank you for the reminder. Happy editting!

Sincerely, Roshu Bangwal Roshu Bangal (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rivera- The submission was totally true-as written by this egomaniac in his 1991 autobiography. Is the truth inconvenient for you?

Rivera- The submission was totally true-as written by this egomaniac in his 1991 autobiography. Is the truth inconvenient for you?– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.93.226 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please look at my talk page

User talk:LL221W —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

LL221W, I've looked at your talk page. Your user page/talk is on my WP:Watchlist. But I don't see how what you've stated about advertising is validated. Furthermore, as you surely know, what is seen here (what I stated, not your revert), here and here has caused me to distrust you as an editor. I am tempted to look through all of your contributions to see if I find any more inappropriate editing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your presence is appreciated at Talk:Brian Austin Green

While there has been consensus gained at the talk page for Brian Austin Green, it seems a newly-established anonymous editor is wanting to ignore consensus, so I am reopening discussion and given our mutual respect of each other, I'm inviting you to come to the talk page to discuss matters concerning biographies of living persons and its policies concerning names, etc. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

LL221W

And odd case. I found LL221W's "...Sorry for causing this. I will not vandalise Wikipedia again or sock..." puzzling. I also find Huggi's communications quite unclear sometimes. However, I just looked through lots of their edits. I don't think they are the same person. I see the double dashes you referred to, and I see similar comma usage styles. I see three articles in common. Other than that, there are really no similarities in edit summary styles or article preferences. I also see no convincing dovetailing in their edits. In fact, the opposite. Sometimes it is nice to give a user an "out" by asking for honesty. In this case, it was not well received. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, as you know, I appreciate you having looked into this matter after I did. That Huggi and LL221W might not be the same person is why I asked Huggi instead of accusing Huggi. If I had been sure that they are the same person, I would have accused instead of ask (for example, in this fashion). Granted, sometimes I ask in such cases even when I'm sure. As for LL221W's "I'm sorry" comment, you are aware of this socking matter regarding LL221W, correct? There was also the deceptive edit summary matter and the falsifying matter. So I think that LL221W was referring to all of that. The reply was still odd, given what I had just stated before that. I've seen accounts who are the same person edit slightly differently or very differently. WP:Good hand, bad hand is just one example. But I'm not going to pursue this Huggi/LL221W matter. In this case, I'm more concerned about LL221W's problematic editing; LL221W's WP:Advocacy is strong. Flyer22 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll keep an eye on L's contribs too. Anyhow, I should have phrased it "Are you..." and not "You are, right?..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Having dealt with so many WP:Sock cases, I can safely state that your comment on Huggi's talk page was entirely appropriate. Trust me. You asked. Yes, the tone had doubt that they are unrelated, but questions are usually about doubt anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, next time I will not fail to assume good faith, and I will practice a bit more due diligence before making inquiries. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

LL221W, per what has been stated above in this section, there was no need for this revert at Huggi's talk page and this comment there. Now that Huggi has reverted again, do not revert Huggi in return. Read WP:Talk. That is Huggi's talk page. If Huggi doesn't want that material there, Huggi is free to remove it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22 :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Bertrand filmography

Hi there :) I've noticed you removed some information from Jacob Bertrand as 'unsourced' (I was watching the editor before you blanking most of the page, not you). So I looked for some sources and tried to restore what seemed significant enough. For example, major roles in a long-running series and that movie are worth mentioning from my point of view. Reliability of web sources aside, it's easily verifiable that he had those other roles. Actually, I only know that guy from his Nickolodeon appearances because my brother's kids watch those shows. If you like to, please have another look at the current state of the article; I tried to make it clear in the prose which roles were major or minor, so that it's easier for future editors to decide what needs more reliable sources and what could be removed completely (ex. the guest appearance in iCarly - but so far it's just one minor role and doesn't bloat the article). Thanks. Rh73 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Avatar Rollback

Hi, thanks for taking a look at my edits at Avatar (2009 film). I was well aware that Reddit is not a reliable source. What I was trying to do was provide some type of web-based proof that that article does exist. The St. Petersburg Times (now Tampa Bay Times) has their archives behind a paywall and even searching it, I couldn't find the article exists. So I kept the original source with the dead link and put the Reddit link beside it for verification. I thought that would have been the best way to answer the talk page in regards to verification of that dead source. Anyway, your edit didn't hurt my feelings but hopefully my work was enough to satisfy the original query. I haven't had much experience trying to edit material that has mostly disappeared from the web, so if you have any pointers I would be happy to listen. Thanks and keep up the hard work. Inomyabcs (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Inomyabcs, thanks for explaining. Yeah, I reverted you (no use of WP:Rollback) because I did not see that edit as an improvement. I went ahead and noted in the edit history that you explained. Flyer22 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Sorry for the confusion between revert and rollback. I usually deal with vandals making many edits in a row and got it wrong when I typed up the section header. Inomyabcs (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please delete my ID photo

Since the dispute is cleared, can you please delete my ID photo here? File:LL221W --LL221W (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Watch it

Eyes Wide Shut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.145.112.168 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about the transgender actress Saga Becker. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake before. She is not transgender she is transsexual. I am no expert but is there a difference.. and does transsexual consider themselves born male if so?. If that is the case change it back, and if not then let it be. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BabbaQ. Did you come to me about this because you've seen me at the Transgender and Transsexual articles? Anyway, as you know since you thanked me for it via WP:Echo, I tweaked one part of the Saga Becker article. I changed your text away from "having been born male" because transgender people (and I mean transsexual people as well) usually prefer "assigned sex" instead of "birth sex," "born male," "biologically male," "genetically male," etc. (though "birth sex" is more acceptable than the others). To transgender people, using such words usually implies that their birth sex is their true sex and that their true gender is their assigned gender. For example, see what happened when I referred to myself as genetically female at the Transsexual article's talk page, even knowing that a lot of transgender people would prefer I state "assigned female." Not all transgender people object to those words, but they do on average. I see that you contacted others about helping out with the Saga Becker article as well. -sche is someone else who might be willing to help out with that article.

As for the distinction between transgender and transsexual people, see what those Wikipedia articles state on that if you haven't already. Transsexual people usually prefer to be called transgender, but some transsexual people reject the term transgender. There was recently a debate about this at the Transsexual article's talk page, seen here and here (those are WP:Permalinks). Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Could you use your sock identifying powers and take a look at this. [25] [[26]] A user [[27] has had a series of blocks, and now a one year topic ban. Immediately after being banned a new user appeared at the previous page and picked up where the banned user had been active just before. The new user seems to me to have a real similar flavor to the edits. The "new user" is really, really good with editing after only 10 minutes. I am not the only one thinking this, here is a discussion of "quacking" at the blocking admin's talk page [[28]]. I am very suspicious but ...could you take a look if you have a moment? Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, I'll get back to you on that. I'm also currently looking at another case (this case appears to be a relatively experienced Wikipedia editor acting like a WP:Newbie). But, yes, any new Wikipedia editor that is good at editing Wikipedia after only ten minutes is no new Wikipedia editor. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, yes, I classify that as a WP:Sock case. Even if it turns out that they are not the same person, it's a case that should be taken to WP:Sockpuppet investigation with evidence. VeritasVincitUSA, though, signs his username differently than HughD does (by that, I mean that VeritasVincitUSA uses the single dash), which is odd; typically, when two editors are the same person, they don't deviate from the signature style unless they want to make it look like they are two different people. This case may very well be a WP:Meatpuppet matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Spectrophotometry

Hey Flyer22, Awesome that you contacted me on that edit. I believe the editing of the picture description from "spectrophotometer" to "UV-Vis spectrophotometer" contributed positively to the understanding of the article. The reasoning is to differentiate the UV-Vis from the infrared spec. Not all people reading about these machines, actually know how they look like. Thus when reading about the UV-Vis, visual learners, now, have an image to associate with the UV-Vis and subsequently can visually imagine what this apparatus is able to do. It aids by having a framework from which to build understanding.

Do you agree with this line of reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.24.27 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at your edit; I reverted you because it messed up words. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Line 6 was definitely not intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:708:110:201:1430:49AE:42B1:423B (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On Transsexuality lead

I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss genital surgery in the lead of transsexuality because as surprising as most people may find it, genital surgery has very little to do with transsexuality. Transsexuality is mainly about gender social roles, and insofar as a transsexual person desires physical changes to conform with their identified role, it is their visible features that are generally of greatest concern to the person. Of course to the rest of the population, the subject of genital surgery is of great curiosity, but the involvement of a transsexual's genitals is of no more importance than what a homosexual does with their genitals even though the public is greatly curious about that subject as well. Try mentioning genitalia in the homosexuality lead and you'll see what I mean. Frankly, I'd like to greatly reduce the corresponding section in the body of the article for the same reason though clearly the controversy requires that it be addressed. Cutelyaware (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cutelyaware (talk · contribs). When you made this edit, I was clear about why "sex reassignment surgery" should be noted in the lead; I told you "per WP:Lead; this is a significant aspect of this topic that is addressed lower. The words 'cosmetic surgery' are vague." I then compromised by removing "sex reassignment surgery" and replacing it with "sex reassignment therapy," which covers "hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to modify secondary sex characteristics, sex reassignment surgery to alter primary sex characteristics, and other procedures altering appearance, including permanent hair removal for trans women." And yet you removed that as well, and I reverted you. We should not be vague to our readers about what medical assistance means regarding a transsexual person aligning their body with their identified sex or gender. We are not vague about it lower in the article, and we certainly should not be vague about it in the lead, which is often the only part of an article that a reader reads. The lead is meant to summarize the article (its most significant aspects).

As for stating "because as surprising as most people may find it, genital surgery has very little to do with transsexuality," you can see from this section of the article that some transsexual people would disagree with that. There are also posts at Talk:Transsexual showing people with different definitions and views of what it means to be transsexual. Similar can seen at Talk:Transgender; WP:Permalinks for that are here and here. And wanting to "greatly reduce" these aspects (factors, including disagreements) in the article, when they should be adequately addressed in the article, is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

On side note: You should take this matter to the article talk page, so that editors of that article know about this dispute (in case they somehow overlook it from their WP:Watchlists, or in case new editors come along), so that they feel more welcomed to comment on it, and so that passerby people (general readers and/or editors) can readily weigh in on the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I took your suggestion of expressing my concerns on the Talk page. I had been hoping to avoid the need to expand the discussion by contacting you directly, but since you want it that way, so be it.

And yes, you were clear about why you felt that SRS deserved to be mentioned in the lead, but I feel that you are wrong. Your argument is that it's important to mention what transsexuals do with their genitals because it's what the general public thinks about when the hear the term. While it's true that that makes it an important part of of the political discussion around the subject, it is completely untrue in the psychological sense. That's why I suggested you try to add a similar mention to what gays do with their genitalia to the lead for Homosexuality. The general public has a similar fascination there but it's simply not pertinent to the subject of homosexuality either.

Telling me that SRS is important to "some transsexual people" doesn't affect what I am saying about the general public. Obviously it's important to many of us, which is the main reason it belongs in the article body. If we're going to keep the article focused on the medical and psychological aspects of the topic instead of the sensational aspects, then SRS should always take a back seat to HRT. My attempt at compromise was to remove mention of both. Your attempt was to substitute an umbrella term. That was a good idea but unfortunately its a term that is generally unknown and unused. Since you want to avoid being vague, I suggest we find a phrasing that people will immediately understand and which mentions HRT before SRS since HRT is the most highly sought therapy by transsexuals. FFS for MTF, and top surgery for people transitioning in either direction are of middle importance whereas SRS is pretty low in comparison to any of the above. Cutelyaware (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cutelyaware (talk · contribs), my argument is not that "it's important to mention what transsexuals do with their genitals because it's what the general public thinks about when the hear the term." And I don't see how you came to that conclusion. My argument is exactly what I stated above. And I will reiterate that in the section you started at the article's talk page. Your homosexuality and transsexual comparisons are completely off in this case, and I'll leave it to others to decide how valid your arguments on that, and the rest of what you stated, are. Flyer22 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see that you didn't actually start a section there; you posted in an old thread there. I moved your post down into a new thread, for reasons explained there. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I concluded that you care so much about transsexual's genitals was because of your original insistence on elevating the subject of genital surgery into the lead even though it is a far less sought after form of therapy than HRT. When you switched terminology to the more general SRT, I was largely mollified but still concerned by the use of a relatively unknown term which is easily confused with SRS. Hopefully we now have a wording that satisfies all three parties to the discussion. Cutelyaware (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't care a lot about transsexual people's genitals, unless it's the topic of sex reassignment surgery gone wrong (by that, I mean medical aspects gone wrong can upset me), or unless it's a Wikipedia article specifically addressing transsexual people's genitals because it should be addressing that topic; the Transsexual article is obviously one such case. I was abiding by WP:Lead on this matter. The lead of the Transsexual article still needs expansion and ideally should mention sex reassignment surgery, including the fact that many transsexual people do not get the surgery. The "far less sought after form of therapy than HRT" aspect that you mention is, as you know, more so the case for trans men (as also noted in the Transsexual article). But I am fine with this edit you made. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to beat a dead horse especially as you've agreed to the latest compromise but I will say one last time that transsexuality is not largely about genitalia, as difficult as that is for some people to believe. Certainly transmen seek SRS less frequently than transwomen, but you may be surprised to learn that most transwomen never seek SRS even though it's what most of the general public expects us to want. And of course many of us do want it very much, but it's almost never our primary medical desire. That's because transsexuality is about gender role, we tend to overwhelmingly care about those medical aspects that affect what everyone sees rather than what our lovers and doctors see. On articles about the medical or political aspects of transsexuality, you can go nuts, but it's almost an inappropriate subject in a psychology article, and especially in the lead. Nothing about WP:Lead suggests that it belongs there as far as I can see. Cutelyaware (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You are indeed beating a dead horse; see WP:Dead horse. And there is nothing about the topic of transgender or specifically transsexual that you could teach me, except for your own experience. With several years of experience editing Wikipedia, I also know what I am talking about when it comes to designing a Wikipedia lead. WP:Lead specifically states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." So, yes, "The lead of the Transsexual article still needs expansion and ideally should mention sex reassignment surgery, including the fact that many transsexual people do not get the surgery."

I'd rather this discussion not continue both here at my talk page and at the Transsexual talk page; continue it at the Transsexual talk page only if you must. Flyer22 (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Devin Funchess

Hey the Devin Funchess edit that I made was correct. I put the right numbers for his height and weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman5846 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Depression(Mood) Page Image

I saw that you deleted the image that was posted on the Depression Mood page. Can you please add some other image? The page looks really boring. Thanks Wasickta (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You're Invited!

{{WPW Referral}}

Male rape

[29] Actually, I just read a blog that says that incidences of male rape (where the man is the victim, including sexual coercion) outnumber female rape. If I find a source to back that up I'll add it to the article and mention it in the intro since that is a significant fact, if it turns out to be true. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cla68, it's not true. And if you add it to the Rape article, then expect to be reverted by me, per the WP:Undue weight policy. Nblund (talk · contribs) and I recently got through discussing a similar matter, and I am quite fed up with male editors, especially men's rights activists, trying to put forth the notion that there are more male rape victims than there are female rape victims and/or that there are more female rapists than there are male rapists when the data on rape and male aggression is so far from supporting any of that. Same goes for supposed female privilege; Ivanvector was right when he called the term female privilege "a bullshit phrase used by men's rights activists to attack the women's rights movement" at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 25#Female privilege. Just about everything from men's rights movements and those who think like them can be adequately called "bullshit." If you want to play "the males are the actual victims" card, then I'll play. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Bisexuality

I see we are both editing this, and you seem a pretty thoughtful editor too. Basically like many articles, the section organization isn't really that good. I'm trying to improve it. If you don't like it, can we discuss - maybe here? - in case there's good reasons one way or the other (I'm fine with that) instead of undoing? Thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FT2, see where I stated in my edit summary that we should discuss this at the article talk page? That's the place to discuss this, especially since there are other active editors who watch the Bisexuality article and will want to comment on your changes and/or proposed changes. There are a number of your changes that I do not like. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Way ahead of you - saw your edit summary and was already working on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Done FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Any ideas

Following a previous move of main article there is a question of what to do with Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders which is also associated with a less psychologically focused content at Category:Sexual disorders

I've put in a tech move request re Gender identity disorder in children and am looking at redirects but am unsure what to do with the cat. GregKaye 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, regarding this move, given what is stated in this discussion by me and Zad68, what made you and Jenks24 think that moving the Gender identity disorder in children article to Gender dysphoria children would be non-controversial? If you had taken the time to read up on gender identity disorder in children, you would know that it is significantly different than gender dysphoria in pubescent adolescents and adults; many children (I mean non-pubescent children) are gender variant at some point in their lives, and the vast majority of children with gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria "grow out of it" by the time they are pubescent. Furthermore, "Gender dysphoria children" is a bad article title; if you were going to move the title, it should have at least been moved to "Gender dysphoria in children." Even "Gender dysphoric children" would have been better. James Cantor, what is your take on this article move? And, BD2412, can I get your take as well? Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: it should have at least been moved to "Gender dysphoria in children."[30] Apols if the move was unsuitable and, if so, I would appreciate an admin moving the page back. GregKaye 00:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the the topic is (should be) the phenomenon rather than its status in whatever diagnostic system, I think it'd be fine to remove the word "disorder" from the title. "Gender dysphoria in children" I think is the best, but "gender dysphoric children" is technically okay. "Gender dysphoria children" is word salad, however, unless punctuated as "Gender dysphoria (children)". — James Cantor (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Addressed at the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this, if anyone truly believes that post at the article's talk page is my typically confrontational self, then maybe I should consider it a good thing that the person wasn't at the end of my actual confrontational self. Forgive me for not liking it when people, including a WP:Administrator who should have done his or her homework, screw up so badly on an article title. Also, you are well aware that I'm losing patience with your WP:Activism, especially as far as the word "disorder" goes; and I mean especially concerning sexual disorders. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And considering that you requested the article be moved to "Gender dysphoria in children," Jenks24 simply made a typo when moving the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, left a longer note on the talk page. By the way, this now makes a lot more sense. This edit changed it to look like I was moving it to the "in" title, but didn't actually change the underlying code so that that's what would happen when I clicked "move" (try yourself, if you click "move" it will autofill "Gender dysphoria children" as title). Still, that's my responsibility and I should have caught it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenks24. Mistakes are made by all of us, as we know. After agreeing to move the Gender identity disorder article to Gender dysphoria, I wouldn't mind much if the Gender identity disorder in children article were titled "Gender dysphoria in children." So if you had simply fixed the typo, I would have left the title uncontested. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I do think it was confrontational. I had respectfully come here with a genuine query in good faith and following our previous collaborative work on this issue. I had first initiated debate on the topic at Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name which you developed as an RM at: Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Requested move.

Please, if you want to cast a WP:ASPERSION of something such as "Activism" then please supply links or quotes so as to at least allow these allegations to be defended.

Yes I do find you confrontational. Yes it is true that I added "this" comment as you have mentioned in reply to you "Addressed at the article talk page" comment to say, "in typically confrontational manner." This came in the context of my good faith post at the beginning of this thread where I genuinely came sincerely and politely came asking for advice in relation to what I considered to be a request to move title so "Gender identity disorder in children", a title which, from your own comment below, you clearly have no problem with. Despite this you then posted on this page, while making no mention of my intended title, in a post that pinged all and sundry. Then, two hours later, added a similar ping spam post on the article talk page at pretty much the same time as I added my 00:21, 5 September 2015 edit explaining my the difference between the title that I had mentioned above and which I had attempted to edit the technical request to include. I am also writing this in the context of knowing that other editors, for whatever reason, have taken exception to you which. I do not think that citing this is necessarily needed though can be done at request.

Yes, I do find you confrontational. This I mentioned on this page sincerely for what I consider both for your benefit and potentially for the benefit of other Wikipedia editors. You "regarding this" edit was not addressed as a reply to me (the editor that had come for advice) but, as far as I can see, was grandstanding for passing editors. The link you supplied showed a deletion of an edit. I had first added the effort on the interpretation that you were editing to shame and not simply to resolve an issue and I wanted to offer an opportunity for you to reconsider your presentation of the issue. You knew from my opening post that I had intended the title Gender identity disorder in children. I removed my "in typically confrontational manner" edit, because, I did not want unnecessary confrontation. Despite my removal of the content you not only made a public spectacle of it, in the context of a highly pinged thread, but you also add allegation. In this direct reply to you as a fellow editor that I would get on with, I will not repeat these pings but just request that you consider these matters. I do not think that our current communications have been working.

I will continue to work on the redirects to the main article that go via the Gender identity disorder mainspace. As you have respected knowledge of the subject area and while I will edit to the best of my ability I would be more than happy for you to review any of my related edits. GregKaye 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, if you think this post I made is confrontational, then you need to get a thicker skin. And as for replying to your "in typically confrontational manner" snide remark, I do not like it when a person makes a snide remark directed at me on my talk page and then removes the snide remark before I can reply. If I want to reply to the snide remark, I'm going to do it whether you've removed the comment or not. Furthermore, I am quite aware of my confrontational manner, which I'm working on. It's a nature I particularly reserve for Wikipedia when dealing with editors who repeatedly edit in a way I find at odds with what is best for Wikipedia. I usually approach them kindly at first. Ask them to stop or indicate that they should stop. When they repeatedly edit in a way that ignores and/or disregards that, then, yes, a confrontation just might be imminent (as is common on Wikipedia). Your WP:Activism should be clear to anyone who reads Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 66#Disorders of magnitude - POV question, User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Non med opinion and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Requesting move of requested move; that last linked discussion shows us not only not getting along, but me mentioning that I do not like that you engage in WP:Activism. Just about everyone who watches my user page/talk page knows that I despise WP:Activism editing (those who despise WP:Paid editing have nothing on how I feel about WP:Activism editing). They know of my confrontational manner. So you are doing no one any favors by opining about how big and bad Flyer22 is. We (you and I) are not on good terms, and I don't expect us to ever be on good terms. If you'd rather not deal with my confrontational manner, it would be best if you start by ceasing to come to talk page. But for whatever reason, you can't do that.

I don't know what you mean by "You knew from my opening post that I had intended the title Gender identity disorder in children." If you meant "Gender dysphoria in children," then, no, I didn't know that that's the title you were going for; that should be clear by my initial post above in this section. And whether or not I agree with you changing the article's title to "Gender dysphoria in children," you should have realized that moving that article is a "likely to be a contested" matter. Like I noted at that article's talk page, "Just about everything to do with gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria is controversial." Jenks24 agreed. I criticized you; you criticized me. Move along. But not without getting the last word, of course. You always have to get the last word at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet/WP:SNEAKY vandal?

Flyer22, do you think that User:Tortle is a possible sock puppet? This three-week-old account has already made over 2000 edits, and has made two major WP:COMPETENCE mistakes/actions that have caused a mess that took a lot of time to be cleaned up.

The first was to bulk nominate and review articles while ignoring WP:WIAGA and WP:GAI instructions; see WT:GAN#Bulk reviews and nominations by new editor for more details. The second mistake was the unilateral move (including categories, templates, etc.) of a WikiProject and creating a new WikiProject that duplicates another existing project. See WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by User:Tortle.

However, Tortle's activity also suggests that he may be a sockpuppet or vandal. Tortle is very good at wiki markup and styling, which can be seen in his user pages (e.g. his talk page editnotice) and his deleted WikiProject creation. He can also cite essays such as WP:RANCOR. He often claimed that he edited Wikipedia "a few years ago", although he stated that he was still in school. I am asking for your help because of your experience with identifying sockpuppets. Do you think Tortle is an editor who is trying to cause major damage to Wikipedia (a la Legolas2186) by pretending to be a WP:NOOB? What can be done? Thanks in advance! sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppet of Theman81?151.224.47.129 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean, I think that Tortle may be a very sneaky vandal whose aim is to cause trouble to Wikipedia editors, while pretending to be making edits in good faith. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

well block him then151.224.47.129 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the few years ago and being in school, I was a young editor in high school five years ago so I dont really understand why that is an issue. I mean,

• I proposed a redesign of the community portal on it's talk page but only one user responded so far. And that was doing things the right way. Heres the talk page and heres the draft I suggested. I actually mainly did the redesign in order to fix a gitch that could occur with some users like me where half of the stuff was off the page.
• I spent a lot of time so far on copyediting for the Backlog elimination drive and am currently in first.
• I redid the lead sections by hand on about 500 literature pages with the help of two other experienced wikipedians due to the fact that the previous version made little sense. Bmcln1 (I think thats his uername) was the only one with an issue during the process saying the new leads were too vague and I responded but after a couple days and I think another message to him, I noticed he was still making other edits and didnt respond so I went on with it because others didnt have issues and two wikipedians were with me on the change. So I handled that situation ok and the lead makes more sense than the last one so if I was a vandal, why would I do almost 500 pages by hand.
• I made WP Wikipedia because I saw the design flaw in the community portal and I realized that there was no wikiproject for the upkeep and orginization of the Wikipedia namespace. The project although implemented wrong, was still of good intenions and I spent a lot of time in creating it. One day, I plan on reimplementing it but using the mistake that I learned rom in the end. Also I helped to revert the mistakes I made, a vandal would just leave them.
• I brought WP:Job Center back to life from pretty much a year of inactivity.
• I spent quite a bit of time on Lego amassing around 50 edits on that.
• I expanded the Agate Desert from a stub.
• I expanded Nembrotha cristata from a stub.

So please reconsider sovereign°sentinel (contribs). I might have done a couple things the wrong way but in the end, I have good intentions. I was sick of the sctutiny but that isnt as bad as being accused of being a vandal. So maybe you should keep an eye on me and give me a chance. I felt like I put those incidents behind me and I want a fresh start with the newfound knowledge from those mistakes. Thanks, Tortle (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as you've not made any edits as a sock puppet for six months after the date you were blocked, you should be good151.224.47.129 (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign Sentinel, when I left this message on Tortle's talk page, I considered that Tortle is likely a WP:Sock. Tortle also seemed to be rather inexperienced with how to appropriately edit Wikipedia as well. But it's common that WP:Socks who are not competent enough to edit Wikipedia will return to Wikipedia, whether they were originally blocked for WP:Competence issues or something else. Tortle's talk page has been on my WP:Watchlist ever since I messaged him. Whenever I suspect that an account is a WP:Sock, I put that account on my WP:Watchlist and/or mark it down in my notepad and keep tabs on it, collecting evidence bit by bit. I suggest you do the same.

That's not the way the WP:Sock policy works, IP; you know that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I will follow your advice. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I was refering to standard offer It's simple:

Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

So obviously if Tortle has returned and it's been more than 6 months he should be fine13h 37m 34s (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I stated, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if a WP:Sock has waited six months; it's still a WP:Sock and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia unless the Wikipedia community (or occasionally a WP:Administrator) has decided to give the WP:Sock another chance. That is what WP:Standard offer is about. You know that. If you don't, then that's even more reason you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. And as I suspected, you are a WP:Sock (after all, a number of WP:Socks keep tabs on me), and now you are WP:CheckUser-blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont really want to get involved in the drama of what just happened but 13h 37m 34s said "I was refering to standard offer" and the only other user who mentioned WP:standard offer above was 151.224.47.129 so are the ip and 13 37 34 the same account? And if so, should the ip be blocked as well? I feel kind of uncomfortable about a sockpuppet standing up for me too because that isnt really helping me and is just bothersome. Are ips not blocked as sockpuppets? If not, why isnt this done because wouldnt blocking the ip prevent them from ever coming back? Im kind of lost as far as what just happened. Thanks Tortle (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Tortle, IPs are sometimes blocked as WP:Sockpuppets. But, per the WP:CheckUser policy, it's common for WP:Administrators to not publicly and/or directly tie IPs to one or more registered accounts. It's also common that IPs are not blocked for a long time since the IP might eventually be operated by someone else, especially in the case of dynamic IPs. IPs are never indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, Tortle (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, thank you for undoing on what I did on Juan Carlos Medina. I accidentally click the save button and don't know how to revert it back so I erase it and hoping someone will notice and revert it back. Again thank you and sorry for being stupid. User 08:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

‎ViperSnake151, how did you come across the fact that I was arguing for that image's deletion at File talk:Peyton school shooting drawing.JPG? Given that I've taken the matter to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, I'd rather that the image (and its talk page) not be deleted just yet, since only WP:Administrators will be able to see what I meant after it's deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Could you discuss, not just edit, especially in light of previous dialog, and especially again, knowing that you are reverting yet again. We have a good dialog on the talk page - if you don't like something, do what I did and say what you don't like - it makes it much easier. Notice I waited a long time to hear your views, before doing some edits. It would be nicer to return this courtesy too :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

FT2, I would prefer you keep discussions like this at the article talk page. If you insist on bringing them to my talk page, then I would prefer you comment in a previous section you started here (for example, #Bisexuality above) at my talk page instead of creating a new section for such discussion.

As for talking instead of editing, I feel the same with regard to your approach. I had responded to you on the talk page, as you know. Instead of us working out a layout that we all agree on, you stated, "If you have objections to any, can you try to minimally reverse, or only reverse those parts you actually disagree with (not all of it)." I didn't read that until after I started editing. But I didn't revert all of your latest edits. I significantly changed a portion of your latest additions, but with good reason. If I see what I consider to be problems with an article, I am likely to fix those problems right then. Not wait for permission, or for a person to not grasp what I mean even after I explain (which is common at talk pages). I've learned that, just like in real life, it's often that if I want something done, I need to do it myself. I am fine discussing these matters with you. But just like you would prefer that I not spree edit when it comes to changing your content, I would prefer that you don't spree edit when it comes to adding your desired layout for the article. One approach you could take is what KateWishing did when proposing changes to the Pedophilia article; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 19. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The latter isn't a thread I would have seen. Much of this is difference of style, and matters of courtesy, not rights and wrongs.

So it's not a matter of "insist on bringing" here. Rather, I don't myself see a need to clutter up an article talk page (for other editors) with minor matters not relevant to most editors of that article, that relate to editors' collaboration and not article content. They will usually be noticed or notified sooner that way as well. You might prefer differently, but that's my view; I can't know that you think differently until you say what you prefer, and my views on being considerate to other editors might be as worthwhile as your preference for your talk page. Keep it gentle - "I like to keep dialog on article talk pages or within pre-existing sections, if you can do that". Much gentler.

Likewise, I split my edit into 7 mainly to make your review easier, you did 5 edits back... but neither were "sprees" and that isn't a word I'd used for any of it. Using these kinds of words ("if you insist on bringing", "spree edit") isn't helpful in general discussion as they can raise the temperature, they're easy enough for some people to ignore but others may find it harder. They might be better to be avoided except for times when you specifically want to say that something is inappropriate, not just that it's different to how you prefer.

On Wikipedia, unlike "real life", I've learned, that "if I want something done, I need to do it myself" only goes so far. If one's work seems to meet objections or concerns, talk sooner, don't just rely on this as a reason to marginalize views or go ahead regardless. If someone seems to have listened, assume they are continuing to listen and will listen, assume they will pause if you ask them to pause, and assume they will discuss your concerns and that you don't just need to revert because "you have to do it yourself". That's the essence of AGF. It's better to engage in working collaboratively with others you don't see eye to eye with, than just trying to override their work each time you differ. That's why I paused a fair bit longer than 2 days, to see if more would happen.

I guess I mean simply, go even easier on people with there might be good faith disagreements, with gentler wordings, because it really helps avoid worthless issues. I'm happy to continue this on the article talk page if you like, or just dead end it there if we've said all we need, and move back to the article instead. Let me know? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

FT2, it's common for Wikipedia editors to prefer that article disputes stay at the article talk page. I'm clearly an editor who prefers that. I figured you might state that you prefer to keep the article talk page uncluttered. My view is that the article talk page is for cluttering...to a certain degree. When certain points there get too long or off-topic, then use subsection headings and/or Template:Collapse.

The way I've edited with regard to you is not a matter of being inconsiderate, marginalizing your views or not WP:Assuming good faith. You stated above that "[m]uch of this is difference of style." I've explained my style to you above. Apparently, our word choices when discussing with others differ as well. To me, my word choices when replying to you are fine. The "if I want something done, I need to do it myself" aspect is a matter of experience talking, including experience with editing Wikipedia, a place where I edit many contentious topics (far more than any typical Wikipedia editor edits). It doesn't mean that I don't collaborate or usually don't collaborate. I do collaborate. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm uncollaborative or am not collaborative enough because my approach significantly differs from yours. I deal with uncollaborative editors, various kinds, including the WP:Disruptive and WP:Advocacy kind. For me, "if I want something done, I need to do it myself" means that waiting for someone else to correct a problem when I can correct that problem myself is something that I sometimes do at this site. It means that it's common for that problem to not be corrected. It means that I often have to explain more than once what I mean, and that the editor still doesn't correct the problem adequately, or doesn't follow the WP:Manual of Style or other rule adequately, even if he or she tries to do so. It means that I have to then take matters into my own hands. Sometimes I want to take matters into my own hands as soon as I see the problem; and, per WP:Bold, I am allowed to do that.

When it comes to your edits to the Bisexuality article, my objections to your changes are not simply a matter of preference, unless we are talking about WP:Manual of Style preferences. I've seen more than one problem with your changes. For example, I'd explained to you the problem with using unnecessary subheadings or too many subheadings, pointing to MOS:Paragraphs and WP:TOC issues; your latest edits, however, employed those MOS:Paragraphs and WP:TOC subheading issues. I don't need to stop and explain to you why they are problems before I fix them. Can I do that (stop and explain to you why they are problems before I fix them)? Yes. Just like you can take the time to stop and work out your desired style for the article before making those changes. I don't see why it should be a "you make the changes first and then I or others weigh in on them" matter when you are the one coming to the article seeking to change its established format. This is why I pointed to Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 19, which shows me and another editor working well with an editor who proposed changes step by step and took time to work out any possible disagreements. That editor did not simply press on. You simply pressed on. So then I pressed on, and I explained why. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Todd FAC

Hey Fly, I know you're busy and so am I. I just started a new job last week, so I haven't been able to focus on much having to do with WP for a few weeks. I'm sure you saw that Todd failed his FAC, simply due to lack of interest. I'm slightly surprised, because I would've thought that someone would've picked it up to review. I say slightly because for some reason, the articles I submit to FAC don't tend to get reviewed unless I'm proactive and ask my cabal to review them. Part of me thinks that's because the articles I tend to submit are kind of esoteric and complex (Angelou and Sesame Street), and folks tend to be intimidated by them. Or maybe it's just me; I tend to make sure the articles I submit to FAC are over-prepared, so they when they see my name connected to them, they avoid reviewing them. I suspect that's what has happened with the Todd article. At any rate, I'll wait another week, re-submit, and enlist some assistance from my pals. I'll have more time starting next week to devote to making sure the article doesn't languish and fail again, anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Christine (Figureskatingfan), I figured that the reason that the nomination at the Todd Manning article didn't get any traction is because WP:FA assessments are generally significantly less active these days, and because Todd Manning is a soap opera character who is not as well known as he once was in the United States. It's so often that there are only a few editors weighing in on WP:FA nominations these days. And I've seen the WP:GA assessment backlogs as well.

As for contacting your friends to comment, I think it's better to get the opinions of editors who are not likely to be biased. If you feel that your friends won't elevate the article to WP:FA status simply to support you (meaning they can be unbiased in this regard), then okay. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't taken into consideration the continual backlog for assessments. Believe me, I know about the GA backlog, for example; that's one of the reasons we started the WP:GA Cup. And it goes without saying that my pals would be righteous about my FACs. All my friends are righteous, doncha know. Even you! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Help

	Reffering Sites
	hiii, can i add my website into wiki Reffering Sites ? Games Life (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion as the warnings on your talk page say Games Life. Also awards are not for asking questions inside but for acheivements and are definetely not to be used as attempted bribes. If you would like to edit articles not related to your website and need help, I am not too experienced but I can answer some of your questions if you leave them on my talk page. Thanks Tortle (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

MD sock followup

Wow, nice thorough job on investigating Michael Demiurgos's socking. I was reading through some of the reports and it's apparent that he was still using the style as you reported, with lots of recent examples on List of Rosario + Vampire characters.

• Changing semi-colons to colons (usually to something that is grammatically incorrect)
• Using his own rules on removing commas (some sentences use Oxford comma style, others don't. It doesn't matter when his usage doesn't make the text any clearer.)
• Changing god to deity (with some gender-neutrality as its basis, even if it isn't what is reported in the text)

I also noted the quoting the poster in his response, which makes it difficult to read his comments, as in talk:List of Digimon Fusion characters

Granted some of his edits could have been helpful but when it's all mashed up like that, it gets more disruptive than helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, AngusWOOF. Glad I could help. You helped me as well, by pointing out the semi-colon aspect. You pointing that out at WP:ANI helped me add an additional point in the case I started against him. I hadn't been over all of the accounts' edits as well as I wanted to at the time of the WP:ANI thread, which is why I was still building a case. I mean, it's a common sense case to me. But, as you can see by the previous sock investigation against him, people often want "hard evidence" of the wrongdoing instead of solely good old fashioned circumstantial evidence or behavioral evidence; it's like the CSI effect. This is despite behavioral evidence being the core of any WP:Sockpuppet investigation. When I saw what you mentioned about semi-colons, I figured that it's likely that the Jdogno5 (talk · contribs) account did the same thing. I'd already had the "as well as" evidence, and the other evidence. And as seen at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos, I'd never been so frustrated by a lack of common sense and a failure of WP:Administrators to indefinitely block an account that so clearly needed blocking. So I thank Floquenbeam for doing what needed to be done, and Courcelles for running the WP:CheckUser tool in this case just to be on the safe side. Jdogno5 will be back, but at least there is more evidence out there now to help others catch him.

As for Rosario + Vampire, I recently watched the anime for it, which is why I was recently at the Moka Akashiya article; the anime was okay, but it seems that I should read the manga (which, from what I've gathered from viewer commentary, is much darker than the lighthearted, goofy anime). Also, like a lot of people, I prefer Inner/True Moka to Outer Moka and want to learn more about her. I understand why Tsukune Aono connected more deeply with Outer Moka (he got to know her first, got to know her better, and she's very bubbly), but I prefer him with Inner Moka. She is definitely badass. I would like to see a live-action version of this story. If done right, it could be good, similar to how All You Need Is Kill was transformed into the live-action Edge of Tomorrow film featuring Tom Cruise. It's also interesting what the List of Rosario + Vampire characters article states about the creator being inspired by Tim Burton's work. That article is put together well, by the way. Good job. It should be WP:GA status. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on the R+V characters. The manga series still has some of the harem shenanigans but not as much panty-service; it isn't the best manga out there but it's worth a read, especially the sections not covered by the anime (second half of season I, and most of season II). I lucked out with finding the author's interview as most have very little to say about character design. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, I'll eventually get around to reading the manga; I read a little bit of it after I finished the anime. The beginning starts out like the anime, as you know. But I've seen viewer commentary stating that people should read the entire manga, not try to start out at the part the anime leaves off at. This is because the anime leaves out a lot of material and changes things. So, yeah. I don't watch anime as much as I used to, and I'm more into mature and/or dark anime instead of the lighter stuff, but I was bored the night I started watching Rosario + Vampire, and remembered that it was a story I'd heard people mention but that I'd never checked out. So I gave it a shot. The main reason I kept watching it is because of the scene when Moka first transforms into her vampire self, after Tsukune has gotten beat up by a monster, and because he collapses into her arms after that transformation while asking which Moka is the real one. I thought: "Wow, this just got a lot more interesting. Who is she? I can see that she's Moka's other half, but just who is she? She's so mysterious." So, for every episode, I was mainly waiting for Moka to transform into her vampire self. The episodes became redundant, though, on that front, with Inner Moka briefly appearing at the end of each episode. The series started to change it up a little later, which was refreshing. I also watched because it was funny; for example, the goofy bat who narrated, actually referring to whatever episode we were on. And I took a little time to see how the Japanese version was, since the Japanese version of animes can across as more intense, more real than their English dub counterparts; it's something to do with the Japanese accents. Compare the English dub version of Tsukune facing off with Moka's father to the Japanese version of that same moment. And on that note, that face off is the second time we get to see Tsukune's ghoul/vampiric form, and the only time we get to see him use such amazing power, in the entire anime. So I also want to read the manga to learn more about his power.

By the way, which Moka do you prefer? Or do you like both about equally? I know that they are two sides of the same coin, sharing the same feelings and acting similarly in a few ways, but these two personalities are very distinct. The way she transforms if her rosary is removed reminds me of how Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer transforms into Angelus when he loses his soul. Even the music when Angel first transforms after sex with Buffy is similar to Moka's transformation music; see this clip (starting at 3:07) if you've never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer or need a reminder. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I do like watching the adaptations first and then go back to the source material for the depth. It makes the book reading faster, and there's always depth in the source and that curiosity as to "what really happened". But I guess it depends mainly on what material I get to read first. The good thing is that the anime series doesn't spoil too much of the manga, not like the characters and plot sections here. And you'll get to see plenty of Moka and Tsukune development in the manga. Moka's inner self is pretty entertaining; there's one scene in the manga where the other girls suggest she share Tsukune in the harem and the next frame she is walking away with the girls all defeated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting take, AngusWOOF. I've stayed away from reading much of the character summaries for this series, or for other series I might be interested in watching and/or reading, because Wikipedia spoils so much. As for that Moka moment you've shared, LOL; I look forward to reading that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The one that got away

Congratulations on this outcome. Just a shame it took a year to reel him in; I wonder how much damage he caused over that period. Any editor that is actively pursuing ways of masking their IP address should be banned on sight IMO. Anyway, I noticed you referenced me in that investigation, and I don't know if you intended to ping me or not but I didn't get a ping. I think you have to actually ping the account rather than the user's talk page for the other editor to get a notification. I see this business has been going on a few days but I only became aware of it yesterday because I still have the SPI on my watchlist. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Betty Logan. I mentioned above (in the #MD sock followup section) how frustrated/annoyed I was by no one blocking him on a WP:Duck basis. As for WP:Pinging you, sorry about that; I figured that it was better to WP:Ping your talk page since your user page is red (empty). I've done similarly for other registered accounts. WP:Pinging your talk page (or others' talk pages) seemed to work in the past, but I guess it no longer does. Or maybe it never worked, and I only thought it did because you had the pages WP:Watchlisted (meaning it didn't matter if I WP:Pinged you or not). Now I know why you didn't show up at my talk page when I WP:Pinged you about the Jdogno5 case earlier this year. I thought you were long over the matter and simply didn't care anymore whether or not that account was blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that certainly pinged me! If I knew Jdogno was up to his old tricks I would have assisted in any way I could, but then again maybe it turned out for the best. It may have just looked like a personal vendetta and the case might have been given less consideration. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan, if anyone had felt that you were out on a personal vendetta, that would be a serious flaw in that person's reasoning skills. Even if you had been out on a personal vendetta, so what? Jdogno shouldn't be editing Wikipedia; it's as simple as that. So what that a person has a personal vendetta against a WP:Disruptive editor? Anyone citing that as some kind of flaw is a bit out of step with what's best for Wikipedia. Jdogno is still at it with his lies, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The only way I could view a personal vendetta against a WP:Disruptive editor as a problem is if the personal vendetta is not based solely on the fact that the editor is disruptive, and/or if the personal vendetta causes harm to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I was just looking through the database reports and I noticed that you've created over 19,000 articles! I have no idea how you managed to do that, but I'm awarding you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar regardless. Keep up the good work! Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Amen. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari and John Carter, LOL, if any editor ever created that many valid Wikipedia articles, they would certainly deserve the above new barnstar. But I have not created that many articles. Thank you, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Are they all redirects or something? Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari, I haven't created that many redirects. I've created some redirects, but certainly not that many. The "Articles created" link shows which articles I created, but it's currently not working; takes forever to load. It also shows that I created the War rape article (now called Wartime sexual violence), but that is incorrect; I fixed an article move in that case. I created articles when I was a WP:Newbie, and that's it. I haven't had much interest in creating articles since then. I've rather had interest in fixing up, or significantly fixing up, existing articles. For example, even though I did not technically create the Clitoris article, the vast majority of the content that's there now is my work. And even though it's WP:GA class, I need to tweak some things and update some references there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the database report is wrong, in which case I'll have to take my shiny barnstar back ;) Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I see. Looks like the 19,000 pages created are from vandalism patrolling, not article writing. I probably should have given you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar instead. Regardless, nice work! Kaldari (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent Dahmer edits

Hi. I have left a message upon the user page of the editor who made the prv. extensive psychological evaluations of Dahmer. I haven't attempted to revert these edits as the new editor, at least on the surface, seems to have read the new sources he/she has used as justification for extensive reverts. I don't own literature which goes into the depth of these extensive pathology/paraphilia/psychological reverts. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Kieronoldham, that editor is indefinitely WP:Blocked. He was problematic. I've taken the mental disorders matter concerning Jeffrey Dahmer to the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave a reply on there shortly. Personally, I'm in favor of reverting the page to the status is was at before these extensive edits were made by the editor in question, although I do take on board the fact that DendroNaja has made edits I was unaware of which had caused friction. I may try and find online info. supporting one editor's versions or the other. Regards and kudos for your diligence.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

STOP!

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 2600:1006:B107:49FE:F0C9:D67C:AA66:F82A (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You stop. Keep editing WP:Disruptively with a variety of IPs, and you will be reverted and blocked each time. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You might try pointing out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker when dealing with this guy. It links a few discussions and documents a long history. By the way, check out this edit for a bizarrely patronizing edit summary that you may find amusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, if 2602:306:3786:3210:FCE4:C263:2598:F1A7 (talk · contribs) is him, he is now adding to the plot sections.

That User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker list is handy; thanks for creating it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this 2602 person might just be a random plot bloater. I wouldn't put it past our guy to make pointy edits just to piss us off, but it sure flies in the face of his M.O. to expand a plot summary. He becomes enraged when anyone adds a single word. Also, the geolocation is off. It doesn't necessarily prove anything, but the geolocation is usually pretty stable for Orlando, Florida. My gut says it's not him, but you're more experienced in these matters. So, who knows. Also, a lot of the work on that page is from Aspects, who put in the time to dig even deeper than I did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act —have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the above matter at the designated talk-page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not the right battle

What are you doing? [31] ... if I'm reading the timestamps correctly, you made two separate comments -- not the battle you want to fight. NE Ent 01:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I didn't start that battle. And as I've just stated, "I understand that editors are allowed to cut in between comments, but, since I still wanted my comments together, I changed the style of my comments by placing them in the same paragraph; I warned Signedzzz not to mess with them since I'd changed the style." He messed with them anyway. He is a seriously disturbed editor, who will stop at nothing to exact his grudges. So, yes, this is indeed a battle that I want to fight. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is that the same edit as this? No, I guess not, but I still don't understand. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, that diff you cited is the first time I moved my comments back together on this matter; it also shows my reply. Soon after that, I changed the style of my commentary so that two of my comments were in the same paragraph; I explained this at WP:ANI, and I recently added in content about why I changed the formatting of that commentary. What I take issue with, in addition to Signedzzz's disruptive behavior in general, is Signedzzz undoing the formatting of my comment, and in WP:Baiting way. He was recently warned on his talk page about the WP:Baiting he so often engages in. If I want my comments in the same paragraph in the way I placed them, it should not be up to him to undo that. You know, WP:Talk and all that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like you moved their comment. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I didn't, though. I suppose it could technically be considered that. But what I actually moved was my own comment; I moved it back to the place it was at, which pushed his comment down. But the main point about the comments now is that I let that initial matter go, and I then formatted my commentary in a different way, so that two of my comments are in the same paragraph; he then undid that, and only to bait me. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your user page: Alternate universe

Regarding your user page, I'm wondering if you have considered the possibility that someplace in the multiverse, an alternate you might have actually managed to retire from Wikipedia! If you have considered this possibility, would that alternate you be considered a sockpuppet? (Do not take any part of the preceding comment seriously!)Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Etamni, I have thought about that -- the possibility that I am thankfully retired from this site in an alternate universe and that I'm a WP:Sock master in another. I'll opt to take it seriously, since, as Viriditas and John Carter know (see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 17#Multiverse and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 17#Cats and clones or whatever), I believe in alternate universes. I don't care how crazy that makes me sound to some people; those people need to look more into the science supporting the idea of the multiverse hypotheses, especially if they are stating I shouldn't be believing in such matters while it's perfectly fine for them to have their religious beliefs. The brilliant Stephen Hawking explaining and supporting the multiverse hypotheses is enough to win me over without the other scientists who support it weighing in. A single Universe is not something I believe in anymore.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Alternate universe" so that it is clearer as to what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries on the heading title :) I want to thank you for this link (from your user page). That page will likely be open in the background during my future editing sessions (who could get angry at anyone while listening to that?). Meanwhile, it provides an interesting way to watch for vandals, new users, and interesting random topics -- all at the same time! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I RETIRED IN THE MULTIVERSE

This user left Wikipedia in an alternate universe...

LOL. Thanks for that, Viriditas; nice gift. I'll certainly use it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Picking up from the older thread highlighted up above (part two), I don't recall if you said you read the short story "All You Zombies" or saw the film adaptation, Predestination. The story would interest you. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Viriditas. I'd closed out of my browser that was locked on Wikipedia when last responding to you. And I then, as usual, had mess to deal with when I came back on Wikipedia hours later. Anyway, I haven't read that short story or seen that film; I'll give them a try, though. Flyer22 (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, check out the film. Sarah Snook does an amazing job. It's not a great film, but it's a worthy adaptation of the story. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Viriditas, at 10:20-something this morning, I finished that film. Started it today; finished it today. And, wow, did it do a number on my mind. Seriously, what the ....? I liked it, though. With the writing of that story, there was some huge outside-of-the-box thinking. And at various points in the film, Sarah Snook looks like Leonardo DiCaprio. I'm not the only one who thinks so, and I knew I couldn't be the only one seeing that. I like that the film did good with critics; it deserves that respect. Oh, Ethan Hawke and his "make you think" films, like this one and Gattaca. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I just watched this review by Chris Stuckmann (for those watching my talk page, it's a non-spoiler review); I pretty much agree with what he stated. Now I'm off to watch other YouTube reviews of the film while working on some things at the computer and occasionally surfing Wikipedia with WP:STiki. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's turtles all the way down for me. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to thank Viriditas for that link, which I hadn't seen before. What a great article. I shall be handing out bananas to anybody involved when I can get round to it. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That film can really make a person's head hurt. It reminds me of the question I've pondered for a long time, and that I pose to others: "What created existence?" I follow that up with: "I mean, if you believe in God, then what created God? And if you aren't religious, the question of what created existence remains. How can something have always existed?" If you watch this "How the Universe Works - The Big Bang" video, you can hear the narrator ask at 8:31 into the video: "So here's a mind bender. What came before the Big Bang?" And Lawrence Krauss replies, "The philosophers in ancient times used to say, 'How can something arise from nothing?' And what's amazing to me is that the laws of physics allow that to happen. And it means that our whole Universe, everything that we see, everything that matters to us, could have arisen out of precisely nothing."

Going back to the film, though, I guessed two plot twists (by that, and hopefully without spoiling anyone, I mean the aspect surrounding the bartender and Snook's character, and the bartender and the bomber); this is because of what was revealed with the first plot twist and after the bartender gave his "You know who she is" line to Snook's character. The initial plot twist and the baby plot twist took me fully by surprise, though. I had suspicions about the bartender throughout the film. That stated, if I didn't know that this film was supposed to have some elements of surprise (twist elements, to be precise) before going into it, I wouldn't have been looking for them. Well, other than the fact that the bartender and Snook's character were suspicious of each other with regard to the bombings. When I Googled the film, I saw something about the film having a twist element in the results, and I immediately avoided reading about what that twist, or any other twist in it, might be. I would have hated being spoiled on this film, for the same reason I would have hated being spoiled on The Sixth Sense.

As for the "turtles all the way down" expression, yeah, I only recently became familiar with it. So Viriditas was smart to wikilink the expression for you. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's your (mathmatical) turtles. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing about "turtles all the way down" that has me kicking myself is that even though I've read a lot on cosmology, and a lot of Stephen Hawking's work, I still wasn't familiar with that phrase. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I am reminded of strange loops and Drawing Hands. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

derbi barceloní tag

Hello,

I'm JosepRCDE, sorry but my english is very bad. I read your article about catalan derbi and i need explain that this is false. FCB try impose this history.

This points are completely false:

"Espanyol, being one of the clubs granted royal patronage, was founded exclusively by Spanish football fans, unlike the multinational nature of Barça's primary board. The founding message of the club was clearly anti-Barcelona, and they disapprovingly saw FC Barcelona as a team of foreigners.[2] The rivalry was strengthened by what Catalonians saw as a provocative representative of Madrid.[3] Their original ground was in the affluent district of Sarrià.[4][5]

During the dictatorships of Miguel Primo de Rivera (1923-1930) and Francisco Franco (1939-1975), Espanyol was seen by the vast majority of Barcelona's citizens as a club which cultivated a kind of compliance to the central authority, in stark contrast to Barça's revolutionary spirit.[6] Also in the '60s and '70s, while FC Barcelona acted as a social integrator for immigrants from poorer regions of Spain in search for a better life, Espanyol drew their support mainly from sectors close to the regime such as policemen, military officers, civil servants and career fascists.[7]

In 1918 Espanyol started a counter-petition against autonomy, which at that time had become a pertinent issue.[2] Later on, an Espanyol supporter group would join the Falangists in the Spanish Civil War, siding with the fascists. Despite these differences in ideology, the derbi has always been more relevant to Espanyol supporters than Barcelona ones due to the difference in objectives. In recent years the rivalry has become less political, as Espanyol translated its official name and anthem from Spanish to Catalan.[2]"

respect for the Espanyol history and Espanyol supporters.

Thank you

Josep — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosepRCDE (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Jalisco

FYI...Jalisquillo is pejorative, [32], Jalisciense is correct. Someone was having a laugh. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Flyer22. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No thank you. I've dealt with you before, and it is quite clear that you have no idea what WP:POV means. Like I just noted, you are the same person who used the 143.176.62.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP and was repeatedly blocked for WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Edit warring with regard to age disparity. Yes, as various editors at this site know, my memory is very good. I recognized your IP range the moment I saw it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am obligated to report this to you. You do not have to participate if you don't want to. You have dealt with me before? If you keep accusing me of things, you may end up getting blocked for WP:Disruptive editing. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)} I've placed a 3RR warning on the IP user's talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz

I pinged you on the talk page of the above mentioned editor here regarding his comment about having discussions with you of this type "every year." John Carter (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

John, it's best that I refrain from commenting on Signedzzz or interacting with him unless absolutely necessary. As currently seen on his talk page, he still thinks that I am referring to him as a WP:Sock and as a pedophile, despite Fram being very clear to him that I am not. That section of my user page doesn't even link to the version of my user page that he had a major issue with. And I don't see the problem with linking to the version that it does link to and pointing to the discussion that resulted in that section being removed. I much prefer the current section, by the way. As for what Signedzzz stated about "every year," I think he means last year and this year, and any other year that may come up. It's only coming up because he's seeing things that are not there. In his campaign to get my previous section removed, he also saw things that were not there and twisted my words. Like I explained at WP:ANI, this is why I should not interact with this individual. Regarding some editors I've had one or more big disputes with, I've gone on to build online friendships with them and/or collaborate with them on a Wikipedia article. That will not be the case with Signedzzz.

As for WP:Socks, at least I recently helped catch another. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What's your score now? :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

To find out the exact number, I'd have to look back at the cases I reported to WP:ArbCom, the cases I reported to editors via email so that they could handle them, and the random cases where I noted that an editor is not new, such as this one and this one (in addition to the one I linked to above in this section). I wasn't always keeping track of the score. For some things, my mind keeps track without me deeply thinking about it; for others, I make the effort to keep track. And with some of my suspicions regarding who's actually not new, I keep them to myself to avoid unnecessary drama. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I thought you might have been keeping track. :) I have found exactly one set (confirmed and blocked) and suspected several others, but not had any accounts to compare them with (i.e. I found only the sock, not the master). I'm not counting one persistent dynamic IP user who unplugs his ^{(presumed gender)} router every time his IP gets blocked -- his IP range is so broad that there is nothing that can be done, short of blocking his entire country, and in any case, others discovered this particular user well before I did. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

hey

I see you just reverted my edit onkozhikode. im confused as to whats wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortosthanos (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Rortosthanos, I reverted because your addition was unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw

Is there a way you can fix your comment? It appears to have broken the numbers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, when I made this edit, I was in the process of figuring out why three comments (including mine) were struck. I then saw it's because of where the struck addition was added. Anyway, as you know, the matter has been fixed, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay, and yes thanks. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My inappropriate !vote

Hello Flyer, I just wanted to drop you a line. I'm not a sockpuppet, I'm just a confused lurker who finally registered an account and almost instantly fraked up.

Thank you for clearing up the RfA !vote thing. I hadn't made the connection between the hashtag and opinion as being a "numbered vote" instead of simply stating an opinion about the RfA. I feel pretty dumb. Really, really dumb.

Again thank you for striking my inappropriate edit. If there are other actions I should take to patch up my goof, I would appreciate some guidance if you have the time.

Jasphetamine (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jasphetamine, per what my user page states about identifying WP:Socks, I am not the editor you should be claiming your innocence to. Simply put, I don't believe you, and I was very much tempted to revert your message to my talk page for insulting my intelligence. I'm also not the one who struck your vote, as is made clear by the section immediately above this one. Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not intend to insult your intelligence. I was attempting to be friendly in the hopes of patching over a severe faux-paux. I apologize for the hasell I have caused and will respectfully refrain from further editing of your Talk page.Jasphetamine (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine: My question would be if you are new to Wikipedia and just learning the ropes why would you be so opposed to Montana when you never had contact before? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jasphetamine, by claiming that you are not a WP:Sock and that you are "just a confused lurker who finally registered an account," you are indeed insulting my intelligence. Yes, do refrain from commenting on my talk page with such dishonesty. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

child protection
Thank you, user with significant knowledge in the social/scientific/psychological/sexual fields, for quality unbiased articles on these topics, such as Clitoris and Todd Manning, for explaining edit summaries, for your firm stance on child protection, for your collection of vandalism moments, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! - Enjoy a "bit of tea every now and again, to stop, relax, reflect and prepare ourselves to finish the tasks at hand".

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 982nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I'm looking to add more articles to that list, such as the Human brain. Flyer22 (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

RE: Ken Jeong

Good catch. Thanks. But not a good faith edit, as he was never a gynecologist -- that's just scatology. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, what do you mean? Scatology is something wholly different. And given that the Personal life section states, "Jeong was encouraged by his wife to quit his job as a physician and pursue acting full-time.", it's not unreasonable to think that the IP read somewhere that he was a gynecologist. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

New Media Theorist

Hey Flyer, the editor says "new account"--we have no choice but to accept. So far they're not getting into trouble, at least not with people who matter (and I'm trying to prevent trouble between you and them), so give them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies. I considered it likely that you might leave me a note to ease up on New Media Theorist, since I saw that you'd been in communication with him at his talk page, and that he'd emailed you. I stated that I can't do anything about my or anyone else's suspicions regarding him at this time. Having anlayzed articles he's edited, and recent WP:AfD trends, I have my suspicions about who he could be (the analyses was quick, as it usually is for me), but I'll be keep that to myself since solid evidence is important for WP:Socking cases. And if he's not a WP:Sock, but is a returning editor of some other kind, the evidence would be a waste anyway. I do usually keep tabs on editors I suspect of WP:Socking, though. If I turned out wrong most of the time, I wouldn't worry about it. But the vast majority of time, the ones I've pegged as WP:Socks are eventually revealed to be WP:Socks, which I alluded to above. So it's not just ego talking. And that's why WP:Assume good faith in cases like these can seem highly dubious to me. That stated, while New Media Theorist's defensive, passive-aggressive responses have served to convince me further that he's not a WP:Newbie (WP:Sock or not), that latest reply of mine at his talk page was already to be my last reply there on the matter. As for him getting into trouble, I don't see that he will get into trouble any time soon. As for people who matter in this case, do you mean those who'd recognize him immediately, or do you mean WP:Administrators and/or WP:CheckUsers? Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I can tell you that I got an email about a simple matter: they'd not logged in. And then I asked the same question you did; I didn't know what you had asked them. Their answer was substantially the same. NMT, I don't think I'm betraying any confidences here. So my point really is that we have no choice but to accept that and to take their edits as they come. As for the people that matter, I meant nice people, really--nothing official. NMT, I am really not interested in any personal information, which wouldn't mean anything anyway if there's nothing to compare it to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd seen that "not logged in" part, not his IP. I saw the matter after you'd used WP:Oversight (or what is it WP:RevDelete?) to remove the IP data. So I figured that's what he emailed you about. But I was also thinking that the email moved into a different topic. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Documenting his latest reply on the matter here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Gentelemen: I had a nice chat with Drmies by email today. I would be happy to give him my real-life identity and any information in terms past editing he needs to settle your concernsFlyer22, as I think he is a trustworthy stand-up admin who will respect my privacy. It's really not going to be fruitful to spend any time pairing me up with old users, as, well, I am not them. So I guess am offering to 'verify', in order to have any concerns dealt with. This is a pretty good offer, seeing, as you admit, I have done nothing wrong! New Media Theorist (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

New Media Theorist, that wouldn't ease my suspicion/concern about you. And I have not admitted that you haven't done anything wrong. I stated, "solid evidence is important for WP:Socking cases." Anyway, as I've already noted to you, you are free to go about your merrily business. If you can forgive my jaded nature on these matters, then do. I'm jaded because, as noted above, I've dealt with too many cases like this where I turned out to be right. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand your suspicions. That said, I am willing to provide my identity, place of residence, IP addresses, Internet provider, CV, and a list of past (very, very minor) Wikipedia editing activity to Drmies, if he's willing to do the work checking.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That information is not necessary, and it wouldn't help prove that you've never edited Wikipedia before registering as New Media Theorist. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If disclosing my entire personal identity and past Wikipedia activity to a respected admin is not enough, I do not know what is! I hope you do remember this offer and my willingness to do so. I appear to be experienced because I have more than two decades experience within universities, including far more writing and reasoning courses than I would have liked, and I have been working with technology and coding for more than two decades as well. I've taught almost fifty university courses in a half-dozen different areas of my field of expertise. Given those skills, becoming a decent editor in here in the past month is really not that surprising: editing Wikipedia is not a challenging skill to grasp. I hope you will take my good faith explanation at face value. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

*Comment I really have to conclude that the approach to new users -- questioning their motives despite the presence of any evidence whatsoever-- is a) disheartening and b) a violation of WP:AGF. There's a reason for that policy, and it is to avoid treating people the way you are treating me, i.e. guilty without any evidence of doing anything wrong whatsoever. Unless you have some evidence beyond the observation that I am a skilled editor, please stop. I would respectfully encourage you stop for a moment and consider the ramifications of assuming someone is bad from the start. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

New Media Theorist, if I WP:Assumed good faith in the vast of majority of the cases where I was right about WP:Socking, that would have contributed to the disruption caused by those WP:Socks. WP:Assume good faith does not mean forgoing common sense or otherwise good sense. I do not WP:Assume good faith in cases where I think or know I should not. And you know what? That's worked out for me, and this community as a whole, the vast majority of the time; I've been very clear about that. I've also been clear that I am done discussing this matter with you. And yet you keep coming back here trying to prove your innocence to me. Why is that? Why do you want me to believe in you so badly? When editors do that, it makes me less likely to believe in them. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And WP:Assume good faith is a guideline, not a policy, by the way; there is a difference: WP:Policies and guidelines. In WP:Sock cases, WP:Ignore all rules, which is policy, comes to the forefront for me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Let us stick to the facts. You came to the talk page of someone who has violated no rules, with claims for which you have no evidence. ZERO evidence. You decided you would shake me down, to see if you could find something out. Despite my explanations and good faith offers, you refuse to cease claiming that I might be this sock or that, or to acknowledge that you made a mistake. If you had one tiny scrap of evidence that would be perfectly fine, but you have nothing. This is the online form of bullying. If you have evidence, you can raise claims and questions and accuse. But you have nothing. You are bullying someone who has done nothing wrong, on the basis of "who knows, maybe they did do something wrong that I am not aware of". You said I am "passive aggressive". Maybe it's because I tried to be somewhat nice in my replies at the same time as I was trying to stand up to a bully. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2015‎ (UTC)

New Media Theorist, I came to your talk page to politely query you about your editing experience. I am allowed to do that. I am allowed to query people about their editing experience and specifically whether or not they edited Wikipedia under a different registered account. There are WP:Administrators who do the same thing. I will WP:Ping three of them to this section...if you'd like. I will link to WP:ANI cases showing such behavior...if you'd like. I didn't even accuse you of being a WP:Sock. And yet you got defensive and indeed passive-aggressive, stating that it was not my business, which is the reply of someone with something to hide. I made it clear to you that it is my business, that it is the business of the entire Wikipedia community, unless you are validly editing within the WP:Clean start rules. Another editor, Coldcreation, also felt that you are indeed no WP:Newbie, and commented accordingly. You continued with the wanna-be humor and passive-aggressive defensiveness. After I was clear to you why I feel the way that I do about you (years of experience with such cases, and an excellent rate of being right about them), and that I am done discussing this matter with you, you continued commenting here as though I have to believe you or else I'm a bad Wikipedian and/or a bad person. Those are the facts. Instead of being done with this, which one would think you were after this edit, you have continued with it. Everything you have done after my querying you about your Wikipedia editing experience has caused me to trust you even less. Yes, not trusting you begins with your editing history and you knowing of policies and guidelines that WP:Newbies almost always never know of, and that, despite that, you are still making it seem like you are a complete WP:Newbie. It doesn't matter how much university experience you have; that will not make you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That you worked "with technology and coding for more than two decades as well" would not contribute to you editing in the experienced way you edit. There are plenty of Wikipedians with the "working with technology and coding" experience, and their WP:Newbie histories do not reveal the level of experience that your WP:Newbie history reveals; their histories look like that of WP:Newbies.

You have no idea what evidence I have. If you do not understand why I am so suspicious of "new" editors who edit like you, and why various editors trust my sense on these matters and/or come to me about WP:Sockpuppet cases, then I suggest you look over the cases where I caught WP:Sockpuppets; a few are clearly there in the WP:Sockpuppet section of my user page. Look at the excuses and denials they come up with, and see that I have experienced it all. I very much doubt that there is a WP:Sock who could fool me, whether I buddy up with that WP:Sock and let them think they are safe, or whether I shun the WP:Sock. I am clear on my user page that I recognize non-new editors; this includes returning editors who are not WP:Socks. I don't always think that a non-new editor who clearly has experience editing this site is a WP:Sock. But to tell me that such editors have never edited Wikipedia before is something that I will never believe. I suggest you leave me to my beliefs; they won't be changing because I see no valid reason that they should change. I do not think like those who are sympathetic to WP:Socks and/or to new accounts that don't edit like newbies but are not WP:Socks. Such sympathetic editors cause more harm than good to Wikipedia; I've seen it time and time again, including in a recent case that I had to take care of because no one else would. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have evidence, let's see it. Obviously you have none, as there is none! Your paranoid bullying and preemptive attacks on new users like myself are, in my view, pathetic. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New Media Theorist, do stop replying on my talk page. You are embarrassing yourself. My track record on WP:Sockpuppetry cases, common sense and otherwise good sense speaks for itself and doesn't need your skewed commentary. If you keep commenting on my talk page, I will see to it that the matter is dealt with. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting

This is interesting, considering this. Any idea who it is? If so, drop me an email. BMK (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK, all I could do is sigh at the matter because of how obvious it is that this editor is not new. I'm still looking into that case, comparing accounts. It's good to see others pointing out that Stabila711 is far from new. Like you, it's difficult for me to trust an editor who has an undisclosed, very experienced past as a Wikipedia editor. This is because the editor is usually a WP:Sock or some other problematic returning editor. Judging by Stabila711's editing style, I think that Stabila711 is aiming for WP:Adminship. And as noted at WP:Clean start, past accounts should be disclosed in such cases.

By the way, if you didn't know, we are also discussing an important sock matter at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK, this case may take months, like my most recent case, but I'm certainly on it. It could even take a year. Hopefully, I am able to close this one and it won't be a cold case. I'll contact some people (including former Wikipedians who have an eye for spotting WP:Socks and matching them up with past accounts) about this via email as well. I just read more of that WP:AN thread, and, as others noted, what we are dealing with here is an extremely advanced editor. This editor is not only policy and guideline savvy, but also relationship savvy; by that, I mean that the editor knows how to play off others' behaviors quite well, whether it's deflecting, playing the victim, indicating that we should be WP:Assuming good faith, etc. Just wow. Basically, the editor is good at WP:Gaming the system. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And big props to you for having the guts to start such a thread at WP:AN. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Pedophilia

Can't we just close the nonsensical thread over at that talk page? It is getting to be borderline trolling, although I appreciate your work in this area. GAB^Hello! 02:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad (GAB), yes, he is giving me quite the tongue-lashing (or finger-lashing), isn't he? As much as I'm sure certain people are eating that up, feel free to use Template:Collapse on that thread. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "Borderline"? It most definitely is trolling; indeed I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn't the first of April when I saw someone accusing Flyer of going soft on those who abuse children. The only thing he or she said, that had any merit at all, was that the sources used for the article show some western bias. I think that this is excusable, here, given the nature of the sources, and the amount of attention this subject gets within academia. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Demisexuals

Hey Flyer22, I know that you were working on the Asexuality page at one point and did not want to expand the topic of demisexuals at the time. I, however, would like to add the definition of what demisexuality is, explain the type of relationships demisexuals experience, as well as where they fall on the asexual spectrum and other information regarding demisexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity. I feel that expanding on this subject is important in order to allow questioning people to find the information and possible validation that they may need. Though this is a fairly new topic, there is a lot of information on it. I would like to make this information easily accessible for curious people. Ideally I would like to make a separate page for this topic but if not I would like to at least expand on the subject via the Asexuality page. What do you think of this? Mschm24 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Emily Kinney

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily Kinney#Did Kinney leave the show in 2014 or 2015?. Thanks. Chamith (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

ChamithN, yes, that article is still on my WP:Watchlist. I'll comment on that matter soon. My brain had somewhat ignored it (barely registered it) when I made a new reply about the subheading issue at the talk page. But the WP:Edit warring IP who keeps adding that Kinney left in 2015 because of a guest appearance has been a pain. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Image Placement - left and right

It's not about preferences, it's about balancing the look and feel of the page to improve readability. If you look at any edited encyclopedia, you will see that exactly zero of them put all of the images on the right side. It's just not done in publishing. Hike The Monicas (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hike The Monicas, you should discuss this matter at the guideline talk page if you want to see a change regarding it here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has valid reasons for wanting the images to generally be on the right. Your edit was at conflict with the text above yours stating that images should generally be right-adjusted. Furthermore, judging by this case, you make it seem like the staggering should happen in every instance. For example, it's fine for two images lower in the article to both be on the right, especially if it avoids WP:SANDWICHING. As you can see in this edit, I noted that I used to stagger images from right to left on Wikipedia, but that I no longer do that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You state that there are "valid reasons", without citing those reasons. I'm at least leaning on historical placement practices used for hundreds of years in professional publishing to support the argument. Hike The Monicas (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hike The Monicas, I already noted that you should take this matter to the guideline talk page. Clearly, there are editors there who form WP:Consensus about how these things should be. And there are archives you can check there at that talk page to see how these things came to be. I objected to changes you made to WP:Consensus wording of a guideline. It is now your job to argue your case for changing that guideline at the guideline talk page if you want it changed. I shouldn't need to point editors to my talk page about this. And I shouldn't be the one to start the discussion there for you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I left Wikipedia 5 years ago with over 10,000 edits, because it just become too hostile of a place to get any work done. I have to say it's worse now than ever. I understand the need to enforce the rules, but it's the uncivil way in which it's accomplished that is galling. It's not just you -- it's endemic now. Maybe you should take a break for your own health. Hike The Monicas (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hike The Monicas, yes, I know that you are not a WP:Newbie. As for not being WP:Civil and being too hostile, name how I've been such to you and I'll apologize. I don't see how I've treated you in such a way. If you are referring to something else on my talk page, then do keep the context in mind. Do I try to be pleasant to WP:Disruptive editors, especially WP:Socks? I commonly do not. When it's a disruptive editor, especially a WP:Sock, I've dealt with over and over again, you and no one else should expect me to be warm and fuzzy to such an editor. I shouldn't have to be warm and fuzzy with any editor who continually messes up Wikipedia, troubling content workers. I will not mince words with such editors, as is clearly seen in the #Quit with your phony threats and #It's not needed sections below. And those who do not know the backstory on my relationships with such editors should keep their WP:Civil and "you need a break" advice to themselves. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I've lost a lot of respect for editors who enable these disruptive users and/or make it seem like I'm being too harsh on them. When it's someone I've indicated that I know for certain is a WP:Sock I've interacted with, it's wise to take my word on it. If the administrators want to take the gamble that I'm wrong and ignore the matter, any future problems that editor causes is on them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you undo the Socket Bayonet edit?

The bayonet section which you undid was a very truthful and specific edit. It was already a given that the socket bayonet made the plug bayonet obsolete, and therefore the pike obsolete as well, and the British Army did not do anything but follow the general guidelines laid out by war experience from other countries.

The British Army's "mastering" of the bayonet sounds very biased as well. In fact, alone, each history of the countries such as Sweden, Prussia, Russia and even France(which has more bayonet charges than since the British Army's inception in 1700s) have done more for bayonet tactics than Britain who usually copies tactics from the Continent. Why undo when it was making it neutral and true? The source doesn't say anything about "perfecting" the bayonet charge. In fact, the source looks like some magazine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.138.12 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

TV Guide change

Hi, you switched back the changes I made to TV Guide Magazine's editor structure. Doug Brod departed in April 2015, so it was incorrect. I fixed it, but you've reinstated the incorrect information. [TV Guide Magazine, Sept. 28-Oct. 11, 2015, page 2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE70:A0B0:E6CE:8FFF:FE2F:4D88 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

IP, you just added that source into your above comment. If that source is accurate, then go ahead and revert me and support your content with that source. See WP:Citing sources and WP:Citation templates. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Quit with your phony threats

If you wanna go to ANI, Flyer... GO! I am not stalking you, nor have I ever. I'm currently in the process of fixing a lot of mistakes done by random IPs. Quit with your paranoid accusations, they're childish.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the same consensus talk I linked to here specifically states that the "Alias" parameter in the soap opera infoboxes has been changed to "Other names" so you knew you were doing wrong when you reverted me here and don't tell me to learn to read when you're the one making the mistakes because you didn't read something properly.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, as you know, my responses are here, here, here and here. Whether one states that you are stalking me or not, if I see you popping up at articles in ways that I view to be an attempt at WP:Hounding, whether it's to an obscure article like Cougar (slang), a The Walking Dead article, a soap opera article (as you know, I'm thankful I no longer primarily edit those types of articles since it spares me from having to interact with you), or some other article, I will indeed take you to WP:ANI. And it will not be pretty. You chose to revert me at three articles after this matter because I was no longer giving you any attention and I'd upset you immensely. You apparently couldn't wait to find "a reason" to interact with me again and remind me of you, as if anyone needs reminding of who you are. Your talk page edit history that you repeatedly blank is clear about that. Would I have reverted you on such a trivial matter if initially spotting you not long after we had heated words? Of course not! I'd rather stay far away from you. But like various other editors I've upset (who sometimes subsequently turn to stalking my edits), you go out of your way to interact with me and to hopefully keep fighting. Then claim "Oh, no, I wasn't doing that. You're just paranoid." Yeah, enough people who have stalked me have made the same argument, and were blocked and/or sanctioned in some way despite their paranoia claims. Regardless of any stalking intentions you may or may not have, common sense should tell you to avoid me unless necessary, like it tells me as far as you are concerned. You are apparently eager to be blocked again due to inappropriate interaction with me. I was not wrong in the least for reverting that IP; there is no WP:Consensus that states that we have to use that "alias" field. And using it for married names is completely redundant. That discussion you linked to shows editors' dissatisfaction with it being used for married names. But like the fanboy you are, you are all for it being used in that way. And like the WP:Baiter you are, you chose to post to my talk page, knowing that I do not welcome you here in the least. Notice that I do not post to your talk page. You have a colorful history at mine. You always have to have the last word, even on my own talk page. No doubt you also WP:Watchlisted those soap opera articles that I edit, which are among the few soap opera articles I still edit and previously didn't have to worry about you editing. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I got as far as... pretty much nowhere, to be honest. I don't care what your paranoid delusions of grandeur are. If you wanna go to ANI, Flyer: GO! You have nothing because there's nothing to have. You are NOT that special. Go to ANI. I double-dog dare you (or whatever saying the cool kids are using these days).Cebr1979 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

fuck u

If you our gonna make a list make sure you include all of them so don't change my shit again you ain't from the coast put all rapper or move on WestCoastKingtyb (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Puberty

I am "consistent with these words" but don't let me or the dictionary stop you. Go on, use any words you please: it's Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can fertilize with. Textorus (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Textorus, regarding this, this and this, I expected you to come to my talk page about it. This is because, even though I don't see you around a lot because our editing focuses significantly differ, I remember you, and editors have a tendency to bring disputes to the editor talk page instead of to the article talk page. I remembered you because of your "diction" edit summary style; not a lot of editors use that style. Anyway, it's nice to see you still improving Wikipedia.

As for the article in question, I referred you to the Virility and Fertility articles to show you how they respectively define the terms/how their articles are formatted and what sources they use; as you can see from the sources in the Fertility article, the term fertility is also used with regard to males. A regular Google search, a Google Books search and a Google scholar search also show this. Stating fertility instead of virility is far more common for sexual reproduction and medical matters. And all that I meant by "consistent" is that the article should generally be consistent with the wording; we should choose one and generally stick with that. I chose to go with virility as a compromise with you, but while also making it clear that fertility is an alternative term in this case. And as for dictionaries, if we look at what dictionaries state about the term fertility, as seen here and here, they clearly do not restrict the term to female reproductivity. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, how nice to meet you again, and what a good memory you have! I'm afraid I had forgotten all about our little chat on "heterosexualization" - quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Still, here we are chipping away at the bastions of ignorance and confusion, eh? You more than I, it looks like, and good on you for that. My expectations are lower for myself and for WP - as I said in 2011, I do it just for the minor pleasure it affords in passing the time, the way some people knit or whistle the "Stars and Stripes Forever." And I just try to ignore it when my conscientious efforts are overruled by another editor. Still, it's a bit irksome to be not only reverted (which ought to be reserved for vandals and other wikicriminals IMO), but accused of being "inconsistent" -- oh my!

Just so you know, I did indeed look at the other articles, even before your note, but saw nothing there from any reliable and authoritative source to contradict the traditional usage of those terms. I will take on faith your word that there are dictionaries now that admit the use of the one for the other - though of course there are also plenty of so-called dictionaries that will allow you to use "infer" when you mean "imply" and even worse perversions of the language. Alas for good, honest English diction! But "who am I to judge" --? I made my edits, and a small protest, and now I am over it. I understand your reasoning, appreciate your compromise, and I know you are a conscientious editor too, so carry on as you please.

Good to hear from you. I rarely ever run across the same editor twice these days, so it's nice to see a familiar name.Textorus (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Textorus. I've changed a lot as a Wikipedia editor since our last meeting. For example, I went through a very grumpy period, and am still somewhat in that period. This is addressed a little on my user page. I wonder if editors who were familiar with me before I became so very stern and almost completely disillusioned with this site remember how I was before that point. I suppose with the variety of contentious topics I edit on Wikipedia, the hostility I encounter here, and the variety of POV-pushers and WP:Trolls I deal with, that grumpiness was inevitable. It was a gradual process, though I had occasional ugly disputes. I could construct a timeline of "Newbie Flyer22, Optimistic Flyer22" to "Stern Flyer22, Bitter Flyer22." And then there are the ones who view me as POV-pushing for upholding the WP:Due weight policy, or some other policy or guideline. Some of them act like they should just invoke WP:Ignore all rules whenever. I am not always stern with our policies and guidelines; I recently made that clear in the #New Media Theorist section above. Some editors apply WP:Assume good faith without a lick of sense.

Anyway, I meant no offense by reverting you; reverting is just a part of the job here, and it was mainly to get your attention. And I definitely wasn't calling you inconsistent. When you gave me that advice in 2011, I did keep it in mind. And I understand what you meant even more now. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I admire your persistence and endurance in the face of the never-ending onslaught of the wikibarbarians. So enjoy (and place this wherever you think best - I didn't want to edit your userpage) and take care.Textorus (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I appreciate all your hard work to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; but don't forget to stop and have a nice cup of tea now and then - it does a body good. Textorus

Thank you very much, Textorus. I feel the same way about you. Feel free to drop me a line any time, including via email. Flyer22 (talk)

It's not needed

So, you're telling me that adding snark comments to a users talk page is being civil? Yes, I didn't like the comment you left, that is part of the reason I removed it. The other part is because it was an unnecessary. I think Wikipedia can do without sarcastic comments such as this, and this. Just stop your accusations, please. New User Person (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

New User Person, per what I stated at WP:ANI, your presence on Wikipedia is not needed. Stop abusing Wikipedia. And just like I am not welcomed at your talk page, you certainly are not welcomed at mine. But then again, you already know that. Hopefully, you will soon be indefinitely blocked. Then again, we both know you will return despite that. I am tired of playing your silly games. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And the initial comment I left at your talk page was not sarcasm; it was genuine. It was also a test, and you failed. Instead of informing everyone of just who you are, I am going to let them figure it out. That is, if a WP:CheckUser doesn't reveal that information first. Being the one to expose the wolf in sheep's clothing every time while everyone else seems oblivious or ignores it gets tiring. Flyer22 (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And regarding this? Wrong. There is no hole. But it's not first time an administrator has been wrong regarding me highlighting a problematic editor. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not hard to recognize a sock puppet but lack the evidence to prove it, it happens all the time. You seem to act like we are sitting on our hands because we are too blind to see or we just don't believe you. The reality is that without evidence all we can do is sit and wait until such evidence presents itself. While you are indeed a talented sock hunter we can't just follow your gut feeling, no more than I can follow my gut feeling.

I am not blocking this user right now because I cannot confirm they are a sock puppet no matter how likely it seems. Unless you can provide evidence we are lacking then I suggest you disengage with this user and just watch for... well, evidence. Don't think you are the only one with eyes to see, we are not blind, like you we just don't have proof. HighInBC 15:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC (Chillum), all I'm asking is that editors trust me on these WP:Sock matters and not be dismissive. There are different types of WP:Socks, some harder to recognize than others. It is not always easy to recognize them. For example, some get good at changing their style or successfully portraying themselves as WP:Newbies. As far as evidence goes, some editors need to be aware that a little behavioral evidence or a gut feeling goes a long way. If I was not as right about these matters as I am, I wouldn't feel that people should take my word for it. But it turns out that my word on such matters is solid, in the vast majority of cases anyway; I've only been wrong two times, and I'm speaking of the cases where I specifically identified someone as a WP:Sock of another, not a case like the #Signedzzz one where I've indicated that he is a WP:Sock of someone. In one of those two cases, though (Lois Millard), it's still not clear to me that I was wrong. But when I'm 100% certain, I do not fail. I've had editors trust me based on my hunch, or on a little evidence, because of my track record on these matters and/or because they decided to take a leap of faith. At User talk:NeilN/Archive 22#User:AbuseResearcher, you can see that Alison trusted me enough to run a check. Given the turnout, it was a good thing too. That stated, Alison and I have a history of trusting each other; so she knows to take a WP:Sock matter seriously when I highlight it. At User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37#User:RJR3333 likely editing as User:ECayce187, you can see that Tiptoety trusted me enough to run a check. Look at User talk:Scaravich105nj#April 2015, part 2 to see another case where he came through with flying colors. And because of that latter matter, Beeblebrox offered an apology to me; I was, however, clear with Beeblebrox that I understood why it was not easy to just trust my word. At Talk:A Rape on Campus/Archive 1#Beware of WP:Sockpuppeting going on at this article, you can see that Euryalus handled that; that was a result of Euryalus trusting me enough. In the #SpaghettiCali section above, you can see that Yunshui afforded me some trust. In the Help to deal with sockpuppetry/Action Hero case, I'm not sure that Ponyo bagging that WP:Sock had anything to do with me, but I certainly highlighted that matter. So did Rsrikanth05.

We need more editors who are willing to take that leap of faith regarding WP:Sock cases, those who are willing to query "new editors" about their previous Wikipedia editing, especially because they know what content creators endure due to disruptive users. Not doing so and/or assuming too much good faith results in cases like the #The one that got away matter noted above. This is one reason why I admire NeilN, JamesBWatson, Spartaz, JzG, and similar editors. It's why I very much appreciate what Beyond My Ken (BMK) recently did and stated on this type of thing (now seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#BMK questioning Stabila711). When I notice a WP:Sock or an otherwise non-new user posing as a new editor, I don't need editors telling me to "put up or shut up," or imply that I'm being disruptive or a drama queen. I know what I'm doing. And gathering evidence for editors that you know are WP:Socks, especially because you've tangled with them more than once, is not always easy. It is a pain watching them edit and knowing you can't do anything about it except highlight it to those who are able to do something about it. Furthermore, they commonly return anyway. Look at what one such WP:Sock told me: User talk:Flyer22/Archive 18#Why banned users keep coming back, despite attempts to remove their incentives. And he was recently spotted by Alison; see here and here. If I were a WP:Administrator, I'd handle these matters somewhat differently than I do as a non-WP:Administrator, since a WP:Administrator has a certain image to uphold and should have just the right temperament (yes, I am very aware of how I project here at this site). But I'm not one, and likely won't ever be one. And so I have more leeway with how I go about these cases. And that benefits Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

___

Incorrectly regarded as vandalism

I wanted to let you know that I removed a vandalism warning you left on an IP user's Talk Page because, even though the user's edit (here) certainly wasn't helpful, it does appear to be in good faith. All (s)he did was change the word "fiancee" to "girlfriend" (two words that are easy to be confused) and removed citations. While it is unknown why the user removed the citations, I don't think it is enough to go on to definitively call it vandalism. Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, when looking at that matter via WP:STiki, I took it as a blanking/POV issue. Unexplained blanking is considered WP:Vandalism. It looked like vandalism or some other form WP:Disruptive editing to me at first glance, which is why I made that revert. If I hadn't reverted the text in such a way, it is very likely that another WP:Patroller would have; such reverts are common. WP:STiki doesn't just mark such edits as vandalism, but also as "test." It could be either one -- a test or vandalism. That stated, I appreciate you clarifying the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking policy

Just an FYI for you: If you put a pipe before the closing square brackets when wikilinking a policy, it will display without the prefix. In other words, [[WP:V|]] will display V. I just learned that cool trick myself! John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, John from Idegon. Thanks for the tip. What urged you to relay it to me? Is it because it's common for me to state "WP:Assume good faith" and similar, instead of simply "assume good faith" with or without a WP:Pipelink? Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just saw your recent post at ANI and kinda got lost in all the "WP's.  :) John from Idegon (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, yeah, I know it's annoying when I do that; I developed that habit more so in 2014 and this year, but it began to creep on me in 2013. Somewhere in my head it makes more sense to me to, for example, state "WP:Sock" instead of "sock." I'm sure I'll drop the habit, especially since it's a pain typing "WP:" in front of what I mean. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent efforts NeilN talk to me 06:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Emergency Planning College

Hello, you recently made some changes to Emergency Planning college page but I had place holding text there whilst I update the new page so when I revert the changes back to what I had put there please can you not edit again?

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.14.10 (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. I just dropped by to leave you a note about this matter, but I see the IP user already did so. After being reverted three times by three different editors, the IP user apparently created an account that starts with the initials of the organization, and reverted the article to the more spamy version (which was promptly reverted). I've welcomed the new user with the COI version of the welcome message, and also posted a user-name warning on the page. I also posted a 3RR warning on the IP's talk page, just in case it really is a different user. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

huh?

i was doing a biome project and that is right im sure i saw it in more then one book look into it will you.Kaiwen0115 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pokerkiller

I am curious. You say you were watching this user for a while. May I ask if this is because you saw disruptive behaviour, or if it is simply because it was obvious it was not a new user?

I am did look through their contributions and did not find anything disturbing, however I only looked through a sample. My current advocacy for a finite block instead of an indefinite block is based on the fact that I saw only helpful edits from the Pokerkiller account. I would like to know if you saw something I missed. HighInBC 23:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd been watching Pokerkiller ever since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw#Support, where Davey2010, Guerillero and GregJackP got into a debate about Pokerkiller's vote. I was on the lookout for socks in that request for adminship because of User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Hello? Cali11298 again. and the Action Hero sock I'd highlighted. Pokerkiller's username also reminds me of Politrukki (talk · contribs), another editor I've been watching, and whose editing experience was recently highlighted by Thewolfchild. So it was very easy to remember Pokerkiller, but I saw no editing by Pokerkiller that would make me think the account needed an indefinite block (you know, other than the fact that the editor was not new but had a new account). Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am glad I did not miss anything that would me regret supporting their return. HighInBC 00:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I stepped into incel

I found the incels article originally because I saw Fyddlestix's delete and wanted to support the deletion of it. I had zero idea of any controversy surrounding it. I don't know what that controversy is nor do I care, but I do wish editors on wiki would actually assume good faith. I often get the notion that editing on wiki is more akin war zone than anything else. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

MurderByDeadcopy, whether or not you were familiar with this matter, you were on my radar the moment you made this edit. And you stayed there after I checked your editing history, from beginning to now. And that's mainly because your edit history indicates to me that you are not a WP:Newbie, which is also why I stated that I'd wager that you are familiar with the involuntary celibacy/incel debates. Yes, I saw this reply by you. And I understand what you mean by WP:Assume good faith. But to understand what I mean by it, see the #New Media Theorist and #Image Placement - left and right sections above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Amber Heard

Amber Heard are bisexual read her Personal_life --Muhib mansour (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) She doesn't identify specifically as lesbian or bisexual. This note is in the category section: NOTE: Per WP:BLPCAT, Heard is not to be added to the lesbian or bisexual category until she publicly identifies as either lesbian or bisexual. She has publicly identified as being a part of the LGBT community. While sources have identified her as lesbian or bisexual, she has yet to publicly specify her sexual orientation. See past talk page discussions about this.. See WP:BLPCAT. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Muhib mansour. See what Clpo13 stated above. I reverted you because of WP:BLPCAT, which is policy. If you read the Personal life section of the Amber Heard article, you can see that, while she is romantically/sexually attracted to men and women, she does not label herself as bisexual (not publicly at least). Nor does she label herself as lesbian. This and this source show her talking about sexual orientation labels, and it's clear from both sources that she'd rather not go with a sexual orientation label at this point in time. Likely not ever. WP:Reliable sources have labeled her as one or the other, but we go by self-identification in cases like these. With this link, you can see that we've done similarly for the Jodie Foster article. By contrast, even in a case where the person has publicly identified with a sexual orientation, editors might still not put them in a lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual or asexual category. You can currently see that this is the case with the David Bowie article; for why, see Talk:David Bowie/Archive 5#No LGBT catgories. Then there are cases like Marlon Brando and James Dean, as seen here, here, here and here, where WP:BLPCAT doesn't apply but where editors feel that self-identification should still be considered; the dead are not here to speak for themselves. Anyway, consider not being so quick to categorize a person's sexual orientation based on what you believe it to be; keep their sexual identity in mind. As is clear by the Sexual orientation and Sexual identity articles, sexual orientation and sexual identity do not always align. And some people have actually sexually experimented, and wouldn't identify as bisexual because of that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: I see that the David Bowie article currently has the LGBT and bisexual categories; I thought they'd been removed again months ago and that the article had stayed that way since then. In any case, as noted in that aforementioned discussion about his sexual orientation, his latest public statement on his sexual orientation is that he is bisexual. So the bisexual category in that case is supported by WP:BLPCAT. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Darkfrog24, I've seen the latest debating on that matter. The topic keeps popping up on my watchlist since I have that guideline watchlisted; but it seems like too much rehashing of the same thing to me. I've mostly kept out of the debate, and was hoping the matter would be settled after that first big village pump discussion concerning it. Editors get worn out when having to, or feeling the need to, debate the same thing over and over again. Flyer22 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your edits on Male Privilege

thanks for your edits on Male Privilege. You kind of caught me in the middle of editing, i was still moving stuff around and wasn't quite finished linking to the articles for other languages. see the talk page for my reasons for changing that section. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Can you help me to redirect the article National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army to the article National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army Thank you so much Hanam190552 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mergers

Hello – apologies if I have done anything wrong. I have been trying to clear some of the backlog of mergers that have built up over the last four years. I have noticed that some of the proposed mergers had tags placed on one of the articles but not the other, so I thought that maybe by placing the missing tag it could actually generate the discussion that you have rightly noticed is missing... if the tag isn't there, how would anybody know it had been proposed as a merger in the first place, in order to have a discussion about it? Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard3120, thanks for explaining this and this (and, in this regard, the tags you added to any other article). I think it is best to remove the old tags. If a merge tag has been on an article for three years, it is more than safe to remove it, and even more so if there is no longer a merger section on the talk page about it or if there never was one. WP:Drive-by tagging is common, and is one of the mistakes of proposing a merge (I mean, if the editor doesn't explain on the talk page why they are proposing the merge). Thanks for trying to clean up the mess, even if it caused a slightly bigger one. This matter also helped alert me to the fact that SMcCandlish has a problem with the WP:DRIVEBY redirect (seen here). Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, will do – apologies for causing any problems. I'll stick to just merging obvious candidates (e.g. duplicate articles) and see if some of the older merge candidates can be taken off the list like you suggest, because there are over 12,000 tagged articles now, which is ludicrous. Richard3120 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard3120, no need for the apology. If we want this site to work well, someone has to clean up its messes. Keep up the good work. Nice to see such a hard-working Wikipedian. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the WP:DRIVEBY redirect. The redirect has a problem in that it's going to the less helpful of two potential targets (one that ultimately points to the more helpful one anyway), so it should be retargeted to just go there in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You deleted my edits

Why did you delete my useful edits to the Banana Kong article? I just want to help make the page more detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivitoe (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Kivitoe, yes, I did; that was because your edits violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Second-person pronouns. But now I see that you created the article, and other parts of the article also violate that guideline. I also see that the article is now nominated for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cabinet of the U.S.

Thanks for reverting that last edit. It wasn't made in good faith, though: It's parallel to the immediately preceding insertion by the same IP. --Thnidu (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thnidu, yeah, that edit obviously isn't a good-faith edit. That's not the one I reverted, though; this one is. I didn't know what to think of that edit, except for the fact that it seemed to be praising someone, possibly someone connected to the Cabinet of the United States (hey, I'm not heavily into politics), so I reverted it as WP:Good faith. Ever since the rollback rights matter concerning me, I've been more cautious with the revert buttons while WP:Patrolling. I always learn from the past. Of course...now I get the occasional query about why I reverted something as a good-faith edit when, to others, it should have been reverted as vandalism or something similar. With the WP:Assume good faith guideline, you win some; lose some. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the catch! Much appreciated. Aurora (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Aurora, although my memory is usually very good, I was about to ask what you are referring to, mainly because I'm seeing other things on my WP:Watchlist and have other things on my mind. Then I remembered. You're welcome; I've made the same type of mistake, and I've seen others make it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris Crocker

Yes, my removal was intentional (reference fixes and removal of unsourced DoB). If you have a reliable source for DoB, please add. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

AN boilerplate

I've quoted in you passing at WP:Administrator's noticeboard#Request to lift temporary topic-ban.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Commented. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What I just posted to Talk:Marty Saybrooke is authoritative (not because it's from me, LOL, but because it's direct quotation of all the relevant material from The Chicago Manual of Style, and explains the rule very clearly. Maybe it will be useful elsewhere this may be discussed, since the editor in question persists in the defiance, and others often intuitively understand the rule but cannot accurately articulate it. Chicago explains it better than Oxford, which is why I did not quote the latter in much detail.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Phyllis Summers Link

If you can, I would like your input on the issue concerning the link I posted in the Phyllis Summers page concerning Sandra Nelson's last airdate. Thank you. Jester66 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Jester66, as you know, I am currently in a dispute with Cebr1979, and would rather avoid that editor at all costs. He annoys me to no end; see the #Quit with your phony threats section above. So I'm not anywhere close to enthusiastic about helping you out on your dispute with him. I will state, though, that SoapCentral.com is a fansite, and it's been discussed times before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas and related talk pages that we should only use that site on Wikipedia for soap opera news and exclusive interviews, which have more editorial oversight there, and maybe for actor profiles. The plot summaries at that site, however, are written by fans, and have copied Wikipedia's plot summaries more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Jester66, looking at the About us section on the site, it seems that the site has even more editorial oversight than it did before. Maybe now the plot summaries are written by an actual staff. And by "plot summaries" in this case, I mean the character profiles, not the recaps; I'm not sure how reliable their plot summaries in the character profiles or recaps are these days, but there appears to be a staff for them. Perhaps it's time to revisit the reliability of SoapCentral.com. After all, you can see at List of soap opera media outlets that TAnthony gave the following description for the site: "Soap opera news and feature hub, originally a fansite known as Soap Opera Central." Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I totally understand how you feel. Guess I'll have to look for other sources that show what I'm trying to say. Jester66 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Jester66, when it comes to Cebr1979, AussieLegend (seen here), Arre 9 (seen here), TAnthony (seen here), Livelikemusic, and a variety of other editors, understand what we mean as well. Some of them have found ways to work with him, however. For example, ever since this truce with Cebr1979, Livelikemusic has avoided heated confrontations with him, including when he is clearly wrong. I assume this is why Livelikemusic removed this post of mine, seemingly as unnecessary drama, and has yet to reply to you about your dispute with Cebr1979. My opinion is that it is only unnecessary drama because Cebr1979 is involved. AnemoneProjectors also appears to interact well or okay-ish with Cebr1979; I'm not sure of their history. So because of the others who have had a variety of past disputes with him but are now working with him, you may be able to find yourself able to work with him. Maybe a truce with him would work for you. Do whatever to reduce or avoid unnecessary drama, I suppose. My opinion, though, is this: Wikipedia is a collaborative project with various rules that should be adhered to...but with WP:Common sense, and I view Cebr1979's behavior and mindset as generally incompatible with Wikipedia. I generally do not work well with editors that I view as WP:Disruptive. Others are more than free to let Cebr1979 have his disruptive reign over soap opera articles, or other articles, all to avoid angering him and/or a confrontation with him, but I certainly will not allow the disruption when it involves me, which is why I am currently doing something about his silly comma usage here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, funny thing is I've also disputed with him in the past. Also this actually involved me too. Jester66 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you've been in disputes with him before this recent dispute. You made that clear. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Violence is not a gender issue!

Please discuss before deleting valid verifiable additions to the Domestic Violence article. DV is NOT a gender issue. It is clearly a people issue and affects both genders.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), I was already in the process of replying to you, and have clearly done so. Domestic violence is indeed a gender issue, as made very clear by the Gender aspects section in the article. And that domestic violence affects men and women does not take away from the fact that it is reported by various WP:Reliable sources to affect women significantly more than men. So your WP:Valid violations, trying to make it seem like men and women are affected to the same degree by domestic violence, will not be tolerated. Neither will your WP:Edit warring. Take your activism elsewhere, and read WP:Activism; Wikipedia does not tolerate such editing. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)