User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

If wanting to discuss an article matter, use the article talk page (and ping me if you think I'm not watching the article), unless it's necessary to leave a message here on my talk page. Email me if you need to talk to me about anything other than editing here, or if it's a matter better discussed off Wikipedia (for example, in cases where editors do not want to call someone a POV-pusher on Wikipedia, I sometimes get emails about POV-pushing edits on a contentious topic, and I sometimes get emails about a personal life issue). It might be days before I check my Wikipedia email, though. If you don't see me for two or more days, it is because I'm attending to personal or business matters, or because I need those two or more days off from Wikipedia since editing here can be stressful for me and since I've found myself wanting to spend less time here. I, however, may pop up at any time, especially if seeing an edit I feel needs to be attended to right then or because of a concern someone has emailed me about.

Who I am
Past introduction page and past user page.

My block log

Short story: Since many here will look at a person's block log without taking the time to read and comprehend it, or are simply confused by it, Boing! said Zebedee stated, "Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine 'My brother did it' episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22." More on the topic is stated at the bottom of this section

My views on disruptive editors, including WP:Socks, and disgruntled editors

During the time that I became known for usually being right about WP:Sockpuppetry matters, I was labeled a "sockhunter" by some. I am not one, however. I never go looking for returning editors. It's rather that the returning editors either are familiar with me and are silly enough to try to edit alongside me as though I will not recognize them, or they are returning editors I am not familiar with...but clearly are not newbies. I can easily recognize that a person is not a newbie, even though I likely will not press the person on it unless necessary. Why wouldn't I press it? Well, long-term sockmasters will just return anyway. Sometimes it's best if I keep an eye on a sock instead of reporting them; see what I did in this case, for example. Sometimes I don't have enough evidence to report them. There is also the fact that not all returning editors are socks (see WP:Clean start), although most of them are. I know of the usual excuses for "a newbie" editing like an experienced editor (for example, editing solely as an IP beforehand and/or being a lurker), and these excuses more often than not turn out to be a cover for socking. Wikipedia is a passionate place. It's also a flawed place, as is anything else. It usually is not the case that a person can simply lurk on Wikipedia without getting involved in some dispute or without otherwise editing it. And if you edit as an IP, you get far less respect and privileges, which is why the WP:IPs are human too essay exists. Years of editing solely as an IP can happen, but it's unlikely. Contrary to what may be popular belief, I can be open to a person getting another chance after I've caught them socking. And, yes, I still see Cali11298 around. Reporting him will not help unless it's necessary to report him. He will return and return. If he is out of my sight, he is out of my mind. If he is being disruptive at an article I watch, or at a noticeboard, then I shall report him. If he is looking to become an admin (as he has expressed to me before), then I shall report him. If you study his editing style, you should be able to spot him too. For the most part, he edits the same way, except he is now being smarter. I have views on administrators who protect the project from disruptive editors, and acknowledge a lack respect for those who don't. There is also a serious harassment issue on Wikipedia; see WP:Harassment. As some very well know, I have been stalked/harassed on Wikipedia a number of times. Some have been blocked or otherwise restricted because of the harassment. I would list the cases, but that would be WP:POLEMIC, similar to how even listing the traits of indefinitely blocked or banned editors might be seen as WP:POLEMIC. You can see some of the cases by searching the WP:ANI archives via this link. As can also be seen with that link, it's not unusual for the harasser to claim that I was doing the harassing. Because of my experiences in these cases, I recognize a pattern with some disgruntled editors. If you offend a Wikipedia editor via a significant dispute, and sometimes even a minor dispute, it is likely that the editor will seek to stalk and harass you, or get "payback" in some other way. They will hold that grudge with a vengeance, looking for any opportunity to get payback. I move on, even though I do not forget; these editors do not. It's an unfortunate downside of editing here. The bright side is that not all editors who become embroiled in a passionate or minor dispute act this way.

My views on Wikipedia in general

I try to avoid Wikipedia as much as possible now and would rather not converse here like I am on some social network. To me, editing here is a job. I do the job and leave, and repeat. While here, I often debate, and often with sources. It's not because I want to, but rather because I often find that I need to when trying to get an editor to understand the WP:Due weight policy or something else about the topic of the article. If you intend to debate me about what a Wikipedia topic covers, and how much weight to give whatever issue, use sources. Reliable ones. Otherwise, I am unlikely to continue debating you unless it's me trying to get you to understand. Instead, I am likely to seek some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Editing Wikipedia for many years can make a person grumpy, especially if that person edits a lot of contentious topics. I became grumpy like many other Wikipedians; for how that happened, see this section and this discussion. To be less grumpy, and resemble the optimistic, better-tempered editor I used to be, I've changed some ways that I edit these days. I was even "reborn". More power to those who have remained relatively the same despite the hostile environment that is Wikipedia. My views on the WP:Neutral policy are commonly clear since so many editors interpret it wrongly. I support the WP:Child protection policy, which concerns pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Wikipedia; for my views on the matter, see this section, and this discussion. As for me considering WP:Adminship, I really do appreciate past posts on my talk page, and emails, supporting me becoming an administrator, but I am unlikely to ever accept a nomination. See User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 21#RfA for why. Also, when I see newbies and obvious WP:Sockpuppets getting elevated to adminship status, it is hard for me not to consider that the process is broken. I very much agree with Softlavender's thoughts on adminship. In other words, selecting administrators based solely on their clean block log, many edits without any regard for how those many edits were acquired, and for seemingly being drama-free is not how we should be doing things here. A clean block log, many edits and a drama-free status can be part of the process of nominating an administrator, but there should be more to it than that. I used to like this site and defend it, but I now view much of it as corrupt. For example, a good number of experienced Wikipedians don't even follow the rules right (which, in some cases, is more of an interpretation difference than a bias difference). Editing here can also be a huge time stink. Life is too precious to spend as much of my time here as I used to. And if someone I know reads Wikipedia, I will tell them to definitely check those sources to make sure that the words aren't twisted or fabricated; that is how much my trust in this site has declined. One more thing: Some people on Wikipedia have viewed me as too strict or stern. Well, I've often had a stern attitude because I was raised in a stern environment. I grew up a lot faster than others my age, which is why, for the longest time, it was odd for me to see people who are age 14 years and older be coddled and treated like little children. At age 14, I was learning how to be an adult. By age 16, I considered myself an adult. So my concept of "child" was a little different than others'. But any time there was the case of someone significantly older using their experience to manipulate the younger person, my concept of "child" was in line with others' concepts. For example, seeing a 22-year-old take advantage of a 16-year-old's naivete automatically made me protective of the 16-year-old and view the 16-year-old as a child. As I've aged, I've also realized that people in their early 20s can sometimes seem like children to me. And then there are the 16-year-olds who look and act like adults, and the adults who are mentally and emotionally stunted and are essentially children or teenagers. All of this has given me a deeper outlook on assessing a person and deciding if I should be stern with them and how stern. I know that we are supposed to take it easy on our newbies, who are like baby Wikipedians, and I do keep that in mind. Same goes for other less experienced Wikipedians. But some of them simply don't seem to get the point the first time around and being stern with them after that can help.

My WP:GAs and WP:FAs
Not listed since listing them results in unwanted attention from stalkers and disgruntled editors; see what I stated above.

Awards and gifts
User:Flyer22 Reborn/Awards and gifts.

The Trypophobia article

Doc James, Alanscottwalker, Silver seren, EvergreenFir, Trystan, Anthonyhcole, DESiegel, Masem, WhatamIdoing, Yobol, CFCF, NeilN and Ian.thomson, I visited that article yesterday (April 5th in real time, not Wikipedia time), and I have to state that it was tough for me reading through that article with that lotus image there. Once I saw the image, I broke out in goosebumps and had the urge to scratch. They were goosebumps, not hives. And that lasted for hours. Seeing such images has caused that reaction in me since I was age 5; I think it first happened when I first saw Pinhead. Although I no longer have such a reaction when viewing Pinhead, I do have the same reaction when seeing patterns like that lotus image. Googling "trypophobia" brought up different unpleasant images for me yesterday, and I went right to the Wikipedia article. I had come across that article before, but I think it was before the image was there. It's been tough getting the image out of my head. Anyway, I saw that you all were a part of a debate about the image. Had I known of the discussion, I would have weighed in because I agree with what Wongba stated with this commentary about the reality of this condition. Just because it's not in the DSM or ICD-10 does not mean it's not real. Maybe it shouldn't be called a phobia, but it's certainly a condition, and only those who know have experienced it truly know what it's like. I've never understood how people are afraid of clowns, but I don't question that the fear exists. That fear is not in the DSM or ICD-10 either. I'm not so much afraid of images like the lotus image, but the reaction is unpleasant enough that I'd rather avoid them. I'm not arguing that the image should be excluded (although I don't really see that the WP:Consensus was against removal or collapsing); I just wanted to document my experience with the matter somewhere here on Wikipedia. As someone who has supported maintaining a self-harm lead image at the Self-harm article, I've now had my first "image triggering" experience on Wikipedia and it has me second-guessing myself about including triggering images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were distressed, Flyer. Thanks for sharing your experience here. I don't think that we are very good at deciding how to handle that kind of content with compassion for the real effects that real people experience. If it were a lengthy article, then we would probably move the image down, "below the scroll", but the realistic alternatives are very limited on a one-(desktop-size)-screen article: either we include it, or we don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing. I very much appreciate what you stated in the debate. Yeah, the fact that it's such a short article made it so that the image was right there in my face the whole time. The same would have been the case if I was just reading the lead too, of course. Like I stated, I immediately got goosebumps and the urge to scratch. After that, the image stayed in my head and I kept having goosebumps on and off, felt a little panicky, and was more sensitive to other images with irregular patterns, even if they weren't holes or bumps. For example, while watching episodes of Reign, a series that I recently started watching, I kept paying attention to patterns on the nobles' clothing, and, in some cases, I would get goosebumps and think about the triggering lotus image again. I just wanted to stay curled up in bed and forget the image; it was hard to sleep. It's a very strange and unpleasant feeling. Even though Pinhead might have been what first triggered my trypophobia (I imagined my arms being cut into slits like his face/body and it freaked me out), I knew for certain that I felt distress over certain patterns when I would see the molded, papule-like bumps in my elementary school teacher's coffee mugs. She would drink coffee and let the remaining bits mold. Instead of cleaning out the one she had, she would get a new one and the cycle would repeat. The mugs would line the ledge near her window. I remember her being perplexed by (and possibly laughing at) my reaction to one mug that I spotted. Either way, this feeling when seeing images like these is definitely real. Even Yobol noted that he had a noticeable reaction and that it was very strange when he looked at the lotus image; see here and here. I know that Yobol is editing very sparingly these days, but perhaps he will weigh in here on what he experienced when he saw that lotus image. I'll leave this section on my talk page for a few weeks or months. I've also watchlisted the Trypophobia article in case some debate I'm interested in comes up on that article's talk page.

I think that the researchers that studied this phobia/condition are on to something (and, actually, it's not off to call it a phobia when looking at the definition/criteria for "phobia"). I definitely don't see that it's logically explained as social or psychological conditioning. Too many people instinctively have the same reactions to images like these, and often from a very early age, which is something I've seen documented in person and on the Internet. And I'm not talking about a simple disgust reaction, which is a very understandable reaction when seeing a photoshopped image of the lotus pattern on human skin. I'm talking about goosebumps, skin crawling or similar, a somewhat panicked state, and being mentally stuck on the image afterward. I think it is an evolutionary thing, as is the case with tasters and supertasters (I'm a supertaster, by the way). And I wonder why some people experience it and some don't. I've yet to see if anyone else in my immediate family has trypophobia, but I think my mom does. I don't want to trigger any of them; so, unless they are open to seeing an image, I'll ask instead of showing an image. But seeing such images is a better indicator of whether one has the condition or not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Flyers22, thanks for the ping. I had a similar reaction to you - goosebump sensation, vague - but noticeable - nausea/lightheadedness, a sense of what I can only describe as "dread" about the picture, and almost reflexive need to turn away from it yet still weird fixation on it in my head. Having never heard about this before, it was surprising to me that I had that reaction. I still believe that the picture should be at the very least collapsed, because many of the people who would be going to that page might have that particular reaction. It likewise seems prudent that there is no picture of a menacing clown on the coulrophobia page. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yobol, thanks for commenting. Yeah, that is exactly the reaction that I am talking about. It's obviously a real reaction. Like Wongba stated, we aren't making this up. I also thought about the fact that there is no clown image on the Coulrophobia article. I looked at the talk page of that article and saw the justification for removal. It seems to me that people feel that the lotus image needs to be there on the Trypophobia article to help people understand the type of images being described. After all, we don't mean any type of holes or bumps. I can make an irregular pattern of holes in my eraser right now, and I would not get the reaction I get when looking at an image like that lotus image. I completely understand how you feel and, like I noted above, I did not see consensus that the image should remain. Sorry if I triggered you again, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes that image gives many people a feeling of unease. We have a number of options for hiding images[1]. We are using a very tame image to illustrate the concern. Many use much much more graphic images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, it's nice to see you back from your trip. Given my and others' reactions to the lotus image, I'm not sure I'd call it "a very tame" example, but I know that there are worse triggering trypophobia images. I have so far refused to look at YouTube videos about this topic; this is because, in addition to not wanting the effects that come with viewing such images, I don't want such videos popping up in my "suggested videos" feed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if desensitisation is effective for this or not. I imagine it would be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, some have tried it and it hasn't worked for them. I think the reaction is too instinctual to overcome by desensitization. I'm not willing to try it just yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Fear of heights is also instinctual and can be partly overcome (at least temporarily). Was not suggesting you try it though. Most of the time I imagine it can be avoided easily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, I might try desensitization someday. There are so many different types of images that can trigger those who have trypophobia, though, that I don't think I'd be entirely cured of it even if desensitization were to work. But, yeah, such images are usually avoidable. It's rare that I get such a reaction from viewing something. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me for intruding, I have to say this is fascinating. I'd never heard of trypophobia before, and the image in question has no effect on me at all. This morning I was in a waiting room, and the chairs had this pattern on them that immediately made me think trigger. I wondered if anyone had experienced problems there and, if so, what they could do about it except try hard not to look. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, c'mon, you know you're not intruding. We've shared matters via email; so I see no restriction when it comes to you sharing matters with me out in the open on my talk page. It's sort of amazing to me that the lotus image and similar images have no effect on some people. This is because the lotus image, for example, immediately causes a reaction in me that I can't control and it seems like it's meant to be that way; it feels so innate. I take it that the image has no effect on WhatamIdoing and Doc James either, unless they'd rather not say. But because my reaction to images like these feel so innate, I'm not even sure I'd want to be "cured" of it. In some cases, we have phobias for valid reasons. I think that fear of heights (to some degree) and fear of snakes, for just two examples, are for our own good. They are so universal for a reason. When it comes to trypophobia, maybe it is an evolutionary thing that was helpful in the case of dangerous plants or similar. Either way, like I noted above, I think that the researchers who studied it are on to something. As for what you experienced, I take it that you don't mean you were triggered? There are certain patterns that are not holes or bumps that can trigger me a little, but they have to be disease-looking in some way, like how mold can look. Mold grows in bumps in a number of cases, but I mean even mold patterns that look fuzzy instead of bumpy, and especially if they are covered with white, patchy circles or similar such circles. It's not enough to trigger me like the lotus image or the aforementioned coffee mug mold, but it's a trigger. If you Google "trypophobia," and none of those images freak you out in a "I have goosebumps, or crawling skin, or am panicking a bit" way, you don't have trypophobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Granted, the "lotus pattern on skin" image naturally freaks people out, more in a mild "that's gross" way. For trypophobes, that image is far worse. It's probably the top trypophobia triggering image. If not the top, it's a close second. I'm sure I saw it at some point, but it's currently vague in my mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a trigger for me, but it looked like it might be for you. And, in looking at a variety of trypophobia-inducing images, it occurs to me that these patterns or textures aren't exactly rare either in nature or among everyday objects in the developed world. It's possible that I don't really see what you're seeing, though. Do color and shape factor into it at all? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, I don't know how to explain trypophobia other than what I've stated above. I rarely see trypophobia-triggering images. Like WhatamIdoing stated in the aforementioned debate, it's just not common to see them. I guess this applies to trypophobes like me, though. Others might be triggered by more things than me. But it's not simply a matter of irregular patterns. Irregular patterns alone are not the trigger, at least for most trypophobes (going by most of what I've read of others' experiences). Mainly, irregular patterns of holes or bumps, clusters or indentations that are disease-looking or "uneasy-looking" (whatever that means) in some way. That lotus image is disease-looking to me in a way I can't adequately explain to non-trypophobes. And, for me, it's usually the patterns on or from live creatures (such as the lotus plant, the coffee mold case, and when I see the Surinam toad doing its birthing thing). A piece of paper with such a drawing is unlikely to have a trypophobia-triggering effect on me unless it's realistic-looking. Looking at a honeycomb image doesn't have much effect on me; I can feel a little something at times. For others, a honeycomb image is definitely trypophobia-triggering. And, contrary to what I told Doc James above, some trypophobes have said desensitizing works, "depending on how you do it." (Note: I linked to this article above.) I'm not sure that the trypophobes were completely "cured." Again, there are a number of images that could be trypophobia-triggering. Being repeatedly exposed to Pinhead seems to have desensitized me to his appearance. And maybe I didn't like honeycomb imagery at some point as a child; my memory on that is vague. I had no issue with eating the honeycomb cereal, I know that much (LOL). Regarding non-living things, ant bed patterns were sometimes triggering for me as a child. I would have the urge to stomp on them, and did in some cases (although I wouldn't do that now). It wasn't so much a matter of goosebumps when looking at ant beds (in some cases, I think anyway), but more so a matter of them somehow annoying me. And, at some point in my life, after one of my brothers would take a bath or shower, the soap would have this irregular bumpy pattern on it that would give me goosebumps (maybe that's too much information). I wondered how that pattern got there, but didn't want to ask. Color doesn't matter.

Regarding what you stated in this edit summary, don't be when it comes to my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Doc James, Alanscottwalker, Silver seren, EvergreenFir, Trystan, Anthonyhcole, DESiegel, Masem, WhatamIdoing, Yobol, CFCF, NeilN and Ian.thomson, this may be interesting to some, but I no longer have the same reaction while looking at the lotus flower image. I saw an image of it on the back of a girl's neck today on a social media site and then came to look at the image on Wikipedia. I still have a reaction to it (goosebumps), but not as severe as before; I think this is because I got desensitized to it after it kept flashing in my head before and because of the aforementioned aftereffects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Wikipedia as therapy :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, even though less severe, I did have the same aftereffects, though, except this time it was mainly the new image that stayed on my mind. And is still on my mind. I think this is because it's new stimuli. The brain gets bored with old stuff. Also, this new image may last longer in my head because it was a picture of the lotus image merged onto human skin. I keep looking at my arms sometimes seeing the image. It seems that the trypophobia process will start over with every new trypophobia-triggering image. So, all that stated, I'm sure I'll have to deal with trypophobia for the rest of my life. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And the fact that I have intrusive thoughts certainly does not help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: I ended up expanding this article with what was available in terms of reliability and without going overboard, of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of maintaining those "icky" hard to describe articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Herostratus submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Flyer22 Reborn is a veteran ten-year editor (come May 5) and has been active that whole time: over 252,000 edits. Wow! She does a lot and has put up with a lot. She is one of the very few editors who watches "icky" articles such as Pedophilia etc. We still get difficult editors on this and other contentious subjects -- and some of the editors are erudite and have refs and are persistent. Flyer22 Reborn engages these editors and is able to argue with them on equal terms and keep these articles in control. This takes knowledge, persistence, and patience, and it has to be done over and over, and she is almost the only one doing this important work. But that's just a small part of it -- she also does tons of other stuff too, all over the encyclopedia. Lots of stuff, but I don't keep up with all of it. And not to imply she's just working on talk pages, the great majority of her edits (63%) are in article space and she is an avid user of the edit summary (97%). She had a bad time here a couple years ago...we need her so lets show her a little appreciation.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 15:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Herostratus and Buster7. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well deserved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

+1 to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Alan Wallace Page

The page for Bruce Alan Wallace is horrible. It has gone through many iterations. The current iteration seems to be more about expressing how Novella doesn't agree with his positions. The changes I made attempted to make the page focus more on the subject matter. For instance, quantum woo is quoted, but no citation is given, where as quantum mysticism has its own page and might be more appropriate. It is odd that his view on consciousness, and Novella's views of his view, are listed at the top of the page. Neuroscientist 221 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

I am not sure how I am supposed to start a discussion in talk page when I don't know why my disputing party opposes me. (That's you, by the way.) Care to elaborate? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

FleetCommand, you added what you consider to be two exceptions. It is a substantial change to the guideline. Because it is a substantial, undiscussed change to a guideline, it is something that should be proposed on the guideline's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

So, you are saying that your decision to revert was a purely bureaucratic one and you have otherwise no objection to the merit of what I did? Hmmm... Disappointing. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

FleetCommand. No, I am stating that, like many other Wikipedians, I feel that substantial changes to our guidelines and policies should be discussed first. This is why these pages have the "edits should have consensus" tag at the top of them. This is not simply a WP:BURO matter. Substantial changes to our guidelines and policies affect the community as a whole. Because of this, I prefer to hear what others think before such changes are made. You acting like this is not a valid reason for objecting, and that I must analyze your change on my own, is something I disagree with. I repeat: If you want the change made, make your case at the guideline talk page. My talk page is not the place for this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sneaky

1 Jim1138 (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ping

I see you pinged me but with all the long-winded discussions interrupting the survey section, I cannot find your comment to reply to. Perhaps someone can hat these threads so that the survey is left alone, while still allowing the editors to comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, you can see the comment here, which shows the first editor to respond to it. And I would hat that bickering, if I was not likely to be reverted on it by the editor I was bickering with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I recently had eye surgery for a detached retina and I'm not wading into that mess. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, LOL. Fair enough. Sorry to hear about the surgery, though. All is well, it seems? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Still a bit blurry and searching through the tiny type of edit mode is still doable but that page is so bad I fear it will undo the surgeon's repair. Lol. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wish you a speedy recovery. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You can put me down as not seeing any manipulation of the RfC. I thought the question was well formed, etc. You could move this comment there if it will help. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Photogrammetry page

Hi, you've sent me a message saying that my recent revision of the Photogrammetry page was promotional. Can you then explain how come these companies got into this page, and why the descrimination? Either delete all of the commercial names from this page, or allow any company which products are defined as "photogrammetry software" to be mentioned in this section:

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry

Applications

A somewhat similar application is the scanning of objects to automatically make 3D models of them. Some programs like RealityCapture, Acute3D's Smart3DCapture, now part of Bentley Systems and renamed ContextCapture, Pix4Dmapper, Photoscan, 123D Catch, Bundler toolkit,[12][13] PIXDIM, and Photosketch[14] have been made to allow people to quickly make 3D models using this photogrammetry method. It should be noted though that the produced model often still contains gaps, so additional cleanup with software like MeshLab, netfabb or MeshMixer is often still necessary.[15]

~~Liel~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.1.22 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted you here and here. I reverted per WP:External linking and WP:Spam. Read those pages. Stop adding such links. You were also reverted by KH-1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

[2]

Flyer,

I wouldn't know whether leaving you a message on an essay page requires an apology or not, but here it is, just in case.

As for the edit that prompted the message, I got my answer, in any case thanks for your patience.

79.18.123.177 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: POV editing at Mary Kay Letourneau article

Do not re-add this bit that I reverted. Stating "romantic relationship" is pure POV and is not at all supported by the WP:NPOV policy. An editor was already warned about adding such wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Nevertheless, you have not substantiated your concerns. I looked at the discussion you referenced and found no mention of the phrase "romantic relationship". So I am uncertain what you are referring to. Please be aware that WP:NPOV is not a vehicle for allowing personal bias into articles. The policy explicitly states a preference for "nonjudgmental language". Perhaps more to the point, WP:BLP states regarding "Attack pages" that "Pages that are ... negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once ...". No matter how unseemly the subject of an article is, WP must always strive to treat the subject in an unbiased manner. Turning the lead sentence into an attack is not consistent with this philosophy.

Please restore my edits or offer some constructive alternative.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

Let's see. The previous editor added "child lover" and also added "the illicit liaison." Both edits were reverted by SarekOfVulcan. And then I warned the editor. Similarly, you added "having a romantic relationship with." And I reverted you, and then warned you. To most of the public, and when looking at most of the sources about Mary Kay Letourneau, she is known as the woman who committed statutory rape by having sex with her 12-year-old student. It is not usually framed as a romance, but rather as a crime. If is it being biased to frame the matter as a crime first and foremost, then that is only because the literature is mostly biased in this regard. We go by Wikipedia's rules. What was there before you edited the article is not judgmental language; it is reporting the facts. The language you added, which is framing/judging their interaction as romantic, is far more problematic. And I see no need to restore the rest of what you added, but I did restore this bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: Addressed on the article talk page as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Singapore University of Social Sciences

Why? Why do you think it is vandalism? The current hatnote has no indication as to why suss (disambiguation) should even be considered for other uses of "Singapore University of Social Sciences". The reason is that SUSS redirects there. But that is not indicated in the current hatnote.

So why is this considered vandalism to indicate why some random disambiguation page is indicated in the hatnote if the pagename does not match the disambiguation page?

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd already reverted myself on warning you. And I'd already left a note in the article's edit history that your edit wasn't vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the new message. I only got the message of your newer revert after I saved this message. Thanks for reverting yourself -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Please don´t change bio content as we are Official Steve Norman team and don´t like current bio. We are working on a new biography and pics. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loregraphic (talk • contribs)

Speaking of

The edit summary on this old edit might provide an interesting bit of context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, regarding what I stated there, I'm speaking of its recent "supplement" title. Not that long ago, it plainly stated "essay." Because of some type change that has effected essay pages on a mass scale, certain essay tags now state "supplement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The page hasn't changed since 2008; the template has (again, since that was the problem identified in the 2008 edit summary). User:Moxy could tell us the goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello....I am not sure what is being asked here? Did I change some tag or something? --Moxy (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you changed the tag back in December, to remove the reference to "essays". This is probably not unreasonable overall, but it appears that some pages (e.g., BRD) had deliberately chosen the supplement tag because it explicitly defined the page as an essay (i.e., not a guideline/not something even remotely mandatory), and therefore some of the pages are probably wrongly tagged now. I don't know whether it's better to un-fix the tag or to manually review all the uses (and probably to have a fight about changing the tags on various pages, because there's little agreement on what these various classifications ultimately mean). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We did review the pages and made changes (more can be done)...if it was not the norm and/or not linked from P/G we added {{|Essay|interprets=}}. We can add the word back but then it will be the same as {{Essay}} ....We followed your lead on this WhatamIdoing... per this and and this. I see that some think some sort of promotion was involved.....thus why we linked WP:CONLEVEL that clearly states "have no more status than an essay" this is also outlined at {{Supplement}} and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL.--Moxy (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy: when you say "we did...." who are the other editors? Did the work involve changes other than your 2016 changes to Template:Supplement and Wikipedia:Project namespace and related redirects? Can you point to discussion thread(s) where those changers were agreed/coordinated? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Going through and tagging untagged essays and info pages were a few editors - but mostly I was stuck doing it as I am the one aware of all of them. As for the Template:Supplement change it was the only template in Category:Wikipedia information pages linking to the essay page after my edit to link the essay page in the info template was reverted (as linked above).... I agreed with the reasoning behind its removal. I have zero problem if the link is restored.....as both links explain what the pages are - no change in level of merit was introduced. As for the regurgitated text added to Wikipedia:Project namespace, noting new there .....just consolidation with links of existing P/G info related to project pages - was reviewed by another trusted editor :-). Since the Project namespace page was brought up.... I agree with WhatamIdoing - wrongly promoted (User talk:WhatamIdoing#Wikipedia:Project namespace) - this really is just an info page, as there is no "rules" that aren't covered by the pages attributed at Wikipedia talk:Project namespace. We should go through the WP:HISTORICAL process for this page.--Moxy (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Asexuality article

Hi Flyer,

I hope you don't mind, but it seems to me that the asexuality article may be an article that is as near and dear to you, as it is to myself. I see you have done a great deal of work in Wikipedia, as have I. I feel that many of the points you used in justifying what I called your "mass-revert" of my work there seemed reasonable to me. Also, admittedly I felt that some of them were hard for me to understand. Nobody is perfect, and least of all myself. I believe that we both have Wikipedia's best interest's at heart, and that by working together, we may both be able to help make that article better than either one of us could have done by ourselves.

Thanks,

Warrenfrank (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Warrenfrank. I've replied on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

D. L. Hall

So where are we suppose to put his full name? 24.162.134.57 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, I argue that it should be in the lead, especially since I don't see a field for it in the infobox. Also see WP:QUOTENAME. Maybe the name of the article doesn't need to be in the lead. But then again, I think that not having it there would result in someone changing the article to his full name, which would be in violation of WP:Common name (going by the sources that use initials for his name). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Emmet Till redux

Got your ping. In a nutshell, what's wanted at this point? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, well, as I noted farther down the talk page, the RfC closed with consensus for mentioning the "interest in" aspect in the lead (although not for it being in the lead sentence). Edits have been made since the RfC, but the lead still does not yet specifically mention the "accused of flirting with or whistling" at aspect. We are discussing what is the best wording to use and how to place it in the second paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I hope I didn't come across like an asshole

...on the sexual ethics talk page. I read through some of your user page and you seem like a really interesting person, and it's also clear that you're a well-seasoned editor. I don't want to alienate myself from a potential mentor over an argument about whether I'm a newbie or a fake newbie. (I AM a longtime Wikipedia lurker and have occasionally made edits in the past, but I haven't previously had an account--does that mean I'm not a newbie? If so, then sure, I'm not a newbie.) I am working on some improvements for the sexual ethics page, and I hope you'll give me advice if I propose some changes. Again, sorry if I came off wrong. Best wishes. Wandajjune (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wandajjune, no worries. I simply have a difficult time trusting newbie-presenting editors whose editing screams "not new" to me. This is due to my history with returning disruptive and/or disgruntled editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with you

I am very happy to see how much content was removed from the rape article. I just never have enough nerve to do it. What appears to be a mass reversion of my edits is a good clean-up.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

ps you broke some references, do you want me to help put them back in?

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I didn't mass revert you. I simply reorganized content you added or moved. What references do you think I broke? I didn't see that I broke any. However, when it comes to this material that I reorganized days ago, you can see that the "Most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male-female forms of rape." paragraph is not really sourced. At some point, you removed the sources and replaced them with would-be references that look like this: [1] [2]. That content still needs to be sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The content to which you refer was only moved by me, not sourced or unsourced. If it is unsourced, then it should be removed, so feel free. I tried to go over the references and checked most of them out and may have missed checking all the refs.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), please pay better attention to your edits. This is not the first time that you have stated that I have done something that I have not. Nor is it the first time that you have added or removed content and stated that you did not add it or remove it. I'm not sure how you get tripped up on your edits, but you do. This is what the Statistics and epidemiology section looked like before your June 24 2017 edits. On June 27th, you removed the aforementioned "Most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male-female forms of rape." paragraph. In the next edit, you moved it to the Research section you created; that move clearly shows that you copied and pasted the outside text instead of the internal text, which is why the sources were removed and replaced with would-be references that look like this: [1] [2]. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I take full responsibility for any and all edits that I make. But at least in this case, the simple cut, move and paste did not work as planned. These two edits were within one minute of each other with little time for me to make such purposeful, erroneous edits. Something went wrong here on my computer, deep in the guts of WP computers, or most likely of all, with one of the many scripts I use while editing. Chalk it up to carelessness if you wish, but it is rather uncharacteristic of my editing and is obviously an exception. If this is an error, then thank you for catching it. If this is a suggestion that this is not the first time I tripped up, of course you are correct and only need to read my talk page to see how many mistakes I routinely commit. I don't need to be scolded by you. I will no doubt, continue to make mistakes and have accepted this. I correct my mistakes when I find them and you are welcome to do the same. Actually, I have become a better content creator because of your oversight of my work and the interest you show in my editing.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), thanks for explaining. I was not trying to scold, and I mean that. I prefer us on better terms. I was only asking you to be more careful because you have made this type of mistake before -- adding or removing content and being unaware that you did -- and I'm not sure why it keeps happening. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Flyer, you mentioned on my talk page that my IP vandalized a page. This is a home IP, and my family doesn't use wikipedia. Do you think somebody hacked my modem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.208.77 (talk • contribs)

IPs can be assigned to different people over the course of their existence. A note of this is made in my warning to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Flyer. Just noting that this edit is probably not neutral and deserved to be reverted, but it's also not vandalism either. (Loomer was actually paid to protest.) Dunno if you want to mention something at User talk:67.161.91.153. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, that seems to be a POV-pushing edit to me, and I reverted it with disruptive editing in mind. WP:STIKI is for WP:Disruptive editing in addition to vandalism, but there is no "disruptive editing" button on WP:STIKI. It seems like a POV-pushing WP:LABEL matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

When people can't use their perceived physical attractiveness online, etc.

Some thoughts for the Physical attractiveness article:

• [3].

But a lot has changed since the Wallace 1999 commentary. Technology has greatly changed since then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• [4] Wallace.

• [5] Swami.

Note: I might never get around to significantly improving this article because not only is it a lot to work with, and so much of the research is WP:Primary and/or old (although there are a number of non-primary sources out there for it), but it would be very difficult to maintain due to the subjective/POV aspects and complaints about the research focusing on certain things more than others. I've watched the article for years, and I'm not sure that it will ever be a good article. If it ever does become one, I don't think that it will be because I've fixed it up. We will need to wait for that one person to do the fixing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

And this was the state of the talk page at the time of my "00:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)" above post. Just look at it -- the issues. Not worth it for me. I've stated it before, but I have enough articles to worry over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

IP rant about Yaoi

hoi flyer, look - linking something isn't vandalism. Instead of debating what yaoi is and is not, take a look at the bigger picture. wikipedia is supposed to be a complete information resource. instead of trying to block something you don't understand, try looking into it first. Yaoi is a japanese art form in which two males are involved in a romantic relationship. regarding the sexual aspect of anime (also known as hentai, the japanese word for pervert), adding a link to Hentai after referring to said sexual aspect of an anime relationship only makes sense. reverting a simple expansion on information is pure fascism. also, I refuse to make an account for a simple (see hentai).. wikipedia is full of knowitall pompous pricks like yourself I dont particularly enjoy dealing with. if you disagree with the placement of it feel free to move it to another place immediately following the sexual anime reference, but since that's what anime sex IS.. it belongs there. or feel free to replace the link to human sexuality with a link to Hentai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.245.58 (talk • contribs)

Call it WP:Vandalism or WP:Disruptive editing, I do not care. The problem is that your edit is wrong. You are adding a link in a way that gives the impression that yaoi is automatically hentai. Even if you are only focusing on the "sexual" part, sexual activity in yaoi does not automatically make that yaoi hentai. In the context, your edit is unsourced and is WP:Original research. It seems that you are the one who does not know what you are talking about. If you pay attention to the History and general terminology section, you can see that we already state the following: "In the West, the term hentai yaoi is sometimes used to denote the most explicit titles." Note that it states "In the West" and "most explicit titles." I have reverted you again. The Hentai article itself is clear that the term means "a perverse sexual desire" in Japan. If you are trying to argue something about how Japan views homosexuality, your edit is inadequate since many Japanese people do not automatically consider homosexual behavior a perverse sexual desire. It's odd that you added all those "citation needed" tags for content that is already sourced below (well, most of it is sourced below anyway), while it is your unsourced edit that is the problem. The lead does not necessarily need inline citations, if the material is sourced lower in the article; see WP:CITELEAD. If you keep making your "hentai" edit, I will bring WP:Manga in on this and/or report you for disruptive editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you must know whether or not I'm very familiar with yaoi or Japanese culture in general, I am very familiar with Japanese culture and I have studied/analyzed yaoi, but I have not truly been able to get into yaoi. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

ANI

The ANI thread mentioned above can be found here. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ad Orientem. I see that the matter has been resolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

:-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Tomgirl

Hi Flyer, my contribution has been changed and considered as a vandalism, I can not understand why. I changed something wrong, pejorative, sexist and transphobic (Tomgirl (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

Tomgirl, you were WP:Edit warring over the Tomgirl link; the edits were WP:Disruptive. See Talk:Tomboy#Proposed merge with Tomgirl. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Make your case there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, you only reverted once; so I personally wouldn't call that WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Removals

You have made some ingregious removals on the Ambrosusus Aurelianus page as to my editals. I would like to know why as no resson was given.

Thank you kind sir, BouledeSuif (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) BouledeSuif (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

BouledeSuif, because as seen here and here, you are editing WP:Disruptively. It matters not if you were that IP correcting your misspellings and squished spellings, there is still the fact you are changing wording throughout to diaeresis.

And if you want to play this game, just know that it will not be ending well on your part.

And I am not a "sir," by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Also look at your "well" additions. What in the world are you doing? And changing quotes when the changes are not supported by the sources is another problem. See MOS:QUOTE. With all the "well" additions and grammar issues, I doubt that your changes are supported by the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What do transfperhapsmed, Uther Pïndragoon, survïvperhapss and "(Uther does marry hïs brother's wïdow, though), well," even mean? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I've posted to the editor's talk page. 350 repetitions of "well", changing quotes, etc. CIR? Doug Weller talk 10:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I see they were blocked, made a very literate unblock plea saying they were hacked. Unblock was denied as we don't unblock compromised accounts normally. Doug Weller talk 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to the article's talk page

Flyer22, there's an issue on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. Plus, Masem is not helping solve the problem and is only not getting the clear picture. It is on this section of the article's talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a lengthy discussion; I will need to read through it before weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, I'll need to get back to this later. I took a break, then got busy with other stuff on Wikipedia, and I'm now taking a break again. Been on this site for many hours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

British Columbia population

I don't know what you are trying to do but please stop reverting factually incorrect population figures in the British Columbia article. The population of the province is 4 million and change, and certainly not 14 million. That information is available in the very references for the numbers you are trying to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.137.108 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about that, IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Medical sexism

Interested? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), that is a very intriguing topic. It's important as well. I trust that you'll write an article on it. I've never been much of an article creator; just more of an article improver. And I don't devote as much time to Wikipedia as I once did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you aren't able to contribute as much as you have in the past. I will create content and you work your magic on it. You have great skill in finding references. Paste them here on the draft page I have begun if you would like. I won't begin for a couple of days so there is no urgency. Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: Stuff like this, this, this and now this indicates that we cannot truly work together. If it's always going to be the case that after you make an edit that is problematic or has some type of issue and I challenge it, showing that I know what I'm talking about with sources, and then you just shrug your shoulders and/or act like I'm overreacting and/or that you are being the good editor who contributes so much while I spend all my time on talk pages not doing a thing for this site, working with you clearly is not an option for me. I mean, do go over your claim that the anus is a part of the vulva again; see just how stubborn you sound. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You know that I hold your work here on human sexuality in the very highest regard. I think that you know how aware I am of the harassment you have received over the years, and how deeply I oppose that type of behavior. All of that makes your expression of support for me very precious. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. I felt that I may have scared you off a bit with that email about my health, but I realize that it's not an easy thing to respond to. I am glad to see that you are now an admin. You really are one of the best RfA choices I've seen. NeilN was another. I would have stated more in your RfA, but others had already stated pretty much everything that I could possibly state. I could have noted your unwavering support of me, but I didn't want to make it about myself, LOL. I'll see you around. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I have searched my email archives several times and have no record of an email from you. Please feel free to email me at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, the email exchange was back in April; it doesn't matter now. It was more so about an article matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Since I've just mentioned you in another discussion, I'd just like to endorse what Cullen328 said above - you have a very impressive corpus of article work and dedication to the project. That you continue to contribute despite a level of grief and harassment I can only dream of makes it even more remarkable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333. I miss talking with you. The harassment has become part of the job; I'm numb to it, but I obviously do report some cases. I don't like to be stalked by editors I have a very bad or tempestuous relationship with, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I got your ping on Talk:Vagina, but it's not really my area of expertise. I was partly responsible for putting Vaginal steaming on the main page though, and some of the contributors on that article's talk page may be able to help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, the editor I'm currently in dispute with was (and still is) questioning neutrality, and the questioning is not supported by anything in the WP:Neutral policy. Since you are one of the editors who understands WP:Neutrality and is familiar with my work (you used to help at the Asexuality article, for example), you are one of the editors I pinged. And considering this and this, I knew that pinging some editors would be a good idea. Rivertorch is thankfully helping right now. As for the Vaginal steaming article, that is a cultural topic that doesn't have any scientific backing, but I'm glad that the the topic is being taken care of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

?

In what way are my additions "opinionated"? Please further elaborate, as I think my "opinion" is that boi is no longer an actively used term in the LGBTQIA+ community. Thanks <3 Willboy122 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Willboy122, read WP:Verifiability. What you think does not matter in this case; verifiability does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

SRS title change to GCS talk page

Hey Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for your comments on the talk page earlier. Did you get a chance to look at my response to your concerns about MERDS and Common. I quoted info from each of those policy pages in order to clarify why the sources are compliant. I also added a lot more sources per requests from other users, in order to demonstrate that this is the common nomenclature used around the world. UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not WP:GOODFAITH? [109.206.156.72]

Hi there.
Would be happy to hear some reasons you left behind your revert done to my contribs here or see a wiki policy I've presumably violated at least.
Thanks. 109.206.156.72 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you here because the image you added was an unnecessary addition. The are enough images in the article, ranging from ages 2 to 14. I don't see that your image added anything. Furthermore, there are two IP-hoppers who continue to WP:Edit war over where the age range should stop. Are you one of the IP hoppers who keeps adding images to that section? I've been thinking of removing the gallery. It's become a problem, just like the problem concerning gallery additions at the Blond article. But displaying the different types of blond hair is more encyclopedic than the children images since children can vary in their look regarding whatever age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

>because the image you added was an unnecessary addition

Well, it sounds like something unreasonable. 😒

I just come across this photo on the wiki commons and then decided to add to the article to make it more friendly when

discovered there some stale and poor quality photos that could be replaced by existing or new ones just like mine.

>Are you one of the IP hoppers who keeps adding images to that section?

Surely I'm not. You can check out my contributions by clicking onto my ip address.😑

>I've been thinking of removing the gallery.

I don't think it is necessary.

I would consider to delete captions in that gallery that denote the children's age but

anyway when you are going to delete something long-standing it is better to discuss it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.206.156.72 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

IP, do you want me to ask the community, via some form of WP:Dispute resolution, whether an image of a child with mud on their face is beneficial to the article? Because I will. I don't see how the image you want to add improves anything. As for replacing one of the existing images with that image, the current gallery includes children by age. I don't see that the age of the child is included on the image you want to include. If you just want images that include children without listing their ages, you can propose that on the article talk page, but such a setup will lead to an out-of-control image gallery, because the criteria will no longer be one image of a child for every age up to a certain age range. People will be adding all types images of children (doing whatever) just because. As for checking your contributions, notice that I stated "IP-hoppers"? This means editors whose IPs change. It's often the case that a person does not have just one IP. I can be WP:Bold and remove the entire gallery, especially given what WP:Gallery states. The only ones who would object are the IPs who are interested in adding images of children to that article. As for what is long-standing, you can go back in history, via the contributions, and see how long that gallery has been there. By the way, I did not revert your edit as not being good-faith. I simply reverted it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

>Because I will. ... Because I will.

No I don't. Just thought that revert was like your out-of-rules self-admitted decision. I'm not gonna challenge it by discussion or try to revert it back anyway.

>but such a setup will lead to an out-of-control image gallery

Alright. That's the same thing I wanted to hear. Why didn't you have specified that in the revert message? What a waste of time ...

>I stated "IP-hoppers"? This means editors whose IPs change

Surely I've noticed and my answer is still the same as above.

>I can be WP:Bold and remove the entire gallery

Just because your are bold enough, right? I already heard it somewhere.

>By the way, I did not revert your edit as not being good-faith. I simply reverted it.

You haven't consulted that WP:GOODFAITH article before revert right?

Well it would be good to discuss update of article's existing gallery with new fresh images at least. Wiki commons have many pretty photos out there waiting for their use.

Thanks for reply anyway. 109.206.156.72 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My revert was not "out of the rules"; consider what WP:Bold states. You made a bold edit and I validly reverted. Also see what WP:Gallery states. A gallery is not mandatory or standard, and the image you added did not improve the article. You have not given a reason showing how it did. As for "IP-hopper," it means an editor's IP that changes naturally or an editor who has gained access to a different IP via some other means. So how am I to know that your IP does not change or that you did not have access to an IP via some other means a month or months ago? Either way, you gave your answer on the IP matter. I think it is you who has not "consulted" the WP:GOODFAITH guideline; it is not an article. If you did "consult" it, you would know that it is not a WP:GOODFAITH violation to revert an edit that does not improve an article. It is not like I reverted you because you are an IP. Your edit did not improve the article, period. If anything, you did not assume good faith for the revert and still have not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Why cant create article on a well known person?

Dear I do not know more about creating an article on a person named Suratha Pani (Pani Babu). He is a great Bible teacher in Odisha, especially in the District in Gajapati. According to Census 2011, Govt of India, the percentage of Christianity in Gajapati is 38. Christianity (Baptist) in Odisha generally mean Gajapati District.

So, Suratha Pani is the key person with whom the Canadian Baptist missionaries formed the Sammilani (Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani).

There are books written by the Sammilani on him too. One book also there named “Sammilani Itihas” where his role is elaborated. I have also an unpublished book written on the life and ministry of Suratha Pani. So, there are lots of things which contribute the worthiness of Suratha Pani to be placed in Wikipedia. I tried a few times but received notice of deletion because of unconstructive. Please explain me how to do it constructive? Why should I write in a sand box and why not directly create an article on his life and his role in the Christian community? Please explain me elaborately and help me create the page constructively.

Regards

HaronaPani (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting moves

Hi. I reverted the two undiscussed moves you requested, but I just wanted to let you know that you can probably do them yourself. As long as it's still a simple redirect with no subsequent edits, any editor with move capability can move the article back over the redirect. Just fyi in case it happens again. Station1 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Station1, thanks. I know that I can revert them myself (if there is no cut and paste move, or similar, that requires an administrator), but the editor in question has not been responsive, except for this revert, and I did not want the editor to automatically revert again; I wanted an uninvolved editor to make the mistake clear in the edit history, and I felt that this might drive home the point better to the editor. Although I am sure that the editor is not a newbie (and I see that there is currently a sock investigation on the editor), I do think that the editor is inexperienced as far as Wikipedia protocols go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Apparently, Jd22292 notified the editor of a sock investigation without starting one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Check again. The investigation is here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Hello dear fellow User:Flyer22 Reborn: hereby this badge is awarded to you, in recognition of your long-time anti-vandalism contributions. I want to inform you of it that we appreciate it so much. Thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

James Dean page

Hello there. I got your message on the editing page. Thanks. Squaredroot —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Eroto-comatose lucidity

You reversed my edit and now there are again just round up lies about Madame Blavatsky, she never used "The Sleep of Siloam" in this context, she used it only as a name for an ancient Egyptian initiation ritual where people where put to sleep for three days and tied on a Tau cross, and awaken by putting them in the sunlight, she refers to Hebrew manuscripts, Siloam was a well for washing feet in Jerusalem. She also never recommended to take drugs or do sexual gymnastics. If its because I said "supposedly" is because the context of the page 251 of my original Blavatsky text reference is all about dreaming and dream state, but Madame Blavatsky did not say that specifically in the by me from Dutch to English translated back sentence. OK its not violating the spirit of the sentence by leaving that "supposedly" part out. That Blavatsky never used sexual gymnastics or drugs excess or recommended it for getting a narcoleptic state, I got this from the search function of The Dutch Theosophical Society which has all Blavatsky's books in Dutch online. So lets make it: Helena Blavatsky may also have taught the technique, she said for example in Isis Unveiled that the more exhausted the body is, the more vivid are the impressions coming from the soul. OK? And leave all that bullshit from the others out. OK? galien8 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

Johan van der Galien, I was clear why I reverted you. You engaged in WP:Editorializing and we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. You added, "However one cannot find mentioning or references, in any of her published books, of use of sexual gymnastics or drugs excess induced sleep deprivation for getting the required exhausted body in order to enter the here so called 'eroto-comatose lucidity' narcoleptic state of mind." That is your personal commentary. We don't add our personal commentary in articles. Click on the WP:Reliable sources page to understand what I mean by reliable sources in Wikipedia's terms. Per WP:Primary sources, you can change the material to what she stated, if the source supports it, but that does not mean that other material needs to be removed or that you should add your own personal commentary to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Is reasonable! I will say: "Helena Blavatsky gave the spiritual explanation of the technique, she said for example in Isis Unveiled that the more exhausted the body is, the more vivid are the impressions coming from the soul." with the reference I gave earlier (from Blavatsky her self, a original source) OK? galien8 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn ...and we let the rest have there say too! I can live with that. galien8 04:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then. Go for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your AN/I report

Interesting; collapsing for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Although I support the way I went about my analysis in this section, I now retract my defense of the other editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I won't be responding there any more -- you are entering bludgeoning territory. And while I am quite content to let you carry on making an exhibition of yourself, I would suggest that you actually propose a topic-ban or something rather than this endless circling around the same old "issues": Shit or get off the pot, basically. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Hillbillyholiday, on the contrary, this is me building evidence against you. In this way, when a future WP:ANI case is made against you (and it will be), the case against your disruptive editing will be even stronger. You are doing all the work for me, really. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Ah, good ol' oppo -- cornerstone of any collaborative endeavour. Well, good luck, I suppose. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Hillbillyholiday, if you knew my success rate in cases like these, you wouldn't be wishing me good luck. If I can't get your disruptive behavior stopped now, I will get it stopped later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Here's a pointer - this user is abusively using different accounts to hide the real level of their editing. See Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Same editing style and operates at different times on the same day. 92.18.51.228 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Belated comment. This IP appears to be yet another appearance by a long-banned sockpuppeteer-abusive editor who I've tangled with, on and off, over quite a few years. He's just trying to drag me into this and make trouble yet again. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I don't think that he is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC) The edit times (and style) make me suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.51.228 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Because of my memory, experience with recognizing socks, and knowledge of how humans behave in certain situations, I can easily recognize editing patterns (and that includes the way an editor interacts with others), and changed editing patterns. This is why I recently identified a sock who supports Hillbillyholiday. I do not see that Hillbillyholiday and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are the same person. Keep in mind that I have experience with both. You can start a WP:Sock investigation if you have evidence, though. I am open to being wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC) No problem. I'm not up on Wikipedia processes so I won't be pursuing anything - I just caught all the hoo-hah over this user, and it reminded me of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who I felt displayed a very similar edit pattern. Both account have the same "aim" with an obsession with removing alleged gossip. Good cop/bad cop springs to mind, but you seem to have a better grasp on all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.51.228 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC) The difference is that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes a lot of unsourced, WP:SYNTH, WP:Copyvio and WP:Non-free content criteria stuff (commonly stating "fails NFCC#8"). This is a broader range than Hillbillyholiday. Yes, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes "briefly dated" stuff. Sometimes he might remove "currently dating" stuff, but he usually leaves in clearly significant personal life material, such as a married couple or a life partner, or other long-term couple, and the fact that they have children. He only cuts the Personal life section when it is a BLP violation (and that includes poorly sourced material) and/or when it only includes "dated in the past" material. Look at this bit he deleted. It was poorly sourced material based on a lot of rumors. Hillbillyholiday edits from an "I don't like it" viewpoint significantly more often than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also more careful with his cutting than Hillbillyholiday is, and has a better understanding of BLP than Hillbillyholiday does. He's not out there complaining about primary sources, or supposed primary sources, and asking or demanding academic sources for celebrity articles, when, like I stated at WP:ANI, "most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality. For celebrities, the best sources are going to be media sources." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is more willing to listen and engage when challenged. And given that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a significantly more established editor, with support from some editors, one would need to wonder why he would create the Hillbillyholiday account. Sure, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been blocked for disruptive editing before, but his tone is different; I don't see him going out of his way to mock/belittle editors. He can get frustrated and state something less than civil, but he would not have started a section like this one started by Hillbillyholiday. This section was started by Hillbillyholiday because, even though he hoped he was untouchable, he was a little worried and he was frustrated. It was meant to mock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also focuses on cleaning up the porn actor articles and related articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Looking at this bit again, which was restored by a different editor, I see that it includes AllHipHop, The Source and Complex as sources. I think, other than the relationship being a past matter, the issue for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is the allegations of cheating, and maybe being unfamiliar with the first two sources and other sources in the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Personally, I think it's incredible that you don't think or atleast suspect that they're the same person particularly after they magically turned up during the latest discussion. It must be easy to adopt a (ableit in reality, slightly) different persona per account. At the end of the day - both accounts have the same aim but adopt a slightly different style in terms of edit summaries etc, clearly watch an article after they've removed swathes of text (and that they've never contributed to or edited before) and edit war with anyone that doesn't agree with what they've done. Also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norma_Stitz_(3rd_nomination) I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not and I don't think that's relevant, but this is an article twice nominated for deletion by Hillbillyholiday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has edited that article over a number of years. Coincidence I'm sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.114.69 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Comment. Hello, User:Magpie1892. You're still indeffed, so you know you shouldn't be posting here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I've kept that in mind; I always keep slight changes in behavior in mind when it comes to a person being a sock. I've publicly made this aspect of catching socks clear times before. Notice that I stated "and changed editing patterns" above? These two also have different signature styles; Hillbillyholiday uses the two dashes while Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not. One of the biggest ways I've caught socks is their signature style aligning with everything else because it remains consistent. That stated, my suspicion was piqued (from the small "it's possible" level of interest I had before) after Hullaballoo Wolfowitz showed up at WP:ANI, but I considered that he had been alerted to the matter via email (because someone figured it was a sure thing that he would vote "oppose" to any of the proposed sanctions, especially if given a skewed side of the situation), or via watching John's talk page, or because he watches WP:ANI. This is why I briefly questioned how he wound up there. With some sock cases, you need to weigh all the possibilities. You can ask Tenebrae and/or AlexEng to look further into this. Or do go ahead and request that someone start that sock investigation for you. I also think it may be a good idea for Tenebrae or AlexEng to start an RfC on the Michael Michael matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC) You also need to keep in mind that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz might have looked at Hillbillyholiday's contributions after the second Norma Stitz AfD (which I was aware of and mentioned at WP:ANI as part my case that Hillbillyholiday tries to get rid of anything he does not like). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Note: The aforementioned editor that I identified as a sock is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajax1995. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Flying ointment

This article is far from perfect. Maybe mentioning it here will help. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato, LOL, yes, I guess a person named Flyer22 should know. I'll make some edits to the article to improve it. I won't promise any huge improvements.

As for anyone watching this page perhaps helping, I do have a decent number of watchers, but, these days, my talk page isn't as active as it used to be. This is partly because of my "Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary" message at the top, which also used to start off by me stating that I'm not interested in social networking here, and because I was removing all new messages, and because I began taking days off from editing Wikipedia. So I really did give off an "I don't want to be bothered" vibe. Once I started allowing messages again, people stopped minding the "Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary" piece. And I plan on removing that piece soon. But I'm not sure that any of my watchers would want to take on the Flying ointment article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. We potatoes are quite down-to-earth, with some rare exceptions. Have you seen my editnotice? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the edit notice, I just clicked on one to see what would happen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I should log which ones get clicked the most. I have tried to find appropriate images for each of them, but Wikimedia Commons has a limited supply of "thank you" related images. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your recent efforts at ANI. Thank you for fighting for integrity, fairness and basic common sense on Wikipedia. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Some advice for you.... If you're reverting someone's edits because you think they're an LTA or otherwise blocked editor, a) mention that in the edit summaries; b) file an SPI instead of accusing them of being a sock; c) don't revert to a vandalized version(twice). Otherwise, it looks like you're HOUNDING the editor and casting ASPERSIONS against them while vandalizing the encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ca2james. Some editors of those articles are already aware of this particular sock. I thought about manually undoing a number of the edits while stating "WP:Sock," but that takes longer and I knew that I didn't need to in the case of some of those articles since the editor keeps getting reverted and reported by others. I did mention "WP:Sock" with this revert, though. As for WP:Vandalism, it has a very specific meaning. I don't see where I reverted to a vandalized version. I was reverting a sock, though. I reverted per WP:EVASION; it states, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." But I will keep what you stated in mind; I've kept that aspect in mind times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

While you were technically in the right to be reverting the LTA the way you were, to those not "in the know" the reverts together with the sock accusation without filing an SPI and reverting to a vandalized version of an article, it looked like you were doing things that weren't totally ok. In other words, the three things taken together could cause a misunderstanding.

Regarding the vandalism, did you look at the diffs I provided? The version of Ja Rule you reverted to (twice) included the text Before signing with Interscope Records, rapper 50 Cent EMINEM IS BEST with Ja Rule and his label Murder Inc. Records. "EMINEM IS BEST" appears to me to be vandalism and had been removed in the edits you reverted. Ca2james (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james, yes, I see the vandalism here. Jd22292 also restored it even while noting the editor as a sock. I agree that better attention should be paid to the reverts we are making in these cases. I fixed the vandalism. Sorry about that and the misunderstanding. I didn't file a SPI because I knew others would and I was busy with other matters at the time. I was focused on stopping the disruption and alerting those "in the know" to the matter so that they would start the investigation (and that includes thanking them via WP:Echo for the revert of the previous sock account). But the sock kept reverting anyway. I'm also not used to starting a SPI with such little evidence; the ones I start are usually in depth and are not solely based on WP:Duck. Anyway, like I stated, I will keep your criticism in mind. It's solid criticism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I've also been able to get two of the targeted pages semi-protected long-term. Vanamonde93 protected Ja Rule for a year and DMX (rapper) (the page that made me aware of the vandal) indefinitely. I'd like to recommend similar approaches for the other targeted articles if the socking persists. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jean Fonteneau

Your accusations of vandalism are unnecessarily hostile. I revert edited your revert edit.

I provided standard encyclopedia references for every change I made. You should follow wikipedia policy when you make changes. I also added comments to the page's 'talk' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.151.149 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

IP, let's look at this revert. That revert shows that you removed material, including references, with no explanation, and changed the subject's last name to a name that is not the article title. And your comment on the article talk page shows you to be editing from some type of POV. Per WP:VANDTYPES, I believe that my revert and WP:STiki message you received were justified. But I will comment on the article talk page and alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to the matter as the first course of trying to get this matter resolved. The reason for the removal of the content was not readily apparent by examination of the content itself. It looked like POV-editing to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism

The claim that the illustyration on this article was unnecessary is odd as the article contains no illustration (which most lay people would require) except for a totally unconnected diagram on sexual stimulation... which is not the same as fetishism. Also despite the reversion of text the correct use of the term is specifically to do with worship of non-living objects... the terminology as been somewhat warped by modern over usage in pornography...the way the article is written it reads that a person can be a breast fetishist... which is certainly not correct... which is why I had edited to read "non-erogenous" as normal erogenous areas cannot be considered a fetish.... the whole point of fetishism is an UNUSUAL pleasure from some object and (by extension only) from some odd body part such as the armpit. Personally I think the illustration did much to illustrate the true meaning pof fetishism--Stephencdickson (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephencdickson, so you think that this image of a woman licking a high heel is needed to improve readers' understanding of the topic? Per WP:GRATUITOUS, I disagree. The Sexual fetishism article is mainly a medical article, not a sexual activity article. Any boot-licking can go on the Shoe fetishism article, or the Boot fetishism article. Furthermore, per WP:LEADIMAGE, I don't really see that the image is too representative, no matter how popular shoe fetishism is. As for how the term sexual fetish (or sexual fetishism) or fetish is used, it is used in different ways, and we address that in the Sexual fetishism article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

my point is that the article deserves illustration...as it is NOT easily understood by a lay reader... whether or not the article is "medical"... Wikipedia should be accessible to all levels of reader.. to my opinion the article drifts from the issue of Fetishism in its true meaning--Stephencdickson (talk) nevertheless I will take your suggestion and place the photo on Shoe fetishism as that too is poorly illustrated --Stephencdickson (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephencdickson, I disagree with you on the mater of illustration for the Sexual fetishism article. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, not all articles need a lead image. In fact, some are better off without one. I think that this is such a case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you for the kind words. I think we're on the same page regarding that last bit, but I don't think it's worthwhile to try to push them to understand our point of view. I tried and failed, so I gave up. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow you're fast

I hope you're okay with the changes I made here. Let me know if not and I'll redo. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

TransporterMan, LOL, not fast. It's just that I responded while you were typing up the proposal. I'm fine with your slight alteration to my post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It might reduce confusion if you changed your link to this rather than the one where I removed my draft. Thanks for the support. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'd considered it initially, but I felt that editors would know what the deal was. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Fastest hands in the West. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I decided to have a look at Shootingstar's talk page and read through the conflict with that likely mens rights editor. I think it's obvious why they often so aggressively distort academic literature... I so appreciate that you are dedicated to keeping this easily accessible online encyclopedia intellectually honest and reflecting of the current scientific data. :)

Jayx80 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, thank you. Even if you are Shootingstar88 (and like I stated on your talk page, you do remind me of that editor), you at least help keep WP:Due in mind when editing these domestic violence and other gender-related articles. You did some much needed cleanup at the Violence against men article. You should watch out for WP:Copyvio, however. You already have one warning about that from the same editor who indefinitely blocked Shootingstar88 over repeated WP:Copyvio violations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Forced Seduction". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 September 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page at Orgasm control

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn! I have replied to your (implicite) comment made on reversion edit description at Orgasm control. Please use that talk page to reply and propose suggestions for improving the phrasing to eliminate confusion between two different notions : orgasm and ejaculation. Thanks.--82.137.10.101 (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The article is on my watchlist. I know that you have replied. Sometimes I might not reply right away when someone is responding to me; this is usually because I am busy with other matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Forced Seduction, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sorted (magazine) article

More copies if Russell Church's four editions of Sorted were published during it's existence than four years of the evangelical Christian mimicked version. ABC audited figures are not available for the Christian version because its appeal is minimal. It was only during the immediate post Leveson Inquiry period that there was a proven circulation increase. Since then the sales and reach has dwindled fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolphinCentre (talk • contribs)

Child pornography article

NPOVwarriorprincess (talk · contribs), regarding this, if there is something you would like to state to me, which I'm sure there is, feel free to state it here on my talk page. After weighing in at the I, Pedophile article/talk page and not editing Wikipedia for days, and that article remaining on the first page of my latest contributions, I was waiting for one of the child sexual abuse topics to be hit by one of you guys. It's something I can expect if I am absent from Wikipedia for two to four days or longer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm certain that you are no princess. Trying to imply that you are a she instead of a he, because of the statistics, does not make you seem any more neutral. I'm not sure when you guys will learn that, but it's time to get a clue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello I have reported you for violations of wikipedia NPOV. Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring opinions that one does not agree with on page's talk section. This goes against wikipedia's transparency and NPOV and hurts the community by disallowing an open and honest discussion of page topics.

You can fine the case report I have main requesting a temporary ban for your actions here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censoring_of_diverse_points_of_view_on_the_Child_Pornorgraphy_Talk_page

NPOVwarriorprincess (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for becoming involved in the discussion about Hentai. It is not a subject that is near and dear to my heart, but I felt that the other user's response when reverting changes seemed personal. That got me quite upset - although I tried to ensure my reply was calm and rational. (I don't deal well with conflict or anxiety.)

For the moment, I think it is best that I hang back and see what happens there. I would prefer not to be emotionally invested, and right now feel that I am.

Again, thank you for your involvement - whichever way the discussion goes. Ambiguosity (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguosity, you're welcome. Hentai is not near and dear to my heart either; it's just one of the many articles on my watchlist. And as many know, I watch a lot of sexual articles since I have a lot of knowledge on a lot of sexual topics. I don't think that the aforementioned discussion is likely to get more participants any time soon unless you alert associated WikiProjects to the topic. But so many editors are focused on WP:Not censored that they don't keep WP:Offensive material in mind; this is usually because they either forget about it or didn't know about it at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is why I added that WP:Offensive material piece to the WP:Not censored policy page in 2015. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

But some might still overlook it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI and your monitoring of critical articles

Thanks for standing up against this kind of nonsense, in this and many other instances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just get on with it

Please stop disrupting guideline pages with WP:REVTALK. It's a pain in the ass to a large number of watchlisters. You've been going on and on and on about RfCing the matter so just do it, or drop it, please.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, I expected you to come here with some type of passive-aggressive post. Before you came along to moan and groan, I, however, was not disrupting a thing in the revision history of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. My simple WP:Dummy edit (seen here), which is more than allowed (including for guideline and policy pages), was not disruptive in the least compared to the edit warring. Then, a number of days later (the time gap is 23:47, 6 September 2017‎ to 08:49, 18 September 2017‎), after I made this comment on the talk page, you decided to disrupt the guideline with a condescending note, which was no doubt meant to get the last word. Hypocritical much? And now you state that I've been going on and on about an RfC, when I started one section about it, and when most of my comments on this interleaving issue are in that small section, a section where you are the main editor opposing an RfC. I do not like it when the two of us are at each other's throats. Yes, I will be "getting on with it." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're clear on what passive-aggressive means. There's nothing passive about this, nor aggressive. If you expect people to complain about what you're doing, then it's time to change what you're doing. There is no throat being got at. Please stop misinterpreting disagreement as an attack. Many of us are tired of that interminable discussion. It either needs to be allowed to archive, like such train-wrecks usually are, or you can actually do the RfC you demand. I advise against it, because the very nature of what you and some other people think you want to do isn't even clear among you, nor are the rationales you and they are offering. I see little evidence that anyone in favor of anything like the kind of change you're pushing have thought at all about the consequences of it. But whatever; I trust the community to collectively do the wiser thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺, considering that passive-aggressive is one of the behaviors I've studied, I'm quite sure I know what it means. You've displayed passive-aggressive behavior on more than one occasion, as have I. And that you think that your initial post above is not aggressive (see I can link to Wikipedia articles too) speaks volumes. You have been aggressive. There is no misinterpretation. It's not about me expecting people to complain about what I'm doing, although editors should expect others to complain about their behavior on this site; it happens all the time, regardless of if the complaint is valid or invalid. My expectation that you would come here is about knowing how people are going to behave. I am very good at knowing how people will behave, especially after getting to know that person's real-life or onscreen personality, and Wikipedia is no different. As I've noted before, it's one reason I am so good at identifying WP:Socks. I didn't demand an RfC; I suggested it. Others agreed. You vehemently protested. Simple as that, really. As for the consequences of ensuring that editors are not breaking up the comments of others by interleaving, I'm sure that the community will be fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No going to argue with you about this stuff on yet another page. RfC it, or let it die; let's not perpetuate it, or worse yet multiply the drain on productive editing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't want butt in, but SMcCandlish starting this section was entirely uncalled for (looking through the history) and does indeed appear to be passive-aggressive. SMcCandlish, you really need to move on. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Then don't butt in. You weren't part of the "thread that would not die" over there, nor the editwarring behind it, so you lack the context to understand why I'm requesting that Flyer either do the RfC or drop the matter, instead of dragging it out indefinitely.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your RfC notices

You are placing notices of the RfC on talkpage guidelines regarding interleaving replies, on a number of project and policy talk pages having nothing to do with this issue. This is not an appropriate means of publicizing the RfC and you should stop. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, huh? I and many others have publicized RfCs in this way a number of times. One of the most recent cases was the successful WP:ANDOR RfC I started. Are you objecting to me alerting WP:Manual of Style as well? Do you think I should not be alerting WikiProjects either? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC, it seems that you object to me alerting the talk pages of policies and guidelines that are not closely related. But how can we define "closely related" in this case when the discussion at hand affects all of Wikipedia? "Publicizing an RfC" also states that the "talk pages of relevant WikiProjects" are allowed. All of the WikiProjects are relevant in this particular case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The logic of your position is that you could publicize this RfC on the talkpage of every single wikiproject, policy, and guideline page in all of Wikipedia. That is not reasonable. How many of these notices are you planning to post and how are you selecting the places to post them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, every single one is not the goal. Notifying the most prominent policies and guidelines, and then various WikiProjects after that, usually does the trick. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#Standard lead paragraph length, you can see that I noted all of the WikiProjects I was going to alert and that "I started to look for WikiProjects based on WP:RfC's Issues by topic area categorization format." At some point, I might have suggested that others alert more. Either way, the turnout was fantastic. I followed that same notification list for the WP:ANDOR RfC, and I noted in that discussion that I would be doing that. For that RfC, I alerted other pages as well. Alerting inactive WikiProjects is one thing to look out for. Anyway, the goal is to get a lot of editors involved for one or more issues that affect or are going to affect Wikipedia on a wide scale. Simply leaving a message at WP:Village pump (policy) is not enough. In the case of "the parenthetical information in first sentence RfC" (which I did not start), I alerted various WikiProjects as well; this time, I alerted WP:Manga, and AngusWOOF was glad that I did. When we are talking about a matter that affects Wikipedia in general, it is a good idea to alert many WikiProjects. I've also known film editors Betty Logan and Tenebrae to appreciate such notifications. Same goes for many others that I can ping to this section. If you are going to police me from such notifications, when things like the RfC at hand do not affect any one particular area, but Wikipedia in general, I can safely state that this would be detrimental. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I ask again, (approximately) how many of these notices are you planning? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I've already notified the big policy and guideline pages. As for WikiProjects, I have been following the list that I usually follow (mentioned above) thus far. After that, I planned to alert more. I do not have an approximate number. "Various" and "many" are clear enough, per what I stated above. Those RfCs would not have gotten as many participants had I not advertised as widely as I did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, one of the good things that happens when I alert so many WikiProjects is that other editors sometimes start alerting more WikiProjects to the RfC I advertised. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your perspective. Please use good judgment in placing only a reasonable number of notices around the project. This is an example of the types of reaction I was concerned we would see to your posting. In any event, it appears that the consensus on the RfC is fairly clear at this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, given that Tryptofish has never asked that question before, in any of the other RfC alerts I posted there, I wonder why he asked the question now. Perhaps he saw this thread? In any case, I find it to be an odd question since the RfC concerns Wikipedia as a whole and since I have never received such a question about any of my RfC notifications until now, a little after your post here. For example, I am a member of WP:Med. WP:Neuroscience is one of our related WikiProjects, and WP:Med members, such as Doc James, are always appreciative of these notifications; it's why Doc James weighed in on the RfC. So did other WP:Med members. The aforementioned list of WikiProjects were selected with good judgement years ago since they cover a wide range of topics. Not only do I follow that list, but I've made sure to notify other WikiProjects in cases like these as well. For example, WP:Women. What is important when alerting a number of WikiProjects to an RfC that affects the whole community is trying to get a wide range of views, the WikiProjects that cover topic areas such as science, medicine, math, culture, sports, women's issues and so on. Like you and I noted, contacting every WikiProject should not be the aim. It would be good if there was a more efficient way to alert many WikiProjects to an RfC that affects Wikipedia as a whole; I might have seen this in the past at some point -- a bot-triggered one -- unless my mind is playing tricks on me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Posting to the most active Wiki Projects IMO is not unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(I think the way I'm indenting this makes Doc James' comment an interleave, at least in format if not in timing: how appropriate!) Anyway, thanks Brad for bringing the issue up, and what Brad has said goes for me too. One could argue that there are many kinds of RfCs that "concern Wikipedia as a whole", and that is why we have, for example, WP:CENT, and why editors often leave notices at the Village Pump (and we have watchlist notices for the most significant RfCs). It's entirely appropriate in this case to reach out to WikiProjects that are involved in setting policies or guidelines about talk pages or discussions or formatting. But going far beyond that, as was done here, is simply annoying spam. As for WT:NEURO, I watch that very carefully. If I have not objected in the past, it was because I could see a rationale for the RfC being in some way related to the project, rather than because I did not notice it, or it simply felt like no big deal. But I saw this notice on numerous talk pages on my watchlist, and it seemed to me to be getting over-the-top. Example: WT:COI – do editors with COIs interleave their comments more than other editors do? In any case, being perhaps of wide concern is insufficient reason for so many messages. It's not the end of the world or anything, but please do not do this any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I have a lot of talk page watchers. Some of them are people I don't want watching my talk page. I wondered if you saw this thread on my talk page and decided to make a complaint at WP:Neuroscience. Either way, look at the other RfC notices I posted to WP:Neuroscience. How are any of those more relevant than this one? How can we judge which WikiProjects are more relevant to the discussion at hand? We cannot. And the same goes for our policies and guidelines, with the exception of WP:Manual of Style, which I also alerted. None of the WikiProjects are any more deserving of receiving a notification about interleaving that affects all Wikipedia editors, and I don't see the "WikiProjects that are involved in setting policies or guidelines" that you speak of. I am aware of WP:CENT. I noted above that I left a notification at WP:Village pump (policy), but I have found that this is not enough for cases such as these. Such limited notification usually only ends up notifying those who watch that page or are heavily involved in our policy and guideline issues. It leaves out the general Wikipedians. I've seen this complaint -- that there are a limited number of editors shaping our policy and guidelines and not enough general Wikipedians being alerted to the issues -- many times. You are asking me to stop doing something that has proven beneficial for years, that many editors have thanked me for, all because it annoys you via your watchlist. Should you not being annoyed cost so many editors the chance of being alerted to important issues?

Sighs. Seems like I need to start an RfC on this matter as well. But, for now, I'm going to start a thread on this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and leave a note about it at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not watching your userpage. I came here only because you pinged me, and I would not even have been aware of the discussion here if you had not (but it was good of you to ping me, please don't get me wrong about that). If I had wanted to do something in response to Brad's post, I would have commented here, not at NEURO. As I said above, I became aware of it after seeing your messages at NEURO and other talk pages. I'm not asking that practices be changed simply because I was annoyed: I asked you a question at NEURO, and then commented after being pinged here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

But you have called the practice annoying spam and asked me to stop without showing that the practice is detrimental or truly disruptive. By contrast, I've shown that the practice is beneficial; it generally produces a bigger turnout, from a wider range of editors, and it has never been cited as an issue until Newyorkbrad started this thread on my talk page. Newyorkbrad has seemed to take the approach that notifying some WikiProjects is fine, but that I should not overdo it. I am not seeing a way to tell which WikiProjects should be notified other than the aforementioned genre/field list. And since I'd rather not be policed or blocked for helping, I am going to ask Village pump (technical) if there can be a way of bringing wider attention to RfCs without manually posting to whatever WikiProject. You know, other than WP:CENT. I'll later later start a discussion on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that I ought to come back here and explain that I did not express myself very well when I said that I had been annoyed. That's an overstatement. To whatever degree I might have been what could be called "annoyed", it was only to a very small extent. It would be more accurate to have said that I thought that it was an error of judgment on your part. That's what I think this really all comes down to. It's a matter of judgment. If one manually posts to multiple projects, one has to use judgment as to what is useful and how much goes too far. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And my previous judgements on this matter have proven useful; that is my point. Again, "I am not seeing a way to tell which WikiProjects should be notified other than the aforementioned genre/field list." As for any annoyance the alerts cause, they aren't any more annoying than the message bots (I see from time to time) popping up with the same message across my very big watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Marlon Brando

Hello! I just received your message regarding the Marlon Brando page on Wikipedia. I have been a huge Brando fan since I was a kid, I read all his biographies, watched all the documentaries made about him, and whenever I visit his page, I noticed that it's filled with a lot of errors and inaccuracies, especially about his children. He had 8 biological children only : Christian (by Anna Kashfi), Miko and Rebecca (by Movita Castaneda),Teihotu and Cheyenne (by Tarita Teriipaia), Ninna Priscilla, Myles Jonathan and Timothy Gahan (by Maria Cristina Ruiz).He also adopted Petra,(daughter of his former assistant and author James Clavell), Maimiti (daughter of Tarita Teriipaia and Frenchman named Jean Claude) and Raiatua (Teriipaia's niece). Stephen Blackhart has repeatedly denied that he has any relation to Brando, Lisa Brando, Angelique Brando, Dylan Brando and Warren Brando are not related to him. This story that he had 16 children is false.(it's all based on false speculations).When I edited the page, I may have not cited my sources properly but I am convinced that they are 100% reliable and factual. I also spent 2 years researching on him. The reason you read that he had 16 children is because after his passing, some people claimed they were his illegitimate children but his estate does not believe them http://pagesix.com/2008/05/14/brando-daughter-doubted/. This is how the rumor started unfortunately. In all the books about Brando, they state that he had 8 biological children (5 by his three wives and 3 by his housekeeper) and 3 adopted daughters.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhy23 (talk • contribs)

Bluhy23, the issue I have is that your content was all unsourced. That is why I reverted. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, Page six is a poor source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I hope I am not bothering you but I need help regarding the sources. What do you mean when you say that a content is unsourced? I cited the new edited information I added to the page. I used sources like google books and People Magazine. (BTW the page six article I provided in the talk page was only an example, I know that the site is not always reliable).

Thank you!

Bluhy23 (talk · contribs), yeah, you did use sources; I see them farther down. I missed that before. I suggest you take this matter to Talk:Marlon Brando and see if anyone can validly object to your arguments. Wait a day or two, and then WP:BOLDLY change the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, sign your comments using four tildes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Good article nominations

Flyer22 Reborn, just so you know for future reference, it is not necessary (or even desirable) to edit the GAN page directly. All you needed to do was to remove the GA nominee template from the article talk page; a bot rebuilds the GAN page every 20 minutes, and the nomination would have disappeared from the page automatically.

Per the GA nomination instructions page, editors who wish to nominate articles where they are not regular editors are supposed to consult on the article's talk page with editors who have worked on it, and only if there is agreement that the article is ready for GAN should a nomination be made. So, once there was consensus that it wasn't ready, the removal of the nomination from the talk page was appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I think I knew that already and wanted it removed from the main page so that the link I pointed on MagicatthemovieS's talk page wouldn't show it. As for WP:GANI, it states at the top, "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator." By contrast, WP:FAC states, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." I prefer the latter wording since it is stronger. And as can be seen, MagicatthemovieS is not taking WP:GANI's wording into consideration. Perhaps he overlooked it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about the later sentence in GANI, which is virtually identical to your FAC quote: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." That covers it quite explicitly. As for the direct edit of WP:GAN, it truly isn't necessary or appropriate. The page only needs direct editing when something has gone badly awry. Finally, I don't know whether you're aware, but MagicatthemovieS currently has more GAN submissions than any other editor, even with that one nomination reverted: 23 in total. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, maybe GANI's wording should be changed to be more consistent? Also, is that wording relatively new? Years ago, I remember being concerned that there was not the same standard of "consult the main contributors first" for WP:GA nominations as there is for FA nominations. As for MagicatthemovieS, yes, that is an issue, which is why I am hoping that he listens to what has been stated on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove all my link references

This is a very good source I listed, and it has even been mentioned in Wikipedia in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surroy378 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Surroy378, I reverted you here and here because you appeared to be SPAMMING. With my edit summary for the fist revert, I stated, "The reference is WebMD. Changing the URL without changing the reference is problematic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I deeply apologize for changing the webMD link. Can I kindly list the URL I suggested in the "External Links" section? (I am kindfully asking permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surroy378 (talk • contribs)

See WP:SPAM and WP:External linking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I Like You

Thank you MRmiff.com04 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk by 69.248.49.73

No idea what you're talking about nor who you are. Please don't contact me, again. I don't edit pages, especially ones about LeVay. He probably did it while he was over here, since he was using my laptop. I don't find it funny and I do not like contact from strangers or the public at large. Take it up with him and cease contact with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.49.73 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 Reborn

I appreciate your welcome! I am new to wikipedia and finding it all quite amazing. More soon. 104.220.67.101 (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC) emikokoyo (Still confused by the four tilda thing, but hopefully that worked.)

Emikokoyo (talk · contribs), did you mean to post this section while not signed in? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard: Marlon Brando

Hello Flyer,

This is simply to let you know that I have yet to receive a response from the noticeboard regarding Stephen Blackehart and the children of Marlon Brando. I was wondering how else I could discuss the matter.

Thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Bluhy23, yes, I know. It's why I commented there days ago. It's odd that no one has yet weighed in. They no doubt would have if Brando were still alive. I suppose the next step is to start a WP:RfC on the matter. RfCs are my go-to during disputes after discussion among the involved parties has proven to not be effective at resolving the issue. You can also seek WP:Third opinion. Read both WP:RfC and WP:Third opinion carefully and thoroughly so that you know what to do. Don't do both at the same time. If you seek an RfC, then WP:Third opinion is not needed. If you seek WP:Third opinion, then you can start an RfC after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard: Parent-Teacher conference

Andres contreras, Hello Flyer, I apologize for the wrong edit on this article page. Thank you for your notice. As you can see I´m new here. Im a translator trying to upload an Spanish translation to an existing english article. Parent-teacher conference I have a word file and prefer to paste in wikipedia format. I contacted several help desks and checked help pages but just can´t catch the steps to do it, too complicated for my lack of skills, but I´ll work on it. If you could advise on where to read proper instructions I´d greatly appreciate it. Submitting translations is all I want to do for now. Thanks again.--Andres contreras (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Andres contreras. I reverted you because you were changing an English Wikipedia article into an entirely different language. This is the English Wikipedia; so our articles should be in English. As for help understanding things, you can ask at WP:Help desk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As for how to ask for help at WP:Help desk, it's simple. Just click on the link at the top that states "Click here to ask a new question about how to use or edit Wikipedia." Then ask your questions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Also see WP:Teahouse if you haven't already. I know that Cullen328 would be willing to help you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andres contreras and Flyer22 Reborn. Here at the English Wikipedia, we have only English language articles. You are welcome to translate articles into Spanish, Andres contreras, but the result of your work belongs on the Spanish Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Translate us for complete details. A translation is a derivitive work so you must attribute the source article properly. You are welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Andres contreras:Hello Flyer and Cullen328 Thanks for your advise, I´m well aware Spanish content belongs on Spanish Wikipedia. The guide for Spanish translations however, suggests to start translating directly on the original article and then in the Edit Summary describe it is a translation and so on... I guess I misinterpreted. I¨also know that the proper source must be cited. This is the idea! to make an existing important article (this one is) available to a wider audience in another language, respecting its original authors. I just need to fill out the Edit Summary correctly, to link the source to the translation. This is what I have to figure out. I appreciate your patience and time to help mend my steps. I´ll follow your indications as to where to go for help. --Andres contreras (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The RfC on the Children of Marlon Brando

Hello Flyer, The RfC has not been successful. I am not sure how long I should wait for the editors to answer me . I don't how it works. Only one editor (other than you) has commented so far and I don't fully agree with what they said. I don't think we should report the doubtful children since there isn't a single reliable source on the net that verifies this information. It is all based on speculation and hearsay. Why is no one weighing in on the issue? This is a big problem that needs solving. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

RfCs last for a month. At this point, you need to wait. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

		The Diamond STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 100,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

IGM

Just got the notification that you sent me an e-mail. I have been, and continue to be, under the weather, so I haven't opened it yet, which I will do within the next day or so, but the off-the-top-of-head response is that it seems unlikely. Still, I look forward to reading your argument & evidence, and will get back to afterwards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent sock cases

• September 2017: Reverted and called an editor a sock here and here. Sock reported me at WP:ANI. Was identified at WP:ANI and blocked.

• October 2017: Indicated that multiple editors were socks or meatpuppets. Accounts were identified as socks days later in an official sock investigation I started.

• October 2017: Indicated that the editor was not new and hinted that the editor was a sock. Editor was blocked as a sock days later.

• October 2017: Called the editor a sock. A different editor started an official sock investigation. The editor I called a sock was blocked as a sock. Currently a sock watch for his socks. During the sock watch discussion, I noted that a sock might cite WP:Assume good faith (something that a newbie is not likely to know about) and that it is not unheard for a sock to take me to WP:ANI after I call them a sock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• October 2017: Typical denial and same "you will be reported for calling me a sock" stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking assistance for Wiki editing

Could you assist me with some information?

1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee?

2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page?

3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee?

4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor?

5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it?

6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing?

7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content?

8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos?

9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential.

10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories.

11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people?

12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing? Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page?

13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer?

Abir Babu (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI - I've already answered all of his questions on my user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. Per the #Recent sock cases section above, where I pointed to this sock case, I asked Abir Babu flat out if he is a sock. You can obviously see the editor's response. I'm leaving the matter at that for now since I have many other things to do and I do not want to spend much time on Wikipedia today (or any day, really). And, Abir Babu, I did not mean to thank you via WP:Echo minutes ago; my intention was to thank Oshwah. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Publicizing the RfC on the children of Marlon Brando

Hello Flyer, I hope I am not bothering you with my questions but I was just wondering if I could publicize the RfC I created on the children of Marlon Brando? Do you think it's a good idea? Should I wait maybe more? I would just like to get more input from editors. It seems to me that not many editors are interested in the topic... Thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How will you be publicizing it?

You could also scrap the current RfC, and I could start one for you. Initially, I thought about starting one for you, but I was being lazy by deciding not to offer to do so. I think that the setup of your current RfC is partly why you are getting a lack of responses. The RfC is titled "RfC: The Children of Marlon Brando." It would help if it were phrased as a question. Not this late in the RfC, but if you were to start a fresh one. In the text you ask, "Should we reduce the number of his children to 11?" So that is the actual question. But I think the question should be phrased the following way instead: "Should people who have denied being Brando's children, and those who have not been proven as his, be listed as his children?" And then, under that, you could state what you did before: "Should we reduce the number of his children to 11? Stephen Blackehart and Linda Carroll have denied to have any relation to Brando, and there is no proof that Angelique Brando, Lisa Brando, Michael Gilman, Dylan Brando and Warren Brando are his children." You can do this. You don't have to wait for me to do it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel a little hesitant about starting a new RfC. I'll think about it. Bluhy23 (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Just remember that I am willing to start one for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Bluhy23 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we close the current RfC? Is this the only way to scrap it?Bluhy23 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You can simply remove the RfC tag; that will stop the RfC. Since you started it, it is best that you don't close it even if you would be noting that you are simply withdrawing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The question I will be asking in the new RfC is the one you suggested because it's well-phrased: Should people who have denied being Brando's children, and those who have not been proven as his , be listed as his children? Would that be OK with you? Bluhy23 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. But I proposed that for the heading (title) of the RfC. You can use your previous "Should we reduce" wording for the text below the RfC, or new wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Bluhy23 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about the comments regarding the introduction of the RfC [6]? How can I make it clearer for editors who are not familiar with the issue? Bluhy23 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Bluhy23, Johnuniq made the comment. I can't really answer for him, but I think he was talking about your introduction. Although the title of your RfC is clear, your text beneath it should be worded as follows or similar: "Brando has 11 confirmed children. There have been reports originating from unverified sources that he had 16 children. Stephen Blackehart and Linda Carroll have both denied being related to Brando, and there is zero evidence that the others are his children. So should the latter bunch be listed as his children?" Something like that. And, of course, after that you can link to previous discussions for further detail. I don't see what else can be done to help your RfC gain traction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't wanted to spend a bunch of time working out the story. Flyer's wording would be much better, although those words would be interpreted by some as putting a slant on the question. Perhaps phrasing each issue as a question would be better:

1. Is it agreed that Brando had 11 confirmed children? (Probably would need to list them for clarity; I see there is a hidden list at Marlon Brando#Personal life.)
2. Stephen Blackehart and Linda Carroll have both denied being related to Brando; should they be listed as children or possible children? If yes, what sources would provide verification?
3. Should other people be listed as children or possible children? If yes, what sources would provide verification?

Another approach would be to start a new section on the article's talk with a proposal to remove mention of Blackehart and Carroll with a brief statement of their denials (where?) and the weakness of sources claiming the contrary (details?). Wait for discussion. If challenged, raise issue at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN (not both). Make it brief but give outline from the best sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like you to take a look at this article from 2004 [7]. Bluhy23 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Me, or Johnuniq? I've already looked at the source. And if reliable sources only confirm 11 children as Brando's, I don't find it as biased to note this in the RfC's introduction, along with the mention that the others either deny being his children or have no solid sources supporting the claim that they are his children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies! Thanks , Flyer! It's for Johnuniq Could you please take a look at this article ? Would that be enough evidence to list 11 children?[8] Bluhy23 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please start a new section at the article talk where others can express a view. I don't have time to get heavily involved in the issue but you can see my attitude in the comment I left in the RfC, namely that very good sources are required and gossip sources should be discounted. I imagine there are at least a dozen good biographies focused on Brando, and they would normally be regarded as authoritative. The issue is obviously contested, so the very brief mention in the Globe and Mail from 2004 is not adequate because it is just repeating what someone told them. The fact that it says his will identified the living children is very important, if confirmed elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Bluhy23, in my opinion, this and this is overkill. Editors generally will not care about the children's names. And they don't need to know the confirmed children's names unless looking at the sources. All they need to know is that (if whatever sources are correct) 11 children have been confirmed as his and the others have not. And that you are asking them to then judge whether the unconfirmed children should be included as his children. If they want to know the names of the unconfirmed children, they can look at the aforementioned discussion naming them and/or the sources at hand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for my late reply . I agree with you that naming the children is too much,and I should have not mentioned their names. (But I did not see your post maybe because I was looking at the old version of your talk page.) Should we start a new RfC on this matter or maybe no more RfCs on that? Also , could you please see my discussions with the editors on the Marlon Brando talk page? There is an editor who keeps telling me that I am doing original search and I know that I am not. In this case, what should I do? Bluhy23 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Another RfC probably won't be any more successful since the first two were not. You need to just wait until this RfC closes and see what the closer states. I've seen the discussion on the talk page, but I don't have anything to add to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Am I doing original research though? This is what I would like to know. Bluhy23 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Flyer,

The closer of the RfC suggested that we should create new RfCs for each dubious child to verify the sources that say they are Marlon Brando's children. Quite frankly, we don't need any more RfCs as they are not going to solve the problem. In my opinion, the issue does not require an RfC but someone who is knowledgeable about Marlon Brando and familiar with him. What would the next step be? How can we fix this problem? I'm sure you are aware of this, but if you look at the article, some of these dubious children are not even referenced, and others have the Data Lounge as a reference source. How has no editor ever noticed that? Since when is the Data Lounge a reliable source? It is a forum that should never be used. What should we do? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else should be done, except being WP:Bold and removing the dubious entries. You might be reverted by the main editor you were in dispute with, but the closer did state the following: "There is a clear consensus that if no reliable sources say a person is a child of Marlon Brando, then that person should be excluded." You can try posting at the WP:BLP noticeboard about it again and making it clear there that the children are living people (unless any of them are dead, of course), and that Stephen Blackehart has stated that he's not Brando's child. It would also be best to keep your post there brief and to not add too many URL links. Or you could ask about the matter at WP:Editor assistance/Requests for guidance.

Oh, and consider turning your user page blue. It might seem trivial, but, during my years here, I've noticed that experienced Wikipedians are a lot more responsive to editors who have blue user pages/talk pages. They are more dismissive of newbie editors. See what I stated below on having a blue user page. When I was a newbie, there was an editor (Elonka) who gave me advice about turning my user page blue, and I think it helped, and I've obviously never forgotten about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely choose the WP:Bold option, but you are correct about this editor. I will try posting at WP:Editor assistance/Requests and see what happens.

Thank you so much for your helpful advice, I really appreciate it. But I was wondering how to turn my user page blue? Again, thank you. Bluhy23 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

To turn your page blue, just edit it like you edit any talk page. You can add a little bit about yourself, or simply your username. Or, like WP:Socks so often do, you can simply add a dot. But given that socks do that so much, I think going with your username is best if you don't want to add anything about yourself. You can also add one or more WP:Userboxes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Should I just click on my user name , create source and then add my user name? Bluhy23 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just click on your user page, add what you want and push "Publish page." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There are rules to user pages, though; see WP:User pages. So you can't really add anything you want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you so much, Flyer! Bluhy23 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Rights to sexual orientation

I believe you have something wrong with the sexual orientation of 'incest' if so how is it that polysexual can be accepted but incest can't as to a sexual interest? Is this an incestophobic move? 101.165.2.225 (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You've got to be kidding me...TJH2018talk 16:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Mom? Popcornduff (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Bubba? Is that you? DarkKnight2149 21:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, new at this

You recently left me the following message, "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ... have been undone because they did not appear constructive. ..."

I'm not terribly adept at the editing process and I tried to figure out a different way to do things but basically I was trying to challenge and assertion made in a recent addition to the article that had a source I believe to be dubious. My primary issue with the source was a claim that an admission of guilt was made in a draft consent decree. The issue is that consent decrees by their definition are not admissions of guilt. The article in question treated it as such an admission, which is inappropriate. I tried to find the article's source, i.e. the draft decree, but I have been unable to do so. If I had my intent was to read the decree and update the article with more accurate information. I am sure the decree exists, but I am also sure that it does not include an admission of guilt. Otherwise it would just be an admission of guilt and not a consent decree. Anyways that's what I was getting at. I tried to correct what I saw as a flaw in the article that stems from a flaw in the source material because the author of he source material did not do their due diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupyouarewrong (talk • contribs)

LGBT demographics

Hi, do you think it's alright to keep on adding individual studies to the entries about lgbt demographics? I don't think this subject is that closely related to the medical subjects, so different rules might apply. Other entries about social demographics — for example, religious demographics in individual countries — also give high prominence to surveys performed by individual pollsters instead of secondary sources. Rafe87 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Rafe87, what I stated to you at the Sex differences in intelligence article is not solely about medical articles. It has to do with Wikipedia preferring secondary sources in general; this is made clear at WP:Primary sources. What it states is why I noted to you that it is not good to build an article on primary source after primary source. For a few scholarly topics where research is limited, most of the sources will be primary, but, if you can locate tertiary or secondary sources to replace primary sources with, you should. Even though WP:MEDRS concerns health material, it does offer good reasoning for why primary sources are not ideal. Whether it's the Demographics of sexual orientation article, the LGBT demographics of the United States article, or something similar, primary sources should not be your go-to sources (meaning the first type of sources you think about using). Like noted to you before, it is often very easy to find tertiary or secondary sources on Google Books. So WP:PAYWALL often is not an issue. I'm not going to revert your additions to the Demographics of sexual orientation or LGBT demographics of the United States articles (generally anyway), but I do hope you keep what I've stated in mind and look for tertiary or secondary sources sometimes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, Rafe87, another thing to keep in mind (and I noted this before) is that primary studies/surveys vary. One survey might state one thing and then another might state something completely opposite of that. In fact, one of the surveys may not be accurate in terms of nationally or internationally representing something (with underreporting being one issue). This is why it is important to rely on secondary sources, like review articles or similar, in cases such as these. The review article, for example, will note the average percentages given. The average percentages are far more valuable to readers than a bunch of wildly conflicting percentages. The latter doesn't help readers understand a thing. All it does is confuse readers and have them walking away from the article thinking, "Well, that was a waste of time. I still have no clue just how many people are, on average, [so and so]." The type of data that you keep adding to the Demographics of sexual orientation and LGBT demographics of the United States articles can go on and on because there is so much primary data on the demographics of sexual orientation, with much of it conflicting previous data on the subject. And that's just not the way we should be building those articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies, however I have an article that was relevant to depression. Adding it to the references I believe was appropriate since it was relevant but I understand how it would be interpreted as advertising. It is a scholarly contribution nonetheless.

I created my first Wikipedia today and was wondering if you could look at it. It’s called Nature Exposure Sufficiency (NES) and Nature Exposure Insufficiency (NEI) Continuum.

Thanks Sdurante07 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sdurante07, see MOS:LAYOUT. If the source is relevant to the article in a non-spam way, you can include it as "further reading." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Stonewall edits

Hi Flyer- re: WP:Advocacy on the Stonewall page, I don't think I'm advocating a certain viewpoint... Removing language that's generally considered offensive (like calling people deviants) is moving the page closer to neutrality than anything else. If you're describing facts, you don't have to use historical offensive language to accurately recount them. My edit is the subtle difference between saying that trans people are deviants (biased!), and saying that their behavior was generally considered deviant compared to social norms at the time (accurate and specific!). We don't have to call people transvestites to convey that they either cross-dressed/did drag or were actually transgender. If it's a matter of disagreeing whether this language is offensive, the GLAAD media guide that many popular/respected English publications follow agrees with me: .

Laudiacay (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Laudiacay, I replied on the article talk page. And like I noted there, I assure you that I am aware of the offensiveness of the term transvestite. As for use of "deviants," that was obviously not the article's text, but rather me noting the mindset of that time in history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Dummy edit

Hi Flyer,

Regarding this self-revert, you do know you can use a dummy edit to add a note like this, right? No need to double-revert. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, see my history at the WP:Dummy edit talk page. I often do a number of dummy edits a day when editing; this is one example. I used to state "WP:Dummy edit:" in front of an explanation. I did it so often that editors started copying me. In fact, I thought that you picked on this style from me. I usually do not state "WP:Dummy edit" anymore. I state "Comment." I might go back to stating "WP:Dummy edit" at some point. As for the initial diff above, I wanted to revert by manually undoing the edit so that the editor would be aware of my revert. I clearly intended to revert myself after making the statement. It was not meant to be a dummy edit.

On a side note: I'm glad that this section is not a complaint about use of dummy edits, which I have gotten in the past. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not a complaint at all; was just confused about the reason for the double-revert rather than a dummy edit, but now I get it that it was to generate a user alert without actually reverting content. I had no idea you're a contributor to the WP:DUMMY page itself. And I have no idea who I copied in prefixing "Dummy edit", it could well have been you (not that my swiss-cheese memory would retain information of that sort). Would be handy if one could manually trigger a user alert from ES, that would be more direct and less confusing than a double-revert; maybe an idea for WP:VPR or WP:VPI? Would love it if you'd raise that there. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't do such reverts often. I'm not passionate enough about the matter to seek your suggestion, but others might be very interested in it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I hate the term "dummy edit". (It makes me visualize a ventriloquist's dummy typing away at a computer, and that's vaguely unsettling in a way I can't even begin to explain). I hate it so much that I used the term "null edit" long after learning that that is something quite different, just because I felt I needed to indicate that no content was changed. Over the past year or so, I've resigned myself to using the hated term on the rare occasion that I make such an edit, but now I'm intrigued by the idea of not flagging this type of edit at all. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Or Empty edit? White-space edit? Or Flyer's choice of "Comment"? It seems like there's some small value of clueing the history reader in that they don't need to click the diff since nothing has changed and this is just a comment. I know I appreciate a good, explanatory edit summary, and this seems to help. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, destroyed! Will you help me again, please?

Someone has just gone through and destroyed a lot of work that I just did! I made several corrective edits and thought they fit in the category of minor edits. But will you please clue me in on if they really aren't and why not if not? Anyway, wow, suddenly it looks like they have some sort of vendetta against me or something! Will you please go check out all the recent reversions on articles in my my edit history from today (11/04) and help me figure out where to go from there? I could go RErevert them, but I'd just be edit-warring. I did start discussions on some of them. What else can we do? Will you please support my corrections by adding to the discussions (as you can see "talk..." in my history) and perhaps be part of the consensus that restores those corrections? Thanks! Thayve Sintar (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Sro23 (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sro23, thanks for handling this. I already knew that Thayve Sintar is a sock; I just didn't know whose sock. And it's sometimes best for me to not indicate that an editor is a sock. One reason is questions like this one. So I have to just pretend like it's the editor's first account and treat them like others unless I'd rather avoid them because the socking thing is irking me too much. By that, I mean that I don't like acting like I don't know and engaging with an editor who was likely very disruptive in the past and probably has not changed in that respect, but anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Interleaving

I actually like the interleaving material you just added (not sure how much of it is your wording). Despite being vociferously opposed to the proposal, what has emerged is (perhaps because of my and Andrewa's insistence) actually accurate even from our (or at least my) side of the issue. It really is true that it generally should not be done, even if you're of the mindset that it can be done when it's genuinely best to do so. I don't even need to cite IAR to continue to do so in the rare cases it begs to be done, since the wording isn't a prohibition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish. Thanks. It's not my wording, though. It was taken straight out of the edit history. See here, for example. All I did was add a comma, LOL. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape of males

Why did you revert the article? I was trying to replace the old data from here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf with the newer data from here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

The only problem is that I don't know how to cite properly and was hoping whoever edited after me could fix that.

65.95.240.89 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@65.95.240.89: Fixed, and integrated new data from that source with the existing 2010 data, among other cleanup [9].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Socks

Hey, I got your email. I don't know that sockmaster, so it's difficult for me to make any suggestions. If you file a case at SPI, it will likely be looked at by an SPI clerk. Unfortunately, checkuser is of no use in this circumstance. Unless I missed something, all the data went stale long ago. If you want my uninformed opinion from looking at the behavioral evidence, this looks more likely to be some random POV pusher with similar interests. But you're always welcome to email me; it's nice to receive a friendly email instead of angry "why did you block me" messages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I noted in my email to you that I know that the WP:CheckUser will be stale. What I was stating about WP:CheckUser linking him to his past accounts is that there have been cases where the CheckUser was able to confirm if the accounts were editing from the same location even though the general data was stale. For example, Amalthea and Alison have done this. One example is this case. In the past, I also read that there have been cases where a CheckUser has kept data on a highly abusive, long-term disruptive editor; I think that Alison has done this in the case of Tisane (an editor I often identify via behavior). If I'm wrong on that, and it's against CheckUser protocol, Alison can obviously state so in this section.

As for who the sockmaster is in this particular case, you can see from my past reports on him that I am consistently right about who he is. And for others reading this section, I don't mean Tisane. Nor do I mean Pass a Method (North Atlanticist Usonian). The behavioral evidence and tell-tale typing style is not coincidental, and it never has been. The fact that I'm right this time as well is why he is ignoring my baiting. The ignoring has only further confirmed to me who he is. Because this sock watches my talk page religiously, it was important that I discuss this matter via email before moving forward. The less he knows about what I plan to do regarding him, the better. So, per Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser, I contacted you and two other CheckUsers; the other two were Berean Hunter and Euryalus. I understand that you may not have wanted me to have your email, but keep in mind that you can email me via Wikipedia so that I never get your email. Euryalus and I, however, have conversed via email (meaning knowing each other's emails) in the past. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape myths NORN / NPOVN requests

FYI, I've asked both WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN for additional input at Talk:Rape myths, since three and only three editors arguing circularly with each other isn't likely to produce anything but irritation. These are not noticeboard reports, but requests for input at the article's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just want to reiterate ...

... that I'm not trying to have an argue-fest over at Talk:Rape myth. We're just obviously interpreting policy application very, very differently. It happens. Just going to leave that page be for a while.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping!Ping! :)

Hi Flyer, I tried pinging you over at Suspected Cuban sonic attack a while ago, but I'm not sure whether you noticed. That page has had several sources flagged/challenged as needing MEDRS and I was hoping you could advise whether that is the case. Not something I know much about but I remembered you do from when we were "on the same page" concerning medical treatment(s) for hysteria.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, I didn't get your ping because a ping only works with a new signature. As for the article in question, I can't really see how WP:MEDRS applies much there. It's more of a news/media thing. You can ask at WP:Med about it, but I'm going to have to disagree with any of my fellow WP:Med editors who state that WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are needed for a lot of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Milo

You pinged me there but I have been ill I am afraid so missed it. Can you give me a brief summary? I tried reading the talk page but got lost in wall'o'texts. Cheers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Only in death. Regarding the discussion in question, it's about whether or not it should be mentioned that Yiannopoulos is correct about the technical usage of the term pedophilia. It was also about whether or not it should be noted that the colloquial usage of the term includes the type of "relationships" that Yiannopoulos was speaking of, but a closer review of the sources (the ones that are about Yiannopoulos) shows that they don't mention colloquial usage. So now it's just a matter of mentioning that Yiannopoulos is correct about the technical usage of the term, but also that the "relationships" he was speaking of are illegal. I pinged you because, in the discussion I linked to at the talk page, you expressed some concern about using the incorrect meaning in the article. For example, you stated, "Assuming the title 'Accusations of paedophilia' is used (as that is what the sources use) it needs to be made very very clear that it is not the correct term." Right now, there is an RfC going on for the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		An award for your ongoing fight against vandalism on Wikipedia. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede terms italicized for words-as-words purposes

Hi, Flyer 22 Reborn. I noticed you undid my revision on the Gay article. What is strange to me is that you are the one who told me to not italicize bold lede terms to begin with. (See: here.) Please let me know which of the two you think is correct, since you have contradicted yourself and have left me very confused. Michipedian (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Michipedian, I'd already reverted myself. This is because WP:WORDASWORDS currently states, "If, however, a term is strictly synonymous with the subject of the article (i.e. the likely target of a redirect), then boldface should be used in place of italics or quotation marks at such a first occurrence. [...] Use only one of these styles at a time (do not italicize and quote, or quote and boldface, or italicize and boldface) for words-as-words purposes. Two styles can be used at once for distinct purposes, e.g. a film title is italicized and it is also boldfaced in the lead sentence of the article on that film. Do not switch back and forth between styles in the same material (e.g., using italics for words as words in one paragraph then quotes in another)."

As for the 2013 discussion, I was against you using italics and quotation marks, especially quotation marks, for the boldfaced terms. But I listened to what another editor stated. As you can see, one editor stated, "I'll grant you that many articles staring with 'X is a term' do not italicize; but they should, since any term would normally be italiicized in that context." And yet another editor stated, "Wikipedia articles should almost never start 'X is a term/describes/refers to'. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Most articles are about concepts or things, not about words or phrases. [...] When in fact the article is about a word or a phrase (but not the title of a book, movie, etc.), then quotation marks are appropriate." No consensus came from that discussion, except perhaps that you should err on the side of caution and not italicize or use quotation marks. Since then, italicizing bolded words in the introduction for articles that are specifically about the term has become more popular, which is why I reverted you. But, again, I reverted myself soon afterward. Given that we have articles doing different things on this matter, it is probably something we should discuss at the WP:Manual of Style talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The rule on this should be both clearer and more concrete. Michipedian (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Flyer22 Reborn. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Lamprey and trypophobia

If you google "lamprey trypophobia" you'll see plenty of hits, including this.[10] Not everything pictured there gives me the creeps, but some of it does. To me the lamprey, isn't nearly as nerve-rattling as some other things, but it does suggest being sucked into something, as with a maelstrom, or an octopus. I never heard this word until recently. I looked for "trypophobia" in Google Images, and plenty of examples turned up, including lampreys. It's apparently not an "official" phobia, and it's kind of loosely defined. One thing the observers seem to be missing about that lotus flower example is that it looks like lots of "eyes". Anything with more than two eyes is fairly creepy (like spiders). But to each their own phobias! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, so you are a trypophobe like me? I know that not all trypophobes react to the same trypophobic stimuli or in the same exact way to trypophobic stimuli. Lotus imagery is widely recognized as trypophobic imagery, though. I reverted you here because not only did the image not seem to be supported by the sources as trypophobic, I don't see that it belongs in the Causes section. Some of the sources probably do mention the lamprey; I think I saw it in some articles. As for the lotus image looking like eyes, the topic of eyes in relation to trypophobia has been mentioned by researchers. On the talk page, medical editor Yobol, who also seems to be a trypophobe (if #The Trypophobia article above is any indication), linked to a "Fear of eyes: triadic relation among social anxiety, trypophobia, and discomfort for eye cluster." source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. I have concluded that I don't really qualify as a trypophobe. I say that because with repeated exposure to the items in Google Images, I experience less anxiety, rather than more anxiety as I might expect if I were seriously trypophobic. As to the article, I only stuck the lamprey picture where I did so that it would fit on the page better. It probably doesn't need to be on the page. But thanks to your revert and this discussion, I've gained new insight into this phobia or phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, repeated exposure has helped me as well. I noted this on the article's talk page and on the Wiktionary talk page about trypophobia. As seen in the discussion above on my talk page about it, that lotus image hit me hard. The "eyes" were a part of the anxiety, but not solely. It just looked so...so...unsettling. I mean, I can look at a bunch of eyes arranged in an irregular pattern and not have the response I had to that lotus image. Anyway, it doesn't hit me nearly as hard anymore. I still get goosebumps when looking at it, though I think not always. I also get goosebumps when I look at some other trypophobic images, but the panicking is mostly absent and the imagery does not stay in my head as long as before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if it would be better to hide that image in a section that the reader has to deliberately open, rather than being forced to look at it? I could do that for you if your want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, nah. As mentioned in the other trypophobia section on my talk page, there was an RfC on that image. The closer closed it as being consensus for inclusion. Personally, I think it was more of a "no consensus" matter. Anyway, "inclusion" seems to have translated into "don't collapse" as well (although the closer stated that "there is no consensus" on whether or not to collapse the image). And technical issues with collapsing were noted. Anyway, I repeat that the image does not bother me much anymore. I'd rather not look at it, but it's not a horrible thing for me to visit the article anymore. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone else might. Maybe the picture could be shrunk a bit, though I don't know if that works within an infobox. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, there is no doubt that someone else will be very distressed by the image. But, per the previous RfC, I don't see what can be done about that. There will always be a divide when it comes to editors who feel that the image should be included and those who argue that it should not be included. Furthermore, despite so many people noting that they have trypophobia, and the fact that researchers have begun studying it and are clear that it exists, some people who have not experienced trypophobia will either argue that it does not exist or that it's not harmful simply because it's not recognized by name as a mental disorder or officially/medically as a phobia. Some arguments in that RfC very much annoy me. Like this scholarly book source I included in the article notes, trypophobia can certainly fall under specific phobia (just like a fear of clowns, which also is not officially/medically recognized as a phobia, does). Additionally, there will always be those who state that we should not collapse images per technical issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I am divided on whether or not the image should be included. Although I sympathize with those who will be distressed by the image, including it is one of the best ways (if not the best way) to show what is meant by the type of patterns that induce trypophobia. We don't mean any ole pattern of holes (or bumps). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Taking another look at it, at least it's small enough to not be "in your face" so much as the full-size image is. And given my initial reaction to the Google Images pics, a lone one may be creepy but a lot of them could be overwhelming. I suppose a "true" phobia inhibits one's ability to thrive in the world, and maybe that's why the so-called experts don't take these fears seriously. But for them to dismiss them as "all in your head" is patronizing and offensive. The one about clowns is interesting. I used to watch Clarabelle and Bozo on TV, and they didn't scare me. But Gacey's clown getup was creepy, even if you didn't know he was a serial killer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there's some way to suppress pictures from showing up on one's screen. I don't know what the method is. But I know it was discussed in reference to the Muhammad article, which has a number of medieval depictions of Muhammad which are now considered to be blasphemous, at least within some branches of Islam. The idea is that someone offended by the images could suppress their display on the given user's device. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, look at what the Phobia and Specific phobia articles state. A phobia is not necessarily something that inhibits one's ability to thrive in the world. Many people have a fear of spiders and/or a fear of snakes. These are officially recognized phobias, but they usually don't inhibit one's ability to thrive in the world. The fear of snakes has been argued as innate (although there is also a counterargument to that). Personally, I don't remember ever not fearing snakes. As for experts, like I mentioned, researchers studying trypophobia are clear that it exists. They believe that it's an innate/biological reaction. I can't force the goosebumps I get from seeing some trypophobic images; it's a biological reaction. Some of the researchers are not clear on whether trypophobia should be classified as a phobia, however. Phobias really are all in our heads anyway, though; it's a mental thing, even if biological instead of social. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, all phobias are "in our heads". I was being funny, or trying to be. I wonder what it takes for a phobia to be officially recognized. These things do seem to be a matter of degree and of circumstance. I've had occasions when I was close to a panic attack at a crowded store, or at least really, really wanting to get out of there. Yet I've never felt that way at a full sports stadium. Snakes don't bother me (as long as I'm sure they're not venomous) but spiders of almost any type give me the shivers. The exception are the ones that spin these large circular webs, and are colorful. The others I don't much like - especially those whose webs have kind of a "funnel" - which takes us back to things like whirlpools and lampreys! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I understood what you meant by "all in our heads"; you meant the offensive thought process on that -- people who state that "it's not real" or "doesn't exist." As for a phobia being officially recognized, the Trypophobia article currently states that "professionals who study and treat phobias tend not to use all the Latin and Greek names that get tossed around on message boards and in the press." Many phobias do not have an official entry, but rather fall under the category of "specific phobia" if the fear is excessive, persistent, and associated with significant distress or impairment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Carson used to say he had "nictophobia", which he claimed was the fear of being naked and backing into a cold doorknob. That might have been a joke. If I read you right, it's not that the experts deny that the phobia exists, they just don't necessarily give it an "official" name. "If the fear is excessive, persistent, and associated with significant distress or impairment." Plenty of wiggle room in those descriptions. I have somewhat of a fear of heights. For example, if I'm in a tall building, I tend to stand a "safe" distance away from the windows. So that's a degree of distress, but easily avoided and doesn't occupy my thoughts very much. If I spent the entire meeting worried about that window on the other side of the conference room, that would qualify as impairment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, trypophobia has not been studied enough to be officially recognized (as in by name). As for experts, I am stating that they acknowledge that people can have a phobia of anything, but also that not all phobias get official recognition. It's why so many phobias that are not officially recognized fall under the broad "specific phobia" category. I am also stating that even though experts state that trypophobic reactions exist/are real, not all of them are sure that it should be categorized as a phobia.

Fear of heights is a common phobia that has also, when defined broadly, been argued as innate. People are usually afraid of heights to some degree, but they also usually do not have to encounter heights on a daily or almost daily basis. So it's something that can give them significant distress when faced with it, but it usually does not significantly impair one's life. Then again, the Fear of heights article does currently state, "Most people experience a degree of natural fear when exposed to heights, known as the fear of falling. On the other hand, those who have little fear of such exposure are said to have a head for heights. A head for heights is advantageous for those hiking or climbing in mountainous terrain and also in certain jobs e.g. steeplejacks or wind turbine mechanics." So the Fear of heights article is distinguishing "an extreme or irrational" fear of heights from "a normal" fear of heights. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for participating in Scarlett Johansson's FAC. You were of tremendous help there. Thanks to your help, it is now a featured article. FrB.TG (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please monitor and protect the Mangalore article from Vandalism

I request you to give protection to the Mangalore article and monitor it, regarding vandalism.
No Administrator is protecting this article and it could be delisted (removed) from the list of Featured Articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Mangalore 223.186.38.187 (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's about my edit

Hello, I'm FM'S.Y who edited article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebidan) two days ago. I just noticed that I get notification that my edit has been removed because of vandalism? I'm so sorry, maybe there was a mistake. I put "EDAMAME BEANS" in Lineup → Music groups since there was no those name when it should be there. Because it's my first, what should I do before edit the article in order to "removal notification" do not go to me for the next time? Also, may I add "EDAMAME BEANS" again?

Thank you. :) (Sorry for my bad English) FM'S.Y (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Since you had some involvement with the Cambridge Scholars Publishing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 17:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Flyer22 Reborn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

STI

I was adding content and refs to the STI article and was shocked to find that it has been filled with unsourced essay-like content. It didn't used to be that way. Please take a look. Thanks. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I obviously watch that article (Sexually transmitted infection), but I don't heavily edit it. I often have not paid close attention to it. Doc James also watches it, and he edits it more than I do. I'm guessing that he overlooked content like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It takes continual efforts to keep out essay like stuff. Thanks for removing that bit Barbara. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

HTML note

The <strike>...</strike> element has been deprecated for many years. The element you want is <del>...</del>; there's also <s>...</s> kept for legacy reasons, but it represents "pure style" strikethrough without a semantic meaning of deleted/redacted/retracted. If you keep using <strike>...</strike>, you'll trigger HTML "lint" errors that others have to clean up later as we move to HTML5.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I know that editors usually don't use <strike>...</strike> anymore, but I've seen a number of editors still using <s>...</s>. I've used <s>...</s> before, but I usually use <strike>...</strike>. I just like the word being spelled out for some reason. I don't think I'll being using <del>...</del>. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As we move on, I'll be sure to stick with <s>...</s>. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Using <s> won't trigger errors, but for most uses, <del> is the one you want since it actually means something. :-) The <strike>...</strike> element simply isn't valid markup, and has been deprecated since 1999 (<s> was, too, but has been "rescued" in HTML5, while <strike> has not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, okay then. I won't use <strike>...</strike> anymore. While using it at the MOS:BIO talk page, I did ask myself why I wasn't going with the simpler <s>...</s>. I almost used <s>...</s>. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people don't keep track of the specs, and the fact that the Web is designed to not explode upon encountering simple errors means that people have little incentive to clean up their code. :-) It will matter more and more in the future though for automation and WP:REUSE purposes. Various tools that may do something smart with WP content when it's coded right are not likely to be as smart as MediaWiki when it comes to transmogrifying deprecated markup into valid modern code.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Re:Latest revision as of 01:07, 8 December 2017

Good Day, I am posting this with regards to the section of the old city seal of Cagayan de Oro, I have noticed that the caption is too long that it needs to be placed in a separate section in the article, that is the reason why I had to shorten the caption and let whoever made the photo and caption transfer it to a section in the article.

--49.149.58.158 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

It's not a trivia section, it's a well-sourced, well-written prose section about something that has been covered by multiple news sources. It's not like there is some other section I could have added it to. Stop edit warring over this. I'm not going to bother with a template. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, do not bring stuff like this to my talk page. Leave it at the article's talk page, where it belongs. And if you had templated me, I would have reverted you on the spot. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well you should know better then to edit war then. Yes it is edit warring when I am trying to explain why I think something is important on a talk page and you revert with some bullshit edit summary about how its trivia and don't even reply on the talk page. Then I go and look up WP:TRIVIA and find out that it is about lists, not prose, and also not a guideline about exclusion/inclusion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, I will revert twice when I see fit. Also see WP:ONUS. Two editors have disputed your content. It is up to you to convince us. We do not have to let your content remain while you make your case. And WP:TRIVIA is not simply about lists. Either way, I didn't state that what you added is trivia; I stated that "it comes across as pure trivia," which is why the other editor tagged it as trivia.

On a side note: I've been trying to figure out what past editor you are. I even wondered if you were are Shane Cyrus (talk · contribs). I don't suppose you will tell me? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the only name I've ever edited under. Moxy never said he agreed with you, he told me that there were some problems with the sourcing, which I improved based on that discussion before restoring it. You jumped in and reverted that also, without ever commenting on the talk page. That does not really fill me with confidence about you judgment about when it is fit to revert. Add to that Moxy tagged it for trivia, so I removed some of the quotes and other things that were mentioned on talk. You and only you reverted the entire thing, and did so a second time without even attempting to discuss, which is rude.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to claim that this was your very first edit to Wikipedia and that you never had a previous registered account, so be it. Doesn't mean I have to believe you. As for Moxy, Moxy tagged your content as trivia and clearly objects to the section. The tag suggested that the content be reduced. I also noted that it should be reduced. Sounds like Moxy and I are in agreement, except that it may be that Moxy would prefer that your content not be included at all. As for reverting without commenting on the talk page, I reverted you and then commented on the talk page soon after the revert. There is nothing that states that I need to comment on the talk page before reverting you. Again, read WP:ONUS. You restored your content without justifying your material, which is rude. Either way, you still are not listening. And now you have made it so that the discussion is going on here and at my talk page and at the article's talk page. You are wasting my time. And because you are, and because I do not like wasting my time debating on Wikipedia, I am likely to head for a WP:RfC to settle this. As some editors know, I do turn to it when I want a matter over and do not want to debate. And you will have to adhere to the WP:Consensus of that RfC if the votes do not go your way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup that was my first edit, if you want to check for sockpuppetry, look at when I first post on ANI (it was during AE), or review talk page discussions where I first learned about policies. Or just check out how many hard won barnstars I have. Not just "Oh she used the word anecdotal in her first edit summary, so she must have edited Wikipedia before" or whatever it is you are trying to imply is suspicious about my first edit. You don't have to believe me, but without evidence you do have to stop making vague accusations of sockpuppetry. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell me what exact about Shane Cyrus (talk · contribs)'s edit history made you think this was a sound accusation to make? Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you here trying to convince me that you just began editing Wikipedia in 2016 when you already know that I don't believe you? Maybe you should look at what I stated at the top of my talk page about socking. It is not your first edit that indicates to me that you edited Wikipedia before making that aforementioned "first" edit. It is your early edits that do. I pointed to that first edit because I wanted to ask if you stand by that being your first edit to Wikipedia. Clearly, you do. As for Shane Cyrus, I stated, "I even wondered if you were are Shane Cyrus." Wondering for me in cases like these does not mean "Yep, I'm sure that person is Shane Cyrus." But I will state this: If you don't want me looking any further, you should cease and desist from commenting on my talk page about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Acrophobia

Just FYI, I started getting sweaty palms as soon as I saw the picture with this article about a daredevil falling 62 stories to his death, even though the picture was not from his accident.[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Keratinization

It looks like the issue is resolved. Would you like any other input from me about the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Axl, thanks for weighing in. Regarding that, I don't mean for there to be drama, but it is always like that between Barbara and me. As you can tell, I am frustrated. I always am when trying to work with her. And she knows it, which is just as frustrating given our history (under both of her Wikipedia accounts). I mean, how do your work with someone who is often so stubborn when you try to correct them on their mistakes, and who constantly gets defensive and dismissive when you address these mistakes, and who seems to consider talk page discussion a chore, and who is prone to making more mistakes that need cleanup in the course of all of that?

If you don't mind looking over the Microanatomy section for mistakes and things that need to be tweaked, please do since Tom (LT) has not yet commented. If you have input on anything else, please feel free to comment as well. It is never good when it's just Barbara and me engaging with each other. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, I shall look at the Microanatomy section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Axl and Flyer22. I am very busy in real life at the moment and don't have time to go through the section with a fine tooth and contribute to the discussion afterwards as I usually would. I had a quick skim and couldn't identify any major issues but it is the discussion afterwards that I know I will have to allocate some time which I don't have to. My apologies. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: If anyone reading my talk page thinks that I am making a big deal out of nothing regarding my common frustration with Barbara, it might be enlightening to review the history between us. There's that and stuff like the aforementioned linked discussion above. And despite our rocky history, I have tried to work with her. I know editors who would not have tried after such a rocky start. Anyway, work on the article is at least being done and other editors are now helping with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. Would you please comment on, if the issue interests you[12]. Thanks. 66.226.107.42 (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking about requesting an administrator after your latest derogatory attack on me on the Talk page for Titanic

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Just thought you outta know.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone is free to read that discussion and see who had a major "I must attack" issue. Certainly was not me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that I tried to play nice and you said "It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia." FUCK. YOU. I've been doing this since I was 15.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And you are still acting like you are 15. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We'll let the admin decide. I sure hope your big long explanation on your talk page about why you were banned the second time is as riveting as the one you wrote about the first time.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Aaaand- they did; closed seven minutes later. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I meant the third. Jeez, who do you think knows less about Wikipedia: me (of whom you've said "It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia") or someone who has been blocked twice already...? This is a pattern of behavior, and if I was an admin, I would seriously consider revoking your editing privileges completely. You are the embodiment of everything wrong with this website.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick close by an admin. Fireflyfanboy, that should tell you something. As another admin, here was my post: "This is your request. I don't think Flyer22 is the one actively trying to antagonize editors. Working out issues takes time and often reams and reams of talk page posts." Regarding the above post... drop it - now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I was very insulted by their "It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia" quote. Do you honestly not have a problem with that kind of rhetoric? I apologized for some of my earlier indiscretions in this discussion, only to have this user say things like that to me. Are you telling me the blame completely on my side?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No, but you've played the major part is escalating this dispute. What needs to be done now is going back to discussing content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus has been met on the Talk Page, discussion appears to be wrapping up. Can you please get Flyer22 Reborn to apologize to me. I'm incredibly insulted and offended.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And you're kind of on track to be incredibly blocked. WP:DROPTHESTICK, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for that, Serial Number 54129. And, Fireflyfanboy, I was never banned. WP:Ban is different than WP:Block. And if you cannot understand that my block log has unjustified blocks, despite the explanations that have been verified by administrators, you should not be commenting on it. Right now, you are doing the harassing. And if you do not cease and desist, you will find yourself blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I demand an apology for the ""It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia" quote.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of apologizing on demand, but I recognize that some of my language was inflammatory and I apologize for offending you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

for goodness sake somebody block the little toerag for being a toerag. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me. I think you should apologise for that :p >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, to be young, and sensitive to comments on the internet, again. Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Swingoswingo

Hi Flyer22, thank you for your comment at User talk:Swingoswingo. I was not about to report Swingoswingo at ANI; but the comment they made in response to my concern somehow made me report there. You can have a look there.

You were right about his unusual account creation. The account was created on 03:59, 3 April 2014, and within just one minute (04:00, 3 April 2014), the user activated the account on another 11 wiki-projects as evident here. This is virtually impossible for a truly new user.

Anyway, will you mind if I just call you Flyer22 ? -AsceticRosé 13:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

AsceticRose, regarding what was stated on his talk page, I'm just saying that not only is he problematic, the Swingoswingo account is not his first account. It is highly unusual for new Wikipedia editors to create a user page for their first edit (it is one of the dead giveaways that an editor is not new), and it is even more unusual for a new editor to create a user page with simply a dot or, in this case, the word bingo. Every editor I have seen who created an account with a dot or similar has turned out to either be a sock or returning user who simply discarded their own account in a WP:Clean start way. But they are usually socks. Basically, experienced Wikipedians usually cannot stand to have a red user page. Some can, but they are in the significant minority. Having a red user page usually signals to experienced editors that the account is new; such accounts stand out like a sore thumb, which is why socks are so concerned with turning that user page blue.

As for the global accounts in this case, I think that is an automatic thing. I have global accounts as well. It happened with the new system that was put in place.

Yes, you can call me Flyer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I see user Swingoswingo has been blocked indefinitely. -AsceticRosé 01:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

QPL

That article does absolutely nothing but shit on the QPL because it's a permissive license, it needs to be rewritten to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4200:d8a1:97d:cb07:916e:8351 (talk • contribs) .

Look at how you gut the article, including leaving the lead incomplete. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Triple talaq in India

I think wiki should correct it or have a look over it because triple talaq is just a way of divorce in Islam. But in page of Triple Talaq in India it is more focused on or explained about Instant Triple Talaq with the removal of word instant . Atique028 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Atique028, regarding this and this, you can't just add in whatever you want without sources. You can't be WP:Editorializing in the article. See WP:Verifiability. I'm not sure what your use of "instant" is supposed to mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Continued from WhatamIdoing's talk page...

WhatamIdoing, good. It was the predictable and childish response I was expecting. My response is still in the edit history either way. I'm done with you defending an editor who can't take the time to research thoroughly before defending her asinine arguments, and who stands by them even when they are proven to be asinine. One who also can't take the time to proofread before pressing that "Publish changes" button, leaving cleaning and corrections for others to deal with. It's good that you think the fact that I'm involved in such heavy debates means that I'm difficult to work with. And, yes, that is what you meant, since you've implied as much before (seen here with my response seen here). It just shows that you haven't a clue what editors (like me) who work in very contentious areas on Wikipedia go through. Get back to me when you actually know what it's like to be stalked, and especially stalked in the creepy-tastic way that Barbara stalked me. Get back to me when an editor continuously goes out of his or her way to vaguely refer to you and it's like an inside joke (rather an insult and/or annoyance) between the two of you unless others are in the know. Get back to me when you have to consistently deal with a fake, sweet persona laced with passive-aggressiveness, sarcasm and/or loathing. Then talk to me about being paranoid and self-centered. Or, you know, simply stick to your sporadic guideline and policy editing.

And since we're being childish, do not feel free to continue the discussion here. You will be reverted. Anyone defending Barbara here on my talk page without being thoroughly familiar with my history with her and her editing personality will be reverted.

On a side note: Given our past emails, WhatamIdoing, don't think that I don't know what you joining a discussion to specifically disagree with me these days (even on merging matters when you were always one of the main proponents of merging) is about. Yeah, I'm just not as conservative as you are. Deal with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Adultery and Al-Andalus

I've taken it to the talk page rather than 3RR. You might want to have a look in. PepperBeast (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Pepperbeast, despite Al-Andalus having an account since 2004, the editor does not appear to be experienced when it comes to Wikipedia rules or communicating on Wikipedia. Certainly no skill in Wikipedia debating. The editor's block log also shows that the editor is prone to edit warring. It does not appear that discussion with Al-Andalus will help. From what I can see, this is a WP:Competence issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a fair cop. PepperBeast (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Adultery

Instead of deleting sources and content, how about fixing it up?

Al-Andalus (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Al-Andalus (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

New Wiki

Thank you for your advice, Flyer22 Reborn. I am new to Wikipedia and hope to be a local contributor.

In regards to Fresh Slice, I am trying to add updated information, with citations. I thought I had added comments on what changes were made. If these did not show up, I apologize. If there are online lessons on how to update, feel free to point me in the right direction. I will try again once I gain the experience. Pique.

Season's Greetings

Hello Flyer22 Reborn: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

adamstom97 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you

Thank you for catching that error I made in the Gwen Graham article, I completely forgot to cite that.Metro north (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Flyer22 Frozen!!


Hi Flyer22 Frozen, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarmiento Edition in Let It Be

Hi dude. I think my contribution in the page was correct because, despite the LP MMT of the Beatles was not released in the UK, it was released in the US and, for the number of the iconic song that it has, I think is appropiate to mention it as information, cause it's clearly indicated that it's not a UK album specifically. what do you think about? greetings--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Flyer22 Reborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Beaumont children disappearance

Hi. I'm asking around whether people can do a grammar check/proofread/NPOV check on Beaumont children disappearance. If you could go over the article it would be good. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

Dear Flyer22 Reborn, Thank you for your hard work on improving the article Antisperm antibodies. I would also like to use this opportunity to wish you Happy and Prosperous New Year 2018. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Barbara

Barbara seems nice, I have pointed out things like accidental use of predatory journals and she has been really good about it. I think if you dial it back a bit and explore the roots of your disagreement, it will all be fine in the end. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

JzG, I have tried to work with her. I really have. And I know that she seems nice; that is a part of the issue. She can be very snippy, pointy and passive-aggressive, but some editors perhaps do not see this because she covers it with what they perceive as sweetness. For example, in my second ANI case against her, Jytdog stated, "Greg, the links are extensively documented above. Please check them out, especially the ANI under which Bfpage was warned - behavior that Bfpage never acknowledged. Kevin sees the pattern, I see it, Winkelvi sees it, Flyer sees it. I know it is hard to reconcile this ugly behavior with Bfpage's otherwise sweet persona, but it is there, very clearly."

Doc James has also seen it and recently called one of her comments pointy. She has behaved in such ways with all three of us, but especially with me. When she stalked me in 2015 as Bfpage, editors stated that it was some of the creepiest stalking they'd ever seen. And I got a lot of emails about how disturbing some found it. Barbara (WVS) also never truly took responsibility for it or apologized for it and when she refers to the matter, she makes it out like it was not a big deal or was just some delusional editors ganging up on her, which is why when referring to her involvement, she uses distancing emphasis; she states 'my past' and 'history.' In that second WP:ANI case, Winkelvi, who has also been stalked, stated, "I've never seen anything like the planned and deliberate stalking by Bfpage. In addition, neither have I seen the kind of denial, lack of personal responsibility, and manipulation exhibited by Bfpage." So, yeah, it is not easy working with a past stalker, and especially one like Barbara (WVS). My frustration is made clear in the #Continued from WhatamIdoing's talk page... section above. A mutual WP:Interaction ban would not work because there will no doubt be cases where I need to revert Barbara (WVS)'s errors, and she already had sort of a one-way interaction ban, but things are still tense between us. Any time I revert her and explain myself -- why she was in error -- one can be sure that I will get a defensive and/or dismissive response and/or stubbornness in return. I can point to different cases showing just that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) stated, "You will never find me bringing up any old quarrels, ever. I have moved on and learned from an event that happened years ago. You won't find any clue or inkling of a response from me related to any past quarrels. Even if you go back to view my entire editing history, you probably won't find any quarrels, I'm just not like that. [...] I don't take revenge and I like to work with editors and not against them. [...] As an addendum you might want to read the post entitled Vagina on this page where I apologize for a lot of things and try to address issues with F22 RB."

The above response is the disingenuous thing that others and I have noted. Of course, Barbara (WVS) has no need to bring up the stalking since she was not the one who was stalked, and since it reflects badly on her, and since she never admitted to it (despite the fact that, back in 2015, she made it very clear that she followed me and would continue following me). I only bring it up when aspects of it -- such as the defensiveness, dismissive behavior and stubbornness -- resurface due to her attitude towards me. The Vagina disputes are recent examples of this since she can be dismissive of what I state and it takes other editors weighing in just to get her to listen and/or change her mind, and/or back off. The claims that her edit history will show no quarrels is obviously inaccurate (if defining "quarrels" as disputes), especially if including her Bfpage account. The claim that she doesn't take revenge and likes to work with editors and not against them is obviously not completely accurate; the WP:ANI links are right there above for everyone to see. And her supposed apology is inaccurate. Although she "apologize[d] for treating [me] dismissively [at Talk:Nipple ]" and stated she does "feel badly that [I] still feel badly about past clashes" (notice the lack of the word "our"), she still did not apologize for the stalking, and it's safe to state that she never will. Anyway, like I noted elsewhere, I will be trying harder to not let our history affect our future interactions, and that includes preventing spillover on article talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Demographics of sexual orientation in past societies

Fly, today I happened upon a peer-reviewed article which contains a table informing the prevalence of homosexuality in a few societies from the recent and not-so-recent past. The table is a review of past research, so I think that means that the paper counts as a secondary source. What do you think of posting that information on the Demographics of sexual orientation? Rafe87 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the source? I'm skeptical that anything "not so recent" can be reliably sourced - you don't have to go far back before our modern understanding of homosexuality & sexual orientation loses meaning, quite apart from being quantifiable. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a824/a2048a7edf20449831498ee9ec169f1b7cb9.pdf Rafe87 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Rafe87, per what I stated in the #LGBT demographics section above, you already know that I think that the Demographics of sexual orientation article is a mess. I mean, see the recent edit to a section at WP:MEDMOS, which talks about "miscellaneous and unorganized dumps of random studies, with over-emphasis on the names of the people who conducted the studies, their research institutions etc." It goes on to state "Wikipedia is not a place to gather random studies." That is what I argued in the previous discussion above. I don't see how you adding the source you want to add will affect the article much, unless you plan to give it WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think an article about such a subject can be anything other than a collection of random studies, because of the great disparity in results that there's between studies depending on the country they were performed or, perhaps even more importantly, their data collection method, with studies high in anonymity presenting very different figures from those that are low. Plus, there's also the fact that, in countries that are relatively accepting of homosexuality, younger people have become more and more willing to identify as LGBT, and as a result thereof, even in the same society and in works by the same pollster, one can find disparate results depending on which age category a given poll is focusing on. In sum, numbers will differ depending on culture, time, values in vogue, the social segment being studied, and social desirability. Therefore, we shouldn't expect from that entry the same degree of uniformity that we'd expect from a more experimental topic of medical science. In fact, I'd not class demographics of sexual orientation as a medicine-related topic at all.Rafe87 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I stated before that this is not simply about how we format medical articles (although, disregarding demographics, the topic of sexual orientation does fall under the biomedical field, which is why the Biology of sexual orientation article exists). It's about the setup of the Demographics of sexual orientation article being a setup we shouldn't use. The article does not need to be a collection of random studies at all. This is per my explanation in the previous discussion. I reiterate that per that explanation, the way the article currently is does not help readers at all. There is a way to create a good article for that topic based solely or mostly on tertiary and secondary sources. I just don't have the time or patience to do that for the article. In my earlier Wikipedia editing years, that might have been a different story. I do not have the same enthusiasm for Wikipedia editing that I once had. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Mssemantics (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Lipstick Lesbian and Femme into Butch and Femme

I was going to suggest a merge from Lipstick lesbian to Femme for content forking; that LL has been used as another term for "high" femmes, or particularlyfeminine lesbians; as well as a term used to describe femme lesbians who are only interested in other femme lesbians (re: all related directly to the article Femme and it's not really necessary for LL to have it's own article). But then I found your comment on the talk page and realized that both LL and Femme should be merged into Butch and femme. I'll be proposing it on Talk:Butch and femme#Merge Lipstick lesbian and Femme here and would be interested in what you have to say about it. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Surgical lubricants

WP:ANI#User:Jim1138 also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tide_rolls#Trying_to_undo_vandalism Took the anon three weeks to complain. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thread is now gone. I replied to the disruptive/annoying IP at Talk:Personal lubricant. On a side note: I have never seen WP:ANI with such few threads. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, if he is User:Leprof 7272 (the IP did not deny it when I suggested it at Talk:Personal lubricant), he is topic banned from adding such tags because he got carried away with tagging. His silly overtagging very much drained the community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Echo

Do not ping me again. Thank you. Sebastian James (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian James, at the risk of subjecting myself to your wrath by pinging you again, I will state the following: WP:Pings are used for communication and collaboration and that includes explaining why you were reverted on this matter. They can save one having to go to an editor's talk page, prevent miscommunication and WP:Edit warring. If you do not want to be pinged, I suggest you disable your WP:Ping option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I explained in edit summary, and I know what WP:Pings is. I just don't want to be pinged by you. I'm warning you again for this continuing discomfort. If you continue to do, I will notify this incident to an admin. Sebastian James (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian James, all you explained in the edit summary is why you made the edit. So what? That does not mean that your edit should remain. Please do go alert an admin about me pinging you for discussion after you made an edit I contested on a draft that people (including me) are working on and after you posted a section here on my talk page. I haven't done a thing to you except revert you, unless, of course, you edited Wikipedia as a different account and I offended you in that way. So stating that I alone should not ping you here on my talk page, in a section you posted, or when contesting an edit you make to an article is ridiculous...unless you do not plan to contest my reverts of any edit you make. If you ever do, discussion will be needed. We would not continue reverting back and forth. I would not take the matter to your talk page, where I see you are very unwelcoming of others. I would take the mater to the article's talk page and I would ping you there. Otherwise, unless I see that you are a regular contributor to the article, I would have no idea that you are aware of the discussion section. I would ping you once. If you were not to show up after that, I would not ping you again. But, yes, go ahead and complain to an admin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

Thank you for not letting me use my "preferences" the way I want. No one wanted explanation messages from you. You still reply for nothing. I am unwelcoming of users like you who doesn't listen to other users and accuses them for something bad ("...unless, of course, you edited Wikipedia as a different account and I offended you in that way. etc.") I am now sure that even an admin won't bother to do anything on this issue because of a user like you. Mind your own business. Sebastian James (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian James, do go report your silliness. Your "No one wanted explanation messages from you." claim is contradicted by replies on the draft's talk page. You wanted no explanation from me. So what? You got one. This is Wikipedia, where reverts will be made and explanations for them will be given. There is no "mind your own business" when editing a Wikipedia draft meant for a Wikipedia article or when editing a Wikipedia article. If you do not like that, then move the hell on. From the beginning, no admin would have taken your case seriously. From the beginning, all you had to do was move the hell on. All you are doing right now is harassing, and it will be you who will be reprimanded if you take the matter to WP:AN or WP:ANI. So go ahead and do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

They started an ANI thread as they said they would above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Flyer22_Reborn Really, if someone asks you not to ping them, don't ping them. --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I explained the matter above and will explain more at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter WHAT your explanation is. If someone asks you not to ping them, you stop pinging them. Period. It's the same civility you would show someone who asks you not to post on their talk page. Stop being petty. --Tarage (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, let's be real here: What I have stated above is correct, and you are posting here with a silly complaint because of past issues. You have made your dislike for me well known, and I couldn't care less. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My encounter with "Tarage" was when s/he told me that if another user tells me what he thinks is wrong with an article I created, then it is wrong for me to reply that the objections to the article are based only on factually incorrect information.

Looking at some of Tarage's postings later, I get the impression that Tarage dislikes almost everyone.

One circumstance in which someone might ask you not to ping them is when they owe you something. I think I've seen that a few times, although people asking me not to ping them is rare. I'm not sure I've seen any other instances besides debtors making that request to creditors. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars

Saw your comment on Erik's page I think. If you need me, you can post on my talk page. I'll see it when I login. starship.paint ~ KO 02:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Last Jedi Audience response

I was going to move the talk back to the draft area. Not sure how to proceed. It seemed like it had stabilized. Maybe we need an admin's help. Alaney2k (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Alaney2k, yeah, if you can't move it yourself, take it to WP:Requested moves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done that. Hopefully it will be quickly moved back. I do hope the minor changing can be resolved. Alaney2k (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response

The article Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be WP:OR. Already covered in Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Reception.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Reddogsix, not WP:OR. See above. And not covered in the main article. It's being discussed. An editor moved the draft and that is how the error happened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you can ask for Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response‎ to be deleted now. I think everything is back the way it was now. Alaney2k (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Alaney2k, I did. I asked Anthony Appleyard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This should be deleted but in the meantime, I've moved it out of mainspace and into your userspace User:Flyer22 Reborn/Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response. Pichpich (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you and others reverting my edits to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie's plot section? You might as well just lock the article if you don't like improved usage of commas, reduction of wordiness, and proper subject-verb agreement.

You're all going to need a more constructive argument than the reiteration of the one-word statement: "Rollback."

Oh, and Thomas F. Wilson was in the movie's cast. Just look at his page's filmography!

2601:646:C401:8162:4DA5:C7D6:33D4:FF6A (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dankie

Kan jy asseblief ophou om my veranderinge terug te keer op die Coloured bladsy. LadyBee (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

LadyBee, what I stated at Talk:Coloureds stands. You are the one who should stop. You cannot simply add what you want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jy moet ophou Flyer22 Reborn, jy is nie van Suid Africa nie, jou profiel se so. Jy is nie Coloured nie, nie Khoikhoi nie, nie San nie, nie Khoisan nie, so u opinie is nie geldig nie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBee (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Politicization of Candy Making Article

I respectfully dispute inclusion of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs under the History section. They violate the NPOV principles pertaining to balance in that they give undue weight to the topic of Gender Discrimination in an article about Candy Making. Gender Discrimination is a fine topic on its own but is not of significant importance to be included an article about Candy Making. MrKiffy (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

These paragraphs have to deal with gender discrimination issues. They only tangentially have anything to do with the actual topic of Candy Making. I request that they be removed and placed in an article about gender discrimination. Let's keep the lens through which we view every topic a more neutral one. Surely whatever message the author of these paragraphs might want to convey about gender discrimination can be properly addressed elsewhere. It alienates many readers to turn even the remotest topic on Wiki into a political platform. There is enough criticism of Wiki bias as it is.

MrKiffy — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKiffy (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)