User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

• I don't expect to engage here much anymore at all unless necessary (such as article talk page space). So, given that this talk page will not be getting much use (and its use has been on the decline because of certain unwanted watchers), you might want to go ahead and drop this talk page. If you email me, I may or may not reply.

My TED talk

I don't care about your politics and activism as long as you keep them off Wikipedia and edit the way you are supposed to edit. Read and comprehend WP:Due weight and WP:Advocacy. I am not here to present one side of any debate or conflict. So, no, you will not see me only adding material that you agree with. I am not here to make you feel more validated in your views. I am here to present what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Harassment/hounding. For those expecting me to just grin and bear it when facing harassment/hounding, and who act like I'm just not assuming good faith enough in these cases, how about you go smile when someone harasses/hounds you. Yes, I'm going to respond to jabs if they are persistent and they are not just a troll matter to ignore. This is not necessarily taking the bait. It can be about making it clear that I'm not going to tolerate it. And while bickering on a talk page is not ideal, I am human. We are human. Bickering will happen at times, and our admins are not above succumbing to this fate either. With as long as I've been at this site, I know that. For the admins who have never bickered, it may be that they aren't out there in the thick of it dealing with harassment/hounding or POV-pushing that undermines this site. Whatever the case, assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Assuming good faith does not mean playing dumb. Socks. If I see a WP:Sockpuppet, I am likely to alert a CU to the matter. I might start a WP:SPI. If I ask you if you have edited as a different account, I have a good reason for asking. It is allowed. It is not a violation of WP:Assume good faith. And since WP:LEGITSOCK is a thing, it is not always because I'm certain that you are violating our WP:Sockpuppet policy. My block log. Since many here will look at a person's block log without taking the time to read and comprehend it, or are simply confused by it, I point to what Boing! said Zebedee stated about mine: "Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine 'My brother did it' episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22." So if you want to bring up my block log to sling mud my way (failing to read descriptions as simple as "uneccessary block, will comment at ANI"), be my guest, but it just makes you look ignorant.

Stating the obvious

You changed your name! I'll have to get used to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

An intriguing change for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new user page image :-)

File photo of Flyer22 Frozen in suspended animation.

Insert appropriate caption as desired... Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies

for using the wrong pronoun here. I need to be more careful. Maproom (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits were reverted even though they were necessary and constructive

YOU UNDID MANY EDITS I MADE TO THE CAIS PAGE WHICH WERE NOT ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE BUT PROVIDE NECESSARY INSIGHT FROM ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS WITH THIS CONDITION. There were no politics included or unnecessary changes, only those that correct errors. I am a premedical genetics student with two degrees and a lifetime living with this condition. The page edits things that are crucial to public knowledge about the condition and are things that need to be brought to the attention of those researching the topic. Things added were clarifying and rephrasing, which did not require extra sources. The nomenclature in the article as it stands is out dated and hateful. This is not about activism. The CAIS page is flawed. You are partaking in oppressing this group of individuals by rolling back every one of the edits when they were objective and necessary to contributing to public knowledge. There is no harm in using the phrase "Affected individuals" or "Women with CAIS" Instead of "Genetic males." Except for its called politics when I make changes as if there is no agenda in referring to a group of individuals that are almost entirely made up of women as males when the term XY individual can be used instead. There is nothing unfactual about calling a person affected with CAIS "an individual with an XY karyotype" whereas choosing to push the narrative that women affected with this condition are "secretly males" only adds to the hate crimes and marginalization they face by providing leverage to the uneducated who point to this page and say "right here is says so."

Please change the edits back or at least go through and selectively remove that which violates guidelines. I am an expert on this topic and my nomenclature changes are valid.

Many of the sections you deleted that I revised included important information that the public should know when researching this condition that ARE objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.74 (talk) 05:10, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. High quality sources required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This screed apparently about these edits by 64.106.111.74 at Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

IP, the activism aspect of your comment seems to be directed at the text at the top of my talk page about activism. A lot of the material you added was WP:SOAPBOX in nature. And you even concluded a section you added by stating, "This section was written by CAIS individual/activist Chelsea Kaban based on her personal experiences as well as the testimonies of other CAIS individuals." And that is what I saw when reverting your edit via WP:Huggle, as is clear by my WP:Huggle message on your talk page pointing to this edit. I hadn't even realized all of what I reverted. Either way, there were WP:Tone issues with your text. Anyway, as seen with this and this edit, I restored your language without the soapbox material and unsourced material. I don't mind forgoing use of "genetic males" for the text. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for being aggressive but being discriminated against my whole life for having this condition has made me very responsive to such things. I spent a lot of time editing this page hoping that as individuals learn more about it, it would not further their narrative that its okay to objectify or misgender CAIS individuals (for example, calling me a man after I refuse to sleep with them because "it says so online." I responded swiftly when I saw my edits fully reversed including the ones that were merely changes in language that did not affect the actual meaning. I took this as an assertion from you that women with CAIS should be referred to as males as if that was the only scientifically based way to appropriately refer to them. Thank you for changing at least the language back so that my efforts were not in vain and so that future readers can get a more accurate and less derrogatory understanding of CAIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.74 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome, IP. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Flayer22. Sorry for the edith I did that reverted. Its just that I'm new and has not yet mastered the whole of editing 04:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good luck Bonze Pelesai (talk • contribs)

How do I change citations without having to retype all of my edits?

Hello, I can change the citations, but I don't want to have to retype everything. How do I go about doing that? BarrelRider91 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Roostnerve

I'm going guess the user is unrelated to User2083146168. There's some notable spelling differences in the edit summaries and CUs have been done on User2083146168 since Roostnerve account was created. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User2083146168/Archive, I see what you mean by "CUs have been done on User2083146168 since Roostnerve account was created." But it appears that only one CU has been done on the account since, and that this was done by ST47. The CU tool has been beaten times before, and I've had to identify socks in contrast to what previous CUs identified. I know that it seems iffy that the Roostnerve account could have been overlooked, but socks have used different IPs for different sleepers. What's clear to me is that Roostnerve is someone's sock. There are three candidates suspects I have for the master account, and I'm talking that over with editors via email. Obviously, User2083146168 is one of the candidates. the main suspect. Roostnerve is the one I'm focused on. The other two seem unlikely.

I've looked at both the User2083146168 and Roostnerve accounts thoroughly. In addition to having seen a number of similarities from first glance, the Editor Interaction Analyser shows significant overlap, and that speaks volumes...given how new the Roostnerve account is. Overlap like that just doesn't happen that quickly. Maybe there's meatpuppetry involved since User2083146168 has apparently been known to bring in meatpuppets. Either way, for me, this is similar to this recent case. And just like the editor in that case blanked their talk page after I was clear about what other account I believe them to be operating, Roostnerve did the same. In my experience, that (the immediate blanking) is only done when a sock (or meatpuppet) has been correctly identified. Often, it's best to wait for more evidence since the Roostnerve account is so new, but I didn't think that was best in this case because of how problematic User2083146168 is. The only thing to me that indicates that they are different people is that User2083146168 used "lede" instead of "lead." But socks have changed their spelling and other things about their editing to avoid detection before. And that "lede" spelling is one thing indicating that they are different people versus all of the other things indicating that they are the same person, including the fact that, as seen here, User2083146168 would state "Add see also." As seen here and here, Roostnerve does the same. Yes, a number of editors have stated such in their edit summaries, but some editors, such as those more focused on the See also section, state it significantly more than others. Editors may also state it differently. For example, some editors might state "add see also" or just "see also." And when similarities are taken together with other similarities, such as both User2083146168 and Roostnerve using "2" instead of "two" in their edit summaries, as seen here and here, those things that seem like small similarities start to add up. The User2083146168 and Roostnerve accounts also both consistently link to URLs in their edit summaries. And there are other similarities. Anyway, when seeing this, I felt that I should alert you and a few others (including CU NinjaRobotPirate) who have interacted and/or are familiar with this editor to the matter. If CUs don't find anything, then that's that for now. Again, this wouldn't be the first time I've had to wait before finally getting a sock identified. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed to BecomeFree and FindYourPly. ST47 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not that difficult to get around the CU tool. It's only as good as the person using it, and there are numerous technical limitations that restrict its usefulness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This all reminds me of this recent sock case I started. I turned in two accounts, and CU connected those two and two others, but left a 5th account (which was actually the oldest) untouched. I had to report it to the CU in question directly, at which point it was run again and the 5th account was blocked. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ST47, I know I thanked you via WP:Echo. But thanks again for trusting my statements enough to run a CU and identify Roostnerve as a sock of User2083146168. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, it seems I was off in stating that "it appears that only one CU has been done on the account since." But anyway. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I know

but I didn't change the sources

also it is not synonyms

fiends are group of beings including demons, devils, succubi, incubi, imps and hell monsters

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

fiends are group of beings including demons, devils, succubi, incubi, imps and hell monsters. Well then. Truly one learns something new every day. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the user has been pinged back: On a serious note, one's personal understanding of how to categorize these folklore entities does not matter. We go by what the sources say. And I think the user who made this complaint should slow down and not recategorize all these things, especially since they have been reverted by various other editors. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

أبو السعد 22, I never stated that you changed the sources. The sources stating "demon" rather than "fiend" is part of the issue. I don't see how I can be any clearer than I was on your talk page. I would rather not have to start a WP:RfC on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean I didn't change the quotations

no this terms meaning change depends on series or religion

so u r not wrong at all

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda Arendt. And I thank you and SilkTork for your commentary here. I got a chuckle out of the wish for me to "melt again."

I'm trying to think if working on the Clitoris or Vagina article was more difficult, given an editor issue that went on with the latter. But working on both has been challenging. Because of further improvements, the Clitoris article has changed significantly since its GA elevation. And there are more improvements I need to make to it. I might also change its reference format. Right now, a class is looking to edit it; so I have to work on it in that regard as well. I will also of course improve the Vagina article as time passes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Katherine Johnson

Hi Flyer22. I apologize for not posting to the talk page before submitting the GAN. Thank you for raising your concerns. I hope you concur with the ongoing developments to the article. I welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you and others to further strengthen the article. All the best, TJMSmith (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN#Possible conflict of interest and sock puppetry by American politician

I've mentioned Johnbellgotahaircut who might have a COI. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"We New Zealand"?

But do we Canada? :P (P.S. Yes, I'm totally joking) --O-M-GOSH! 20:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rock-O-Jello (O-M), I thought about leaving a WP:Dummy edit to note that I meant "Notice that we state 'New Zealand', not 'NZ.'" But by the time I thought about that, I'd already made a second edit summary, and decided to let the matter go, figuring that people would recognize it as a typo. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I get that it's a typo, I just wanted to joke around with you. --O-M-GOSH! 21:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User Lepintin is at it again

Dear respected Flier 22 Frozen, I noticed weird redirects from a person you warned before; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lepintin they deleted your warning and have resumed weird editing. Best Wishes! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wayman Mitchell AfD

Feel free to vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayman_Mitchell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 06:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits on Phimosis Article

Having made a number of edits on the phimosis article, you mentioned in the "view history" section that better sourcing is needed. The source of information I used was the UK National Health Service (NHS) . It is a very trusted source of information and very reliable. I believe my edits should be put back on the article. Jas9777 (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the NHS. Did you take the time to read WP:MEDRS?

Pinging Doc James since he also watches the Phimosis article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight in the lead of that article. Already in the article on circumcision. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

____

References

Hello

Hi flyer22 frozen,are you an admin Heyday to you (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from its threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Testing

Sorry for bothering but I gave a test at Cloud Strife in regards to the Nomura art and how it changed. I'm not sure about it but feel free to revert in case it doesn't work. I thought the art might fit there since it's discussed while the infobox changed was inspired to me by Lara Croft. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I was providing context

My edit does conform. The article was too biased in favor of the Americans who dehumanized the Japanese. I did not dismiss the crimes committed against non-Americans, I am simply pointing out that when even the US government at the time recognized that Japan had the moral high ground over the US (and only the US mind you), you have to give credit where credit is due. That is a Neutal point of view. 66.207.28.73 (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this? Oh, yes, nothing POV about the following: "As a result, war crimes committed by the Japanese towards Americans should be taken with a grain of salt." As is clear by our WP:Neutral policy, being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Also read WP:Tone. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with figure skating

Well, not technically help with figure skating, since not speaking for you, I only watch it. ;)

Hey pal, hope all is well with you and yours during this strange time. So I just finished improving Johnny Weir and wanted your input. Would you mind? I need assistance with the prose/tone/etc. with really just one section: Johnny Weir#Skating technique/influence. Can you also look at the few paragraph that talk about Johnny's coming out and related topics in these sections: 2005–2006 season (paragraphs 1, 4), 2009–2010 season (paragraphs 1, 4, 6), 2010–2013 (paragraph 1), Broadcasting career (paragraph 1). I'm so sensitive about how my prose comes across when I try and write about topics I know little about, so I'd appreciate the assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Christine. I have a lot going on right now, and the only time I usually allow for Wikipedia is to log on, catch up on my watchlist and revert and/or weigh in on anything that I feel I should or need to weigh in on. I'm about getting on and off Wikipedia as soon as I can (although it usually takes hours for me to log off). So I'm not involved in much article building and/or collaborating these days. And I don't think I would do you justice on the matter above. From what little I've scanned of the text, it looks like you've done fine. Popcornfud is someone who often copyedits and might be willing to take a look. I apologize for not helping you out on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I'll reach out to Popcornfud, and perhaps throw you an email in the next couple of days. I'm gratified that you think what's there is, uh, fine. ;) Take care! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The edit I made to Churchill

Sorry Flyer22 for the edit I made that you reverted. Its just I'm new to the system and hasn't yet been accustomed to the ways and workings of the system. 04:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good luck Bonze Pelesai (talk • contribs)

That user is making a lot of disruptive edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Will_Always_Love_You&diff=960097603&oldid=960057960

I have also reverted a couple of their genre changes. Rodericksilly (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Just waiting for someone to indefinitely block the editor, like I would do if I had the tools. Didn't feel like gathering evidence and reporting the editor at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Help at urinary meatus and Urethra

Hi Flyer22, hope that you're well! Would you be able to help me out on urethra? Somehow I've ended up editing some urinary system articles of late and I stumbled upon urethra and urinary meatus. My thoughts are that there are two images of the female meatus and I would like your help working out which better represents the topic. Both have I think benefits and downsides. One is in a sterile clinical context which I think highlights the anatomy well but is overly medicalised and I don't think demonstrates what it actually looks like in average people. The second image is, in my opinion, overly casual in how it is taken and I think of poorer quality. Would you mind having a look and we can continue the discussion on the talk page? Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

revert on Vince Vaughn

Sorry about that. Both your reverts of the vandalism and mine just got added to the queue of pending revisions on that article, and I thought it'd be safest to reject them all in case either of us had missed one. Schazjmd (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Late reply: Schazjmd, yes, I figured you were simply correcting matters. And then I looked. Stuff like that happens all the time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

French diaspora

Hey I’d like you to tell me why did you change what I made as changes like there are the sources, what’s the problem with the sources? Johnlondon20 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Johnlondon20, it looked like you (as an IP) were simply changing numbers not based on any sourcing. If supported by the sourcing, feel free to revert me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

why was someone's edit to to the coup list reverted?

the 1933 thai coup is a well documented and verified event?

Chris Brown

I appreciate you taking note of this. I wanted to start trimming the personal life/controversies/legal issues section as much of it is just sensationalist tabloid material but wasn't sure where to begin. He's done some dumb stuff in his past but I think the tabloids have been unfairly dragging his name through the mud for some time.--WuTang94 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Transgender marriage and consensus

Because other project participants did not answered my questions in April: "Why do you think WP:GNG is still not met? --Sharouser (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)" "Why do you think that some sentences are unverified? --Sharouser (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)".

On May 31, I said "I will restore this article in June. I will insert more references. --Sharouser (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Transgender marriage is not Same-sex marriage. Because no one replied, I restored this article per weak consensus. So this article should be restored. --Sharouser (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sharouser: The writing on that article is pretty bad to be honest. Many grammatical and logical mistakes. Let's talk about it somewhere else where other people can give input, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Transgender marriage is not Same-sex marriage. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I think Draft:Transgender marriage would be the place to work on it. It has a lot of problems. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sharouser, see what is stated at the top of my talk page? This discussion will not continue here. I have started a discussion section at the draft talk page about it. But I'm not going to keep debating you on this matter. If you keep trying to restore this article to WP:Main space, it will be taken to WP:AfD. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Been away for some years

The addiction and obsession overcame me! Thanks for the welcome. Gradually(!) picking up where I left off, deep in AFC trying to empty the ever filling bath Fiddle Faddle 07:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If you don't wish to use your own talk page you are welcome to talk on mine. 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Who said that? Who's there?!? B...b...b...Bathghost!?! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Timtrent! Or is it Faddle? In any case, sorry for getting spooked, you're welcome in my books, too, stranger! Especially if you want to contribute to an imaginary tournament of very real bots. But mainly just wondering how Flyer22 got frozen. Or when! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, By my name shall ye know me. I wonder what it is! Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you the shadowy new familiar figure I met earlier at the Crossroads? That'd be pretty cool. Even if not, with your wonderful fiddle and his gently weeping guitar and the fabled Tambourine of Venus, we could rock the living socks off of Bremen and have Flyer back to her old self in no time! "Seriously" though, we were born under the same Wikimoon, Spring '06, real recognizes real by any name. But your secret's safe with me! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait, fake memory! Met Crossroads at a forbidden userpage marked by a 22 and some ancient indecipherable squiggles. If that's Arabic for "Flyer", I'll eat my damned pointy hat! Anyway, I now believe we've not yet met. Perhaps some other Wikiday? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thx for our feedback on Edit Warring

Your feedback prompted a further rethink that does without 'reverting edit'. The only change would be inserting a clarifying footnote after 'consecutive edits':

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits^* that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

^* That is, with no intervening edits anywhere on that page by another editor.

I realized that part of my confusion was interpreting 'consecutive' to mean that as long as no-one undid my edits — rather than edit elsewhere on the page without changing my edits — I was in the clear.

Does this work for you? Humanengr (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Best to propose this on the talk page. It shouldn't simply be up to me. In the meantime, I'll think about it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential sock?

I didn't want to accuse someone of being a sock or launch an investigation, but user Genericusername57 has edited along similar lines as FKC, but I didn't quite think that lined up since they have been around since 2018. I looked at pages created by Genericusername57 and see they recreated the deleted James Shupe article (after James Shupe was banned) and essentially picked up where James Shupe's edits left off. Worth checking? Sxologist (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

They also engage in very similar edits to FKC, for example, editing the exact same books related to science and sexuality. I know there can be a crossover of interest, but check out the comment here. Very similar to FKC. "Thank you, but this would require a source; it isn't obvious from the reviews listed here that the reception was mostly positive". That strikes me as very FKC'esque, he always said "thank you, but" when reverting an edit. @Crossroads: also. Am I being too conspiratorial? Sxologist (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I consider this highly unlikely. The log for James Shupe just seems to show that they made a redirect by that name, [1] to which name the article was later moved. I don't see FKC in the history of that article. Having been familiar with both of these editors' personalities over my time here, they very much are two different people. Additionally, there seems to be very little overlap in interest. Genericusername57 (who I will call Gnu57 per their signature for short) edits a lot in gender-related topics, not so much in sexuality/sexual orientation; Gnu57 also does stuff like help at WP:Resource exchange. FKC on the other hand had little interest in gender but a lot in sexual orientation. I've seen that the both of them have other interests not shared by the other. Gnu57 has also sent a lot of non-notable porn stars to AfD, with no participation from FKC. With that revert at The Blank Slate, given the wider picture that I've mentioned, I don't see that phrasing as suspicious, and honestly, I don't think that sentence should be there, per WP:SYNTH. I do think that FKC will come back, but I suspect that he will not do so in sexology first, since he can see that you, me, and many others are familiar with his POV in that area; instead, he may do so in another of his areas of interest.

I also see that Gnu57 reverted you recently at Sexual Preference (book), although they could easily have found it the same way as you. And, it would probably be a better strategy to work on cutting WP:Undue reviews first, then discuss on Talk what you think the lead summary should be. I've never had any reason to think they would try to push fringe views on sexual orientation.

While I had considered FKC to be somewhat of pain because I could tell he had a POV favoring outdated social learning and Freudian ideas about sexual orientation, as he would fight to keep poorly sourced material that leaned that way, I consider Genericusername57 to be a very valuable editor, who is all around helpful, is neutral and often combats POV pushing, and is very good about examining sources critically. I understand if Flyer22 Frozen wishes to blank this discussion from her userpage for privacy's sake. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The James Shupe article and heavy editing was the only thing that raised my eyebrows. And yes you can take it off. Sxologist (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and the extensive comments in support of FKC on the Nicolosi book article, in which they cited a bunch of religious sources... which Guy took a huge issue with. So I had my reasons. Sxologist (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember that. Note that Gnu57 stated, "WP:SPOV requires that we state unequivocally that conversion therapy is discredited." I can't imagine FKC saying that. As for presenting religious conservatives' POV, there is a case to be made for that to a reasonable extent. Readers should know what significant societal factions think, even though this may contradict the science. Has to be done carefully though. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting information on Baheliya community.

Hello, I don't know why but you have deleted all the information provided by me on the Baheliya community in India. All the material was research based and sources were duly mentioned. It took lot of research and reading for collecting the information but you have deleted them without any reason. Ashutosh3622 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert L Birmingham

Stop editing this page, as you do not know anything about the man’s favorite foods and quotations on that matter. I am throughly dismayed that you would prevent this information from being shared and appreciated by scholars. Kindly refrain from such behavior in the future. 72.209.13.192 (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Paedophilia: The Radical Case

Hello, I think you have a expertise and experience with sexuality related articles, and I would like your advice. I recently happened upon the article above, and was horrified by its tone. There seems to be a great deal of puffing up of a highly controversial book and its views, partly in the form of original research about what was a positive review or not. I note that it in 2017 it looked like this. [2], which looks pretty good to me, and most of the material I have problems with was added by User:Freeknowledgecreator, since blocked as a sock. I am inclined to revert to that version, but thought that I would ask your opinion first. --Slp1 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't thoroughly looked into this yet. But I will state that positive reviews should be appropriately balanced with negative reviews. It's best to look and see if the Reception section should be weighted more toward negative reviews or positive reviews. Or if the book received "a mixed reception" like the article currently claims. Use your best judgment. I may weigh in on the matter at a later date. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't imagine that it received more positive than negative reviews. But that book, although I was aware of it and the controversy surrounding it, was not something high on my reading list. If I recall correctly, I only read some of it years ago. I didn't feel like forcing myself to read all of it, even for my studies. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Slp1 and Flyer22 Frozen, I've proposed to merge the article, with an explanation given at the destination. I also cut one review and copied the contents of another to the destination. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My commentary on Freeknowledgecreator with regard to this is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandal at Aladdin

Fed up with reverting this troll - I have tried remarks on its talk page and details on talk but it has apparently become a game. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Volition

Have you had a chance to see the film Volition just yet? I know you like quirky films like this so I wanted to let you know. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Had not heard of it. Thanks for the suggestion. I recently watched The Old Guard and enjoyed it. Feels like it should be a television show. I went into that blind and didn't know it is based on a comic. Like reviewers (including YouTube ones) have noted, Charlize Theron is truly a bonafide action star now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a great suggestion! I will definitely watch it and get back to you. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Just finished watching the film. Wow. First of all, the camera loves Charlize Theron. She eats up almost every scene. I like how they are basically a good vampire version of The Avengers. Great musical score and cinematography as well. Speaking of The Avengers, did you know that the editor of The Old Guard, Terilyn A. Shropshire, previously edited Eve's Bayou, which featured none other than Samuel L. Jackson? Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. Here is a good article (from The Hollywood Reporter) on Theron's evolution as an actress. It also speaks of how unconventional it is for a woman in her 40s to be an action star, and as bankable an action star as the male ones.

We are discussing how to categorize the film's genre if you are interested in reviewing the matter and commenting: Talk:The Old Guard (2020 film)#Superhero film?. A permalink for it is here (for a quick future reference whenever I archive these latest threads, and most of the previous threads that I blanked).

As for the editor, no, I didn't know that. Interesting. The lead of the Eve's Bayou article needs to note what it is about. I may have seen it before, or parts of it. Maybe while my mother was watching it. But maybe I haven't it. I might check it out this month in my free time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion invite. I will try to participate when I have time. You have great taste in film! Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Brief update: I just finished watching Aniara. It's a really quirky Swedish science fiction film that I think you might like. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to watch Before the Fire yet? I haven't had time, but if you had seen it, I was wondering what you thought. It's getting a lot of buzz. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Spotted hyena edit

I just wanted to point out that you removed my edit where I stated that the exception for low-ranking females being more dominant males is when it's a male cub born to a higher-ranking female. You claim that my statement is unsourced, however the next line states that hyena cubs take the rank directly below their mothers (regardless of gender). Redstoneprime (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why. Keep this at the article talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Help on your deletion of a jpg from edits to Steve_MacIsaac

RealMBear (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Hello, Flyer22 Frozen, I understand your deletion of a jpg in my edits of Steve_MacIsaac's page. However, I cannot figure out how to correctly do what I intend. If this is not the right place to ask, please forgive me. I am trying to replace the old Sticky book cover from 2006 with a new book cover of MacIsaac's 2019 book, Unpacking. I can't see where I do either step (1) remove the old jpg; or step (2) insert the new jpg in its place with the appropriate fair use status to avoid a copyright violation, etc. The image can be cited/used from either Amazon, Goodreads, or several reviews of the book. If you have other suggestions on either or both steps, I would appreciate that. Thanks!

Istrebitel Sputnik(ov)

Hello, as pointed out correctly by several users, the current translation (along with the explanation) is completely wrong. Even the name is wrong: the second word should end in "-OV", which changes everything. So the title of the page should be changed. I tried to do it, but it says it had already been renamed. Really, this is a bit ridiculous. I explained it on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Istrebitel_Sputnik Buxareu (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note at image of article Man

I thought I owe you an explaination: I am sorry but I was sloppy and didnt read properly past the element of "File:...". I am terrible at reading text I know, I am vegan and I keep buying things that have animal parts in it even though I was reading the label, I come home and proclaim "Look this doesnt have gelatine!", my partner then allways has to disappoint me when she reads it. ... Still, I am working on it, also for the sake of my shoping. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sex in space

Well, my edit did fix the problem of sex in space being wrongly defined in the lead as human sex in space. It's not about the redirection, it's simply logically wrong, like having an article on life which in the lead defines life as human life. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, I replied briefly here. But further commentary should be had here on my talk page or the article talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@ExperiencedArticleFixer: I agree with Flyer22 Frozen. It's not as simple as the analogy of an article on life defined as human life. Life is a much broader topic than sex. And even though animals have sex, it is of negligible importance importance when discussing sex in space and is of little interest beyond the biological aspects. Animal sex in space can be discussed at Animals in space, if at all. And by the way, the state of the article as it was before this debate is the current consensus. There should be no more reverts without a new consensus. (Feel free to move my comment to article talk if the discussion moves there). Sundayclose (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And as made clear in the edit history, I'm not stating that this topic is only about humans, but it is overwhelmingly about them at this point in time. At this point in time, other types of life usually aren't the focus.

This is how the "human sexual activity" aspect was presented in the lead before some tinkering with the lead sentence happened. An editor moved the "sex in space" bold text with this edit. Then someone made this edit. Then someone made this and this edit. And then I made this edit. Maybe MOS:BOLDAVOID should be applied in this case. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I read your arguments and still disagree. Wikipedia is read by all kinds of people looking for a conceptually clear source of info. Regardless of the focus of an article, sex cannot be defined as human sex. If Wikipedia is going to start committing and defending obvious definitional mistakes and category errors, I'm going to completely loose my faith in this project. This does not advance clear thinking. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If it helps clear things up, your logic is based on several logical fallacies, the most prominent of which is inductive fallacy (faulty generalization). That's why it seems correct, but really that perception is based on an assumption that the usage of a word must encompass all definitions of that word, rather than a specific definition based on the context in which it's being used. That's not meant as an insult, but to help clear up any confusion based on a logical analysis of your premises and conclusion.

First, the article is about human sex in space. All one has to do is read it and it becomes crystal clear. The title does not need to be "human sex in space", because it's very apparent that no one else is having, or likely will ever have, sex in space. It need not even be spelled out in the lede, because it is patently obvious, and frankly doing either comes off as really condescending to the reader. (eg: What? Do you think I'm stupid?) The only possible reason for having sex in space is for the fun of sex and the psychological needs that satisfies. Do you think dogs will ever have sex in space, or that they even could. (I breed them, and, well ... let's just say he'd never get a hold of her in zero-g, and even on Earth, breeding an animal very often doesn't involve intercourse.) I guarantee that these rats and mice didn't have sex in space. They were artificially inseminated. So tell me, who else is having sex in space?

And I know what you're gonna say, but there is not one shred of evidence that aliens even have sex. They could all reproduce asexually by mitosis for all we know, like bacteria. Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but all our knowledge of it comes from Star Trek, Heavy Metal and Barbarella.

So seriously, what point are you trying to make? If another species has sex in space, and reliable sources document it, then we can reformat the articles to match the new information, but until then there is no need to treat readers like they're idiots. We deal in reliably sourced information, not fictional conceptuality (except where reliably sourced, but even that is trivial in an article like this, and that never takes precedence over reality). Zaereth (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

An inductive fallacy is committed when a conclusion made about all or many instances of a phenomenon is reached on the basis of just one or a few instances of that phenomenon. So, nothing to do with definitions. You need to establish definitions before you can commit an inductive fallacy. I think that you are conflating using universal domain for a concept, with using all definitions for a word at once. What I think you mean is that I'm not considering the implicit domain limitation here. But the domain is not yet established in the first few words of the article, other than by the title.

The idea of animals having sex in outer space is not as ludicrous as you think. As soon as we take a couple of animals to space, they are probably going to try to have sex with each other.

The point I'm trying to make is super simple: it's wrong to define sex as human sex. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Good news, I'm happy with the current text. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, per WP:TALKO, please don't break up an editor's post like you did to Zaereth's before I put his post back together. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know about that rule, sorry. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject invite

Hello Flyer22 Frozen: Thank you for your contributions to veganism – or vegetarianism – related articles. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a WikiProject to improve veganism and vegetarianism articles on Wikipedia and coverage of these topics. If you would like to participate or join, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Stressing in a paragraph

Hi. Wanted to politely ask you about when you said human reproduction should be stressed in a paragraph about mammals. How exactly should that be done? I put human reproduction in the paragraph where it was about specifically humans. It said *most peole are heterosexual and its the most common type of them all" and then I would put that it's the only way human reproduction can happen. Later in the text its about mammals in general not just humans. So the text would go about how its the most common type for humans and the only way humans can reproduce and then later in the text how mammals also do it because its necessary for reproduction. That line that keeps getting removed isnt redundant at all because its about two different things - one about humans in particular (since the text in that part is about humans only, thats why it says "most people" not "most mammals") and about mostly animals (since the text in the part about mammals is mostly about animals, not particularly humans). The editor who previously reverted also didnt do it again, probably because he/she understood what was meant. Thanks, and I hope this doesnt spark some dumb edit war. We dont need those. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RandomGuy2018, as you know, you were reverted here by Crossroads and here by me. And Crossroads also made this edit. And with this edit, I stated, "This is something to [discuss] on the article talk page." I stressed "article talk page" so that you would not bring this to my talk page. Please don't bring stuff like this to my talk page. Take it to the article talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever whatever. I just asked. I wont continue this because I dont see a reason for that. RandomGuy2018 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alan Bergman

Why do you keep editing his daughter alexia’s name out of the article? I’m new here and if I’m not doing it correctly please put her name back in there yourself how you would like it done. I knew Alan personally and I know he would want his daughters name here. Many thanks. Terryfishing950 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Terryfishing950, stuff like this does not belong. It's a WP:Tone matter. As for the daughter's name, see WP:BLPPRIVACY. There is no need to include the non-notable daughter's name. On top of that, the section as a whole should be sourced per WP:Verifiability. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

She is a budding professional cellist who has worked with principle dancer Brandon Lawrence of the Birmingham royal ballet so she is notable. Please could you just put her name back, it was in there the last time I checked this page about a year or two ago. Many thanks Terryfishing950 (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Suicide article

Heya, how are you? I noticed your comment on edit on Suicide. wanting to do it in the first place is, in my opinion, the only thing that causes it, when compared to ways people carry it out. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J, that is not the way we relay the causes. And the causes should be sourced. In the future, keep this at the article talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS query

Hi. I'm confused about what you mean by Dissociative_identity_disorder&oldid=971577900 this - particularly the "words as words" part. Should italics be used for page name links? - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Italics and WP:Words as words are clear about using italics. I don't see what else to state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West

Hi why did you delete my Kanye West edits? They're relevant to his page. Wikipro43245 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

MEDMOS and photo galleries

Hi Flyer22, thank you for helping to improve the photo gallery in Epidermoid cyst. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. JenOttawa (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not interested in conversations with Colin and Sandy

Feel free to ping me whenever you would like my opinion, but please keep me out of conversations with those two. They are protected by Admins and the only one who will suffer by arguing with them is you. Hell, Arbcom rewrote their rules to help them and didn't even pretend to have a reason.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, hi. Like I stated here (followup edit here) to another editor backing away as well, I've gotten emails from editors stating that they are staying out of this. The "Not interested in conversations with Colin and Sandy" reason is the main reason that has been given.

As for "They are protected by Admins and the only one who will suffer by arguing with them is you."? Editors also state that I am protected by admins. Either way, I do not see Sandy and Colin as some powerful beings one should fear going up against, and that is especially the case for Colin, who is usually a sporadic editor and has only become more active now that Doc James -- our most prolific medical editor -- no longer wants to participate on Wikipedia for obvious reasons. And the emails I received about this latest matter aren't about fear. They are about frustration and not wanting to be subjected to insults. It's also about not wanting to waste hours on the matter at hand. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you or anyone else want to understand a little more about my non-participation, there's a lot to see on my userpage and user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want to get more deeply involved in this, but frustration, not wanting to be insulted, and not wanting to waste time strike me as (1) exactly right, and (2) eerily familiar. (In fairness to AlmostFrancis, I'm pretty sure he's thinking about who has and who has not been blocked, as well as the ArbCom decision.) I've looked at the recent discussions, and I can see that there are some disagreements, and that more than one editor is expressing concern. For what it's worth, having a carefully and neutrally worded RfC may be more productive than lengthy discussions might be. And if that gets resistance, then WP:AE is available, because there are discretionary sanctions in effect for everything about MOS, and doubly so if drug pricing is involved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your revert

I was just changing the redirect of the complicated title to Islamic Mysticism in Afghanistan to common simple redirect to Sufism in Afghanistan , just like Sufism in Bangladesh, Sufism in Afghanistan, Sufism in Jordan etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.107.22 (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why my edit was removed

I added a short paragraph to the article on homophilia adding another language where the word remains, apart from Norwegian. I don't understand why this violates verifiability policy or why the edit was removed. All someone needs to check it is a Modern Greek dictionary and the article already states that the word was created from Greek roots, so it's no surprise it also exists in Greek. The fact that it does not exist in Ancient Greek is also verifiable from a dictionary of Ancient Greek (except you cannot reference the absence of a word in a dictionary). If any other statement was in any way objectionable, I think that could have been marked in a somewhat less radical way than removing the whole paragraph... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.62.4 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Forced Abortion

The sentence stated that "Even after the shift to a two-child policy in January 2016, the practice still occurs", which is not only of questionable veracity but stands in contrast to the practice's illegality in China - unless I'm mistaken there. Probably could use some elaboration on the latter half of the sentence. The source, in a page about forced abortion, is literally National Right to Life News. A quick glance at the page and you'll see it's obviously not a source to be used here. I felt like the easiest course of action was thereby to just remove this extraneous claim. New to editing so happy to hear how I should have proceeded. Is this really a situation that required me countering with credible sources? Qriffin (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Qriffin, feel free to revert me. If there is a reputable source on the matter, though, then, yes, something about that should be there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't feel bad

He templated me too. It's so nice to know there are experienced editors willing to take time our of their busy days to guide newbies like us. I hope you saw my post on the talk page. It really was an accident that I removed your text. EEng 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Now I really feel left out. Why am I the only long-term newbie not good enough to be templated? Mathglot (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Flyer and I have that effect on people. EEng 04:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Two things

[1] If you get any further pings from normal op, please let me know on my talk page. Pinging on purpose after being told to stop is a blockable offense. Alas, there is no way for me to watch your pings, so you will have to tell me

[2] Re: "Sighs. I'm just going to state now that when you are again sanctioned for disruption, whether it concerns the PETA website or something else, I will state, 'Told you so.' ", that's most likely a bad idea. It could be seen as a form of WP:GRAVEDANCING.

(The above is not to be interpreted as support or opposition in the underlying content dispute.) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, given my history with you, I would go to someone else about him if he kept at it. As for WP:GRAVEDANCING? When, in that section, I stated the "I'm just going to state now that when you are again sanctioned for disruption" stuff, I was speaking of the fact that I would comment in the ANI thread or whatever noticeboard on the matter, not after whatever sanction was implemented. And I did not mean that I would literally state "I told you so." Would I state that I felt that the editor would eventually be sanctioned and why? Yes.

Also, I don't want this drama on my talk page. I left the PETA matter up to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and haven't interacted with that editor for days. I don't see that you needed to drudge this up. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting claim; that "when you are again sanctioned" somehow means "not after whatever sanction was implemented". I can think of no possible response to that claim.

Feel free to delete this thread if you don't want it on your talk page. Also feel free to request that I never post to your talk page again. But be aware that I take action to protect editors from abuse such as unwanted pings exactly the same way whether or not I previously had a disagreement with them about an unrelated issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

On second thought. am unwatching this page now and I don't believe that I will ever have a reason to post here again, given that Flyer22 Frozen has made it clear that they don't want or need my help. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, nope, not an interesting claim. And even if I did state "I told you so" or similar after the editor was sanctioned, it's not like I would state so on the editor's talk page or go bragging about it all over Wikipedia. And if it's an "after the editor is sanctioned" matter, it would not be in the ANI thread or whatever noticeboard if the thread is closed. But if that ANI thread (or whatever) is still open after the editor has been sanctioned, could I validly state in that thread that I felt that the editor would eventually be sanctioned and why? Yes. Could I state it here on my talk page? Yes. And, in either case, that WP:GRAVEDANCING essay doesn't apply in my opinion.

I don't need to be guided on my conduct. I don't need your protection. And you are the last person who should be doing either as far as it pertains to me. You protecting me? Sighs. I have more than enough admins looking out for my well-being.

I'm not going to ban you from my talk page, if I haven't already. But I do not want you to comment in this section again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

More here. And then he has the nerve to "teach" me how to mute someone, like I'm some newbie. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello old friend

		A beer on me!
		Here, my friend, some Corona beer on me. Let's wear our hair loose, and shout out some distuned drinking songs. All for old times sake. (If you don't remember me, we met on the Bikini article, and you were one of the first persons I broke the good news when it became a GA). Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, thanks. Yes, I remember you. It would be unusual for me to forget anyone I've interacted with beyond a few words, or beyond reporting them for vandalism (or other disruptive editing) once, on Wikipedia. I still see you at the Bikini article. I hope you are doing well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Just came off a block, and waiting for my COVID test reports. Otherwise life is beautiful. It's so good to see old friends still around. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope the test doesn't come back positive, of course. I'm not a beer drinker except for the occasional Smirnoff Ice or other wine cooler. I'm not a coffee drinker either. Something to do with being a supertaster. But I could make an exception for certain people. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Muthuraja

How to fishing work possible around Trichy Region. Which document is mentioned in Teluge community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:390:7BBB:6C50:FEB6:8B6C:FDFC (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial killer

Long time since we talked about this article. Was at Talk:List of serial killers in the United States#Why are hitmen listed here? and was directed back to the Serial killer article .....so again added sources . Pls take a look...copy edit at will. Last paragraph in lead at Serial killer and last paragraph at Serial killer#Comfort (profit). --Moxy 🍁 15:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Film plot

Hey, there. I noticed you undid my recent edit on WP:FILMPLOT. My point is that plot sections do not provide things like production or reception; that's not what a plot is, and they have their own sections. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J, I suggested that you take this to the guideline talk page so that it wouldn't be brought to my talk page. Please take this matter to the guideline talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What was wrong with these sources?

I have been noticing how you keep removing my edits on True hermaphroditism I also saw how you even mentioned me here.

I will admit I made mistakes when editing articles. But seriously, why did you have to remove these articles?

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/ovotesticular-disorder-of-sex-development/

https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/OC_Exp.php?lng=EN&Expert=2138

Like I don't understand what was wrong with Orphanet it is run by many academic institutions from 35 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 06:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As you know, this is being discussed at WP:Med.

Also, you need to start signing your posts. How many times must a bot sign it for you? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Issues with Rollback

There are some recent reverts you have made with the rollback tool which do not contain a specific edit summary, which is required by WP:ROLLBACKUSE. To wit:

• this, this, this, this, and this do not appear to be vandalism (or the other appropriate uses of rollback without an edit summary).

This is a sample of some edits on one day last week and some much more recent, but the distribution makes me suspect that if I were to look at a larger sample or look more closely at other edits I would find many more. This is especially concerning because some of these edits were made by new editors--see here those edits on the menstrual cycle and sexual orientation--whose contributions should be handled with care and not summarily reverted. Each of these cases are situations where someone is on the cusp of learning about and contributing to wikipedia and in order to grow new editors is is imperative that we treat them with some respect.

I understand that working inside Huggle creates the impression of time pressure and that scrutinizing edits which may seem like they don't improve the page can feel like a waste. However, editors should be able to expect that their contributions will only be summarily reverted under the conditions listed in the rollback guideline. To do otherwise is unfair to them and damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole.

Please slow down when using rollback and take care to use it according to the community guidance. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Protonk, in those cases, I am using WP:Huggle, not WP:Rollback by itself. I am patrolling. And WP:Huggle states that it "is a diff browser intended for dealing with vandalism and other unconstructive edits on Wikimedia projects." Here at the Sexual orientation article, for example, the editor was being disruptive. The editor had already been reverted more than once for being disruptive. And I reverted the editor for the same reason, with a warning an explanation. Furthermore, as any patroller, such as admin Materialscientist can tell you, we do not always use an edit summary when reverting vandalism or unconstructive edits. In fact, we usually do not. Look at Materialscientist's latest edits here. So why bother me and not him? Should I ping the many other patrollers to this talk page to make things clear? We've been over this before, and the community was clear that we aren't going to sit there and explain each revert when using WP:STIki and WP:Huggle, especially when these tools gives us the option not to do so, and especially when the tools, depending on the option, will state what is necessary for us and will leave an appropriate message on the editor's talk page if the revert requires a message. You removed my rollback before, all the way back in 2014: User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 17#Rollback/Vandalism issues. And the community overturned you on it: User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 17#Your rollback rights have been restored. I got all sorts of gifts. Do you want a redux? The vast majority of my edits when using either WP:STIki or WP:Huggle have been appropriate. I am scrutinizing the edits. And when I make a mistake, I revert myself. And that revert I made to the Menstrual cycle article? It was done manually. We are not obligated to explain every revert we make. Using edit summaries is optional, and (not factoring in WP:Huggle) I usually use them. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read what was stated last time, including by admins. If needed, I will ping every singe one of the editors who commented in support me of last time and who are still active.

I just got through dealing with a hurricane, am now dealing with the aftermath, and I do do not need this blast from the past. I see that you've edited very sporadically since our last exchange over this; so maybe it feels like just yesterday for you. Whatever the case, I'm not interested in Round 2. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting an edit without leaving a summary is permitted only in the instances I listed above. For those cases you are right in that no summary is required. In all other cases, an edit summary is required. Whether you use an intermediary such as huggle is beside the point. The underlying community guideline for the tool you use to make the reverts is clear.

As for your comment about not having the time to deal with this, literally all I’m asking is that you take care when reverting edits and slow down such that you don’t inadvertently revert non-vandalism edits without a reason. If you consider that too burdensome than that’s a shame. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Protonk, all I'm asking you to do is be sensible and read the previous discussions. Do you not understand why the community stated that you are wrong on this matter? Do we really need to do this again? I do not get what you don't understand on this matter. I do not understand why you have singled me out again when I am doing what all patrollers do and for reasons made abundantly clear by the community before. They were clear that you are wrong that "In all other cases, an edit summary is required." I am not reverting edits to the point that I need to slow down. I see what I am doing, which is why I revert myself when making mistakes. I am not inadvertently reverting non-vandalism edits without a reason. For non-vandalism edits, I will often revert with WP:Huggle and then leave a message via WP:Twinkle about why I reverted the editor -- whether the edit was unconstructve, unsourced, spam, or something else. Many or most newbies do not check the edit history. So if they are still getting an explanation for why I reverted them, and in a much more efficient way than an edit summary, exactly what is the problem?

Drmies, since you also patrol, can I get your commentary on this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, you also commented on this before, including here. And we know how Euryalus closed the ANI thread. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, I have to agree with Protonk that at least a few of them weren't overt vandalism, though in all cases I think I agree with the actual edit. I do think that an edit summary is warranted. I would not support yanking rollback for these reasons, but strictly speaking Protonk is correct. Sorry--that may not be what you wanted from me, but let's AGF Protonk here, who's not threatening any sanctions or whatever. Your lengthy and positive history here means that it is very unlikely that someone is going to revoke any privileges, but you also have kind of a model function... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, no, giving your honest opinion is fine. Did you review what you stated before, though? As for non-vandalism edits? To repeat what I added in above, "I will often revert with WP:Huggle and then leave a message via WP:Twinkle about why I reverted the editor -- whether the edit was unconstructve, unsourced, spam, or something else. Many or most newbies do not check the edit history. So if they are still getting an explanation for why I reverted them, and in a much more efficient way than an edit summary, exactly what is the problem?" The ANI close was clear that I shouldn't be singled out for something that is standard practice. I'd rather not do something that is unnecessary and when no other patroller is doing it. As for assuming good faith, do you remember how Protonk yanked my rollback rights before? It started like it started above. And he yanked them after I challenged him. It's clear from the discussions I linked to what others had to state on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Protonk: That's a very nice message but maintaining such a long-term interest in Flyer might not be desirable. Editors don't have to be perfect and no one can doubt Flyer's immensely positive contributions to the encyclopedia. In the last year or so it has become evident that many editors now apply rollback more freely. If that is seen as a big problem, why not start a central discussion on how strictly the WP:ROLLBACK guideline should be enforced. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm in the same boat as Drmies here, in that I would have left an edit summary for those reverts, and that's what I teach students to do at CVUA. I agree with Johnuniq however that this is not unusual, and I very regularly see Huggle-using patrollers, some of them very experienced admins, doing stuff like this - Flyer22 is not an outlier here, and I don't think it's fair to single her out for criticism. I'd encourage Flyer to set an example and use a brief edit summary more often, but centralised discussion about the pros and cons of (re?)enforcing a strict reading of ROLLBACK would be necessary if anyone wants to wade in and try to change the culture amongst Hugglers. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) this is too petty for words. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I'm probably being hyper-hyper-over-sensitive, but thought best to check. As I understand indenting, this looks like a reply to my comment - are you saying that my I'm being too petty for words? If so, I'd really like to know why - I put a lot of stock in your opinion, and would like to reflect if you think I'm being an ass. If you're not talking to me, I'll shuffle off.

While I'm here, I re-read my comment and realised that I didn't mention anything about Flyer's prolonged and prolific history of positive contributions - Drmies and Johnuniq make explicit mention of it, so I thought I'd better put that on the record too. Someone doing huge amounts of good work, which is in-line with the prevailing culture (even if not, strictly speaking, with the letter of the policy), does not deserve criticism of this sort. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No User:Girth Summit, certainly not. The vagaries of indenting continue to puzzle me after all this time. My point, worth emphasising again, is that the complaint is far far too petty to waste any time on. I suggest that F22 hat this section with a "Nothing to see in this astonishingly petty complaint" header. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Woof! Woof! and I couldn't agree more. I rank Flyer with our top five editors who have done the most for women's topics in our encyclopedia. I keep several woman's issues articles on my watch list but I have always felt that Flyer was seeing that they were kept fair and unbiased. I hate to think where this place would be without her. Now this next part is about my personal experience with rollback and all these years later I still feel it was hurtful. I was editing a tree disease article that was heavily biased in favor of a certain pesticide. Again and again I tried to present RS information rather than what clearly came straight from a pesticide label and it was reverted. I tried to talk to the editor on the talk page but he did not engage with me. Finally he said right on my talk page that he was a dealer and he wanted to know what my angle was, assuming that I must be connected to a different chemical company, apparently. Then he made around ten edits of utter BS and, frustrated with him, I used my newly given rollback and deleted them. Next an admin blocked me for two days and took away my rollback. (He's an arbcom now, BTW.) I tried to fight it and got my two-day ban reduced to one (not by him--by a different admin). In almost 15 years this is the only time I've been convicted of something so egregious that I needed to be told I could not edit till I had been punished adequately. To sum it up, IMO experienced editors should be allowed to use discretion in some cases, and certainly when unregistered drive-by editors make edits. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"certainly when unregistered drive-by editors make edits" This would be against the spirit of Wikipedia:IPs are human too: "Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users are mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted. This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects.". Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I treat both registered and unregistered editors talk page comments with equal respect, after all the very fact that they brought something to the talk page shows that they are a sincere and worthy editor. I do not delete unregistered users article edits willynilly, but when they are clearly not meant to be in good faith, extremely and obviously biased, outlandish, etc., I feel that my time is better spent improving our encyclopedia than wasting time on them. Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, speaking of talk page discussions there are few editors that have spent more time on talk pages going over the same arguments that come up over and over when it comes to, for one thing which I know about because I have argued with her, is the argument that men are as likely to be physically attacked by a partner as women are, that women as often as not are the ones that actually start the fight including both through verbal abuse and actual physical attack, and I don't remember what else--at any rate issues that have all been well-studied and proved to be untrue. And yet the arguments go on page after page. The idea that women were asking for it when they were beaten is still believed by many and women are lucky to have a fighter like Flyer working for good WP articles that are fair to women. Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just as an aside, and without wanting to turn this into a tit-for-tat, I wonder whether the edit summaries that Protonk used here, here, here or here, or indeed the lack of edit summary here, were materially better than using no edit summary at all. These were all 'undos', rather than rollbacks, so of course there can have been no technical breach of WP:ROLLBACK, but if the concern is the biting of newbs I'd argue that there's no functional difference - an edit summary which is boils down to 'no' is no different than leaving no edit summary at all, and an edit summary which mocks the editor who added the content ("lol no") is worse than no edit summary at all. Let's face it, we all do this or something like it at times, when something is obviously inappropriate - it's not something to make a big deal of. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I knew you were looking into whether that "meat" editor was a sock. Stay safe from the tropical storms and I will try to stay safe from the wildfires. And that other thing. Be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

For all you have done

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all the years you have been editing Flyer22 Frozen you have worked diligently to protect Wikipedia from all manner of trolls and POV pushers. I present you this barnstar even though it is barely sufficient to express the gratitude that all your efforts deserve. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.gnu57 15:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Cycle of abuse"

Hi Flyer, I am not asking this about any article in particular but I did want to ask this considering it effects a number of articles. What do you think of the idea that those who were sexually abused are more likely to abuse others? Is there real evidence of this? I haven't seen anything very convincing given the prevalence of abuse, however it seems to be a common theme in the minds of the public and/or therapists. Is there any good scientific evidence to suggest so? It seems this idea has been challenged more and more through recent research. Sxologist (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll get back to this. It seems you are speaking of child sexual abuse specifically. Obviously, a number of cases of the victims becoming child sexual abusers as adults exist, but it's certainly inaccurate to state, "This child was sexually abused. So this child will very likely become a child sexual abuser as an adult." And for women, since they commit child sexual abuse significantly less then men do, it's even less true for them. We do know that, in the case of child-on-child sexual abuse, it's often that the child is acting out/copying what was done to them. But that's different. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I have read that some abusers also falsely make the claim that they were abused themselves to paint themselves as a victim. Obviously it's hard to find out what is true and false. I haven't done much reading in this area (and the stuff I have seems inconsistent). Sxologist (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You need not put too much effort into this, I have found some Cantor material which suggests the cycle of abuse is largely a myth. Sxologist (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As soon as you brought up this topic, I thought of the discussions I've had about it at Talk:Pedophilia, including what James Cantor stated about it. I also might have talked with James via email about this. For this matter you've queried me on, I'm not going to address the topic of cycle of abuse or cycle of violence in general. I'm going to focus solely on child sexual abuse.

I started editing in 2007. And in 2008, I was still pretty much a newbie. And I state the same about my editing in 2009, considering that I still had so much to learn about Wikipedia in 2009. It's why I don't understand making anyone an administrator after only a year or two of editing here. Anyway, back in 2008 and 2009, I was studying different psychological and sexological topics (with the latter overlapping with anatomy). Formally studying them. There were a few I didn't need to study anymore. I was still coming into my own on these matters and had different professors telling me their opinions on these topics and citing their or others' research on them. So I stated things back then that I either don't fully agree with now or would somewhat or significantly disagree with now. Back then, I was a bigger believer in the cycle of child sexual abuse. I still wouldn't discount it by using the word myth, even by saying "largely a myth", in reference to it, but I don't feel as strongly about it being a factor as I once did. And I never believed that most children who have been sexually abused become child sexual abusers as adults.

At Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 8#Section break to separate discussion re retrospective/prospective research, which addresses the beliefs of professors, you can see me listing different reports on the matter. I was citing media sources and other sources I would never cite today for such material. But those sources do show different reports on the matter. Some reports have stated that most sexual offenders were sexually abused as children. But this doesn't mean that most victims of child sexual abuse will become sexual offenders as adults. I stated back then that "It seems that we have three different reports -- One type is saying that most child molest[e]rs and rapists were sexually abused. While the other is focusing more on saying that most children who are sexually abused will not become child molest[e]rs themselves. And then we have the side that says most child molesters weren't sexually abused as children. It's a complicated topic." Another editor stated that we should "be very clear about the difference between retrospective and prospective research--the number of abusers who say they were abused is higher than the the number of people with verified abuse who became adult abusers. That's two different populations--the group 'abusers who say they were abused' and the group 'abused who became abusers.' The data on the abusers can't be extrapolated to the abused. Even allowing for self-reports, the population of abusers is not a representative sample of the abused."

At Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 12#Causes should highlight questionable data, you can see that James weighed in. He stated, "[M]ost of the existing research pertains to the frequency of child molestation in the histories of child molesters, not the frequency of child molestation in the history of pedophiles. Moreover, the evidence does not exactly say that child molestation begets child molestation so much as it says that people who grow up in chaotic households go on to lead chaotic lives: Child molesters also report having suffered physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect in their own childhoods, and people who were molested in childhood are also at elevated risk of committing physical (nonsexual) abuse and neglect of their own children. That is, bad history begets bad future; there is little evidence for any specific assocations like molestation leading to molestation or neglect to neglect, etc. It is true that many psychologists and other mental health professionals without expertise in this specific part of the field still believe that there is a causal link, but this misconception is the same as many mismatches between science and the non-expert practitioner: Many psychologists also continue to believe in psychoanalysis, etc. despite the lack of empirical backing." And regarding pedophiles, he stated, "My own beliefs about whether there is a causal relationship between experiencing sexual abuse and subsequently developing pedophilia is pretty much along standard scientific thinking: Assume the null hypothesis until the data compel us to believe otherwise. It is not possible to prove a lack of a causal relationship between experiencing abuse and developing pedophilia. Rather, we assume there is no relationship until the data compel us to believe there is one. In the present state of affairs (for better or for worse), there is no proof in either direction; so, the scientifically superior hypothesis is (by default) that there is no causal association. Researchers have been attempting to demonstrate one for a very long time now, and still none has found one (other than in the general associations that I mentioned earlier). So, sooner or later, one has to take 'no' as an answer. The overall body of existing evidence is much more consistent with the idea that experiencing childhood sexual abuse is a disinibitor of antisocial behavior in general, not a cause of pedophilia per se." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed reply. Sxologist (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do

I just wondered who else if anyone would remove that stuff from the lead. Well, no one else did. This really does show how right I was when I said I hate to think what our women's articles would look like with out your watchful eye. I don't see how anyone could then question your rollback decisions about them when they don't seem to find the time to watch and contribute to their upkeep. Gandydancer (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your support, Gandydancer. Regarding the article in question, do you mean this recent edit I made? I'm sure that Crossroads would have handled it once back on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Gandydancer (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your message about reverting edits

You wrote to me: "Hello, I'm Flyer22 Frozen. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Fruitvale Bridge—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)"

I replied to you ~1hr later explaining my edits and asking what you found not constructive about them - you have not yet answered. I am at a loss to know why you found fault with my separating the info on two different bridges from a single page. Will you not explain? Dougbcnu (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Dougbcnu, I wasn't going to reply via email. I typically need to be more familiar with an editor before doing that. I did think about posting to your talk page in response to emailing me, but I quickly got sidetracked because of other issues on Wikipedia.

As for reverting you, the revert looked problematic to me because you removed an infobox and made significant changes without discussion. You appeared to be a new editor doing something that would very likely need discussion. I'd meant to check back, but didn't. It doesn't seem to me that two articles are needed. I see that the article's talk page is tagged with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force. You can ask those WikiProjects about whether a separate article is needed. If they agree with you or you get no response, feel free to move ahead with your plan. I don't feel strongly about the topic. I was patrolling via WP:Huggle. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Zara Kay

Hi Flyer22 Frozen I left a note for you on the article Zara Kay's talk page regarding a revert you made. Feel free to take a look or discuss if you have any concerns Tahadharamsi (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

ClutchPoints

I saw your edit summary about ClutchPoints at LeBron James. My feeling is that ClutchPoints is a bit too much like a bloggy fansite. (FWIW, I generally think the same of SB Nation content.) I'm sure much of their straight-forward statements are ok, but generally there's more reliable sources for the same content. For opinions on somebody as high-profile as James, we should limit it to high-quality sources. If it was a strong opinion, some high-quality source surely must have written about it. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

And my followup note is here.

Bagumba, I understood how you felt, and still feel, about the source. I don't consider it an deal source either. But like I noted, it's used throughout Wikipedia in basketball articles (which indicates to me that it's accepted since experienced editors allow that), I used WP:In-text attribution and adhered to WP:WIKIVOICE, and the section (per its sources) is quite clear that its Jordan and James who are mainly discussed as the greatest. Sources, including the official NBA website, consistently call Jordan the greatest, and James is the main basketball player compared to Jordan. And it's often. So, yeah, it's a strong opinion. And the debate has flared up again because James might win his fourth ring. I stated that I would look at other sources stating "universal" or whatever. There might be something to use in the sources I included in that section. I am not pressed about this.

In the future, will you take something like this to the article talk page? Also, maybe whether or not to use ClutchPoints at all needs to be discussed at WP:NBA. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I treated it as a bold edit on my part. Whether or not Clutch is in other articles is an WP:OTHERSTUFF-like issue. I'm not on a crusade currently to rid use of Clutch (or the like) on WP (WP:NOTREQUIRED), but for a large topic like Jordan v. LeBron I did remove it. On a related issue, take a look at the similar Talk:Tom_Brady/Archives/2020/April#Greatest_QB_in_NFL_history. There, I found a bunch of sources that explicitly said "many consider ...". I prefer that over finding a few sources who state an opinion and than Wikipedia extrapolating and concluding that "many people have the opinion".—Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba and per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." My point about ClutchPoints being used all over Wikipedia in basketball articles is that it appears to be accepted as a valid source to use for NBA topics and that whether it should be used for what one feels it shouldn't be used for is not established. Opinions are opinions, which is why WP:In-text attribution and WP:WIKIVOICE have the guidance they have.

As for a few sources? We both know that the "Jordan vs. James" thing (a very tired debate) is not just "a few sources" matter. And the sources I included in the WP:CITEBUNDLE for it explicitly make it clear that these two are often considered the greatest and are therefore often compared. And that is what those sources are used for in the article. They aren't used to state "many consider", or the like. As you know, per extensive discussion that took place on the article's talk page, stating that "many consider James the greatest" or similar was changed months ago. The sources I focused on, as seen in the latest archived discussion on this debate, are quality sources like this 2019 "All-Time Player Rankings: NBA's Top 50 Revealed" Bleacher Report source, which lists James second, after Jordan, and states, "Rings shouldn't be the only factor in this debate. But when it's this close, stacking the 6-0 Finals record up against 3-6 is a fair tiebreaker. And by the way, calling this 'close' is probably an undersell. After examining every catch-all metric and basic number imaginable from the regular season, playoffs and 10-year peaks, it's almost impossible to find any real space between these two." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Clutch, I get what you're saying. I'm contesting it here. You can start a larger discussion if you choose, but you also said "you don't consider it an [i]deal source either". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Jordan v. LeBron isn't a real debate. I was only suggesting that we find sources that summarize what "most people" are saying. There will be less disputes that way. Per WP:WEASEL: "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies."—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, since I don't feel strongly about the ClutchPoints matter, which is why I didn't take it to the article's talk page, I don't see a need to debate it any further. As for "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies."? As a significantly experienced editor, I of course know that. You are needlessly telling me things that I tell newbies and other less-experienced editors all the time. Per the aforementioned WP:CITEBUNDLE, I am not going by my own analysis and interpretation. Those sources are explicitly about the GOAT (greatest of all time) and primarily discuss Jordan and James, and they are clear why they do. All I did was summarize what these sources state (just like we are supposed to summarize the literature unless quoting it). And when I used the ClutchPoints source, I adhered to WP:In-text attribution and WP:WIKIVOICE. Quoting ClutchPoints adheres to WP:WEASEL.

As for less disputes? Not on this topic. And that is because, like this 2019 "LeBron or MJ? How the King is settling the GOAT debate" ESPN source from the bundle notes, "The respective camps in the Jordan-LeBron debate reach their most frenzied pitch when they discuss which player had a harder time dominating in his era. To hear Jordan's supporters tell it, defenders were allowed open fisticuffs to prevent him from getting to the basket. Meanwhile, James' defenders would have you believe that Jordan was beating five guys from the Y to win his championships." And then, as mentioned by the aforementioned Bleacher Report source, analytics and the rings aspect are also part of the debate. It's a heated debate that will never go away, and Wikipedia editors are not immune to it. That is why I keep telling editors to go by what the sources state and with WP:Due weight, not their personal opinions/bias.

Let's move on now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Your input [here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zenomonoz] would be appreciated. Apologies in advance. Sxologist (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)