User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

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

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

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

Re: Your welcome message to me

Hi Flyer 22, I am in fact working on the Sexual Orientation page as part of a project for a university seminar class. I was supposed to put all of my information in my Sandbox before editing the actual Wikipedia page. For that reason, I have removed all of the information I have added and placed it in my Sandbox. After it is marked, I will re-launch it onto the Wikipedia page. Sorry about that. Thank you. 8sjg2 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that when you add back the text you removed,[1][2] that you add it back in its appropriate format (the WP:Manual of Style formats I explained to you). The same goes for any new text you add to the Sexual orientation article or any other Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Flyer22, thank you for your welcome message to me! <3 Shelly Pixie (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Leine

Why did you change De gyldene Laurbaer - it is right!!! Have a look at the german page f.e. I´ll fix it again. Is it english: "For romanen"??? --46.244.205.100 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --46.244.205.100 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Star767

I noticed you have had some issues with Star767. He/she has now been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet see User_talk:Star767#Blocked.--Penbat (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I was watching Star767's talk page (but will cease to do so when it looks like no further comments related to the block will be posted there), I'd seen your posts there and the block that resulted from that. I'd also seen your post in the Blocked section before I stopped editing Wikipedia for several hours. Very soon after the Blocked section was started, I considered posting in that section about the editor not seeming like MathewTownsend, who, like Star767, was confirmed as a sockpuppet of Mattisse, but I decided not to. Mattisse was referred to by female pronouns, and MathewTownsend (given the name "Matthew" and maybe because the editor also identified as male) was referred to by male pronouns, and MathewTownsend edited psychology articles every now and then. So that matter is confusing, like one can't be completely sure of anything regarding it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for removing the vandalism from the article about Harrison, Arkansas.

I went in today to fix it, and noticed you had already been there.

I tried to send you an email, but the "send this user an email" option wasn't available. You seem pretty good with Wikipedia, and it would be nice to have a Wiki friend who can answer some of my questions.

Take care,

Richard. Richard apple (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard apple. You're welcome. When I reverted this, I initially didn't know what was going on with that edit. But the kkk addition to the URL was a dead-giveaway that it was vandalism.

Earlier this year, due to limited email abuse, I disabled the option that allows others to email me. I won't be re-enabling it any time soon for longer than a few minutes; if asked, and if the request is valid, I will re-enable it for a few minutes in order to give an editor a chance to email me. But the editor can just as easily allow me to email him or her, and then email me back that way.

As for experience with Wikipedia and help, I see that you are still relatively new (having registered for a Wikipedia account on December 22, 2012). I (as the top of my user page currently states) have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 (maybe tried to edit it as an IP address at one point before then) and I understand what you mean about it being good to have a Wikipedia friend/someone willing to help you on Wikipedia. There aren't many, or even several, Wikipedia editors I'd call my friends, however, on or off Wikipedia. Still, you may ask me for help about anything concerning Wikipedia whenever you feel like it.

I signed your user name for you above. Judging by your user page, it doesn't seem that you need to be told that all you have to do to sign your user name is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. But your signature should provide a link to your account. If you have your signature formatted so that it doesn't do that, you should fix it so that it does. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to send me an email. I'm very curious about you. Richard Apple 04:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Jackson Peebles's talk page.
Message added 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson appearance

Dear Flyer, I agree with you it did not fit. But thing is and there's also another source I can give you that this person also gave other statements about MJ and later under oath she admitted she did not see anything. So how do you know the comment that is posted here is correct? I don't know who had the idea for this page and why. But the health of an individual ist sth. very private and people should be very careful with what they write. As far as health is concerned tabloids are not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. Yes, this clearly does not belong there. And I clarified that a bit more in this edit summary. As long as what you add to the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article is reliably sourced and is about Jackson's health and/or physical appearance, I likely won't have much of or any problem with what you add to that article. Like I stated earlier the previous hour on that article's talk page: "When I cleaned up [that] article on January 10, 2013‎, I returned and added neutrality to [it] and removed crap." This edit by an IP undid that. That article is of WP:GA status and should stay that way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it loses that status at some point, given the IPs and registered users who continue to add or re-aad junk to it every now and then in order to bias it. Like Bookkeeperoftheoccult stated on its talk page, because it's no longer a WP:BLP article, concerning Michael Jackson at least, it is no longer afforded the high degree of protection against the type of junk that the aforementioned IP added back. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flyer, I just placed my today's add in another paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. Remember to keep in mind what I stated in my 16:15 edit summary. And if you want a Welcome template added to your talk page to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, let me know and I'll give you one. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, I'd be pleased to have one:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer,

Would it be okay if I place a link in the "see also" box reffering to another page dealing with the topics I wrote about in the section "weight & drug addiction"? I did not edit that one so it would be a neutral post. It's about the trial in 2011. I'm not sure because it's not a page specifically about health. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Huon answered you. Before I checked your talk page, I was also going to ask what article do you want to link to. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer, Could I start a new section called e.g. "descendancy" or is the addition too short? I can't write it in the section "skin colour" or another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a section just to include this text is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and is advised against by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs. But either way, I don't see that text or any other text about Jackson being "mixed" with whatever "race" as too relevant to that article. The fact that he did not originally have "European features" is the whole point when it comes to the physical appearance he eventually developed, other than weight. Being "mixed" with whatever "race" does not cause someone to suddenly develop those features, and so I am not seeing how the text you added is too relevant or relevant at all to the article (even if the text were meant to imply why his children have "European features"). Most scientists believe that no one is 100% one "race" anymore.

You need to stop driving home your point in that article (like I stated before in my 16:15 edit summary noted above, it's covered sufficiently there) and stop adding random text to it. Also, there is no need to repeat Jackson's full name as "Michael Jackson" unless a paragraph is about other members of the Jackson family as well and clarity is needed regarding which one the text is referring to at any given moment. In other words, since the article is about Michael Jackson and his full name has already been clarified, it is otherwise clear that we are referring to Michael Jackson when we state "Jackson" in that article; see WP:SURNAME. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my 16:15 edit summary noted above is referring to the Weight and drug addiction section. The Skin color and Cosmetic procedures and diet sections can do with a bit more balance on the "Jackson didn't bleach his skin/didn't have more than one cosmetic procedure" side. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer,

I have a question regarding the section "Death". Source 65 does not exist anymore. Can it still remaine or does it need another source? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you mean it was a WP:Dead link. I've replaced it. In cases where a link dies, you should try to find a replacement at Internet Archive. Or also, as in this case, Google the article title. I did both, and Googling the article title brought up a copy (or rather the original moved to a different URL destination). WP:Dead link goes over what else should be done in the case of a dead link. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer,

There's another problem: the text does not correspond with the source. The source does not say when the incident took place. According to her testimony in court the last time she treated him was in April and then they had a conversation but not in May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's fine for you to remove the unsourced part of the text. Or you can search and see if there is a different reliable source that supports that text and then add it.

Also, remember what I stated on your talk page about signing your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot has signed your posts for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer, I wanted to replace a dead link (#66), but now it does not work and I can't use the undo function. I don't want to mess it up even more. Can you help me please? Quaffel (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that references #66 and #68 no longer worked is because you removed the complete versions of those references and only left their refnames. For what I mean about that, see Wikipedia:NAMEDREFS#Multiple references to the same footnote. Using a refname in absence of the source in its entirety leaves the reference invalid. I fixed them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you:) Quaffel (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer, I'd like to post this Medical advice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_advice but I don't know where it is supposed to be and what I have to keep in mind. Quaffel (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't go in our Wikipedia articles. I've been meaning to tell you that with regard to information you keep adding about Jackson's health and medical experiences, you should limit yourself or maybe stop. Wikipedia doesn't have to cover every health-challenged experience Jackson has been through. And we certainly shouldn't be covering much about what random doctors have had to state about Jackson's health. When it comes to detail, Wikipedia is more about summarizing. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll stop. Thank you! Quaffel (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you know by now, I'd already replied, Stefan2. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 76.97.240.220

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_adult_(psychology)&diff=next&oldid=550197519

I think you warned him enough :) JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd seen the IP's edit and was about to report him or her just before you left me this message. I have reported the IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The reason that I warned the IP at least twice is because I did not want my report to be turned away with some annoying "IP was insufficiently warned" comment. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good :) forgot to sign first time JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* A barnstar for you! *

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being here, for working so hard and so well, for your help, support and encouragement. ♥ Lova Falk talk 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you, Lova Falk!! It's very much appreciated coming from you, with how hard you work at this site and how kind and assisting you are. Thank you. I'm here a little too much these days, with barely any sleep because of my off-Wikipedia Internet work and because I'm battling my insomnia more than I have in the past, but knowing that my work here is appreciated by some people and that they believe I'm making a great difference is one way that I know it's not necessarily a waste of time editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, you deserve it. And from the sound of it, you still need lots of hard work in case you ever feel like becoming a wikisloth.

Lova Falk talk 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse article

Dear Flyer 22, Well, you stated that my adding abortion is not valid due to no links with it, now, in the first 2 paragraphs in the child abuse writings in Wikipedia, there also has not been any source added except only in a few circumstances, now, in the line "There are four major categories of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, including abortion, psychological or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse.", none of these forms of abuse words have any relaible source to validate them, now I am getting the feeling that even if I would provide reliable source (despite the other forms of abuse are not linked in any sources) you would still be removing them as unreliable sources, to be honest, it this because you are personally pro abortion? Nayan Mipun, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in, but if you check the two sentences below the heading Types, you'll see that there is a source for the four major categories of child abuse. Also the subsections have lots of sources. When there are sources in the article, the sources don't always need to be repeated in the lead. Also, the lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no text on abortion in the article. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ WP:EDIT CONFLICT ]: Nayanmipun, you are not the first to suggest that I have, or accuse me of, some sort of bias (regarding a topic in question) for following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines, and you won't be the last. Most of what I have to state to you about the Child abuse article is what I stated on your talk page about it. The forms of child abuse that you claim have no sources to validate them are sourced lower in the article, in the sections about them. Per WP:LEAD, they do not have to be sourced in the lead if they are sourced lower in the article. It remains that your text is not sourced at all, and should not be in the article unless added in the way that I described to you.

Also, never again post at the top of my talk page, or at the top of any Wikipedia talk page unless replying to a discussion post. New posts go at the bottom. And you can start a new section by clicking "New section" at the top of any Wikipedia talk page (unless the option to post to that talk page has been disabled). And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biology and sexual orientation

It's biology and sexual orientation. Shouldn't it include biology-related statements specifically? --Scientiom (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reading the talk page, I'm sure. You know what the current consensus is about what that article should mention. Of course the Biology and sexual orientation article should not give the false impression that scientists generally think that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why I reverted you. Should that article mostly be about biology? Sure. But when it comes to reporting what scientists generally think on the matter, we should report accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gangadhar Nehru

The IP is still quite active there. It hasn't responded to the warnings from a bot and doesn't appear to respond to our efforts, so I'm going to go ahead and report it for what I think is vandalism. Since you were also reverting, I think it's apt to let you know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I realize now the IP has been warned only twice with my warning now. I reverted it for the third time though since it seems like vandalism I believe I have a 3RR exemption, though I won't push it. We'll have to see what happens after this second warning now (if you're still interested). MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MezzoMezzo. Yes, I reverted that IP three times.[3][4][5] I didn't bother reverting after that because I concluded that the IP would be reverted and blocked soon (or the other way around), and, like you, I didn't want to risk a WP:3RR violation...knowing that WP:VANDALISM may not define the IP's actions as vandalism. If the IP continues to edit in the style that we've objected to, and the IP likely will, then, if Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't do something about that, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring will. Despite risk of breaching WP:3RR, I had checked back in on that article and decided that I would revert again if the IP's edits stayed for longer than a few hours. Good to know that you reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Stamper

Hello Flyer22. The unregistered user is continuing to vandalise the lead section of the article. Since you reverted his vandalism, I've reverted him three times in two days. He is ignoring all attempts to communicate and I even warned him on his talk page. Could you possibly revert his vandalism and try asking him to stop as well? I think he might if a second editor does so too. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. There's nothing left for me to warn the IP about, however, since you have warned him or her three times, unless you want me to try to discuss the matter with the IP. But I would prefer you try to start such a discussion first. Like I stated in the section before this one to a different editor, if the IP continues to edit in the style that we've objected to, and the IP likely will, then, if Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't do something about that, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring will. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I've left a message on his talk page explaining why we're reverting and asking him to discuss before removing the information again. Tiller54 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And, remember, you can report the IP at either of the pages I noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orgasm

Hi, You said we don't determine what is appropriate by citing examples from similar pages. It seems to be a fairly reasonable method of showing a Wikipedia consensus on a certain matter. I just wanted to demonstrate that the Wikipedia community seems to have decided that sexual photos are OK.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for responding regarding the statements made about your image additions. You might want to explain yourself on this matter in that section about this on the article talk page, in case others want to reply to you and so that it's there when that section is archived. Or I could leave a note there stating that you replied about this on my talk page. I hope that you understand what we meant about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Flirt Club

Hi Flyer, nothing exigent. I wanted to make sure you're checked out on the Anti-Flirt Club. it is a very remarkable article.--Wlmg (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for pointing me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

;-) --Wlmg (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fianna Fáil Liberalism

I was going through the Fianna Fáil page as an exercise is editing another page when I noted that you reverted an update which highlighted their shift towards European Liberalism. I was wondering why you removed that edit as the previous edit would appear to have reliable referenced sources?sittingonthefence (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sittingonthefence. Look at this; it shows that I reverted the IP, then very soon afterward reverted myself. I can sometimes make mistakes when prowling to revert vandalism, and I was not sure about that edit; that's why I reverted myself, though reverting myself restored a cite error. Flyer22 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Hi, there. List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests.

Hi, Flyer. Did you want to talk more about List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests?— James Cantor (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, James. We covered the bases in our discussion about it. Why do you ask? You want to revisit that discussion?

Also, as you can see, I expanded the heading of this section with the List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests mention/link, so that I or others know what this section is about from looking at the archives when it's finally archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all good. It's just that that discussion happened in such a whirlwind, that it wasn't clear to me if it was done.— James Cantor (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that analloerotic, gerontophilia and object sexuality are on the list. But the Analloerotic article includes Template:Paraphilia and is listed in Category:Paraphilias, the Gerontophilia article includes Template:Paraphilia and is listed on it, and the Object sexuality article is listed in Category:Paraphilias. So those three listings are a bit contradictory. We know that "sexual interest" is not the same as "sexual preference." So if sexual interest in an elderly person can be normal, but a sexual preference for elderly people is not, that needs to be clarified. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct. When just cut-and-pasted the existing list when I moved it over. I didn't actually check the entries on the list, so I carried the error over. My bad. Gerontophilia and object sexuality should both be on the List of paraphilias and not the List of nonparaphilic sexual interests. I reflexively avoid the word "normal," but in the upcoming DSM, they will be be considered paraphilias but not considered disorders (unless they cause harm to someone). I'll move them back. Good catch.— James Cantor (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using the term normative over normal is preferred by sexologists, correct? Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I just created the List of nonparaphilic sexual interests link by redirecting it to the List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a consensus; it's one of the most politically laden idea there is for us. I just put my own opinion atop my userpage.

And: Done, I took the words out of the list. I didn't change List of paraphilias, however. Gerontophilia was already there, and "Objectophilia" pipes to Object sexuality.— James Cantor (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen (and read) your take on stigmatization of paraphilias on your user page before; thanks for reminding me that it's there. You used "the norm" at one point there, and I have seen some researchers prefer that wording (or "norms") as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The word social, Virginity article edit

Yes, legality is a social construct and a consequence of it. But laws, legal opinions, etc., do not necessarily reflect the social, moral, ethical attitudes of the place and time they're active. They may, and often do, reflect past attitudes no longer held by the society in question. Legal and social attitudes may even conflict with each other, particularly when social attitudes are changing and there's no consensus about which one should be held. Nor are laws necessarily amended to reflect the social attitudes of the time in question, they may simply be ignored.

The implied causality of the original wording is therefore too strict - removing the words "the resulting" allows for a looser relationship between the two. In my opinion, of course. Ngebendi (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying to my statements. I didn't think of the wording the way you did/do, obviously, so also thanks for giving me a wider perspective on that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ngebendi (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Macbeth

The source provided does not say what the article is claiming it says. How do I know? Because I know this person and I know that what has been quoted is incorrect. The source provided only states that there was a name change. People are assuming that because Jesse's name is MacBeth today that the name change was FROM Al-Zaid to Macbeth, but this is not true. His name was changed TO Al-Zaid when he was a toddler when his mother married a Saudi Arabian. His name was later changed back while in foster care. I can't provide a source because the source would be the same one that is listed with wrong personal assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.192.192 (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source provided is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.192.192 (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given for 'unique environment' in the 2010 Swedish twin study - Biology and sexual orientation Article

[6]

I'm not sure where this 'direct quote' is coming from. The paper largely does not try to define what factors attribute to the 'unique environment.' Making the assumption that it is attributable to "circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups (other than those shared with a twin)" is just that, an assumption. In no place have I seen disease mentioned, for example.

Yes, the paper does mention that "It has been suggested that individual differences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result from unique environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive maternal immunization to sex-speciﬁc proteins, or neurodevelopmental instability" and I would be more comfortable including that line than the one given. But ultimately the study purposely did not go into what factors play a large role in the 'unique environment' and I think it is best to not assume which ones are as it is misleading. As it is now, the three concrete examples given make it appear as though those are important factors that attribute to 'unique environment' when in reality the factors or even their relative strengths are really not known. (At least not from this study)

Perhaps rewording it would be better. Maybe something along the lines of "It has been suggested that such and such, and such and such, are two factors that could make up the 'unique environment' of each twin."

That said, if you are looking at a different paper than the one I've linked then obviously all of this is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weinbergerc (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weinbergerc, I stated why I reverted you; the whole thing is in quotation marks, which means that it is a direct quote from the publication or it's a partly or completely fabricated quote. If you do not have access to the entire publication, considering that it's something people usually have to pay "$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95" to read, then of course you wouldn't see that statement. If you do have access to the whole publication, and that information is not in there, then it should be removed. I don't have access to anything about it beyond the abstract. I was agitated by your removal because I'm tired of editors removing things from that article and others solely because they don't like what the scientists or other type of scholars state, what science suggests or shows, a reliable source states, or what history shows. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, like I just stated in this edit summary, I see that the text is put in a bquote format, but it doesn't show up as a quote in the article. If that quote is real, perhaps it's from a different publication. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't showing up as a quote because it was indented. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember to sign your username when commenting on a Wikipedia talk page. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, the entire paper is available at the link I gave, not just the abstract; please go over it; it does not include the text in question. I personally have no problem with the text I removed other than the fact the it is not from the study it seems to suggest and it is not cited if it is indeed from another study. Hopefully you can see my intentions are for the best. Personally I think it should be removed all together but a rewording to better define 'unique environment' in a more unassuming way might be appropriate as well. Please read the paper and decide for yourself. Best, Weinbergerc (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to click the "download pdf" button to see the whole paper. But, perhaps I can see the paper because I am on a university network though I don't think this is the case. Weinbergerc (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9386-1 Weinbergerc (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "download pdf" button for me when clicking on that link, even while logged into my Springer account. There are the "Look Inside" and "Get Access" options. The "Look Inside" option is simply an extended peep at the publication. And the "Get Access" option relates to paying for the publication. There are some publications that I pay for, whether relating to my Wikipedia editing or not. But I am not interested in paying for this one. I have instead taken your word for it by assuming good faith, and I have removed the text. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I think removing the whole paragraph is overkill though. The variances given were kind of the whole point of the study and quite informative. I think my original edit stays closest to the original intent of the study so I'm going to revert it to that for now. You can see that the variances are also given in the abstract. Best, Weinbergerc (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I added in that I don't have the "download pdf" option even while logged into my Springer account. I should have also added "at least not at this time" on to my "But I am not interested in paying for this one" line. As for removing the whole text, above you stated, "Personally I think it should be removed all together but a rewording to better define 'unique environment' in a more unassuming way might be appropriate as well." So I took that in mind. But regarding your add-back, it shouldn't be in quote form unless it's a direct quote from the publication. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it should not have been in quotes as it was not directly taken. I think the best way this section would read is replacing the wrongly bquoted section with the correct quote form the abstract. "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior."

I'll leave that up to you to change. The current edit I just read looks good, though I do think directly quoting the article is slightly better. Weinbergerc (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I took it out of quote form. But you are free to replace it with the aforementioned quote from the abstract, since doing so is perfectly fine. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandal at my user page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That editor was apparently out to vandalize various user pages. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely the same editor; decided to come back and antagonize me during more user page mess (such as creating user talk pages for user accounts that have never edited). Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for fiercely defending my talk page - and I am sorry you ended up getting your own page vandalised as well! Lova Falk talk 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And no problem. And, after all, I did invite the IP to vandalize my talk page; the true downside of that is that it resulted in the IP vandalizing your user page, not just your talk page, as well. While editors flocking to my user page to revert the IP happened quickly, it did take the IP longer than desired (by us anti-vandal people) to be blocked after I reported him or her at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (very unlikely that the IP was a "her," since Wikipedia mostly attracts male editors and since I'm sure that most females don't act that way, but being gender-neutral in this case can't hurt). Flyer22 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but....

Hey, Flyer, thanks for looking out for my talk page! WK-test is actually my test account, though, and I'm using it to test things on my user talk page, so please don't revert edits from that account. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Writ. I don't watch your talk page, though I might in the future. Your talk page popped up on my WP:Huggle view, and that's how I ended up reverting you (without at first mentally disgesting that it's your talk page). I immediately thought that my revert was not a wise move, considering that it may have been an editor testing something on your talk page before posting. And I was going to reexamine the matter, but I got distracted. Thanks for letting me know. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I wasn't the only one to revert due to Huggle. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant & Unhelpful

i've made numerous valid statements on correcting the eye color page and yet you continuously ignore me and aim to prove me wrong because you seem too obtuse and self centered to even bother listening. I'm afraid i'm going to have to lodge a complaint to wikipedia about how unhelpful and oblivious you appear to be towards peoples pleads on talk pages when making valid statements of corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.166 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from your talk page and the article talk page that I've tried to help you. If your numerous statements about the eye color topic you go on and on about are valid, there should be WP:Reliable sources to support them; you have not provided any WP:Reliable sources for your assertions. And considering that I've pointed you to the WP:Reliable sources page and told you that forums, especially forum comments made by you, are not reliable sources, and yet you continue to cite such sources, it appears that you are the one who is ignorant out of the two of us. You were certainly ignorant in our early interactions, continually adding WP:Original research to the Eye color article against warnings not to do so. Those are the reasons that I now ignore you, except for when you violate WP:TALK. Or except now, considering that you have posted here at my talk page. I was going to revert your above message at my talk page, but I decided to reply instead. However, if you continue to present me with the same WP:Original research stuff you always do, I will continue to ignore you and may remove this section from my talk page.

I care not if you "lodge a complaint to wikipedia" about me. Go right ahead and do so. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Asian Bitch

You're an idiot and you should go back to ching chong land 110.174.147.166 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't laugh at that, but LOL at your behavior. I'm neither stupid (obviously) nor Asian. A bitch? Maybe sometimes. Interesting that you somehow inferred that I'm Asian. What, because I watch anime and play Go (as noted on my user page)? LOL!!!!

Move along now. I'll probably combine this section with the section you created above. No need for you to have two sections on my talk page, or any talk page, to vent your nonsense.

And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. Like I told you before, all you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above, and a bot did it in the section immediately before this one.

That stated, you really aren't welcome to comment on my talk page with that attitude (or, obviously, with your WP:Original research mess). Now again, move along. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You call me bitch like it's a bad thing!"

- Alison ^❤ 05:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me this revert -- "super female" at Triple X syndrome article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_X_syndrome&diff=553923585&oldid=553922803 Thanks. --Kyknos (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's unsourced. And there's no reason that it should be placed before "47,XXX aneuploidy." If you do not source it, reliably source it, and preferably with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, I will revert you again. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, it is written in any textbook of human genetics. Obvious. No other term in the leading sentence is sourced. Do not abuse the rules. --Kyknos (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other terms in the lead sentence are sourced, reliably sourced. See the ICD-10 and Diseases Database (DiseasesDB) links in Infobox Disease. There's that, and other sources in the article that support any one of those terms. Your addition is the only one in the article that is unsourced. You have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 (though sporadically) under your Kyknos username, which is three years longer than I have been editing Wikipedia; you should know that Wikipedia does not go by "Oh my god, it is written in any textbook of human genetics." No, there is WP:Verifiability to take into account. It is obvious to you that the syndrome is also called "super female"; it is not obvious to people who are not familiar with the topic of the syndrome, which is most people. There is no valid reason for you to come to my talk page to complain about the suggestion that you source the material. If it's so easy to source, then source it. But if it's not sourced, I can remove it. This is following the rules, not abusing them. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU DID NOT ASK for sources. You have deleted the information without explanation, without discussion. If you are referring to sources used later in the article, then read them. Super female term is sourced in two of them. --Kyknos (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have to ask you to source the text you added; you should have sourced it to begin with. But I did state above: "If you do not source it, reliably source it, and preferably with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, I will revert you." That is when you should have sourced it, instead of presenting me with the reply that you did. Did you even read the "I can remove it" link I provided you with above? That is the WP:BURDEN part of the WP:Verifiability policy. The burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the information, not me. Per that policy, I can remove unsourced material without discussion. That I and others do so on Wikipedia ensures that a lot of inaccurate or completely false information is not on Wikipedia. That is why I sometimes revert unsourced information; the other times I do it is because the information is clearly vandalism and therefore false, simply false, or dubious. Note that I am not stating that the text you added is inaccurate, vandalism and therefore false, simply false, or dubious. I am stating that you should have sourced it. It is clear that you had no idea if the text you added was already supported by a source in the article before you added it. And telling me that two sources in the article support the "super female" term, without even specifying which two sources they are, is not sufficient. I should not have to search any of those sources to see if any of them support the "super female" term. Per WP:BURDEN, you should add an WP:Inline citation that supports the term, beside that term, in the lead now that I have challenged that text. You, not me.

Also, I ask that you stop shouting on my talk page. And leave the WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude off of it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you want the inline citation for one obvious term, add it for all others. It does not make sense to spam the leading sentence with it, but if you want it, it should be consistent. (Looking at your talk page, I am not the person who wages battles.) --Kyknos (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the "super female" term, there's not much more that I have to state to you. Either provide a reliable source for the "super female" term, by adding it or specifying exactly which source(s) in the article support it, or I will revert you on that term again. And if you continue to revert me after I have made it explicitly clear why I am in the right to revert you, I will then report it at one of the appropriate noticeboards. As for my talk page, it's mostly filled with thank yous or other appreciation. Any WP:BATTLEFIELD section above, like the one immediately above this one, shows itself to be without merit on the part of the person who waged the battle. As for your behavior, it is the way you have acted here at my talk page that shows me that you wage battles at the drop of a hat and that you are inexperienced at editing this site, despite having been here since 2004. Instead of doing the reasonable thing, required by policy, you decided to debate here on my talk page. You should already be familiar with the policies I pointed you to; you obviously were not and still are not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are misusing the rules, probably because you are just mistaken, of course, because I will not assume bad will. The article has just 6 inline sources, most of the information in the article, including everything in the leading sentence is lacking inline sources. You just insist that one small piece of information, information generally well known and commonly taught in high school biology classes, requires some special attention. This is more than strange and by apllying it everywhere, most of Wikipedia would be deleted. I will add that useless inline reference for you, losing 5 minutes of my life that would be better spent improving the article and hoping that the inline reference in the middle of the leading sentence won't look too awkvard. And next time, request the sources immediatelly (we have the "citation needed" template for it), and do not delete useful information without discussion or any comment. Bye. --Kyknos (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policies above show that I have not misused any rules in this case and that I am therefore not mistaken for having reverted you. Read WP:BURDEN; it is mostly about things that are likely to be challenged. People are not likely to challenge any of the other names listed in the lead for this syndrome, especially since they are mostly sourced in the article's Infobox Disease. Like I stated, the term you added is not. ~~Triple X syndrome is not commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes, and the alternative term "super female" even less so.~~ If you honestly think that most people would not look at the lead of that article and see the term "super female," which is unlike any of the other names listed, and not find it dubious or outright vandalism, then you are mistaken on that. I am quite certain that an editor (registered editor or IP) other than me would have removed your addition. You should have the experience to know when something is likely to be contested on Wikipedia and therefore tagged or removed; I do. When I and most other editors (from what I have seen) come across a recently added unsourced addition, usually when surfing for vandalism or dubious edits (as I often now do), we usually do not focus on whatever other parts of the article are unsourced; we focus on that recently added addition as being unsourced, revert it, tag it, or ignore, and then move on. That's what I did in this case. The fact that a lot, maybe most, of Wikipedia is unsourced, not just lacking inline citations, but unsourced, is a bad thing. And it's no reason to add more unsourced information to the site. As for losing five minutes of your life, I was thinking something like that regarding the both of us by you wasting time debating me here instead of simply sourcing the material. Good thing that you finally added a source for it, and I tweaked the placement. You should also review WP:REFPUNCT. I will delete any unsourced information whenever I feel like it, without discussion, per WP:BURDEN, just like, per WP:BURDEN, I may tag it as needing a citation or add a citation for it myself. Again, the burden is not on the person reverting the unsourced material. Now bye. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triple X syndrome (and other common human chromosomal disorders) is commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes and the term "super female" as well. At least on my side of Atlantic (yes, we also speak English here and the USA are not the whole world). I will not comment on the American secondary education system, as I have no experience with it. And remember, you may have the formal right to do something, but it does not mean it is the good thing to do. Removing useful information without discussion is a bad thing. --Kyknos (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is your word that, where you live, Triple X syndrome, including the term "super female," is commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes; I won't contest that, considering that I don't know. But I still believe that most people would challenge that term as an alternative name for Triple X syndrome, more so than the other listed names for it at least. We will have to agree to disagree about removing unsourced material without discussion, especially since people often cannot know if something is credible and therefore useful if it is not reliably sourced. That's why Wikipedia has the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies. This site would be even more of a joke than many people already believe it to be if citations were not required for most of the information added to its articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, I've heard this term before. My high-school biology class introduced that one to me (and no, I'm not saying when!! :D ) and it's pretty-common. Same with XYY being 'super male'. I'll dig out some decent refs in a while - Alison ^❤ 23:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on this, Alison. I know you are significantly more educated than me on the matter, and so I greatly appreciate your input and help on it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a lot that I can't remember if I was taught in high school. I mostly studied things in addition to what I was taught in high school, because there was a lot that high school questionably did not teach us. It's the same for newer generations in some regard. Triple X syndrome was likely a topic of study in my high school biology class and is likely a common topic of study in high school biology classes in general; because of these factors, I struck through my assertion above that it's not commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes. I'm still not sure about the "super female" term, however. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an editor just moments ago removed "super female", stating "'superfemale' is not a generally accepted term for 47,XXX." I'll suggest to that editor to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also just expanded the title from "Can you explain me this revert" so that it's clear what this discussion is about from the table of contents and once this section is archived. 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I will also likely duplicate this discussion at the article talk page; it's more appropriate there, and can be beneficial to readers to see that this matter about the article has been discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the terms "superfemale" and "supermale":

"superfemale" is not a generally accepted term for 47,XXX and does not belong in the lede section of the Triple X syndrome article
"supermale" is not an accepted term for 47,XYY and does not belong in the lede section of the XYY syndrome article
"superfemale" as used by Calvin Bridges in 1921 describing the Drosophila fruit fly sex-determination system is discussed in the Metafemale article
"supermale" as used by Calvin Bridges in 1921 describing the Drosophila fruit fly sex-determination system is discussed in the Metamale article
"superfemale" as used in Patricia Jacobs, et al. 1959 first description of a 47,XXX woman is discussed in the First case section of the Triple X syndrome article
"supermale" as used by Mary Telfer in 1968 (outside of peer-reviewed scientific literature) about 47,XYY men is discussed in the 1960s section of the XYY syndrome article

Per WP:MEDRS, tertiary sources such as undergraduate (or high school) textbooks are generally not good sources. They are often exceptionally bad, unreliable sources for information about sex chromosome abnormalities. Good secondary sources for Wikipedia medical genetics articles on sex chromosome abormalities include chapters on sex chromosome abormalities written by experts in the field in current standard medical genetics reference textbooks, e.g.:

Emery and Rimoin's Principles and Practice of Medical Genetics, 6th edition (2013)
Genetic Disorders and the Fetus: Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment, 6th edition (2010)

Panda411 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on this, Panda411. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hi there! I've begun a discussion here about titles for soap opera supercouple articles. Your opinion would be gladly appreciated! If you get the chance, could you contribute to the discussion? Thank you! Regards, Creativity97 21:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, and was just about to reply. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 13: WP:TENSE

I suck as a person... thank you for fixing my formatting error

CensoredBiscuit (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you mean this. No problem. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Skye

Hello Flyer22. In regards to Ryder Skye I can also say that I know this person well and can confirm the age of 34 is absolutely correct. I understand why women (and some men) want to lie about their age, but I am more interested in the information being correct than someones vanity. Even if there were no age at all that would be preferable to lying about it. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasseorace (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I have also added the external link to Ryder's agency to prove her age. Adult performers must have valid ID to work in the industry and her agency must have the correct information. Tasseorace (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Also, If you check the Adult Film Database external link on Ryder's page it confirms that 1978 birth year as well.Tasseorace (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tasseorace. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. In this case, WP:Verfiability is what matters. We cannot take your word for it that Skye is the age you state she is, not without WP:Reliable sources. I understand that you have directed me to sources on this matter, but I don't know how reliable they are and still don't completely know what to make of this situation. You have made WP:BLP violation edits to this article, like this one from last year, apparently the actress has edited the article as Ryderskye, and you have reverted Ryderskye while editing as an IP. Like I stated in this edit summary, I am taking this matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; you can make your case there. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i admit i'm not up on the wikipedia policies but if you think a porn star is a more reliable source in regards to her age than the agency she has to submit her valid ID to then you aren't as interested in the actual truthfullness on that page. I'm not worried about making my case. You can take the matter to whoever you like. I was just trying to offer a truthful account on a wikipage. Of course no one should just take my word for it, but a porn agency is never going to list a performer as OLDER than they actually are, especially in a buisness where youth is king. If Wikipedia is actually interested in factual information than the 1978 birth year will stay. If they are just interested in the fact that I may not have known all of the polices and procedures for changing the false information than so be it. Why a performer would lie about their age when it's easy to find on the internet is beyond me but to each their own. Tasseorace (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply in the section about this topic at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I'm not taking Ryderskye's side either on this matter (whether Ryderskye is the actual Ryder Skye or not). I'm following WP:Verfiability; that policy is especially important in the case of BLPs (biographies of living persons). Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are not on her side and I appreciate that. I do feel that it Ryderskye is probably the real person which is probably why she is fudging on the date of her birth. I am just a stickler for the truth even though this shouldn't bother me. I'm just beginning to learn more about the policies and procedures of Wikipedia so going forward i'll try to do things more "by the book". Tasseorace (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And if you want a Welcome template added to your talk page to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, let me know and I'll give you one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tasseorace (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take that to mean that you do want a Welcome template. I'll give you one now. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, and thank you again. I appreciate your help. Tasseorace (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for this section: The resolved WP:BLP matter is here, and Ryderskye identifying as the real Ryder Skye and removing birth date information is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer503

The things you stumble upon. There's a user box that links here [7] apparently you are the 503th top editing editor on Wikipedia. Not too shabby. --Wlmg (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an old list, though. Period: 2011-03-01 — 2011-03-30 (UTC) Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list seems to have been updated irregularly since its creation. This is the second time a gap of two years has occurred. Since a link to generate a new list requires knowledge of Java programming or the Unix utility awk, I will not be the editor generating the new update.--Wlmg (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Jesu v. Pie Iesu

I wanted to verify about the back and forth that appears to be happening because there is technically no letter "j" in the Latin alphabet. Since a)the most common usage has it spelled using a j, b)the Latin is wriiten using the English alphabet, and c) most of the cited sources use the j spelling including the dies irae, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind removing the j altogether. I don't want to arbitrarily change it but I'm not sure where to get an official ruling as I'm not a regular Wikipedia user. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.206.205 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I reverted myself because the title of the article is Pie lesu. You should not change the rest of the text in the article to be opposite of that title. Do a WP:Move request for that article's title first. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a seemingly inexperienced Wikipedia editor moved that article on May 3rd of this year from the title Pie Jesu to Pie Iesu; you should also mention that in any move discussion you have about this article. Mention that the move was controversial and without WP:CONSENSUS. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I am unclear on what exactly you mean. I don't know how to change titles or put in requests. I will not change the article, but I do feel as if it should be changed to be consistent with the dies irae spelling. (Not the Wikipedia dies irae, bit the dies irae from the Catholic encyclopedia which is a definitive and primary source.) I am sorry for my inexperience and I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.206.205 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to follow up on this issue, I'm very unclear on who makes these decisions or where to put in a request. Are you available to "fisher price" the instructions? Thank you. Rds747 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)rds747[reply]

Watchlist

Oh, I forgot all about the LGBT watchlist. I could help us catch vandalism easier :) CTF83! 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotic Sad Case

You're an ugly dumb slut and perhaps you should do something more constructive rather than being a stupid whore on wikipedia constantly deleting peoples valuable contributions on the grouds of your bullshit 'wikipedia guidelines' maybe you should stop to think that even though they may not have what you consider 'reliable sources' they still want to share their valuable knowledge they've gained from their personal research and experience on wikipedia in order to improve some of the bogus information that has been misinterpreted/misconcieved however still managed to be approved just because it was 'sourced'. You choose to refer to this as 'vandalism' i call it valuable primary contributions. you're an extremely self-centered & obtuse looser, you should get a life. 110.174.147.166 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I've never been called ugly before, at least not to my face. Never been called a slut, whore or extremely self-centered and obtuse either, except maybe from some angry individual on the Internet (similar to now). Being called ugly is certainly a new experience compared to being complimented on my looks, though it's odd to be called ugly by someone who has never seen what I look like. Maybe you are referring to my personality being ugly? LOL. See the #Ignorant & Unhelpful and #Stupid Asian Bitch sections above that you created. My comments in those sections sum up what I think of you. But for good measure, I also think that, between you and me, you are the idiotic, sad case; your behavior is idiotic and sad -- that you continually try to add inappropriate material to Wikipedia articles, despite being told what you have been told about that, and being continually reverted, and that you think it's acceptable to talk to a person (who does not deserve it) in the disparaging way you have talked to me...partly (quite obviously) because you are protected by anonymity and don't have to state anything to someone's face that way. As for vandalism, where have I called your edits vandalism? Per WP:VANDALISM, I only refer to edits as vandalism when they clearly are. Removing my comments from Talk:Eye color, for example, is clearly vandalism. Continually removing my comments from that talk page is more of your idiotic and sad behavior. On the vandalism accusation, you must be confusing me with this editor who warned you today.

Now stop creating new sections on my talk page, and forgetting to sign, or purposely not signing, your username. A bot should not have to sign it for you, and I shouldn't have to either. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merle and The Walking Dead characters

Thanks! I realized that most of the episodes are linked to reviews, and wherever we have reviews we might find commentary about the characters. So I'm going to build up a few of these articles, starting with Merle. :) BOZ (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I'm glad that someone is doing such work. It'll be great to see all of The Walking Dead comic book/The Walking Dead television series characters have articles as developed, or close to as developed, as Rick Grimes, Shane Walsh and Andrea. Thanks for taking on such expansions, BOZ. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! I'm going to focus on charaters with little or no out-of-universe text. See the difference between where I started and where I left off - not hard to do, but took some time and work. :) BOZ (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, considering that I've been watching the Merle Dixon article since he last appeared on the series, I'm very much aware of the contrast between what the article used to look like at that time and what it looks like now. Again, thanks for your work on these articles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merle was definitely an unusual case! I was originally going to start an article for him, but I noticed there was already a redirect… but the funny thing was that someone had started a stub of Merle based on his season 1 & 2 appearances, and instead of being merged or redirected anywhere, about a year ago someone actually moved Merle's page and used it to start the character list page! So about 6 months ago when he came back in season 3, I actually went and split the edit history to pull the Merle article back out, and then restarted it from there. You see weird things like that around here from time to time. :) BOZ (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I have also put a bunch of work into Tyreese and Milton Mamet. :) Planning to get a few more characters next week! BOZ (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that there's a lot more to state about Milton than there is about Tyreese, even though Tyreese is both part of the comics and television series; it's understandable television-wise, though, given the fact that Milton got a lot more screen time than Tyreese. But I wonder if there's not a decent amount of reception for the comic book version of Tyreese. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is, but I don't know where to find stuff about the comics - I'm sure it's out there somewhere, though. The bright side here is that Milton is done; he wasn't in the comics and he is dead in the show, so there won't be anything more to write about him, and I was surprised and glad to find as much as I did. Whereas, Tyreese has a ton of potential, so I am sure that sources will come up over time, and we can build it to be more like the more 'finished' articles. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so as well. I haven't read the comics yet. I'll likely start to read the comics at some point to see for myself how they differ from the show (I already know, from the characters' Wikipedia articles, about some of the differences, including their looks), but I'm not sure I'll read all of the comics. I know that the comic book series is still ongoing. And, LOL, I was avoiding mentioning on my talk page that Milton is dead, just in case someone who watches my talk page also watches the show and isn't that far along yet (is playing catchup) or is interested in beginning to watch the show. But when you just mentioned he's dead, it did free up the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that! You know, Wikipedia is one of the worst places to go if you're worried about spoilers - I know I have ruined more than a few movies, books, and shows for myself by reading too much here. :) Yes, definitely read the comics, because they are like apples and oranges with the show. I mean, it's the same basic plot (Rick wakes up in the hospital, finds out Shane is sleeping with Lori, meets Glenn in Atlanta, they go to Hershel's farm, they go to the prison, they fight with the Governor, etc) but all the details are totally different, even the way the characters behave. Characters like T-Dog, Daryl, and Milton are not in the comics, but some characters in the comics like Sophia, Allen and Otis live a lot longer than they did in the show. I am up to the 5th graphic novel now and they have just gotten to Woodbury, so maybe the 6th or 7th book would be about where you would catch up with where the show is at, so start any time you like! As for me working on more character articles, I was going to focus primarily on dead characters - I won't name any more names - and ones who haven't appeared a lot yet, like Tyreese. I don't think I will do much for ones like Daryl or Glenn, because you know I have to leave stuff for other people to work on. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly done with T-Dog now! :) BOZ (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I'm just now responding to your latest replies, BOZ. Believe it or not, I've just now read them. Sometimes, I take care of the business aspects of Wikipedia, including my talk page, and then read/respond to the more relaxing aspects (which is what this section is an example of). No need to apologize about the spoiler; at least it didn't spoil me, LOL. I will keep in mind your suggestion that I should definitely read the comics. I know that some character arcs for the comics are longer or shorter in the show, such as Shane having a much bigger part in the show. The T-Dog article looks good; I had seen you go to the person who closed that article as delete, with you stating that you could create a decent or good article for that character. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

sorry, im interested in starting to do edits on Wikipedia i thought following users was a helpful way, minor things stuck out to me while i was viewing the pages, so i edited them very slightly. on the eye page i removed one source because i saw it was outdated and did not refer to the sentence it was mentioning, that sentence had three sources, one was outdated and that's the one i remove not the others, and then i also noticed on the page sentences like " Hazel eyes may be found in Iran, Iraq...etc" i just changed it to Middle east since both countries are in the middle east and is more reliable since there was no source for that, LOL i am not into vandalizing, i tried to email you but i couldn't figure it out. Yeah those are the types of edits i made so their more broad because those types of sentences had no sources, so they look reliable and match the rest of the article, i think users previously added their countrie's names to certain topics for some reason because they did not match the rest of the article and it stood out to me while i was reading it for a project, i studied Anthropology for 8 years and some sentences were also slightly incorrect and those were also the ones without sources and i changed so their more broad, please e-mail me again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursingxmajor (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Youleft me this message and changed my edit. "No, it's not just about biology. That applies to non-cisgender as well." Cis-gender is not a biological term at all. Cis-gender isa self-identifying term, even if a person does not have that term in their vocacabulary. A person can still understand what that term means. What I edited was a sexist statemet that specifically applied to people who fit the Western Binary gender system of man or woman. People all over the world do not identify with either of these terms, especially here in America.I was not incorect in my edit, I was correcting the sexist preentation of the gendered terms used, which was assuming all people on earth have to conform to either or gender identity and have to perform masculinity or femininity. Wstotts (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Wstotts[reply]

Hello, Wstotts. I reverted you at the Gender article because your edit was unsourced and what you added is not how most sources define gender; there is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to take into account.

The term cisgender is often used as a biological term, which is clear by the Cisgender article (which cites some reliable sources). Your edit to the Gender identity article was wrong because it was unsourced and that line does not only refer to cisgender people; the line is also not sexist; it's speaking of how the term is generally used. It's true that gender is primarily used to refer to the categories "man/male" and "woman/female." The lead of the Gender identity article obviously then goes on to explain the fact that not everyone fits into the gender binary (as does the lead of the Gender article). That's why I reverted you at the Gender identity article as well.

Also, per WP:TALK, make sure that you start new sections at the bottom of Wikipedia talk pages instead of at the top. That's why I moved this section you created from the top of my talk page to the bottom of it. The "New section" option at the top of talk pages is there to help you create a new section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your edit to the Gender article inappropriately capitalized the term neutrality, and it was misspelled. And your edit to the Gender identity article was not spaced appropriately between the words cis-gendered and woman. In the future, make sure that you source your text when it should be sourced, and with a WP:Reliable source, and that your text is added correctly; you can use the "Show preview" version for making sure that your edits are tidy before clicking "Save page." Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the misspelling goes, I apologize for that i did not realize I made that mistake. I was using my iphone.I am new to wikipedia, so still learning how to use this site. However, as a person with a degree in the feild of Gender Studies and who identifies as a feminist/Women's rights/LGBTQ rights activist, I am hardpressed to see a need for any sources for information that is basic common knowledge, and that does not include a qoute. Am I supposed to source myself than? I am sorry, I am not trying to start an arguement here. But what you just said to me reinforced the the heterosexist tone of the article. While obtaining my degree and in extensive reasearch in my studies, not once has any gender identity terms, ever been used as biological terms. Male, female or intersexed are biological terms. Man, woman, trans-man, trans-woman, cis-gender, third-gender, bi-gender, and gender queer, are distinctly different from biological studies regarding sex. Also, one does not need a source for that specific information that should be common knowledge. I don't know what country your from, or if your from America; but you can take yourself to the the nearest LGBTQ center or Transendered outreach center and they can tell you why what your saying is completely heterosexist. (Which is not an attack on you, most people are not aware of their gender priviledge.) They can not only teach you about how they personally identify with their gender but how they also express their gender whether masculine, feminine, or neutral. Your little line about how gender is "generally used," was also sexist, because your renforcing traditional western htereosexist views on gender. Gender identitity through out the histroy of mankind has never been just man or woman. Also, regaurdless of what was later explained in the article, I was altering the defintion of the term in the article as it was completely heterosexist! You just changed it back. The article is therefore misrepresenting the term as it is still enforcing heterosexism on a binary scale of gender. This is severely problematic as around the world entire cultures do not have a binary scale of gender, including western cultures like in the U.S., just because the Mainstream culture does not accept people who do not idenitfy as Man or Woman, which is a large population, doesn't mean they don't exist. Perpetuating that belief in heterosexism, is pretty much a slap in the face to these people. I am currently in the presence of few people who personally feel that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstotts (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Wstotts. I feel that I've sufficiently explained why your edits were in the wrong. But to further elaborate on the cisgender aspect and your edits: Though you believe that cisgender (similar to what some people think of the term gender) is not a biological term, it and cissexual are often used as biological terms; that was my point regarding that. Though these two terms are rare among the general public and specifically scholars, it has been often that I have seen people, scholars included (though to a much lesser extent with regard to scholars), use the terms to describe a person who is genetically (or, if you prefer, the word physically, then physically) male or female. Like the Cisgender article notes, the term is used to refer to people whose assigned sex, which is primarily based on the appearance of genitalia, matches their gender identity. You and I also view heterosexism quite differently, if you consider stating the fact that gender is primarily used to refer to the categories "man/male" and "woman/female," as heterosexist, which you clearly do. The term/category gender is mostly used to distinguish between male/masculinity and female/femininity, which states nothing of whether a male/man and female/woman should be romantically/sexually paired; the term is not usually used to represent "neutrality between the two," which is what the majority of the sources in the Gender article also support me on. This view is not only or mostly a Western view, and I did not state that gender identity has been viewed throughout history as just "man or woman," though I would prefer a reliable scholarly source over your word stating that gender identity throughout the history of mankind has never been just "man or woman."

What I stated above is also, again, where WP:UNDUE WEIGHT comes into play; that aspect of the WP:Neutrality policy is there for you to see what type of weight we are to give the majority view, as opposed to the minority view. For another example, this is what your wording in the Gender identity article stated: "This is generally described as one's private sense of being a cis-gendered man or a cis-gendered[[woman]." But most sources on the topic of gender identity do not define gender identity that way. It's not common sense-wording, since it's not used often among the general public (scholars, and most non-Western societies, included). The terms cisgender, genderqueer and bigender (which is an aspect of genderqueer) are not in widespread use. Wikipedia goes by what the majority of reliable sources report over what the minority of reliable sources report, which is what I've essentially recently told an editor who doesn't like how murder is generally defined, and is what others have repeatedly told people at the Female genital mutilation article with regard to calling that article anything other than Female genital mutilation. And, no, you should not cite yourself...except for what is covered by the WP:Reliable sources and WP:Conflict of interest guidelines. There is also no need to put in "cis-gendered" in the aforementioned line because that line applies to non-cisgender people as well. Transgender men and transgender women usually simply view themselves as men or women, not as "transmen" or as "transwomen" or as "non-cisgendered." And as I'm sure that you know, some transgender people live a stealth life because, biological sex-wise/gender-wise, they only want to be viewed as males/men or females/women and don't want the discrimination that comes with being known as transgender.

I'm from America, as is clear on my user page. And especially since I am for LGBT rights, edit and protect some LGBT topics here at Wikipedia, as a lot of people at this site know, I understand your cause and don't need a lesson and/or lecture on the topic of LGBT matters (it's funny how I can be accused of having a LGBT bias, or specifically a lesbian bias, by one editor, and now almost accused of having a heterosexual bias by another; can't win or lose, I suppose). But though I understand your cause with regard to LGBT topics, Wikipedia is not the place to right the great wrongs of society or make popular a definition that you view as more accurate than the definition reported in most scholarly sources, old and new.

I have no interest in further debating these topics with you, as I am following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as should you. You generally shouldn't be adding any unsourced text to any Wikipedia article, and, per above, should not being giving undue weight to any topic in a Wikipedia article. And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susane Colasanti

First you deleted the bulk of the article, giving the reason as "Unsourced. Bad formatting", then you sent it for speedy as no indication of importance--after removing the material that contained the book reviews that are the reliable sources that proved not just importance but notability. From the looks of it, that section was probably copyvio, so it did have to be removed, but the actual references in there should have been rescued, or at least given reason not to tag it as A7. As I frequently work on this type of article, I've rewritten it. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, all I did to that article was this, which was completely in the right. There were no sources in that version; there was just text without inline citations. You feel that I should have cleaned up after this editor by significantly cutting down and tweaking the text and providing the inline citations myself? If so, I disagree. I didn't tag that article for speedy deletion, and I clearly don't feel that I removed any sources from it. You and I are familiar with each other on Wikipedia, and you have come to me before to help out unsourced or poorly-sourced soap opera articles, and I thought you knew that I would not have an article deleted for lack of notability simply based on the current state of the article, so I am confused as to why you have come to me this time with the frustrated and/or angry tone and accusations that you have. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pandoras Page

It's a work in progress. Sit back and watch written by people who were there and know. Don Williams (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should make sure that you use proper headings, per WP:Manual of Style, and WP:Reliable sources for that work in progress. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lethe Press

Working on it as we speak. I had to apply the redlinks in advance because once an article is created it will come up as the result of a search and there's no longer any easy way to search for pages that include the unlinked name in body text. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for answering my question. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clitoromegaly and Clitoris enlargement: Why are you reverting my edits?

If you have some sort of an objection, use the talk pages of relevant articles. Just don't try to play charade or hide-and-seek or whatever the fuck with me! Behemoth (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or use my talk page to convince me in any way. Just be respectful enough to act in a civilised manner. Behemoth (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits, as seen here, here and here, because you were incorrect and were misusing the sources. You still are. I clearly explained in my edit summaries why I was reverting you. I was not playing charade or hide-and-seek. It was your job to then follow the WP:BRD process. You didn't do that; you kept WP:Edit warring your versions into the articles. You then came to my talk page to complain, with foul language included, and had the gall to state that I was the one not acting in a respectful, civilized manner.

Your versions are obviously still in the articles. I will take the matter of your changes to the Clitoromegaly talk page, with a note about it at the Clitoris enlargement talk page as well, and will ask WP:MED to weigh in on the matter. I would state that you got the point of what I was stating, judging by this edit you made. But then you again made the "not to be confused with" edit to the Clitoris enlargement article and this edit, which are misuses of the sources. This source, for example, which talks about "true clitoromegaly" and "pseudoclitoromegaly," shows that "clitoral enlargement" does not only refer to body modification. The lead of the Clitoris enlargement article should have never started off attributing the term "clitoris enlargement" to only body modification, if people, such as yourself, are going to take that to be the only definition and completely disregard, downplay or misrepresent the other definitions.

Also, you should consider making your talk page headings more accurate, so that people besides you and me know specifically what they are about; that also helps when the sections are archived. That's why I changed your heading above by adding "Clitoromegaly" and "Clitoris enlargement" on to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for this section: Here is the section I started about this topic at the Clitoromegaly talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism: Assume Good Faith

Just a note: this certainly didn't look like vandalism to me. Please remember to assume good faith. Thanks. =) - Amaury (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amaury. As you saw, Jim1138 reverted that IP before me and, to me, what Jim reverted looks like vandalism (though I've just now looked at Jim's revert). When I reverted, I considered it either vandalism or what Jim described (I had seen Jim's edit summary when I reverted). WP:Huggle is not just for reverting vandalism. I also have the option to indicate that I'm reverting problematic good-faith edits. I didn't use that option and simply left my edit summary for the revert blank because I did not know if the edit was good-faith. And if I'm not sure that it's good-faith, but I know that the edit shouldn't stand, I'm going to revert without calling it a good-faith edit. I see that you have also reverted that IP. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no Revert (AGF) option on Huggle like there is on Twinkle. However, there are additional options, such as Removal of content and Biased content. By just clicking revert and warn, it just leaves Reverted edits by X (talk) to last revision by Y, the default summary for reverting obvious vandalism, whereas if you were reverting an unexplained removal of content, it'd be Reverted edits by X (talk) unexplained removal of content. There you're not exactly calling it vandalism. As I'm sure you know, if you're not 100% sure it's vandalism, it's important to err on the side of caution and either revert as good faith or manually revert and explain why. Trust me on this. If you look at my 2009 and 2010 talk page archives and block log, you'll see I had a lot of problems with this in the past. =)

Please take this as constructive feedback. - Amaury (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this revert; it shows that there is a "Reverted good faith edits" option on WP:Huggle. Thanks for the advice about erring on the side of caution; yes, I already do so in some cases (for example, the aforementioned revert, though I understand how you feel it would have been best to revert it as a good-faith edit). Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Describing female humans as "people"

Thanks for the links, Flyer22, on the comments on Women are People, on the Menstruation article - especially to the Due and Undue Weight policy. I haven't been working on Wikipedia for very long, and it's helpful; it will also be helpful for my Women's and Gender Studies students, as they are struggling with same issue in some the articles they are working on for the Wikipedia: Feminism project.
E. Kissling (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, you're welcome. Thanks for not biting my head off about it, LOL. And for similar comments to yours, see these two sections at the Human female reproductive system talk page. Those same editors posted the same things at the Human male reproductive system talk page. My first time encountering such suggestions, elsewhere on Wikipedia, was back in 2007. It is simply WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to carry out the aforementioned suggestions, though, as you saw, my suggestion to satisfy both sides at the Human penis article had some support. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some support for that? (re Biology and sexual orientation)

Curious about your assessment that outdated research goes first? You have some support for that somewhere I could see?
You also entirely reverted careful re-writing within the second section - any support for that wholesale action?Tobeprecise (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answered a minute (or seconds) before you created this section; I answered in this edit summary (with a correction). And the proof is having experience with the order matter on Wikipedia, such as if we were to include the research on a list. Keep in mind that I did not state "always" or use the word outdated. Most of the research on sexual orientation that has happened since 2000, for example, can't even accurately be considered "outdated." It is often that older research is mentioned first to better give newer research context; the same order goes for any other type of text. Not to mention, that a lot of our readers, as expressed at this site over the years, don't like to feel like they are reading backwards. However, this is better discussed on the article talk page, not mine. As for reverting you wholesale, it is time-consuming to sort out what other edits you made and keep those. Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Talk page sounds good.Tobeprecise (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User page content FYI, and plot section of the Titanic (1997 film) article

Your user page says "To get in contact with me...click on the Toolbox selection to the left of this page..." Emailing another user is now in a pull-down menu, and when I tried it I got "This user has chosen not to receive email from other users." David F (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferrierd (David F). Yes, I know. I had some recent trouble with abusive emails; therefore, I have cut off the email option from my account (not sure for how long). My user page, which has mostly been the same way for years, needs reconstruction anyway (then again, I keep planning to stop editing/visiting Wikipedia for good). If there are any grammatical errors you want to fix on it, feel free. And though I reverted you at the Titanic (1997 film)‎ article because of your edits to the Plot section, I do appreciate these changes you made to that section (which is why I thanked you via the new communication system; I'm not sure why you thanked me for reverting you, unless the thank you was an accident). You added "make love" in place of "have sex," and I prefer the "make love" wording for that text; it was there at different points, but was reworded each time by one or more editors due to WP:EUPHEMISM. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated background on user page/email situation, Titanic plot section edits. "Make love" is artistic, "have sex" is crass. ;^} David F (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your second go at extensively reducing the plot was obviously much better. Thank you. I altered it a bit. I removed the ellipsis because they are always removed from Wikipedia Plot sections, and I added back mention of Rose's mother having boarded one of the lifeboats because, like I stated in that edit summary, it lets readers know that Rose's mother survived. Also obviously mentioned in that edit summary is whether or not to retain mention of Rose's granddaughter. I don't especially feel that mention of her granddaughter is needed, but people have been known to add her in. All of this (what to include or not to include), which I left a WP:Dummy edit summary about, is why the section's hidden note stated that everything had been thoroughly worked out. We worked out every important aspect that should be mentioned in the Plot section, as well as minor ones that editors and/or readers kept adding back. WP:FILM makes exceptions for its 700-word limit for Plot sections, and it was decided through discussions on the article's talk page that relaying (? - "relaying") the Plot section of Titanic (1997) is an exception. We made sure that what we left in was not too much as to violate WP:PLOT. But again, you did a good job of reducing the plot even further. It's been reduced further before you got to it, though. And it's mostly at its reduction limit, from what I see. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated getting further background. Reviewed Wikipedia's plot guidelines and skimmed the Titanic (1997 film)‎ talk page archive. Planning a few minor changes, will put something about them in the article's talk page. David F (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure that you don't cut any more detail; by detail, I mean the scenes that are included. I'll likely restore it, per above. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Proposed changes are in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ferrierd/sandbox#Titanic_-_1997_film_-_plot_fixes instead of the article talk page. Feel free to edit sandbox. David F (talk)

I'm fine with your proposed changes, except for removing "The crew starts to launch flares to attempt to obtain help from nearby ships." Why remove that? It seems like something we should keep. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This scene makes only a minor contribution to plot development, but it's a contribution. Every vessel in distress signals its plight, so it's not a startling plot twist but it enhances realism. OK, let's keep it. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, beside the "In order to get aboard a lifeboat, Cal pretends" line I see that you have "OR" in parentheses; you mean that you think that it's WP:OR to use "to look after," "care for," "take care of" in that case? Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. "OR" was about substituting either the first or the second item for existing text. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, here are some more discussions about the Plot section: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2, User talk:Flyer22/Archive 8#Heart of the Ocean, and User talk:Alfietucker/Archive 2#Titanic. So, yeah, not all of what to include and exclude from that section was decided on the article's talk page. You may have already taken a look at the 2010 featured article discussion; if not, there it is, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for links to FA, Heart, and Alfie items. FA mentions a problem with plot bloat; sorry, no easy solution struck me. Heart of the Ocean discusses what Old Rose said and did about the diamond; "had it all along then threw it away" is fine. Alfie says they managed to cut text without cutting details - AOK. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I expanded the heading of this talk page section so that it is more accurate as to what it is about; it will also help find the section when it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff!

No comment on Lizzie Calvert? OK, she's still out.

I'll post a revised change plan on the article talk page then go ahead with revisions. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining and taking a look at other discussions about the plot. And you've invited others to comment on your proposal. So we're all set. I just now saw that you went ahead and implemented your proposed changes.

I fixed our signatures (mostly date additions) above with regard to your dividing up my comments. But in the future, if we continue to talk with each other, do you mind not dividing up my comments? I can't help it; that type of division irks me, LOL. I'm fine with the way it is now, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Enjoyed working with you on the article! David F (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed working with you as well. At some point, I might ask you to copyedit something for me on some other Wikipedia article. Have you ever thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? I know that on your user page, it says that you are with Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality article: Asexuality and the term homosexuality

Hi Flyer22, can you discuss the issue with Nathan on the talk page Talk:Homosexuality#Edit war before reverting again. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was already going to do that. Thanks. But I did revert again. Nathan should have followed WP:BRD. Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's agree on wording together then here. The warring is getting us nowhere good (and it's irritating to watch for the uninvolved page watchers). Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for archive: I expanded the heading of this talk page section (from simply Homosexuality) so that it is more accurate as to what it is about; it will also help find the section in the archive. Judging by this, this, and this, I don't trust Nathan Johnson not to hold a grudge against me for the matter and resume fouling up the Asexuality article or possibly following me around to cause me trouble (despite having previously edited that article productively). With regard to that Asexuality diff-link (the first diff-link in this paragraph), an editor should not act like that (what he did) on Wikipedia. Ever. And his response with regard to being called out for vandalism about that Asexuality article edit (seen in the second diff-link of this paragraph) is bizarre, most assuredly him and not some compromised account; it's a mock. And no wonder I thought he was an administrator, considering that he acts like one. I've seen him at administrative boards acting like one. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good admin.[Citation needed] I hear they don't all abuse their power.[Original Research?] The homosexuality article always attracts the most aggressive/passionate people anyway from what i've seen. ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 21:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I know that there are good administrators. I didn't mean that there aren't any when stating that Nathan Johnson acts like an administrator; I mean that he closes threads that should be closed by an administrator, which he has been criticized for, as seen here, here, here and here, and he presents himself at administrative noticeboards in a way that a person could get the impression that he is an administrator, which is how I assumed he was one. When I first saw him months ago in November, which was also the first time I saw him at this article, or later for the first time at the Asexuality article, I can't remember if I checked his talk page or user page (which currently redirects to his talk page) to see if he is an administrator, but I know that I checked his talk page to see what type of editor he is. I also know that some Wikipedia administrators have been known not to have anything on their pages (including a category) that identifies them as an administrator. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Character: Sonny Kiriakis

I wanted to ask can you make the soap character Sonny Kiriakis wilier page better because I have seen your work and it needs serious revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.223.95 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 69.197.223.95. It's flattering that you would come to me about this. I don't heavily edit soap opera articles anymore, and I'm busy with other things on and off Wikipedia, though I can often be seen reverting vandalism these days, but I'll consider fixing this article up for you. I made one tweak thus far. Sonny Kiriakis is a new gay character (though the character was apparently born off-screen in 1991), I see, who is a part of a new gay male supercouple. Interesting. There are soap opera articles that I still need to fix up better than what they are, such as the article for the first gay male soap opera supercouple Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer, but, again, I'll consider fixing up the Sonny Kiriakis article. Keep a lookout for it, and feel free to remind me of the matter if weeks go by and I still haven't started significantly working on the article. You might also want to put a request in at the WP:SOAPS talk page about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I fixed the tweak I made, while making a few other tweaks. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the IP seen here is you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"True Name" Revision Undo

Hey there,

Not sure what happened, but i think there were a few mixed edits. The other user on the page must of cleared that section..as i went to roll back his other vandalism or something.. weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuntguy3000 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted even further to get any other vandalism or otherwise bad edits the IP made. And regarding the "thank you" you gave me via the notifications system, I appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits, question. WP:Dead link

When you reverted two of my edits, because of dead links, did you not provide living links for the information? LogicalCreator (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LogicalCreator. It's been since May 27 that I reverted you; I had to refresh my memory a bit on the details. I clearly explained on your talk page why I reverted you here and here. The WP:BURDEN is not on me to source the material that you removed, because, like WP:Dead link states, the material you removed is not unsourced. For the reasons I stated, you really should not be removing text, and the associated reference(s), due to the link supporting it being dead. And I hope you stop that practice. Imagine if you removed a big chunk, or chunks, of valid material from a WP:GA or WP:FA article, for example, simply because the link supporting it is dead? That would be very destructive. That would be very destructive even if the article is not of WP:GA or WP:FA status. I'm not sure why you are asking if I replaced the links, when, clearly, I have not, and when I pointed you to the means of doing so or using Template:Dead link instead.

On a side note, I expanded the heading of this talk page section (having added in "WP:Dead link") so that it is more accurate as to what it is about; it will also help find the section in the archive. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking/transclusion dispute

In this discussion, you described some of my edits as "content forking", but I've noticed that the WP:Content fork article doesn't mention transclusion at all, so the guideline seems ambiguous here. If the creation and transclusion of templates doesn't create multiple versions of the same article (but instead creates a single version that is automatically synchronized between multiple articles), can it still be considered a type of content forking? Jarble (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more to state to you about this, at least at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for archive: This matter is resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Farrajak

I thought you may be interested in the fact that i have just started an SPI on User:Farrajak - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Star767. I did read your interesting contribution to Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_May_13#Editing_style_of_User:Farrajak. I am 100% sure that User:Farrajak has edited before but wont admit it and is a sockpuppet. I am 99% sure that User:Farrajak is a sockpuppet of User:Star767. There are just so many coincidences. Incidentally, I'm convinced that User:Star767 is in turn not a sockpuppet of User:Mattisse but instead almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Zeraeph - but this is incidental to the current SPI.--Penbat (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, without knowing about the background, it looks very sad for User:MathewTownsend to get banned with his dozens of barnstars and he even gave you one. User:MathewTownsend has absolutely nothing in common with User:Star767 or User:Farrajak. I dont know enough to rule out User:MathewTownsend being User:Mattisse (who I know is female) tho.--Penbat (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, Penbat. I was very busy off Wikipedia yesterday. Even though you'd never confirmed that you'd read my comment about the "Farrajak is a sockpuppet" matter at Wikipedia:Help desk, I figured that you had...especially since I notified you on your talk page that I did. Thank you for alerting me to the sockpuppet investigation. I had recently checked in on Farrajak and, looking at his talk page edit history, saw that you two were debating whether or not he is a sockpuppet, but I didn't get around to reading that debate. I'm sure I'll do so soon.

As you know, and like I pointed to at Wikipedia:Help desk, I've had doubts that MathewTownsend and Star767 are one and the same. I wasn't familiar with Mattisse. It sounds like you weren't familiar with MathewTownsend. Were you familiar with Mattisse? Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. There is absolutely zero chance that MathewTownsend and Star767 are the same person (or that Star767 is Mattisse) - totally different personalities. I was a contemporary of Mattisse and actually interacted with her on 1 article - she came over very polite and constructive - nothing like Star767.--Penbat (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background information. I wish that more than one WP:CheckUser had analyzed MathewTownsend's sockpuppet case. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at MathewTownsend's sockpuppet case again, it appears that two CheckUsers analyzed that case. It's still confusing, though, for the reasons I've stated before. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably less clear cut whether or not MathewTownsend is Mattisse but im not familiar with MathewTownsend.--Penbat (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I called Farrajak a "he." In the sockpuppet investigation, you referred to Farrajak by female pronouns. Has Farrajak clarified on Wikipedia what sex/gender he or she identifies by? Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because in turn i am fairly certain Star767 is Zeraeph who is certainly a she.--Penbat (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its now all over for Farrajak Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Star767/Archive Now quite a big job clearing up the mess.--Penbat (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that Farrajak is now blocked. That editor will likely be back, however. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true but may not be for a while.--Penbat (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case Echo isn't Echoing today . . .

I took your name in vain here. Rivertorch (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For namedropping, Echo, as currently designed, only works when you Wikilink my username. As shown above, you didn't do that. Though you don't need me to state it because you'll see it or already have seen it, I've commented about the matter (you linked to above) on the article's talk page.

Side note: I'll probably add on to the heading of this section as to better remind me, or better signal to others, what it is about. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have wikilinked. I confess that I'm finding Echo to be strangely inconsistent in what it does and doesn't do, though. I thought it was a cool idea, but the devil is in the details. Rivertorch (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel that there are downsides to Echo. For example, what if I don't want someone to know that I've mentioned them at a talk page? The discussion could be as simple as complaining about an editor; the last thing you want in those cases is the editor following you there and continuing drama by replying there. That's why I'm glad that, by not Wikilinking the username, there's currently the option not to have the person know you mentioned them. Another downside, possibly the biggest, is that we get a message when someone reverts us; like I stated elsewhere, where it was also further validated, this makes WP:Edit wars more likely to occur. The last thing you want, for example, is some newbie Wikipedia editor reverting you because they think they are right and/or because they are stubborn...when you know they are not right. Ugh. If a person wants to know whether or not he or she has been reverted, he or she should check back at the article or put the article on his or her watchlist. Now we get a message about being reverted even on articles we could not care any less to put on our watchlists. I'm not yet sure if reverting without directly reverting (I mean by clicking on the previous version of the article and saving it) alerts the person through Echo that a revert has occurred; if it doesn't, then that's a method to get around alerting someone of the revert and likely having to deal with some debate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh ;) Some of that had occurred to me, but you've obviously thought it through more thoroughly. I wonder how thoroughly the developers and WMF staff who were responsible for Echo's rollout thought it through. There is a vast disconnect between community and Foundation—especially vis-a-vis the needs of established editors. The Foundation is deathly afraid of declining participation, and that's understandable, but trying anything and everything to acommodate the needs of new users comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by those of us who have been here for a while. I may be overstating it, but I do get the feeling sometimes that once a Wikipedian becomes a Wikiholic, the powers that be in San Francisco do rather take him or her for granted.

But I ramble. My biggest issue with Echo so far is that notifications of new talk page messages, once so reliable, have become inconsistent: sometimes I get them, sometimes I don't. This has also carried over into the email notifications as well, and I have been slow to become aware of certain posts to my talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Viki Lord to Victoria Lord

Hi! I see you originally commented your disapproval in postscript on the move of the Victoria Lord article to "Viki Lord". I've now contested the move, requesting a reversion to the prior title and would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! FrickFrack 04:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using My Name

As I said before, I don't appreciate you using my name in Sam McCall's talk page. You are vandalizing my privacy. If you don't remove my user name in the talk page in the next 24 hours, I will block you. User: Historylover18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover18 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are you this out of touch with how Wikipedia is supposed to work and yet editing here? I can mention you on the Sam McCall talk page without any penalty for doing so. How you don't understand that is mind-boggling. That is not vandalizing your privacy. Read WP:Vandalism. Your username is not private. We can all see it. We can all see your contributions. And you cannot WP:Block (read that page) me because you are not a WP:Administrator. You should consider taking my advice. I don't see you lasting long at this site otherwise. That is, unless you keep coming back with a new account every time you are blocked.

And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that I am wrong, but you are just asking to be blocked. Historylover18 —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siiiiiiiigh! Speaking with you any further is clearly pointless. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of professional wrestling terms

Why did you remove "such as a reverse chinlock" from the wrestling terms rest holds section? It's an excellent example. It was a very small addition. It was 100% accurate. Put it back immediately!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.105.12 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because the editor who reverted you before me called an addition of yours unsourced. If what I reverted with regard to your follow-up edit is sourced, then add it back. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR dispute

Hi. If it's not too much trouble, could you comment at this talk page regarding an editor's OR addition to an article? Dan56 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dan56. I've seen you around before today and know that you've done excellent work on music articles. I don't remember if we've interacted before, but I'll weigh in on the matter you've linked to at your request. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 38.98.221.138 and its WP:Sockpuppets

I asked GorillaWarfare at freenode. You can see User_talk:GorillaWarfare#Bhimsen_Joshi. Though RFPP or EWNB should see it now. --Tito☸Dutta 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.

I expanded the heading of this section as to better remind me, and better signal to others, what it is about. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for archive: Conclusion (at this point anyway) here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followup note. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review comments

Hello there. I was wondering, should you have a chance, if you could contribute comments or opinions to the peer review of Cane Ashby. They would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Regards, Creativity97 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyweek revert

Why are you reverting the edits on moneyweek? My last edit was fine, there was a previous edit that included some emotionally/politically charged rhetoric, someone else thankfully deleted that content, but in doing so went too far and deleted too much content, my last edit brought the relevant content back without the politically charged stuff and reference to fox news, and includes citation. 86.30.170.169 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP. As I'm sure you saw, the editor who reverted you before me explained why he reverted, and then I explained that I reverted you based on that rationale before reverting you again. That editor, similar to what he posted on your talk page, was basically stating that blogs are generally not WP:Reliable sources. See the WP:USERGENERATED section of WP:Reliable sources and the WP:BLOGS section of WP:Verifiability. An exception to using blogs as sources, as those sections state, is using a (reliable and reputable) news blog. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can warn users

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Huggle not warning automatically for you? 930913(Congratulate) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about that. I generally leave the warning matters for others to handle. As can be seen above on my talk page, other times I don't. Thank you for trying to help.

Also, I changed the heading of this section from "June 2013" to the current title so that it does not look like I've received a warning. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Michelle Gellar revert

The edit you reverted on SMG is arguable. That was the body-swap episode, where Faith essentially stole Buffy's body. So, for that one episode, SMG was playing Faith as well as Buffy.

Of course, if we get into that, we'd have to mention when she played Robot-Buffy too... Morfusmax (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made that revert almost reflexively when looking at it in WP:Huggle; I didn't much analyze it, which was a mistake. But I later reverted the IP here and here because, like I stated in those edit summaries, "That was for one episode, in a switch matter." Yes, I am familiar with the series. And I feel that we don't need any readers thinking that Sarah Michelle Gellar was a primary portrayer of Faith and that Eliza Dushku was a primary portrayer of Buffy Summers, when they actually portrayed those characters for one episode because of a plot device used by the writers. I don't mind if it's mentioned in their Filmography sections that they portrayed those characters, since those sections clarify episode counts, which is why I didn't revert the IP on that aspect when I made this edit to the Eliza Dushku article; instead, Nymf reverted the IP on that portrayal matter. But I do find the Gellar-and-Dushku-traded-roles mentions to be trivial. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amoun-Pinudjem

Hi. FYI. This PA was directed at you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Thanks for warning that user and for the note here at my talk page, Jeff G. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm sorry I didn't spot the problem earlier. Thank you for your vigilance - attacks are one way to tell you're making a difference. :) — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.212.195.135: Vandalism

Hi. I am right because this IP has been already involved in war edits. I provided him sources from both official websites of the two clubs:

http://www.astragiurgiu.ro/match/1001/ http://www.nk-domzale.si/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=979%3Aob-1300-bo-znan-prvi-nasprotnik-v-kvalifikacij-za-el&catid=44%3Anovice&Itemid=203&lang=en

UEFA site is not right. It was scheduled before for Arena Nationala. Since the reviewal of the stadium not anymore. The Astra Arena is allowed to host at least this round (also in the Romanian press). Bollfooot (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bollfooot. I've done my part, and will be staying out of this now.

Also, I expanded the heading of this section (having added on "24.212.195.135:"), as to better remind me, and better signal to others, what this section is about. And you should remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If what he said was really true, the official website (uefa.com) would have changed it. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip N. Diehl

Hi Flyer22 I am in the process of editing the web page for Philip N. Diehl. I have been hired by Mr Diehls staff to update the page and any changes are per their notes. Also I sometimes use place holders (for example I use Wilma Flintstone as his wifes name) until I get the actual information. We expect to be done the the edits by weeks end. Thanks. 208.185.201.194 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2013‎ Mickey2814

You are referring to this revert I made, and now I am even more concerned about your editing of that article. See WP:Conflict of interest, especially the WP:Paid editing part of it.

And you should remember to properly sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your IP username for you above. And your registered username is actually MIckeyp2814, not Mickey2814. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Thank you for pointing out your concerns. I now understand why you may feel concerned. Let me try and explain...I was asked by a friend to update the page as I have done editing before. The main corrections were dead links and word usage. I added an info box (which needs a picture) and moved paragraphs around. If you read the article it is not slanted one way or another. Please review the article and let me know if there is anything I can do to correct any conflict regarding this article. Thank you. MIckeyp2814 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN: Homosexuality and Sexual orientation articles

I suggest you take a look a WP:OWN, you do not own any article, and consistently trying to impose a version of an article simply because that is what you like is not acceptable. --Scientiom (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, I've readded the sourced additions on Homosexuality, but left the part about what determines sexual orientation intact, with a slight clarification. I would also like your opinion as what can be done to properly integrate RCP sources which clearly state, to quote, "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006)." [8] The RCP seems to have concluded that it's biology without a doubt. --Scientiom (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you bring this to the articles' talk pages and reach a consensus before you try reverting to your version again. Plus, accusing Flyer (someone whom I've worked with on these sexuality articles in the past and who has been very cooperative) of "owning" the articles does not help your case. Someone963852 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic of suggesting, Scientiom, I suggest you look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this and this, among other things. As those links show, it is you who thinks you own articles and it is you who "consistently [tries] to impose a version of an article simply because that is what you like." In fact, you don't just try to impose it. You have gotten away with imposing it more than once at the Homosexuality article, such as here, though Little green rosetta reverted you on that twice before it stayed.[9][10] That "WP:STATUSQUO version" that you reverted to that time was not even the WP:CONSENSUS version that you had agreed on. You always soon revert. Or you wait a little while, weeks if so desired or if you can't help but wait due to offline matters, and then revert to your preferred change or add something different, or do both. And you often do that without joining in on the talk page discussion about what topic is at hand. Or you extensively sockpuppet to get your way. As most of the links above show, reverting you has never been about WP:OWN; it has been about reverting your WP:OWN edits, your POV-pushing, your removal of valid sources that further your POV-pushing, your WP:Original research, and especially the WP:Synthesis aspect of WP:Original research. I have already given my take on the Royal College of Psychiatrists source, your favorite source on the topic of sexual orientation, the source you misuse time and time again. Like I stated in the most recent Homosexuality talk page discussion that you still have not participated in (linked above in this section), "It's rare that scientists believe that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why you don't see any authoritative scientific organization stating that it is. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists doesn't state that; it states 'it would appear': 'It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006).' And, as can be seen, it is basing that on two separate studies. It is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to make it seem as though the Royal College of Psychiatrists has the most authoritative and/or final say on that. I'm very familiar with that source because Scientiom has used it enough times to make it seem as though scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is only biological."

I should not have discussed with Alison to spare you the public humiliation of being known as a sockpuppet. She was obviously too nice in doing so. After all, it's not like you had more than one person in your home editing Wikipedia, editing the same articles you edit without your knowledge of them doing so, thinking they are doing a good thing. No, it was you who was using multiple accounts to get your way across various LGBT articles, and I should have reported you in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation instead of letting you get off way too easy and continue your POV-pushing as one of the worst POV-pushers there is around here. My not reporting you was also because, if you had been indefinitely blocked, I didn't want you to know that I was the one who spurred it on; you know, just in case you decided to target me when you eventually came back under yet a different account. You are a detriment to Wikipedia because you will stop at nothing to have your POV in an article, including removing what authoritative sources state and repeatedly misrepresenting sources, and I'm tired of it. I have absolutely no respect for you when it comes to your Wikipedia editing. You are at the opposite end of where Acoma Magic is; while he stops at nothing to push a negative LGBT view, you stop at nothing to push a pro-LGBT view or something you think helps the LGBT community, such as asserting that sexual orientation is only caused by biology...even though no authoritative source states that. I have made it crystal clear to you various times that while scientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, they state that they do not know what causes sexual orientation, and that sexual orientation is very likely formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors (some biological models include social aspects). And I have backed that up with sources, while all you have done with regard to that matter is offer your personal opinion, lend WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the Royal College of Psychiatrists source and misrepresent it.

Note: I expanded the heading of this section (having added ": Homosexuality and Sexual orientation articles"), as to better remind me, and better signal to others, what this section is about. Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded

Your recent reverting of Muzeeenoze was correct. Contrary to their edit summary, the user's edits violated several sections of WP:NPOV, particularly disproportionate weight given to positive reviews of the album, unbalanced research, and puff phrases endorsing reviewers who gave the article's subject a positive review. This editor's history shows questionable changes to articles related to the album, and they may fall within fancruft. Dan56 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that I was correct, especially having seen you revert the editor before I did; I didn't take the time to study that editor's additions to the article, however, and was busy with other matters. As you've seen, I told the editor, "I have no agenda on this topic, as I'm not familiar with it. I reverted you because the other editor did. However, I won't revert you again." While I know who Nicki Minaj is, I am not very familiar with her music/career and what critics have to state about any given album of hers. I left the matter to you to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage pregnancy

List of famous teenage parents by --Sunuraju (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sunuraju. Yes, I saw that this and your creation of that article afterward was in response to my removal. However, that article existed before and was deleted. And the current state of the one you have recreated will ensure deletion as well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

Hi. If it's no bother, could you comment quickly at here? It's turned into a dispute, although a pretty straightforward one. Dan56 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll comment there at your request. Will read that matter over first. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice spot

With this edit! Almost reverted myself and hoped someone else would do it. Thanks for being that person =D ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As you've no doubt seen by now, I further explained in this WP:Dummy edit. I almost left someone else to revert as well, because I really hate getting into Wikipedia drama (though it may not seem like it considering some of the issues I tackle), but I figured that he or she would be more receptive to my reverting him or her...and I knew that I would explain the revert better. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time i'll go with my instinct to prevent someone else having to deal with the drama then. I've been enjoying this quiet editing for the last few weeks though. Much easier to focus on a topic without the edit warring and replies everywhere. Have a nice friday and an even better weekend! ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You too, Jenova. And thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arnold!: The Movie

Hey, I fixed the Hey Arnold page. Hope it works for ya. I'm comfortable with "mostly negative". :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking my comment about that into consideration and making the effort to apply something that works for the both of us. I truly appreciate it.

On a side note: If you don't already know, some WP:FILM editors are against a lead-in summary for the critical reception sections (meaning "The film received mostly," "The film received generally," etc. type of wordings), feeling that we should let Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic speak for themselves (in the cases where those sites should be used for such information; by contrast, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Critical response, those sites generally should not be used for films that came out before those sites launched, because a true percentage score may not be available in those cases). But it's still standard practice on Wikipedia to include a lead-in summary for the critical reception sections. So thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder" page

Thanks, I'm sorry for screwing up the article on murder (as you can tell I have no idea how to add tags). Can you point me to some kind of basic tutorial so that I know what I am doing before I edit? Thanks! Dionysos4444 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll add a Welcome template to your talk page. And at least you are already good about signing your username; most new Wikipedia editors, from my experience, are not. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

If it's no bother, could you comment too at this discussion? It concerns this removal/revision made by an editor. Another opinion couldn't hurt. Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll comment. And as you can see, I reverted that editor there earlier. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's been a long time since I've looked at the Aaliyah article (I can't remember if I looked at the Aaliyah (album) article before), and it's come such a long way; great to see that it's at WP:Featured article status now. I see that you don't have it listed on your user page as one of the articles you brought to featured article status, but the Aaliyah (album) is; excellent work, Dan. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

About 90% of the time I look through articles' histories these days I see you there reverting disruptive users. How do you manage to be everywhere at once like that??? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I would have replied soon after you left the above post, but I was busy. *Grins* To answer your question, a lot of the work I do is online and I'm often in talks with agencies while I'm at it. So while doing that, I have my WP:Huggle open and often revert any problematic edits I see, sometimes while also editing a Wikipedia article. When my WP:Huggle acts up, or when I'm not looking through it, I revert vandalism or edits that are similar to vandalism using WP:Rollback. Though it can sound funny and/or sad, I hate it when someone beats me to a revert that I've focused on reverting (almost like a game, I know); that happens a lot when using WP:Huggle. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels that way about their revert being stolen. In December last year, though it can be considered joking, I've seen at least one such case expressed with regard to the Aspartame controversy article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Hi there, in regards to Scott John Wilson, It was an accidental revert. Ever since I updated my version Huggle, it's been going a bit crazy and its taking time to reset all the settings that i'm used to. Thanks for fixing the error for me :D James'ööders 12:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are referring to this and this. You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MMR

You were on the ball to remove it. None of the text is supported beyond the quote, and it to a newspaper. It was an anti-vaxxer POV push, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After I reverted, I looked in the edit history and saw the editor had been reverted there before. But because my revert was a different matter, I'm not yet too familiar with that controversy, the article looked well-watched (especially since I saw you in the edit history), and I was simultaneously busy with a matter offline, I decided to revert myself and move on. Considering that the matter is what you described, I'm glad that you reverted soon after me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction

Hello Flyer22. Fyi, I have started an AfD process (I believe this is appropriate for a page based on wild claims). Unfortunately, editing as an IP I am unable to complete the submission process. Of course, if you don't think my submission was appropriate in the circumstances, you won't want to complete it. Best, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP. Yes, I saw it pop up on my watchlist. I figured that the red link would either turn blue or that the WP:AfD was linked wrongly. I'd completely forgotten about the fact that IPs can't start AfDs. As for starting AfDs, I've never started one; I leave that up to others. So far anyway. I'm sure that your rationale for deletion was appropriate; like you stated, it's the same rationale you put forth on the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that a page based on wild claims shouldn't be left apparently (to the eyes of general Wikipedia readers) unopposed. But I don't know whether the situation could be resolved more simply by replying a redirect... Fwiw, the submission process itself is straightforward (WP:AFDHOWTO). 86.161.251.139 (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Danquah, and sexual orientation categorization

Why do you object to Danquah being categorized as a Category:Gay actors rather than Category:LGBT actors? In practice, it's best to use the more specific category rather than the general one. If you believe him to be bisexual, there is also the Category:Bisexual actors you can place on his article page.

Otherwise, you need to provide a reason in the edit summary for reverting my good-faith or I will undo your reversion.Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting all of my good-faith edits without explanation? If this continues, it constitutes harassment and I'll file a complaint on the appropriate noticeboard. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This here is pretty much all I have to state to you on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been directly involved in the specific edits, but as an administrator I have to ask you please not to revert the categorization changes without providing a specific explanation of your reasoning in the edit summary. I do understand your reasoning for the reverts, but I shouldn't have had to follow a treasure map of multiple user talk pages to find out what it was; initially I couldn't tell whether you were reverting it because it was actually unclear which specific identity label should apply, or whether you thought that we keep all actors in a single common LGBT category. So you should at least provide a brief rationale in the edit summary so that it's clear up front. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Bearcat. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for this section: Here is the wider discussion about the categorization matter with Newjerseyliz. And here and here documents further commentary on my having reverted the way I did. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Antoine Dodson‎

The article Antoine Dodson‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. - Notability isn't temporary but in the past 3 years, I think a BIO:1E has emerged. EBY (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, EBY, that you prodded that article for deletion. Given the past WP:AfD for that article and the reliable sources in it (including recent coverage), the prod, in my opinion, is not appropriate in this case. You should nominate that article for deletion instead if you are hard-pressed on having it deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not hard-pressed. Prior consensus was 3 years ago and seemed to sway on additional work outweighing that 1E but that hasn't happened. A PROD is a quick, easy way to check and see if another editor has any disagreement with deletion.EBY (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with it being deleted, but I don't care much one way or the other whether it's kept or deleted. That's what I meant by "hard-pressed" -- I'm not interested enough in challenging the prod by removing it while suggesting you take the matter to WP:AFD, and therefore likely resulting in you doing so. If another official deletion debate starts for that article, I may or may not weigh in on that matter. And if I do, my comment will be brief. And if someone responds to that brief comment, I'll try to respond in a way so that neither I nor that person feels the need to continue our specific debate. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This edit made me see that this article went through two AfDs, and passed the second one. Since I almost always check the talk page of a Wikipedia article I arrive at, I likely already saw that this article went through two AfDs thus far...but I likely didn't focus on the matter enough to remember. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your edit note - let me be clear: The Dodson note was a courtesy to you and the other active editor, per recommended PROD process. I tripped on that article via a different "YouTube Celebrity". In 7 years and thousands of edits, I do not follow any editor. There's an auto-watch of any page I edit which I undo as I go for user pages. EBY (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EBY (linking your username for notification again, in case you happen to neglect checking back at this talk page), you appear to be responding to an edit summary that was not meant for you (judging by your "follow any editor" bit), which was in response to this. This is the edit summary that was meant for you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be wrong, seemed out of nowhere.EBY (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

So, can any user throw a { block } tag on another user's Talk Page and get them blocked? That seems ridiculous. Or did that tag just make it appear as if I was blocked when I actually wasn't? Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And, yes, any user (even an IP) can do that mess. Just one of the many things I hate about this site. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, throwing the block tag on your talk page cannot get you blocked. As stated, and as shown with your blocklog, you were never blocked. Cherish that clean blocklog. I know that I did when I had one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read through your block history (well, skimmed most of it) when we were having our dispute. What a nightmare. It's amazing how much influence one Admin can have (either as an opponent or an advocate). It's not that they use Admin tools unfairly, it's just when they weigh in with a point of view, many other editors jump on the bus with them. It really helps to know a couple who you know will evaluate the whole case and not react to the situation in a knee-jerk fashion based on past experiences with other users. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning users

Hello Flyer22, could I kindly ask you to warn users next time when reverting? I noticed above of why you don't warn and I don't know about you, but isn't that a little bit of an insufficient explanation? Not everyone is going to pick up the slack of warning people, which means people aren't warned properly. Another reason is that it can become confusing sometimes, in the case that you're not the first person to revert something unconstructive. The first thing I usually see when reverting something is the user's contributions or talk page, not the page history, which means I see another users warning and assume that I need to place the next warning level. But then afterwards I watch on the page to see if he/she is at it again, which is when I notice that you have reverted before me and you didn't warn him. This means I have to go change the warning that I just placed, which is pretty unnecessary.

Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Insulam Simia. I've been considering your suggestion and will ponder it some more, but per what I stated in this James Dean discussion that was had on my talk page and in the #You can warn users section above, there's a good chance that I still generally won't warn users. That James Dean discussion documents me stating when I will warn them. It's not always necessary to warn the user; for example, if it's an IP who has made one edit and clearly isn't likely to return to make the same edit. And depending on the level of vandalism or other type of disruptive editing, the level warning can be initially mild or high; it doesn't always have to be a low-level warning to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand your reasons why you don't warn, but I still believe that it is general procedure to do so (even if the user probably won't go back and do it again) and whenever I see blatant disruptive editing (e.g. going against an established consensus, genre warring, or in that instance unwarranted removal of content) I am certainly not as cautious as you are, but that's generally because I know that I won't be blocked for reverting it (because I know that I'm not the one in the wrong). I also think that warning is good in the instance of informing them that they can and will be blocked for disruptiveness (take this - he told me to stop reverting his edits. I noticed that he/she did the edit again so I warned him with a level 3 notice, that as you will know tells them that they can be blocked. He stopped when I issued that warning). Insulam Simia (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only cautious with regard to content disputes. No matter how right you are, or anyone else is, when it comes to a WP:Edit war, a block can still happen to the person or people in the right because of the edit warring, unless it's a matter such as dubious and/or harmful material in a WP:BLP article. Few things allow a person to be exempt from the WP:Edit warring policy; I'm very aware that vandalism is one of those things. And I know what you mean about the sometimes effectiveness of warning a user. Again, I'll think it over. After all, now that I have WP:Huggle, I don't always have to warn manually. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djuice

Why you reverted my edit on djuice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reflex revert, Umais Bin Sajjad, because I had already reverted your disruptive editing at this article and this one; your editing is... Well, let's just state that you need to get a better handle on how you are supposed to edit Wikipedia articles; otherwise, you are likely to be indefinitely blocked. Judging by your talk page, you've been warned enough to try better to stop editing so oddly. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My uploaded file gets deleted all the time, can you give me specific link to understand image copyrights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vegetarianism, Ranleewright

An SPI has already been opened on Jimbob Williams. Regards -- Taroaldo ✉ 07:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Taroaldo. Thanks for the heads up. Doesn't seem like I'm needed to weigh in at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ranleewright. It's a WP:DUCK case. I knew that it wouldn't be long before he was called out by someone other than me. I was going to state: "Oh, c'omn. Do I have to report you at WP:Sockpuppet investigations? The fairly new registered account Ranleewright gets indefinitely blocked. Instead of appealing that block, the newly registered Jimbob Williams account shows up at the Homosexuality article arguing in the same section that Ranleewright started and then at the Vegetarianism article arguing in the same section that Ranleewright started...in the same order that Ranleewright appeared at both articles. As an experienced Wikipedia editor who knows a WP:DUCK when I see one, I know that you are Ranleewright. So pretending not to be him is futile. Move along now." But it's certainly not a bad thing that I didn't have to further put him on the spot.

By the way, the reason that I added ", Ranleewright" on to your heading above is so that what this section is about is better categorized, especially once it's archived. It'll help me readily remember what the section details. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Camelot brothel story

The Camelot story could be right seen as no one knew if Camelot really existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.5.228 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. Your version of the story is not how the story goes according to any reliable sources. Was plain vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anilingus "Etymology" section edit. Thank you for your help!

Now THAT'S what a fine Wikipedia editor is good for... making sure the paragraphs all line up nice and neat, per the standards. Keep up the the quality work, Flyer22!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.72 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After this, this and this, I pointed out that the edit is not the standard. But okay. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Clark citations

Hi! Just for the record, I've added very little text to the Gene Clark article and whenever I do add stuff to Wikipedia, I am a stickler for inline citations (just look at any of the articles I've worked on or gotten up to GA status). However, as something of a Byrds expert, I can tell you that most of that Gene Clark article is sound in terms of biographical accuracy.

It's an article that is on my "to do" list as far as improving the citations and getting it up to GA standard goes. I'm not expecting others to add citations for me -- I have plenty of books on the subject that I can use to do that -- but I do think it's overkill to delete vast amounts of an article for a deceased celebrity, rendering the remaining text nonsensical, as that deletionist IP user did. My point about "adding your own sources" (which was directed at him/her and not at yourself BTW), was that if it bothers him/her that much, then they should get off their arse and source the citations themselves. Just deleting three quarters of the article smacks of laziness in my view. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Actually, according to the "contributions" stats, I'm the second largest contributor to that article, which is something of a surprise to me. I'm sure most of my activity on that page is reverting vandalism or good faith edits and small things like fixing capitalization. I maintain, very little of the article text was actually written by me. :) Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kohoutek1138. When I saw that you had posted to my talk page, my first was reaction was: "Oh no. He or she has come to my talk page to complain about this and this -- the fact that, per WP:BURDEN, I stated that it is primarily his or her job to source the text you he or she added. Editors like this, who don't source their material, are one of the types of editors that frustrate me." Good to see that I was wrong about your posting to this talk page. Thanks for explaining your stance/history. Per WP:PRESERVE, you have a valid point about not deleting all that material, and I didn't take the time to look at what was being deleted. But the IP also has a valid point, since you have become the person adding the unsourced material by restoring it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible interview

Hi! I'm working on an article for the website Jezebel.com about people who edit and maintain wikipedia sex articles; I'd love to ask you a few questions. Will you please email me at callie@jezebel.com if you're interested? Thank you!