User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

If you leave me a message on this page, I will usually reply on this page.

Archive

• Archive 1 (from May 8, 2007 - June 20, 2007)
• Archive 2 (from June 24, 2007 - November 3, 2007
• Archive 3 (from December 20, 2007 - November 4, 2008)
• Archive 4 (from November 10, 2008 - June 6, 2009)
• Archive 5 (from June 10, 2009 - October 9, 2009)
• Archive 6 (from October 9, 2009 - March/April 2010)
• Archive 7 (from April 2, 2010 - January 20, 2011)
• Archive 8 (from January 21, 2011 -

You are a great editor: Re leaving Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A different perspective

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	There are many banners that fit your work. I chose this one for personal reasons. Mugginsx (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Still listening to the tapes - we can use the info on way or another (find alternate ref if we have to but the info on the tape will be the TRUTH if listened to completely and we will know what to look for. I saw your comments to you-know-who and please don't take this the wrong way but I (wiki) love you! Mugginsx (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another day of embracing the horror

That's all I have to say. I am more determined than ever to stay on this article now! P.S. Even though you are a girl, I (wiki) love you anyway. Of course I mean as a fellow editor and a damn smart one. By-the-by, who was that person today? I thought there was only one to deal with? Mugginsx (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Helping me with my editing

Hi, Flyer22. I followed you through your contributions, and you seem experienced. Will you help me become a better editor, like familiarizing me with the Wiki-ways? JacobTrue (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jacob, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your interest in wanting me as a teacher of sorts, but I'm not sure I have the time to guide a new user as much as is needed. There's a lot you will need to learn. I am willing to assist you in any way that Wikipedia allows, but for a full-time tutor, you can check out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I also asked the editors named Mugginsx, Crohnie and ArnoldReinhold for their help. Is it wrong to follow users through their contributions? If it's wrong and I shouldn't have followed you all, I apologize. I can also help with other discussions you all are in, if that's allowed. JacobTrue (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're allowed to follow others' contributions, but I'd prefer you didn't make a habit of following mine or supporting my edits. If you're supporting me because you truly believe me to be right, that's fine, though I'd still prefer you not follow me to every article and agree with me. I see that you followed a few other editors and did the same thing. They might feel the same way, but I won't speak for them. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You left me all alone today with ..... That was not very nice. I'de like a day off too once in awhile. Trying to help with GA status but makes some people very upset. Spent a lot of time looking at Wiki:regs today BLP, and many others towards that same end. Mugginsx (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Muggins. I'm trying to spend as little time on Wikipedia as I can. That includes spending most of the day away from articles (and especially their talk pages) that add to my stress. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Feel better. Mugginsx (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony proposed lawsuits

This has nothing to do with the article but I looked this up out of curiosity and found two proposed lawsuits by the Anthony Family. AActually three if you count that they also want the lawyer disbarred. Not putting it on the Talk page because is not relevant, just proves the kind of people they are. Not going any further with BLP discussion. Consensus is apparent and I always obey consensus with no hard feelings. Hope there are none on your part. Taking my dog out today and have errands to run and her bandages to change. ANTHONYS SUING FORMER ATTORNEY http://www.clickorlando.com/news/27889673/detail.html ANTHONY PLANS TO BRING FORMER ATTORNEY TO FLORIDA BAR AND SUE CIVILALLY AS WELL http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-05-13/news/os-casey-anthony-trial-george-cindy-c20110513_1_brad-conway-attorney-client-privilege-casey-anthony ATTORNEY PLANS TO SUE WEBSITES OVER CAYLEE RELATED MERCHANDISE http://www.cayleedaily.com/2011/05/anthonys-may-sue-over-casey-caylee-merchandise/comment-page-5/ Mugginsx (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Supercouples

I understand what your are saying about the supercouple lists and sources so in regards to that, I have a question about a source I found for Dante and Lulu. Soapdom.com; would this link be a reliable source? --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 06:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. We don't use soapdom.com here to source soap opera information often. But just looking at it, I would think it does not count as a reliable source. But you can ask about any source's reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you said that Buddytv.com is considered a reliable source, I just wanted to ask your approval before I used it again. Now are these two sources one for Jason and Sam, the other of Jason and Elizabeth valid sources??? Buddytv.com General Hospital High-fiveand TVGuide.ca Suds Report --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those sources are okay. Buddytv.com isn't the best source, but it's accepted enough around Wikipedia for television information. You don't need my approval before adding sources. But if you mean "just checking with me to see if they're okay to use," then that's fine. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an IP User who continues removing one of the couples from the list despite the fact that a valid source list them as a supercouple, what can I do?--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Report him or her to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As your one of the good editors in WP:Soap operas, I came here to tell you about something. But the editor who created it already is here... I've removed the casting section from Lucky Spencer and Elizabeth Webber - People worked so hard on supercouple related content. How can we jusitfy leaving that article as a stand alone peice? (Assuming there are no more reliable sources discussing the pair) :)RaintheOne ^BAM 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Flyer I noticed you said you know who User talk:67.82.157.103 is? I'd just like to be made aware who's account that is? =] RaintheOne ^BAM 14:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Raintheone. The Lucky Spencer and Elizabeth Webber article has been fixed up with references since you last edited it. The Casting section, for example, was added back with references. I just tweaked a few things moments ago, but the article is more in line with other sourced soap opera couple articles now. If you still feel that it fails WP:Notability, however, you can of course put it for deletion.

As for the IP you mentioned, you must be talking about what I stated in the User talk:67.82.157.103#Infobox soap character 2/sandbox section. Well, as seen in the User talk:67.82.157.103#User name and User talk:67.82.157.103#Please log in to edit sections, we believed that IP to be Nk3play2. Is this IP still active? Your question makes me think that he or she is. If it was Nk3play2, it may no longer be Nk3play2 now, since IP addresses can be shared by different people at different points. If this IP is doing the same type of editing as it has always done, then it's safe to assume that the same person is using this IP. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well wouldn't want to delete work - I'm not that type of editor. (Unless some one is blatantly creating a non-notable article with fansites) What I think should be done with American soap articles, is a re-check of what sources are credible. The US seems to have a number of soap opera websites, like the UK. Though we long ago built consensus and went to the RSN to determine which were okay and have a good editorial process. Something I always notice, is why no one ever uses newpaper, books etc for refs.. (Obviously that doesn't apply to you :p)

The IP - Wowzaa... Look [1] Extremely active and as you can see it is the same person you mentioned above. I noticed a pattern, the edits the IP carries out has a pattern. Like with the Lucky & Elizabeth article, NK3play2 logs out to add sources back into the article, then logs back in to carry out the rest. I'm pretty sure everyone gave them plenty of warning about it too?RaintheOne ^BAM 17:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Raintheone, I recently discussed what sources are reliable or not for soap opera information at User talk:Sparrowhawkseven#Content must be from reliable sources. As I stated there, this has also been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. We (us here in America) don't have a lot of soap opera sites that are considered reliable, and so we also use the ones that are only reliable for news information or ones that are barely reliable. I try not to use SoapCentral, for example, since it is basically a fansite, but it's difficult to avoid using it because it is our main soap opera news source and the news from it is reliable (typically reported by the site's creator). Soap opera stars also give exclusive interviews to that site. This is why the WikiProject Soap Operas deemed it reliable for some information (for news, soap opera actor biographies and interview information). Other sources, some of the ones listed in my discussion with Sparrowhawkseven, are less reliable or are not reliable at all. And, sure, while I also use newspaper and book sources as references, most soap opera editors here don't know to do that. They generally edit from a fan perspective and all they know is SoapCentral and other soap opera sites or magazines when it comes to relaying soap opera information.

About the IP/NK3play2, as long as he is not socking to lend more weight to his opinions/edit war, it's not a problem. He is allowed to edit as an IP. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess they are. Just a little odd when you compare the editing pattern. Back onto the sources, I SoapOperaSource appears the most well informed, then there are some that are terrible - one such source "AllSoapScoops" confessing their site is written from a fan POV! Well I've been doing a little testing tonight to see if there are sources out there for characters. No suprise that characters I know of such as Chloe and Stefano from Days, Luke and Noah from ATWT have plenty.. but quite a few others I chose at random from other soaps I've not seen have sources. Lucky had about ten pages, so I typed Elizabeth in too and straight away the top two results were these - [2] [3] - Various news sources with pay-walls which can be viewed on by certain editors. That took two seconds, if these select editors actually searched, I think they'd be shocked at what they find.

Also, I get what you are saying. A big problem is, something I used to do. I'd think this character is so well known because of a scenario... then there are no sources other than fansites. I just had to rethink that this is an encyclopedia and if no one other than fans know about it, then it probably shouldn't be mentioned. I do think the laid back nature has contributed to laziness with a handfull of editors. Swooping in and using the fan sites because there is this idea there is no alternatives available. It's like with Lucky and Elizabeth, why is the fact they are popular backed up with a fansite ref, when the seattle times ref could have been used. So I'm just asking if you see it happening, try and convince them to put a little more effort in. We did it with the British Soaps, now look where we are. .. The articles aren't all tagged for issues or having AFD's slammed on them. TBH I can't believe you support this article with the obvious issues it has...RaintheOne ^BAM 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Raintheone, most of these fanboy and fangirls don't listen to us (myself, TAnthony, AniMate, and Rocksey). We have gotten tired of trying to explain to these inexperienced editors, because they usually react the same way -- keep doing what we told them not to do. If they were willing to edit articles in an encyclopedic manner, then WikiProject Soap Operas likely would not be dead. NK3play2 is one of the select few who has created or expanded soap opera couple articles in an encyclopedic manner...because he has listened to us. Although he was stubborn about it at first. I don't completely support the way the Lucky Spencer and Elizabeth Webber article currently is. I said it's been fixed up with references since you last edited it, and that the article is more in line with other sourced soap opera couple articles now. I'm not saying it's great or doesn't need work. And about how popular they are being backed up by a fansite ref (by SoapOperaSource in the Casting and music section), I see that the lead backs them as a supercouple with a TV Guide ref. So that's something. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Me and User:JuneGloom07, just the two of us, managed to turn Neighbours and it's articles around. Even the character lists are all fully sourced and not one claim by a fansite. If they are not listening and making it worse. Do what we did as the last solution, remove the problem. Most don't listen, but they do not need to listen when they are blocked for vandalism. As for NK3play2, I think I'll have a word. Probably didn't listen much if he is creating articles without sources. Always come to us if you need any help on problem articles, ya know. :) Random Question, what is your view on the soap infobox in use in american soaps and the one used in British and Aussie ones? Also in your opinion, which American soap is worst affected by vandalism? When you decide I'll add them to my watch list and help. I already have over 10000 soap characters in my watch, more can't hurt.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it in me to go around and fix up all or most of these articles, certainly not since my editing has mostly moved away from editing soap opera articles. Some of these character articles should be deleted as well, because they do not pass WP:Notability, but I (like you) am not a deleter. Not usually. The reason we have WikiProject Soap Operas is so that all this work doesn't have to be on one or two people. And as for vandalism, it doesn't count as vandalism if they really think they are helping, per WP:Vandalism. Not unless it is clearly vandalism, like "This character sucks ass." Plus, like I stated, not all fansites are unsuitable for use. As WP:Reliable sources states, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication... The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." That's we (the experienced bunch) base our use of these fansites on. As for NK3play2, I thought NK3play2 was creating articles with sources, such as with Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer.[4] Most users have created such articles with just the lead and plot summary. NK3play2 is creating casting and reception sections and the like, and that what's I mean by him listening to us or at least taking the time to study how the better soap opera couple articles are put together.

Thank you for the offer. And about the infoboxes, I have stated before that we only need one. The American one was created by TAnthony. I know that one British soap infobox was copied from that creation, then expanded. I'm not sure about the others. I also don't know which American soap opera article is most plagued with vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added Todd to my watchlist. Good effort has gone into that article I see. I'm afraid a case is being built agaisnt Bluedog. I think there are even more accounts belonging to him. Did you notice how many good articles we have now? . As for not having it in you, let's see if we can bring some change first to all this disruptive editing. You never know. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 21:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To keep you up to date - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blue Dog97 - Todd's article is now fully protected because of the current situation.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Todd Manning/ Victor Lord Jr. article situation

I propose that as soon as we enough information on the Two Todds storyline we should wait until we create a Victor Lord Jr. profile. I believe we should make one because of the same has been done to the Roman Brady/John Black; Tony DiMera/André DiMera profiles because the storyline between the shows are similar. Jester66 (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there should be seperate articles yet. A list entry would be fine. Just not notable enough at present. As for Andre DiMera, it needs redirecting? What do you think?RaintheOne ^BAM 17:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, should I redirect to Andre to Tony?RaintheOne ^BAM 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jester, waiting would be good. But there will not be enough time for Victor Lord, Jr. to become a notable character, since Trevor St. John will soon be leaving the role. Unless the writers somehow change the story to explain that Roger Howarth is Fake Todd. But it doesn't seem likely that the show will kill off/send away the real Todd and keep a fake one instead. This is part of what I stated at Talk:Todd Manning#Separate articles, where you should also probably weigh in: "He will not be getting his own article because he was Todd Manning for eight years. I'm not seeing what is so different or distinct about that. There is nothing that can be said about Victor Lord, Jr. that does not significantly overlap with Todd Manning. All of his character history up until this point has to do with him being Todd Manning. And he will not have much time to distinguish himself, since St. John will soon be departing from the role. So bottomline is...this character is not notable as an individual character and thus fails WP:Notability. All that needs to be stated about him, really, is that he was thought to be Todd Manning for eight years and why that is. The most he can have is a spot in the One Life to Live miscellaneous characters article. But Danethomasm (who is a sockpuppet of Dane97) redirected him back here[5] after The Real One Returns removed him from the list.[6] I'll ask The Real One Returns to weigh in here and explain why he or she removed Victor Lord, Jr., but I'm guessing it's for the same reason he will not be getting his own article."

Raintheone, you know you didn't he even have to ask me that, LOL. Just looking at them screams "redirect/merge." Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I know. Just double check everything. I'll do it now.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the Tony DiMera/André DiMera situation, the only reason why the Andre one is blank is because whoever started the article didn't bother to finish what they started; but they are different characters so they deserve different pages. Jester66 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a work of fiction. That was Tony all along with procuders in 2007 making a change to the characters backstory. They then established the fact that Andre is a another character - though he didn't stick around did he? So not notable. I'd suggest you do not make anymore edits from the inuniverse perspective - we are not characters in Days...RaintheOne ^BAM 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jester, as I stated at the Todd Manning talk page, which applies to the above examples as well, they don't get separate articles simply because they are different characters. That's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. We go by WP:Notability here. I advise you to read it over, so that you may better understand where Raintheone and I are coming from. Tony DiMera and André DiMera would need to be distinct enough from each other and have third-party reliable sources discussing them as distinct entities to warrant separate articles. Unless a spin-off article was needed due to article size. See WP:SIZE. But even then, there would need to be a justification other than size as to why these two characters have separate articles. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had to cull the Victor section on the misc page. I understand there is a guideline on being bold, so I did it. 38000 bytes for one section. No real world content - It was just a re-hash of Todd's plott and whoever made it didn't bother to remove the character profile for Todd himself. I think a "Others" table would best suit sections having zero real world content. What do you think?RaintheOne ^BAM 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the cutting. In regards to an "Others" section, I'm not sure. Some people want to be pointed right to the characters. As long as people are pointed right to Victor Lord, Jr. instead of having to scan down an Others section for him, it might be fine. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I see you cut all of it. I wouldn't say all of it should be cut. The beginning about how he came to town as Todd is suitable. And then a bit about how after eight years as Todd, he was revealed as a fake should be added. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think we may as well go the whole hog here. It's a tried and tested formula on those lists I posted on Todd's talk. :) I'll start it now, but I do not know the episode airdate that Victor first reveals himself.. that should be his first app date, right? If you know it?

EDIT: Yes I cut it all out, but as you said, any needed detail can be carried over, in the shortest way possible though. I did well to remove the image too, as five images in one list is not allowed.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

St. John debuted on One Life to Live in May 2003 as Walker Laurence. I don't know the exact date. If you mean what day St. John is first revealed as Todd, the Todd Manning#Trevor St. John section documents St. John saying that the audience would definitively know on August 26, 2003 whether or not he was Todd. But he may have been inaccurate about that date. If you mean the day it was revealed that St. John has been a fake Todd all along, that was on August 17, 2011 by his mother (Irene Manning). Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference Overkill discussion at Talk page of Death of Caylee Anthony

Would you please weigh in on this discussion? I have never heard of reference overkill in Wiki guidelines. I have seen many detailed articles about living person such as this with numerous references because sometimes one reference does not say it all. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is something interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive667 Mugginsx (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooredc has initiated a discussion about Death of Caylee Anthony on a noticeboard

Would you like to weigh in? It is about other topics on the article also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS

I don't know what to state about that, Muggins. I'm sure I'll be reported there by her soon, though. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's OK. If so, I will be there to defend you because we do usually disagree on the article. Mugginsx (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean usually agree, LOL? Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You were right

I changed the Roy Kronk testimony and its references. The dates were wrong, the attribution of facts to Kronk were wrong and the references were riduculous. If we had put them in she would have raised the roof. I think it is a matter of her wanting the last word on the references and this article. I was just disgusted at the time and did not want to face a noticeboard. I hate them but thanks to you I got my courage back and my energy to help make this article correct. Mugginsx (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

At first, I was puzzled as to what you say I was right about, but then the last bit of your comment clarified to me that you mean my advice on you not letting her win. I'm glad I could help with that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked for a Consensus Vote on the Death of Caylee Anthony Talk Page

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answer to combining the discussion and voting on all three outline (re-structure) proposals Re:Death of Caylee Anthony

How are we going to discuss and vote on all three proposals at once and in one spot? Wouldn't it better to leave it here and have a seperate section for each proposal so that discussion can be had? I not trying to be argumentative on this but it seems that something as important as a new re-structure of the article (which it basically is) should have more space. So I am going to leave it here and we can create sections for each proposal so they can be discussed (if anyone wants to) and voted on seperately. Upi, above all people should know (because you have had almost as many reins with her as I), that once you allow her outline in she will use not only what is in the bold headlines but what she puts in parenthesis too. She will hold the vote over our head like a hammer and insist she has consensus and if anyone objects she will say her usual thing: Take it to a noticeboard) which, incidentally, thanks to you, I am not longer hesitate to engage in a noticeboard. But that is exactly what she will do. If you give her an inch she will take a mile. She will hold us to each and every word in that outline! (Also put this on the talk page.) Mugginsx (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I ask that you keep this on the article talk page. As I stated there: To me, it's simple. Just state in one section which proposal you prefer or if it's a combination of two or all three. All people have to do is look above to see the proposal, then you have one section where you vote. It's not like I have to cast a vote for each of the proposals. If I prefer one over the others, then that is my vote. I'm not understanding what you mean about "How are we going to discuss and vote on all three proposals at once and in one spot?" or how that is difficult. We use subheadings and section breaks when discussions get long. But we don't need an extra section for discussion of these proposals anyway. We have the above sections for that, which clearly have "and discussion" in their titles. This section could be simply for voting, while the discussions take place above.

I don't mind much either way. I can't say I prefer any proposal except for my own, and it seems we all have problems with all three. I only agree with a basic outline. Meaning no unnecessary subheadings. That is why I'm trying to compromise. It seems only a compromise will work. And Carol cannot use what is italics and parenthesis too, unless WP:Consensus is for it. WP:Consensus is a policy, not a guideline, and she cannot get around that...no matter how many times it is brought up.

I'm leaving for several hours now; I have other things to do at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurately blaming users in edit summaries

At this diff you wrote Carol, do not repeat references in whole like that. Use ref attributes. I explained what they are on the talk page. If you use the whole ref higher, then make sure the others are just attributes.) I don't remember off hand making that edit, and you probably can't show I did. Plus sometimes people add the ref earlier and forget to fix the later one. So please do not assign blame in edit summaries unless you have diffs to prove it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Nothing inaccurate. I wouldn't have stated it if it weren't true. You might want to check the edit history next time. You duplicated the entire reference, as seen here (see Hightower3). I then fixed that here, and complained. I'm tired of editors not knowing how to format/what to do with references. It's time that you and Mugginsx learn. Flyer22 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing diff. I know to do and how to do that, but it was getting late and I guess I got sloppy. But writing a note on an article or personal talk page with a diff is far less antagonistic than making a claim in a edit summary that others aren't going to go out of their way to prove and then one is forced to defend onesself. The bigger problem is Muggins still not doing anything to fill out his/her refs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#User_Name:_ThisLaughingGuyRightHere

Muggins, you don't have to repeat a section here that is posted at that talk page. I'll see it.

Anyway, I'm about to weigh in now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Jayy008's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gillian Andrassy Demotion

Hi Flyer, I noticed today that Gillian Andrassy's page has been redirected to miscellaneous AMC characters. here That's a pretty subjective decision considering she was a principle character contract player for four years. There has also been repeated reinsertion of cut and paste cruft from various soap sites. And yes the cruft is back even though she's now miscellaneous. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the situation if you're wiki laboring on Labor Day.--Wlmg (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the Gillian Andrassy article being redirected for now...because it provided no WP:Notability and I'm currently not interested in providing notability for it or any other soap opera article. As for cruft, it is best that you remove it or downsize it. And of course remove it when it violates WP:COPVIO. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the notability issue is true. Last year I scoured the google news archives and only came up with one newspaper article about Ryan and Gillian. I shall restore it because oddly someone deleted it whilst "improving" the article.--Wlmg (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comments. I Honestly haven't made a whole lot of edits because I'm reluctant to climb into "discussions" (there's a loaded word here) without a pretty good reason and some facts to back them up. I agree very much with the New Yorker article on Wikipedia a while ago that the site seems to degenerate into a tyrran of the loudest and most persistent. Regarding the serial killers article, I recognize the points of view of the radicals I ran into in graduate school, and how everything was seen through the filters of their idiology. One article I'm tryng to work on is the article on the Delage automobile, which is a terrible mess posted directly from a (bad) French translation program. I'll look at the materials you mentioned. Thanks very much. (Written with a nasty old keyboard I need to replace)

Sincerely,

Andacar--Andacar (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and you're welcome. I understand your reluctance. That atmosphere you have seen at this site is a big part of why I recently stated that I will be leaving it (see above). Some days, I feel that I may always be a Wikipedian, but other times...

Anyway, I will make sure to remember to look for a specific name for that quote at the Serial killer article. I think I already know who stated that about female serial killers, since I added one of the sources that I think includes it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22 to a courtesy telephone?

Flyer22 to a courtesy telephone, please, thank you? 17:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I'll be right there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Exposure

Talkback Pass a Method talk 08:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know to respond back. If I don't respond back immediately, it's because I am off Wikipedia or have nothing more to say. In this case, I was off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill GA nomination

I am nominated it ASAP, I'm letting you know as you wanted to make a few changes beforehand? Jayy008 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Led Zepellin thing is so notable, no source anywhere? Jayy008 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if it were notable, there'd be a source? As you know, I removed it because it was not sourced. I'm not interested in sourcing it, and don't know if there is a source for it because I haven't looked. If there is one, the person who added it should have sourced it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if the information is true. But if a source could be found, then it's definitely notable. I had no idea how much was unsourced. There's a lot of work needed on the page. Jayy008 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, which is exactly why I asked you to give me a heads up before you nominated it for GA. I didn't see it as ready. But with the cleanup we are doing now, it should be fine to nominate it. More cleanup will likely be done in the GA review anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have checked it out first. I've nominated it anyway. Then at least we'll have a list of exactly what needs doing. Jayy008 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes - Feel free to revert if you feel to. There's lots of quotations in the Murray and Burton section without actual speech marks, any idea why? Jayy008 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about "speech marks"...unless you mean quotation marks. Every quote has quotation marks, except the two blockqotes. Quotation marks aren't supposed to be in blockquotes or quote boxes. Doing so is redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know they aren't supposed to be used. Jayy008 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree about the WB/CW thing, I think for current information, your suggestion sounds better. What wouldn't you want to change on the L.Scott and P.Sawyer pages for them to be GA? Jayy008 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We've also got to cut down the over-linking. Isn't the limit one per article, or two at a stretch? I think Chad is highlighted about 5 times. Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you want the final season renewal section back? I have been thinking and maybe it's notable. It can be different to the season 9 page as we can add information and all the aspects suggestions S8 would be its last, last minute contract renewals and series-ending finale. Jayy008 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

&, there's a new message for you on the OTH discussion page. Jayy008 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayy, about the Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer articles, Lucas Scott is simply not GA material. It needs more real-world detail (casting, character creation, impact). I can't recall if there is any GA article with such little real-world material, but I don't believe that there is. And if there is, the article was most likely promoted to GA status before the GA and FA processes became as strict as they are now. That's the only thing I'd add more of to that article -- real-world impact. In the case of building a Wikipedia article about any fictional character, there's the matter of if such material is available. You see how the other One Tree Hill characters don't have enough notability to build an article that is worthy of GA status? The Peyton Sawyer article? Yes, she has more casting and creation detail. I was lucky to find that information so that I could expand her article. But I am still iffy on nominating her for GA status. The main complaint would probably be cutting down on the plot detail, but that is not something I feel needs to be significantly cut down. It could use some more cutting, sure, but I already significantly cut it down to Overview, Early seasons, Missing years and Final seasons (just like I did with the Lucas Scott article).

As for overlinking, see Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links for when repeated links are okay.

I have no preference as to whether or not a Final season section should be added. I would wait until the GA review has begun, though. Ask the GA reviewer about it.

In the meantime, try to spot any dead links. They can usually be "repaired" through Internet Archive, instead of just being replaced with a whole new reference. We should also put any bare urls into citation templates. I saw one editor just recently add a bare url as a source, which made me cringe. I'll be leaving soon for several hours, because I don't like to spend my whole day on Wikipedia anymore. Just spending half of the day on it irks me. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and to be honest, I may actually redirect Nathan Scott, Haley James Scott and Brooke Davis soon. There just isn't information available. I know it's not going to go down well, though. With the Peyton article, I could nominate it and if the reviewers asks for too many changes, I will withdraw it. Without having to look at the "repeated links" page, are the ones okay for now? I will go through the article anyway. About the bare url's, they annoy me. I will look through tomorrow. I'm also off now, it's the end of the day here and I feel like I've been on too long as well. At least we've been productive lol. I will be back tomorrow to go through some more, but I think it's nearly ready. The GA process takes horrendously look these days. Jayy008 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is real-world information out there for the Nathan Scott, Haley James Scott and Brooke Davis articles, but I haven't been too interested in looking. I became busy with a lot of other things on Wikipedia, and left those articles to you. Remember, you wondered where I got all the material for the Lucas and Peyton articles and then I pointed you in the right direction. There are a lot of things these actors have stated about their characters. It's also easy to get reception information from any reliable source site that is speaking of any of these characters, not just the show as a whole. These characters, just like Lucas, still don't equal GA status to me, though. Not unless there is significant detail about how these characters were created. There doesn't have to be much in the Reception section, although there should at least be two paragraphs, but character creation is crucial for achieving GA status for a Wikipedia fictional character article.

From what I know... You can't nominate the Peyton Sawyer article, have the GA reviewer (it's just one, by the way) begin the process and then withdraw on that reviewer. All that will get the article is a fail. You would have to do what the GA reviewer asks, unless it's not a demand but rather a suggestion, or come up with a good alternative.

Moving back to the topic of the One Tree Hill article, I haven't studied the repeated links in the article. Just click on the link I gave above; it's not a long read, and it will help you understand when it is okay to repeat a link. As for references, the last part of the Sponsors section needs to be sourced. I already removed one passage due to it being backed to a dead link (though dead links typically shouldn't be removed, per WP:DEADLINK), and I removed a second dead link from the section as well. This source (currently reference 77) in the U.S. television ratings section needs to be replaced. Looking for it at Internet Archive brings up something about crawl time error. So it can't be "repaired." Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've looked so much for that information, but I can't find it. I guess I can't redirect now I know the information exists - I just have to wait to see if somebody else does it. I will think about the Peyton Sawyer article, but cutting to much is something I'm also not willing to do as I think it damages quality. So if it can't be repaired we just have to leave it? Jayy008 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, would you have any problems if I cut the plot section completely and made it a series synopsis? Exactly like Smallville. I'd need a little help, though. And would you like any help with archiving as I've noticed your page is becoming long. Jayy008 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayy, you can look at fansites like onetreehillweb.net and othfans.com, or even fansites for the actors; they have casting information, interviews/exclusive interviews, etc. Yes, you cannot use any of these sites as a source...unless it is an actor's official site or the interview was given exclusively to the site, but you can use the information they provide you with. If they provide you with the title, author (or no author), date, etc., you can use that information. Sometimes, they even provide a url to the online interviews...which was the case with this USA Today source that I got for Hilarie Burton/Peyton from a fansite. It was that simple. Regarding fictional character articles being ready for GA status, see what was stated about the Buffy Summers article -- in the Pre-GA review discussion -- when someone tried to nominate it in 2010. There is more I'd want to add to the Peyton Sawyer article before nominating it for GA. What would that be, aside from more to the lead and a bit more in the Reception section? I don't know. I'd have to look over the sources. And the only thing the GA reviewer would ask for when it comes to cutting away material would be some of the plot (which is understandable) and/or maybe the image that shows Peyton bleeding out during the school shooting (which could be considered "decorative"). I can't say that the Peyton Sawyer article is ready for GA status.

About dead links, WP:DEADLINK infoms you what to do. If it cannot be repaired, find a replacement. Sometimes a source cannot be replaced, and I guess the person is just out of luck in that instance. But are you going to take care of the dead link I cited above and the end of the Sponsors section?

I'd rather the Plot section not be cut. It's not too long, and just like film articles have a plot section summarizing the events of a film, I feel that television articles should have a plot section summarizing the events of the seasons. I know that we have an article for each season of this show, but I don't feel that readers should have to go to every one of those articles to get a summary of this information. Unless the GA reviewer mentions something about the plot needing downsizing, I wouldn't worry about it. And even then, I'd only downsize it. Not turn it into a simple synopsis. I really don't see how a simple synopsis would do this show justice, given how much it has continually changed from its original format. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And, LOL, no help needed in archiving. I know how to archive, as shown at the top of this talk page. I can just sometimes be lazy about doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and see the Lost (TV series)#Synopsis for how a Synopsis section can exist as a summary of the seasons. That is about how that Synopsis section was back when it was a featured article. It was demoted in August 2010, and that relatively small plot material had nothing to do with it. For the Plot section in the One Tree Hill article, I suggest cutting away some of the information for the seventh season and then splitting each season back up into its own paragraph. The paragraphs are relatively short, and the separation makes for easier reading.

I'll be back in some hours. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll change the plot section back and make the changes you suggested tomorrow. Jayy008 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're done with the main article now. Willing to help do the Brooke Davis article in a couple of weeks or so? :P Jayy008 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayy, we still have those two things to take care of that I mentioned here and on the article talk page. Have you tried to find a source to replace that dead link? Or sources for the unsourced part of the Sponsors section. A GA reviewer will bring these two things up, so it's best that we take care of it now. I'll do it when I get back. And I'm really not up for significantly improving any character article, but I'll think about improving Brooke Davis since I know you need help with it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will try and source the sponsers part. Which number link exactly needs replacing, sorry? And thank you RE B.Davis, I think if we do one together, like OTH main, it will help me be able to do Nathan Scott and Haley James Scott as well. Jayy008 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I already took care of the sourcing for the Sponsors section. Didn't you see from your watchlist? When speaking of what happened in an episode, all you have to do is source that information to the episode. The Maxim magazine part needed backup about the spread being a real-life spread, though, and so I added a Maxim source for that. I removed the bit about Macy's "win a walk-on role" competition because I didn't feel like looking for a source for it. And it can be added back later.

As for the dead link, I removed it since it cannot be replaced through Internet Archive...which of course also means it's no longer reference 77. So, right now, Season 1 is unsourced in the U.S. television ratings section. If you wait until the GA review starts, and the reviewer brings it up, I will leave sourcing it to you. Just like the Sponsors section, I left sourcing the dead link up to you because I don't go around sourcing ratings for episodes or even know the best place to start. And because I'd already fixed and/or tweaked enough other things. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it in my watch-list after I replied. Here the link for the Macey's thing. Here's a ref for the season 1 ratings, is it allowed? Which one do you mean from the sponsors section? It's nearly 11PM here, so I won't be adding these sources tonight, but I will definitely two them within 48 hours. Jayy008 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, both are allowed. The first one is a reliable source blog. The second is a reliable Google Books source. I don't know what you mean about the Sponsors section. As I stated, there isn't anything that needs to be sourced in it anymore. If you mean the dead link, it was the Season 1 part in the ratings wikitable; it's currently unsourced, because, like I stated, I removed the dead link. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've sourced that ratings and added the MACY'S part back, will you check over the wording to see if you have any objections? And do you think it would be good to put a copy of this discussion on the articles talk-page as I've been mainly posting here regarding our partnership on the article. Jayy008 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked a couple of typos and the formatting. Other than that, it was fine. And currently is fine. There is no need to transport this discussion to the article talk page. The GA reviewer will see that we worked together from the edit history and the most recent discussion on the talk page. He or she won't likely care anyway. I understand about wanting this discussion there as representation of what was done getting the article ready for GA status, but I don't care much either way. If you want to transport it there just for document sake, then go ahead. Make sure to leave a note at the top about the discussion being transported from my talk page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I'm fine, I only wandered if the GA reviewers would prefer it. I can't find a source for the first seasons chart rank — #173 — Any luck yourself? Jayy008 (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I only see that Season 1's rank is missing. Season 9 is missing because it hasn't started yet, of course. Like I stated, I don't go around sourcing ratings for episodes; the same goes for season ranks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

sexual orientation in a lab

Here's a horrible item I won't add to an article because I don't know enough context for Wikipedia or for which article to consider it: gay-to-het conversion via brain electrodes, albeit only one case long ago with incomplete effect (and at the moment I suspect it belongs nowhere unless it's illustrative of something or historically important), in Linden, David J., The Compass of Pleasure: How Our Brains Make Fatty Foods, Orgasm, Exercise, Marijuana, Generosity, Vodka, Learning, and Gambling Feel So Good (N.Y.: Viking, [1st printing?] 2011 (ISBN 978-0-670-02258-8)), pp. 11–15, citing Moan, C. E., & Robert Galbraith Heath, Septal Stimulation For the Initiation of Heterosexual Behavior in a Homosexual Male, in Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, v. 3 (1972), pp. 23–30. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The only Wikipedia articles I can see this information going in are the Sexual orientation change efforts or Conversion therapy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Fusion Cosmetics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fusion Cosmetics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Cosmetics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All My Children finale

Hi Flyer22,

I apologize for being only an IP address; I've contributed to Wikipedia a handful of times through the years, but I've never created an account. In any event, if you watch the finale, you will clearly hear a gunshot at the end of the episode. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-C8mGZ58eo&feature=related for the last couple of scenes. The gunshot occurs just after the screen darkens.

Regards,

NPS 184.36.88.15 (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Doug Ross and Carol Hathaway

Hey, man

I know that Doug Ross and Carol Hathaway on ER are the supercouple, judging by their chemistry and the positive reception from it. Maybe we should find the realible source to list them as the supercouple.BattleshipMan (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:Reliable source calling them a supercouple, then go for it. Are you coming to me because you aren't quite sure what a reliable source is? I can't explain it any better than the link to it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand. It might take me awhile to find WP:Reliable source to call Doug and Carol a supercouple. I see what I can do when I have time. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Scott

I have made some changes to the Nathan Scott article, at the bottom. I was curious if you'd take a look just to tell me if I'm going on the wright lines? Also those OTH fansites haven't got a search box either. Jayy008 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to have a little go as I found some interviews, I will not continue his article until we've finished on the main series page. I will tackle Brooke Davis next. I didn't realize how easy it was to find certain things, but casting information is the hardest. Also, cutting down the storylines section like you did with Scott and Saywer, how long did that take? I'm off for the evening now, but back tomorrow. Jayy008 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a search bar. You see the options at the top or at the side of these sites? Those are the keys. Take onetreehillweb.net, for example. At the top of that site, its Media section is right there for you to click on. Once you click on the Media section, you'll see articles. Sometimes they have url links to those online articles. Sometimes they don't. When they don't, you can still use the information that onetreehillweb.net has provided you with. Just cite it without a url. If you do have a url and it is a dead link, just go to Internet Archive and see if you can get an archived copy. The Media section also has options at the top, which take you to more articles. Some are exclusive interviews. And as you know... In the case of exclusive interviews, those are the only times you can actually source information to these fansites...because these fansites are the places the actors did the interviews with. Onetreehillweb.net is the only One Tree Hill fansite I used to gather information for the Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer articles, unless you count cwtv.com as a fansite. They (Onetreehillweb.net) pointed me to other fansites for the actors, which provided me with more article information. That is what I mean about it having been that easy to get this information.

What you are doing with the Nathan Scott article is good, though you need to make sure to keep the headings in line with WP:Manual of Style. That's why I made this edit. I prefer that creation and casting sections come first. You don't have to follow me on that, but it would be best if the articles were kept uniform. The same goes for the plot summaries. I didn't cut much from the Lucas and Peyton plot summaries. I cut some things, yes, but I mostly organized the material under fewer subheadings. Do that with the other articles as well (the same subheadings I used for the Lucas and Peyton articles), and cut what you think needs cutting from the plot. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of that, I will get to work on the N.Scott article properly tomorrow. Jayy008 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made some more changes, I just want to gradually do it, or it'll drive me crazy. I think what I want to do next is sort out the storylines section, I think once that's done the article will be shorter and easy to manager. I want to try and find some more about "Naley", is that OK in the development section where I've got it all now? Also, how do I collapse to relationship section of the infobox? Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. I've shortened season one and plan to merge the sections eventually, could you tell me if I've worded it OK and it's seems alright? This is the only character article I will keep asking about, once it's done, I will do the other two myself. Jayy008 (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Will you be using the same subheadings for the plot summary as is used for the Lucas and Peyton articles? Also, from what I see, the plot summary in the Nathan Scott is short enough now. But no matter what, none of the headings should have One Tree Hill in their title. Not unless the name is referring to the town or was used for a book in the show...and the season is somewhat about that...for example. Otherwise, the title of the show shouldn't be in the heading. Leaving it as Role or as Storyline or Storylines is fine, though I prefer one of the latter two (which is standard).

Yes, having the Naley information is fine, just as there is information about the development of the Lucas and Peyton/Broke and Lucas relationships in the Lucas Scott article. I left most of that information in the One Tree Hill article, though, because it is very relevant there and doesn't need to be copied to same degree in all four articles. You will need to change Infobox soap character 3 to Infobox soap character to get the collapsible infobox. If you look at the top of the article, you will see that Infobox soap character 3 is up for deletion...and with good reason. It was needlessly created by Wren Valmont. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, about the "Role in One Tree Hill" that was the header I got from the link you showed me? I've updated the infobox now so that's a great help. PS. Not to sounds like I'm "bitching" about other users but Wren Valmont is really irritating me, constantly making big changes to articles and ignoring everything anybody says. Jayy008 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, this is how I've written a piece of information at the season 9 page: At the Television Critics Association summer press tour, president of entertainment at The CW, Mark Pedowitz said "At this point it's the final 13," about the possibility of extending the season. He added, "You never want to say never," revealing that he did speak to executive producer Mark Schwahn and that they agreed that 13 episodes is the best number to close the series with. Seem OK? It is, however extremely similar to the source. Anything you'd change? Jayy008 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wren Valmont needs to be brought to the attention of some noticeboard here. And that text looks fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Yes, the user does but they've been quiet for the last few days, so it seems okay for now. I must get to the article again soon, I've just been so busy in real life. I aim to have it finished by 2012 (not being sarcastic or anything). Jayy008 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Soap

Hey can you do us a favour? You know the result of the consensus on the talk page of WP:SOAPS? Could you add the statement that we decided we do not need sources somewhere in the projects guidelines please?RaintheOne ^BAM 11:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

TAnthony formatted all the guidelines/rules for Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. It would be best to ask him about this and point him to the discussion. He's hardly on Wikipedia these days, but you could email him. He pops up sporadically now, but I still feel that it's best to run this by him first. I don't see why a line about this is needed, though. Like I stated at the project, references usually aren't required for any plot summary. But there are instances where they may be required, such as in the case of the type of plot summary displayed by the Pauline Fowler article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Asexuality

I'm totally interested in asexuality, if you have links to studies proving that it is a sexual orientation I would love to know about them an read them. And why you say that the psychological community see asexuality as sexual orientation? You have links to prove that too? To my knowledge, asexuality doesn't fit the sexual orientation definition, you need sexual attraction to fir that definition. An asexual with little sexual attraction can fit it, but an asexual with no attraction would not fit that definition. Kinda like babies, fetus and children before puberty don't have sexual attraction for humans and they can't be diagnosed with a sexual orientation, if you don't have a sexual drive for some one else, then you can't have a sexual orientation. Though i think is possible to be autosexual, though I never hear of anyone that is like that (self masturbation doesn't count to be as autosexual) Also, you know sexologist editors? Where can I find them? I would love to chat with them about my theories and other stuff.Alusky (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Alusky, don't bring this to my talk page. When I said that your repeated effort to get zoosexuality deemed a sexual orientation in the main article and template is both tiring and unproductive at Template talk:Sexual orientation, I meant it. What makes you think I'd want to discuss this any further with you, when all you do is state your opinion and "personal research" that zoosexuality should be listed as a sexual orientation...even though it goes against everything the psychological community has to say about it? Your definition of sexual orientation isn't even supported, and your assertion that homosexuality is abnormal also goes against everything the mainstream psychological community has to say about it. Your assertion that "children before puberty don't have sexual attraction for humans" is also categorically false. Though it needs work, take a look at the Child sexuality article. Many people, who were never sexually abused, report having had a sexual fantasy about an adult (like a celebrity, etc.) when they were a prepubescent child, and that they knew they were straight or gay even then. And about asexuality, I'm just going to repeat what I said there: You can say asexuality is not a sexual orientation all you want, but it has been recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community. Not being sexually attracted to a person does not make it any less of a sexual orientation. It has to do with sexual intimacy and biological sex/gender attraction just like the other sexual orientations do; it is an orientation that encompasses little to no sexual attraction. "Sexual" is put in front of "orientation" because it has to do with a sexual direction. Asexuality deals with a sexual direction that is recognized as a sexual orientation. It also deals with romantic aspects just like the other sexual orientations. A lot of people consider asexuality abnormal, yes, but it is still recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community. There is nothing you can do about that.

And now for an update: Sexual orientation is not only about sexual attraction but romantic attraction as well. Most asexuals have romantic attractions to whichever sex/gender. You want studies calling asexuality a sexual orientation? There is a source in the Sexual orientation article (first located in the lead) that we use to assert that asexuality has recently been recognized as a sexual orientation based on studies. And there are more in the Asexuality article, some of which show asexuality was recognized as a sexual orientation before "recently." Though asexuality has been studied far less than the other sexual orientations (heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality), when researchers do discuss it...they almost always designate it under "sexual orientation"...either by their own definition or by the participants' (see page 349). Contrast that to zoosexuality, which is almost always designated under "paraphilia," no matter if the individual were to describe it as a sexual orientation. All of this is what I mean by "has been recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community."

Yes, I know (or rather "know of") sexologists who are Wikipedia editors. I get some of my information from them. The most notable is Dr. James Cantor. But I'm not sure that Cantor would like to discuss your theories/beliefs. He's extremely busy. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2011 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Fusion campaign promotional image.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fusion campaign promotional image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Soap Operas alert

As a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, and in accordance with the appropriate notification in deference to canvassing, I am alerting your attention to several current discussions for deletion pertaining to soap opera characters. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Some of these characters need to be deleted. But some are notable and can likely be built into decent or good, or even great, articles. I will weigh in on some of this later. Flyer22 (talk)

Why does Pedophile Activism redirect to Age of Consent Reform?

Why? It sounds like a watered down synonym for something which is a little more than simple age of consent. Typical Busybody (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that it redirects there because there is no other article that best represents the topic. Pedophiles are big supporters of lowering the age of consent. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reality cheque?

Say, F22, might you cast your eyes over here for a moment? I am not canvassing or asking you to participate in the discussion one way or another — if and how you choose to do so is up and down to you. But I could do with a bit of a reality check. D'you reckon my creation of a humourous little template for lulz, marked from the beginning as humourous, was out of bounds or over the line, and therefore it needs to be deleted and the nominator is on the right track here? Or does it look like we have a zealot or an adminship-seeker lookin' to rack up a contribution count here? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Scheinwerfermann. I am very busy right now, but I will make sure to weigh in on this matter later today or tomorrow. Can you hold on until then? Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lina Medina

I disagree with this edit coz the source says menarche started at 3 years old. Do you mind pointing out here it says 8 and a half months? Pass a Method talk 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First, my edit changed it to "eight months of age," not "8 and a half months." Second, you must have missed this information in the source. The source says "A medical history revealed that she had been having regular periods since age 3." But in the next paragraph, it says "In addition to amending the age at which Lina began menstruating (to an incredible 8 months), Escomel submitted a photograph of the gravid 5 ½-year-old:.." That means Escomel discovered that Medina had began menstruating much earlier than 3 years of age and documented this discovery. "Having regular periods since age 3" doesn't necessarily mean that's when she began menstruating anyway. It could simply mean that her periods have been regular since that age, exactly what it says. And, according to Escomel, that appears to have been the case. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Picker78 Sockpuppet?

On the Masturbation talk page you asked to be notified if anything related to Picker78 and his sockpuppetry (he had created Lonesome Warrior). I suspect he's at it again with the new name of Foot Hunter. A "new" user suddenly decides to edit only the non-penetrative sex article and then edits the masturbation article changing this away from masturbation (or putting it in quotes since it isn't "real") and references non-penetrative sex? Seems highly suspicious to me... Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll check it out and will certainly revert when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Secret Circle"

I like it the way you've done it. But before with the recurring characters in bullet points—it was messy. Jayy008 (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. Bullet points for Cast sections have become standard, though. That, and in two or three other instances, is the only time I can accept bullet points. Otherwise, they seem unencyclopedic to me. We talked about bullet points on the One Tree Hill (TV series) talk page, and what I stated about not typically liking them stands. So I understand your not wanting to use them at all. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind as much if it's limited. It's just certain times I don't. How you've made the page now, I don't think I'd mind that with bullet points. Jayy008 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Virginity

Hello! I wanted to alert you about changes I made on the Virginity page since they, essentially, undid a change you made. My thought is that sexual morality is a distinct, but potentially related, concept to religious views of sexuality/virginity. Therefore, I restored the original subject headings. However, I moved the {{main||Religion and sexuality}} tag down under the Religious Views section since it fit there better. If you agree, no action is required (and the page can be left as it stands), but since you took the time to change it in the first place I wanted to notify you so you could have another look. Thanks and glad to work with you. SocratesJedi | Talk 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SocratesJedi. Nice to meet you. I'll reply here and then copy and paste this discussion to the Virginity talk page. I would rather changes about the article take place there.

In short, I was obviously trying to find the best layout with the headings.[7][8] The version you reverted to just looks "off" to me. What I changed it to did not look much better, but my point is that there was no need for separation. I included religious views under the heading Sexual morality and social norms because religious views have to do with sexual morality, even some perception of social norms, as can be seen from reading the religion sections. These religions regard certain sexual activities to be moral or sinful, etc. So sexual morality is not "potentially related." It is related. Therefore, I am not understanding your objection, except for maybe that second edit (shown above). Thus, I ask the following: Why should the Sexual morality and social norms section be its own section, as separate from religion? I mean, if the section were ever significantly expanded, it would include religious views anyway. It partially already does.

Personally, I don't like the heading "Sexual morality and social norms," which is a rather new heading, by the way. The "social norms" part of the heading should be dropped. The "In culture" section (meaning its subsections as well), for example, is also about social norms. From what I can see, the morality heading should simply be titled Sexual morality. And of course things that encompass sexuality morality should go under it. One of those things is undoubtedly religion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Using Book as Source

For the article of Kate Roberts (Days of our Lives), I found the online version of the Days of our Lives history book, which confirms that Kate was actually the head of Anesthesiology at Salem hospital back in the 1970s when Bill Horton had the affair with her which conceived her son Lucas. I want to use it as a source but the template to use a book as a source seems very complicated and I don't want to do it wrong. Can you help me with this if you know how? If you can then here is the page link: http://books.google.com/books?id=WwI5PzDiIKcC&pg=PA92&dq=Dr.+Kate+Winograd&hl=en&ei=JCK7TsHMNoLy0gGm8-XfCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dr.%20Kate%20Winograd&f=false --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 01:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not that complicated at all. I can see how it would appear to be, looking at Template:Cite book. But, really, it's as easy as looking at the following example taken from the Todd Manning article:

<ref name="books.google.com">{{cite book | author = Jennifer Hayward | title = Consuming Pleasures: Active Audiences and Serial Fictions from Dickens to Soap Opera | chapter= Case Study: Redeeming the rapist | chapterurl = http://books.google.com/books?id=ykYR8nzIR0YC&pg=RA1-PA174&dq=Todd+Manning+rape&output=html|isbn =081312025X|publisher=University Press of Kentucky|year=1997|pages=174–183 |accessdate=2010-03-29}}</ref>

If you plan on using the reference more than once in the article, then choose a ref name. See Repeated citations. Above, you can see that I chose "books.google.com," which isn't good because any citation from Google Books can be called that. This is also why the Todd article currently has different variations of that ref name, which I'll fix later. But moving on: All you have to do is fill in the information. You get this information by clicking on the "About this book" link in the source and scrolling all the way to end of the page. There, you will be provided with the author's name, title of the book, etc. You don't have to include the "chapter" field, and can shorten "chapterurl" to just "url." Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

diffs for ID

In case you don't follow your talk page by following its consecutive diffs, the poster who very recently chose to attack you personally (the attack was deleted) also indicated a plan to change identities and use a proxy, giving you evidence for a future case, if needed. (Following diffs is how I follow most of what's on my watchlist and with a talk page I continue on and off till archiving.) Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I keep up with diffs on my talk page. The personal attack diffs by that editor have been wiped away, but they are currently still viewable at the Homosexuality article talk page; I'm sure that those will be wiped away in time as well (sooner or later). I'd already seen the IP's response, but decided to just leave Wikipedia during that time and do something that relaxes me. It was only bait, and more so showed that I was the stronger debater. That some people resort to insults when they feel they are losing or have lost an argument is nothing new. But I did think that maybe I'd be one of those editors who, despite working in hot/controversial topics, never had to have their page and/or talk page locked due to a chagrined IP or registered user. I mean, I knew it would likely happen one day. But, yeah...

Thanks for the concern. I guess that I should be appreciative that the attacks didn't happen earlier this year when I was in a very bad emotional state, for I may have let the part of the comment about "hoping I die" get to me. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I haven't received a capital sentence yet. With your concern about some months ago, I guess the better choices are to either lock out the bad part of the world (even if somewhat imprecisely) or embrace living dangerously. I've gone winter backpacking solo where a farmer I passed told me 14" of snow had fallen the night before. Someone told me to take a group trip first with some established group for learning and I declined. I read and prepared a lot and slowly. I backpacked more clothing than I used and I was warm, ate and slept well, and had fun taking my life in my hands up to 3 days at a time. I eventually gave away most of the equipment, literature, and so on but kept the value of meeting the self-challenge. With Wikipedia, you could slip around the various projects and post to Wikiquote, Wikisource, Commons (a good excuse for trying your hand on a camera), and some of the rest, where the audiences and editor cohorts are smaller and, in my experience, less intense and less often present; meanwhile, you could build quite a body of content before anyone wails. And there's the non-Wikimedia world of media in which you need publishers' permission to get your articles printed but once printed no one changes your stuff: a world that's different but also fun. At times. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed hearing about your story, Nick. I like adventure, and it sounds like you had quite the one. I think I'll mainly stay at Wikipedia, until I really give myself that push to leave it for good. I'm not interested in using Wikiquote or the other related Wikis out there, but I might give one or two of them a chance to become a hobby. But, yes, thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Megan Fox

Hello Flyer22. Please keep in mind that the lead section should establish notability of the topic. Fox is notable for her film roles and sex symbol status, but not so much on her personal life. Regarding your claim that other GA AND FA articles have leads which include the addition of personal life (Pitt and Jolie), they are very notable for their high-profile relationships. Their personal life has attracted significant publicity which is why the lead mentions this. On the other hand, Leonardo DiCaprio has dated actresses such as Blake Lively, although this is not mentioned in the lead because it does not establish his notability. The same situation goes for Tina Fey who is married to Jeff Richmond. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your edits, and I see your point about the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles. Not a claim, as you can see. And though I have seen other Wikipedia biography articles include personal life information in their leads without there being any kind of opinion on removing it, it is no doubt that, in some of these cases, it is because those things are notable or are aspects of the person's life that have been significantly discussed in reliable sources. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio's environmentalism is not only a part of his personal life but has also received significant praise.

I will not challenge you on this any further, although I still do believe that a person's personal life should be summarized in the lead in some form...seeing as I feel that leads should adequately summarize a topic. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Message of 22nd March

You left a message on my talk page back then. I'm sorry I didn't reply: I just haven't been very active on the Wikipedia as of late. I suspect the subject matter has long ceased to be relevant, but this is just an apology. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's ceased to be relevant. Could always come up again if that editor decides to reemerge under a different IP or user name, but he has surprisingly kept his word thus far about dropping it.

Anyway, thanks for the apology. I understand that some people aren't as active on Wikipedia as they once were (that sometimes includes me), and definitely about being busy in off-Wiki life. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I noticed in this edit you leave a comma after, almost, every, two, words. All those commas are incorrect grammer. You should probably rremove some to make it readable Pass a Method talk 00:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You must not have looked at my edits close enough. If you had, you would know that what you criticize me for is not my text. This is the version that was there. In the edit you criticize me for, the only text that is mine is the word "may" and the alteration of "The most" to "A" for this line: "A common definition for the onset of puberty is physical changes to a person's body."

Secondly, I do not see a comma after almost every two words; nor do I see the grammar issue that you do. Look at the lines that have commas in them. "establishing population normal standards, clinical care of early or late pubescent individuals, etc. and "These physical changes are the first visible signs of neural, hormonal, and gonadal function changes." Care to explain why commas don't belong in those spots?

Third, here is some friendly advice from me: You should not add bare references to articles, as you did here. See WP:Bare URLs. Also, for WP:MED articles like this one, news sources are not the best. I use them sometimes as well, but we should typically use scholarly/science-journal sources, or sources like WebMD or MedlinePlus. News sources are more likely to be wrong about medical issues, unless featuring responses from experts. Even then, certain experts may not be the best to weigh in on whatever matter they are being sourced to. You should be more careful to look out for already existing sources in an article. There are already sources in the Puberty article about how puberty has begun earlier each generation. This can be found in the Historical shift section. Although, yes, I see a news source there as well (BBC News). Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

re Sexual fetishism, and sidenote about Rind et al. controversy

Hi Flyer. It's always good to see your byline and I'm glad you're active, hope everything is going well for you. Yes I did see your long engagement at Talk:Pedophilia. I will look at at Sexual fetishism soonest. If you think it's a sock you should report him. (Possibly it's time for you to consider getting your admin degree?)

In return, maybe you could take a peek at Rind et al. controversy and give me your take on what's going on there. I know the editor has been making some changes there and I haven't had the desire to really look at it, I will eventually I guess. I quick scan leads me to believe that the edits are basically OK I guess. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just popping in to say I saw the issue myself and put in a semi-protect request that was just granted for 2 days. Also, with Rind, I have pushed the matter through to the higher-ups on 12/7. No reply yet. I'm currently staying off that one until I get a response.Legitimus (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

the other anon is wrong! i just gave my response on the discussion page. i was edit warring, but i was justified. 107.20.1.111 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I appreciate it.

Herostratus, Radvo has me nervous. As an IP pointed out, Radvo has this page listed on his user page. That site (mhamic.org), as you know, is most often frequented by pedophilic and pederastic men. Radvo also talks about linking to NAMBLA in a way that seems to suggest that he thinks NAMBLA would provide good information on this issue. Looking at the revert of his edits, they aren't too bad...but I don't like them either. I don't agree with the stuff he has suggested that we cut out. We'll see what the higher-ups Legitimus notified have to say. I want to assume good-faith, but my gut tells me that Radvo is not a new user. And if he is of the same belief as those who are a part of NAMBLA, he really should not be editing this article. As Legitimus stated, Wikipedia used to try and be open to the idea of letting admitted pedophiles and pederastic men edit Wikipedia's pedophile and child sexual abuse articles, but that changed for good reason. Now such suspected or admitted individuals are blocked and/or banned on the spot. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. Well, rather than spending much time on it, my inclination is to let it play out and then, if it plays out as I suspect it will, maybe just restore the article to how it was before and take if from there, maybe. I'd say that that link on his userpage is probably not OK, but rather than engaging him on that issue I'm inclined to see how the larger issue plays out. I expect that he'll be encouraged to contribute to other web sites rather then the Wikipedia. If not, we'll take if from there. It looks like the Pedophilia and Age of Consent articles are under control now, if I'm reading things correctly. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, Herostratus, and Legitimus: I hope I can calm your nervousness. It is not my intention to make you nervous with what I posted on my user page. My intention was to improve the Wikipedia article about the Rind controversy, and to give it a more balanced and neutral point of view. I will respond to the concerns you express in your message above. I had this page on my user page. When I saw this morning that all of my work had been redacted because of that link, my first reaction was to place the IPCE Rind controversy website on there, too, so the permissibilty of both websites might be decided at the same time. Then I decided that this policy could be decided just as well if my user page were blanked, so I then erased it all. It is not my intention to be provicative. I was alarmed to read that Herostratus says that the link on my uerspage is probably not okay. How was I supposed to know that? Where is that stated? I made the point in the TALK page that people are banished for violating rules that they don't know about. This is a rule I did not know about. It is not important that anything be on my user page at this time.

This issue of what I may post to my user page might be clarified for all. This can be decided in time while my user page is blanked/empty. I actually didn't realize that that page with its link was even visible to all; I thought I was bookmarking that link on a private personal work page for my own future use. It is only today that I realize that everyone has access to almost everything, including my personal user page with that link on it. I thought this page was for my personal use, and didn't realize that the link on there would be controversial. Maybe you have this MHAMic page confused with another MHAMic resource page that some editors on the Rind page feel should be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. I can live with that, too.

Can you cite any policy that I should be aware of regarding User pages? Both the MHAMic and IPCE have huge amounts of material about the same Rind et al. controversy, but in a somewhat different way. They are, IMHO, useful resources for me and for other Wikipedia editors of the Rind page. I am not using them as a Source to verify anything. I think of these web-links like bookmarks, to give easy access the sources and information. If these web-links violate any policy of Wikipedia, I was completely unaware of this and eager to come immediately into compliance of Wikipedia policy. As stated above, I thought this page was for my personal reference, and did not realize that others would see it. Then I thought I would put the IPCE site on there, too, to have it clarified whether that site is okay, too. Then I thought the policy can be clarified without anything on my user page. Once I know what the policy it, we can take it from there.

Of greater interest to me is establishing a functioning link to these two Rind controversy pages in the Wikipedia article itself. I would like the Wikipedia article to link to these two websites as well. So all of this can be clarified with regards to the rules, at the same time. Once I know what the rules are, I will comply with them fully. How will these things be clarified?

I have no way of determining the kind of person who most often frequents this Rind controversy page at NHAMic, but I would assume that would be of interest to Internet browsers who are interested in the Rind et al. controversy, as this is what this external website is specifically about. Visitors to that page might learn some interesting things about the controversy that are not found on the Wikipedia article about the same topic. Some of the information on this webpage would improve the Wikipedia article. Same with the RBT files at the IPCE site.

The particular MHAMic page is about the Rind controversy; maybe there is some confusion with another MHAMic page. The page I linked is not about "pedophilia", and I don't think that website even uses that "p" word. (BTW, I was told informally that neither the word "pedophile" nor the word "pedophilia" appear anywhere in the 1998 Rind Report, either.)

The functioning link to the NAMbLA site was established well before I became active; it works properly. Using that established link, I was able to establish that the Dallam quote in Wikipedia's article about NAMbLA's misuse of the Rind paper could not be verified. Verifiability is important, and I dealing with verifiability. What Dallam (and the U.S. Congress's resolution) claim about the NAMBLA is simply not true any longer. That can easily be verified, and Wikipedia readers have a right to know that. What I suggested in my post was that I think the average intelligent reader of the Wikipedia article could verify the current status of the Dr. Dallam and Congressional claims about what is on the NAMbLA website about the Rind study by inspecting the URL herself. WEbsites change. This is about verifyability, not about whether NAMbLA can provide good information as a highly trusted source about the controversy. Obviously NAMbLA would have the non-mainstream or fringe view, and such views are not covered, by policy, on Wikipedia. But as the Wikipedia article points out, NAMbLA was not a fringe part of the original controversy. According to the footnote containing the Congressional resolution in the Wikipedia article, it was because NAMbLA posted a short review of the study in 1999 to its own website that the US Congress condemned the study! That is noteworthy and part of the controversy, and what NAMbLA posted is a matter that anyone can verify if given proper guidance in the Wikipedia article.

I thought that if previous editors has no problem with linking directly with the NAMBLA external site, (set up by other editors, not me) and this likk was a settled matter at Wikipeida for quite a long time, then it would probably be okay to also link the current article to the, IMHO, less controversial http://www.mhamic.org/rind/ page regarding the Rind controversy] and at to the IPCE Rind files sites. But I don't know. I just need to know what is allowed.

I appreciate that Herostratus and Flyer22 looked at my edits the revert and thought that they were okay. That's great.

What is a "semi-protect request"? Please educate me about why Legitimus did this.

I have been a consumer of Wikipedia articles for years. I began posting to Wikipedia this month for the first time. I trust that any Wikipedia investigation will verify this to be true.

Since the second anon concedes he/she was edit waring, I'd like further clarification about edit waring and its justification.

Specifically to Flyer22:You wrote yesterday in your explanatin to your reversion to the Rind article: "Revert. We trust editors who have added sources in this way all the time on Wikipedia, such as with book sources that don't have urls. If you want to make sure that "several" is verified, it is up to you to get complete access to the source."

Flyer22: I understand what you wrote in your redaction of the inserted Tag "Verification failed.". But your comment does not deal with my concern. Herostratus, you and I all have access to the sourced journal article's abstract right on that page. The journal article's abstract and the correct answer is right in [footnote 1 in the Rind et al. article]. Other corrections to the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article are in the full text of the footnotes [1] and [2]. The source articles for footnotes [1] and [2] are posted several places on the web, and I already have them. But the full article is not needed for the one fact I tagged, (but is needed for some of the other necessary corrections in the first paragraph). The correct information "59 studies" is in the second sentence of the abstract. The Wikipedia article was already correct with this fact and a few other relavant facts at [This old revision of this article, as edited by True Pagan Warrior at 12:58, 30 November 2011.] and the content was verifiable in the two sources offered the footnote. The tag "Verifiability failed" was placed in the article because Herostratus redacted the correct version that is supported in the referenced sources. Since he made changes to the article that are not supported, and his redaction for other reasons was contested in the TALK page (including by me), I thought he had the burden of proof to show that his version of the facts in the first paragaph of the article was verifiable. Placing this "Verification failed" tag seemed less disruptive and controvesial than redacting to the correct version of the facts in [[9]]. That would have also added back several paragraphs of new text add by Truthinwriting, which I did not want to do. That was being dealt with nicely in the TALK page. I did not want to get into any edit war with Herostratus over some facts that were clearly IMHO spelled out in the Sources. If Herostratus chose not to respond to the "Verification failed" tag over a period of time, I was planning to eventually restore the correct facts to the article myself, but I wanted to first give Herostratus a chance to see and respond to the tag. Since I thought this correction was not urgent and might take some time to make, I wanted to put the "Verification Failed" tag into the first error he introduced, as a reminder to all to eventually find a way to correct the first paragraph, as it was posted earlier. This tag, and my intent, is in strong harmony with the policy that the article be correct, and that the information posted to the Wikipedia be sourced correctly. Radvo (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Radvo. I don't recall vetting any of your edit anywhere at anytime. I haven't looked at them closely, period. I'm busy. You are prolix and I did not read all of your comments here, but near the top I note "How was I supposed to know that? Where is that stated?" You are supposed to know that by using the sense that God gave sheep. You know, and I know, and I know that you know, that referencing links like that is inflammatory and trollish. You know this. Stop pretending you don't. It's annoying. Herostratus (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad your busy with other things. Enjoy your life and your writing.

Some of what you write here is clever and amusing, but wrong and mixed up. But it's too complicated for me to straighten this all out for you.

I was not pretending, trollish or inflammatory. Work back from there if you can. prolix I am. I'll see what I can do. Radvo (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this will make you interested in continuing to contribute to Rind et al. but I am active on the talk page. Radvo and TruthinWriting are both quite new and making new editor mistakes, it would be of great help if other experienced editors were willing to join me in pointing out these errors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with those editors and their edits to that article is too much stress for me to deal with at this time, especially with Radvo and his very long, sometimes condescending, messages. They are very suspicious editors, in my opinion (based on my experience with editing pedophilia/pederasty topics), especially having popped up at about the same time. I left Herostratus and Legitimus to deal with all that. Legitimus is trying to stay away from them as well, but now that you are there, that is all the better of course. If the suspicious editors move on to the Pedophilia and Child sexual abuse articles, then you can count me in for helping out in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads up…!

Anal sex and Talk:Anal sex may be heading for dust-ups. See recent history of both, please. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

here Pass a Method talk 10:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Copy edit

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at September88's talk page.
Message added 01:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for yours

Hello Flyer22. Just a note to say thank you for taking the time to give feedback on my trimming of the Titanic plot - much appreciated. I see you have been perhaps a bit disenchanted with Wikipedia recently; I hope you're feeling a bit happier now (and I don't mean simply because you've found my work!). All best, Alfietucker (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Aw, thank you, Alfietucker. I still have a love-hate relationship, or rather a sometimes-like/hate relationship, with Wikipedia, but (as you can see) I'm still here for now. Still some other things I want to do, before I leave the project for good. I admit that it's looking more and more like I may never leave the project for good, though.

Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads up…

You may wish to see here and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Copyedit One Tree Hill

Hi again Flyer, I'll be starting the copyedit soon. Would like to know if you or the nominator will be available for major changes if required? I'll willing to do them myself but am not sure how much change do you guys want.September88 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you bring up any major changes on the talk page, we can discuss them there. The reviewer didn't bring up a lot of changes that should be made to the text, mostly just the lead and the Plot section. I of course don't want anything significant cut from those areas. Just rewording. But the way the reviewer described the prose in the article, I'm certain that there are more areas than just those he wants copyedited...as witnessed by my tiny copyedit that he approved of. But, yes, bring up any major changes you would like to make on the talk page, maybe in the GA review for documentation of the changes made for GA. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. September88 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Flyer22, I'm sorry I haven't been on much. I'm so busy in real-life right now and I don't think I will be able to work on the article. All I need to do is change the sources for the DVD release. I believe you've asked another editor to copy-edit? I couldn't see any other problems. I'm only on here to let you know. I apologize for claiming I'd be able to do it this—I really can't spare time. I had no idea it would be reviewed around Christmas and as I work in shifts, I'm doing loads over the holidays. I have some time off from the 30th, so I will do it then and re-nominate. I may be able to convince JezHotWells to review it straight away. Jayy008 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I will try to take care of the Amazon.com sources, replacing them with sources that the GA reviewer will accept. There is no need to ask the reviewer to grade the article before we have tackled the issues he has with it. Why have the article fail GA review without giving it a chance to pass? The copyeditor will copyedit it soon, and, like I stated, I will be fixing the references. I don't think it's a good idea to nominate an article for GA review so soon after it just failed one anyway. Is there no waiting period before nominating it again? Anyway, things are being taken care of. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas Flyer! It's Christmas day and it's the only time I've found to come on. All I will look at if the lead when I come back full-time, if you haven't taken care of the Amazon sources by then, I'll do it. If there are no other sources, should we remove the DVD release section completely? It's irritating, as I've found a GOSSIP GIRL source which is a press release, it seems they're always released in that form. Do you know where to find general PR from the Warner Bros., website? That would be helpful as I guess original sources are always better. I guess now we know what to change we'll get the article sorted and re-nominate once it's done. I won't nominate again until you think it's ready. Regarding "I may be able to convince" I only meant once the article is ready to nominate again, I may be able to ask JezHotWells to review it as soon as it's nominated, rather than waiting three months. Jayy008 (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Jayy. I hope that you are having a good time. The lead of the One Tree Hill article is fine now. There was only one issue JezHotWells had with it, or at least named. As for the Home release section, did you not see what Bignole stated below, in the #Amazon section, and what I therefore stated in the GA review?[10] Using Amazon.com for such material is more of a personal preference. Obviously it is since Bignole got the Smallville article to GA status using it for the Home release section of that article, unless we want to say that the GA reviewer was wrong to elevate the article in that case. So of course we should not remove the DVD release section completely if there are no other sources. And, anyway, there are other sources. I saw them when I Googled for them, but it is too much to have to use different sources and assess which ones should be okay to use. Amazon.com, like IMDb, has gotten a bad name on Wikipedia, but they are okay to use for some information on Wikipedia. I have to say that I'm not seeing how Amazon.com is unreliable for this content, unless just any person can add that material to the site. Even then, they are usually reliable about stuff like this. It's not being used for any information that is likely to be contested or controversial. So from what I can see, the One Tree Hill article is GA material and is not any worse than The Walking Dead (TV series) article that JezHotWells recently promoted to GA status. The One Tree Hill article is certainly more comprehensive, having been on the air longer. JezHotWells is just very strict, it seems, which is not necessarily a bad thing. If he fails it, I would prefer that a different GA reviewer assess the article. There is nothing more that we have to do, aside from maybe carrying out a few more tweaks or adding another source or two to help support a line. As for original sources, they are not always better. See WP:PRIMARY. And, LOL, no, considering that I don't know much about which sources to use for release date information (even with my knowledge of what reliable sources are), I don't know where to find general PR from Warner Bros. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. No, I didn't see Bignole's comment when I replied originally. IMDB I dislike completely, but you're right, I don't see what's wrong with Amazon. The lead is fine, but I just wanted to make a few tweaks to the wording (shouldn't affect GA either way). I am going to try and search the Time Warner website again, I'm sure I found it on there, and if so, I'll add all the release dates using that source. Jayy008 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help regarding screenwriting

(This message was primarily sent via email, but was returned for some reason so I have no choice but to use the talk page. Apologies if I am violating any guideline. I am new here. Thank you for your patience and empathy).

Original Subject: Weird as it sounds, I think I was destined to ask for your help

Hi Flyer22,

I would like to apologize for the scary subject- I just needed to get your attention, and besides, the subject is true to the core. Before I ramble on, please let me introduce myself. I am Kay Phan, and I have been writing and living for writing for the past 6 years.

My email’s subject mentions the term “destined”, and I really think that’s what’s happening right now. I signed up at Wikipedia today while asking myself how I can change fate, and I see your insights on the subject about “screenwriting” and your email address conveniently posted on your user page. It’s a normal boring day and I’m supposed to write another 20 500-word SEO articles about “car hire in San Diego” and “baby shower gifts”, and I’m wondering for the -nth time when can I really get to do what I love. In my effort to avoid my regular mundane tasks, I found an interesting Wikipedia article and I found you.

Please don’t get me wrong; I love writing, and I think the reason why I had to work as a writer when I was 17 was not merely because I had to support myself while studying. I believe I’m headed toward a writing career anyway, but I just don’t think working as a SEO writer would be a good 50-year stint for me.

I’m currently at a crossroads and I don’t think I can manage working as a SEO writer any longer. It pays well, but my passion isn’t there. I want my stories told, published, and depicted, and I’d rather get that done instead of earning well by doing something I don’t love and dragging myself to work every day.

Please don’t get me wrong: I am not asking for money. That’s preposterous and asking for alms wouldn’t help me career-wise anyway. I have seen your generosity to share your knowledge at Wikipedia, and I am just giving it a long shot to see if you can also extend help my way. Please let me learn from you. I know that you’re happy doing what you love right now, and I hope you can sympathize with me and help me get a shot at it too.

I really want to do this, and I don't mind joining the long throng of amateur writers who want to succeed in this industry. I would feel a lot better to know that I failed after trying, rather than spend my life wondering why I even failed to try.

If you think that giving me some insights wouldn't be too heavy on you, please do send a response. I would like to hear what you have to say: advice, questions, criticisms, anything. I want my stories told and remembered, and having them used in films would be the ultimate achievement for me. I am even willing to share stories I’ve written; ask anything and I will willingly provide it—all for the sake of getting a head start on screenwriting with my eyes wide open.

Humbly looking forward to your words of wisdom and offering my sincere “thanks” for your patience and empathy.

Respectfully, Kay Phan

_ _ _ _ _ Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

   flyeroo@yahoo.com

Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (flyeroo@yahoo.com) [0] - mta1009.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (state 18).

Kayphan (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kayphan. It certainly is unusual that a person would sign up to Wikipedia just to talk about something that is unrelated to editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that's ever been done. My screenwriting pursuits took a backseat due to personal issues that needed to be taken care of, issues that I'm still dealing with now (though I did not want to be 29 without having heavily pursued screenwriting). But I have come in contact with successful writers and not-so successful ones...such as a few from the now cancelled-My Own Worst Enemy, and can mentor you on screenwriting. I'm certainly better at writing screenplays than I am at writing in general (just look again to my user page, that third-person material that needs to be changed one day soon, LOL). I know what to do and what not to do when screenwriting and afterwards, but there are screenwriting books that can give you this information as well. Why not just seek out those, or were you hoping that, in addition to mentoring you, I had contacts in New York or L.A. that I can refer you to?

I'm not sure why my flyeroo email didn't work for you. Maybe because it's my alternate Yahoo.com account? Those are supposed to work in the same way my main account works, from what I know. And when I sign in, it says "Hi, Flyeroo." But, anyway, if you to go my user page and click on the Toolbox selection, an "E-mail this user" option will pop up, and you can email me that way. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I commend you for your work on the Asexuality article. I appreciate your patience, wisdom, and hard work to get the article to GA status! Tea with toast (話) 17:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the cup of tea, the compliments, and for being such an accommodating, thoughtful reviewer. Getting this article to GA status certainly was not something that I set out to achieve, as you know. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

hello!

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.

Tvoz/talk 17:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

congratulations on asexuality

You were under pressure and you made it! But that's not an excuse for other people to put you under pressure. Thank you for your achievement. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC) (Corrected the section heading (my stupidity): 17:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

Thanks a lot, Nick. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about my edit to Adolescence. it was past midnight, i was dead tired. i must have missed the source. however i think the source itself is discriminatory against youth. even so, i wont change it again, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake1993811 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Jake, it's the Adolescent sexuality article you edited. You complained on the talk pages of both articles. And like I told you on your talk page, "just because there is something in an article that you don't like...it does not mean that it is biased. If something is backed to reliable sources, that is just the way it is, per WP:Verifiability, although the sources can be checked against other sources for their accuracy...and articles should usually be WP:Neutral." It is not discrimination to state a fact. It is a fact that young adolescent minds are not as cognitively developed as the minds of older adolescents and adults past 20. If we state the fact that a child's mind isn't as cognitively developed as an adolescent's or adult's, for example, would that also be bias and discrimination? Hopefully, your answer is no...because small children simply do not think on the same level as adolescents and adults (not even genius children). That's how it is for young adolescents vs. older adolescents/adults. I did balance out the lead as best I could without removing the material (with the exception of removing the part of the age range that went all the way up to 30 for a fully developed mind), as explained on the talk page. I can see how the following line can be offensive to young adolescents: "Partially because of this, young adolescents are generally less equipped than adults to make sound decisions and anticipate consequences of sexual behavior." But basing it on cognitive development, it is true with regard to young adolescents, like 13-year-olds. I was pretty well-equipped to make sound decisions as well as any legal/older adult when I was 16 and 17. But at 13? There was definitely a lot more immaturity there, even if I made sound decisions here and there.

Your edits about youths and to the talk pages of such articles have baffled me, partly because you are on some crusade to eliminate any facts you see as disparaging and any negativity about adolescent/teenager behavior and society...and partly because you are editing in a way that is not at all in accordance to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You need some WP:Mentoring asap. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazon

It always comes down to personal preference from the editors. There is no policy against it. It's advisable not to use it for future release dates (if you're using it for those dates), but afterward it's fine to use so long as you're using the basic page for the item and not a user page. Some people have an issue with it because of the idea of solicitation, and that we're using a vendor to source information. It flips back and forth. You can argue that it's not really promoting the site anymore than it would be to use a site that has advertisements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Bignole. You know that I always thoroughly appreciate it. I'm about to add some more casting and portrayal detail to the Cast section, and we've already taken care of the GA reviewer's other demands. So if he fails the One Tree Hill (TV series) article, it will come down to not having excluded the Amazon.com sources for the home release information. Like I stated, I don't know where to look for that information. I Googled and there are different places, but I don't know which sites are considered reliable or unreliable for that type of stuff. Sometimes, it's easy to guess from a quick assessment; other times, it's more a matter of debate here at Wikipedia. It's too much to go to different sites for all this release info, especially when Amazon.com seems reliable enough for it. It's not like the site is being used to source any information that is likely to be contested. I also don't think that this information can be added to Amazon.com by just anyone, but oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should bring it up for discussion if he fails it for that reason? If it is then made reliable, then I guess there will be no other issues. Jayy008 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He already failed it, partly because of the Amazon.com sourcing, as you have surely seen by now. And I already commented about his failing the article on the article talk page. I won't be looking for sources to replace the Amazon.com sources. So if we are to replace them, that will be up to you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I invite you to comment here Pass a Method talk 05:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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.— Stfg (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry, part 2

sorry for the late response. thank you for the advise on talk pages, and i sincerely apologize for my nonconstructive edits, and disregarded of wp:pg. i dislike discrimination against youth, but i will follow wp:pg henceforth. thank you for being so nice about it. Jake1993811 (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not discriminating against youth. We are reporting what reliable sources say. And like I stated, some things (like cognitive development) are without a doubt true. I repeat: Some of these things, about how adolescents think or behave are positively true. An editor already explained to you that you are not going to change the view on adolescents and their behavior by challenging reliable sources. If you want to change the view on adolescents and their behavior, then you first have to change the world outside of Wikipedia, so that some of these sources don't say what they do.

I told you before to look into getting a WP:Mentor, someone who will help you with your editing at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OTH lead

Hi Flyer, I'm back part-time and I am planning on some changes to the article (I also replied above). The lead has been changed and I really don't like it, I don't mind how the information has moved but the wording changes to the ninth season seem odd. "with 13 episodes" shouldn't that be "with a 13-episode order."? "Bethany Joy Galeotti and Sophia Bush are signed for it,[10] and James Lafferty will continue as a part-time series regular." shouldn't that be more "Bethany Joy Galeotti and Sophia Bushed are signed on as full-time series regulars, while James Lafferty will continue part-time." or something? Just to give a little more information on what that means? And I also don't like how the Chad Michael Murray return is used in the same sentence as the premiere date. Sorry to post here, it was just easier. Jayy008 (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me butting in, as I'm the guilty party (maybe!). FN9 simply speaks of "the 13 episodes of One Tree Hill". I'm not sure why you feel more words are needed here. The version prior to my copy editing the lead said "Bethany Joy Galeotti and Sophia Bush are signed on for one final season,[10] while James Lafferty will continue as a part-time series regular." All I did there was to remove the "one final season", because it duplicates the "a ninth[8] and final season" of the previous sentence. I didn't remove anything about their being full-time series regulars, but if you want to insert that, I'd agree with it. I did the last one because, in the previous version, "season" was used twice in three words, and I wanted to avoid that. By all means rephrase if you like.

Jayy008, please draw anything that you dislike to my attention too. I suggest using the article's talk page. --Stfg (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know it was you, otherwise I would have massaged you. My version did need re-wording too, I just feel that "13-episode order" is more appropriate than saying "with 13 episodes." I will have a re-word and post on your page and you can give me your opinion. Jayy008 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be best to work these things out on the talk page. Jayy, I trust Stfg's copyediting skills and hope that you two do not butt heads too much during this second copyediting process. As the previous copyeditor (September88) stated at the guild about a different (aka unrelated) listing, she was there to copyedit...not edit war. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) Thanks, Flyer.

Jayy, in the edits you did yesterday, both of which you described in the edit summaries as "minor", you restored some errors that I had corrected yesterday. You restored the old "with a 13-episode order" phrasing without responding to my comments it above. I'll tell you now that it's pretty much meaningless. You have also restored "sign on". Just "sign" is correct (Merriam-Webster notes the use of "sign on", but it's redundant here). You have also turned an "and" into an incorrect "while", reversing a correction I made yesterday.

I don't accept "I didn't know it was you" as an explanation. There was a {{GOCEinuse}} box at the top of the article, and it would have taken but a moment to check the history file to find out who was involved.

Copy editing is only worth while when the content of an article is largely complete, because if the text is going to be changed anyway, the work is wasted. First establish the content, then perfect the wording. A GAN has already been undertaken and copy editing requested of GOCE. You had plenty of time to establish the content before these things, so now that a copy edit has been requested and undertaken, popping up to make further modifications is very disruptive.

Copy editing a 10,000-word article is a major investment of time. Of course, there will be mistakes, which should be corrected, but if the copy editor is additionally called upon to debate matters of taste and explain grammar and usage to someone who thinks they know better, then it's a waste of time. Were it not for the hard work and good diplomacy that Flyer has put into this, I would simply have walked away from it today, removing the request from the GOCE page.

I am going back to the lead now to correct the errors Jayy has reintroduced, and I'll deal with a few other details from the talk page, but I cannot invest any more time on this until Jayy gives an undertaking not to waste it. Please don't take too long. I'm not prepared to carry on with this into the new year. --Stfg (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

a tree for you

happy new year! Jake1993811 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Links

I invite you to comment here. Pass a Method talk 13:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep bothering Flyer? Flyer most likely wants nothing to do with you.

Flyer, I don't don't like any of this user's editing. See these discussions or topics for why.[11][12][13][14]. You already know this, but he is a horrible, horrible editor, often including WP:OR or outright falsehoods (as documented at the Virginity article where he was reverted [15]) or misrepresentation of sources. In addition to the examples at Category:Erotic fiction[16] and Elvis Presley[17][18][19], other examples include this edit which was reverted to the Child sexual abuse article,[20] this edit which was reverted to the Human article[21] (which was also discussed[22]), and the discussion of synthesis regarding his edits to the Pedophilia article.[23] There are a lot more, some of which are documented on his talk page.

Now he's created the Sexually suggestive article. Ugh, I don't feel that this user should edit any topics, let alone sexual topics. Can't we get a topic ban for this user? I wish he'd just stay away from these topics because he isn't that educated on them and it's only a matter of time before he adds OR/synthesis to them. He also recently had his user name changed from User:PassaMethod to User:Pass a Method. Something needs to be done about this because the new name doesn't carry his previous contributions. He shouldn't get a WP:Fresh start. 50.19.178.57 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You have not been ignored by me, IP. If I feel that anything is original research, I revert it if it is likely to be contested/too controversial and if there is no chance of it being sourced. If it's synthesis, I always revert on the spot. I have noticed that Pass a Method's edits are sometimes the wrong edits to make, more so guideline or policy-wise like you fear, but try to trust in the system that such edits will usually be reverted sooner rather than later. You have gotten some good advice from a few editors about how to handle this, and I suggest you take that advice...since it seems that your concerns about this user will not cease to exist. You should also stop using a proxy server and VPN service, unless you can't because of Internet restrictions, and sign up for an account. It's discrimination, you are correct that registered editors are taken more seriously, but that's just the way it is. And if you are able to sign up using your real IP address, you are less likely to be blocked, or you'll at least have a better chance at getting a second chance to edit without being blocked for being a "block evader." Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Todd Manning pic

I don't mean to be rude but is there a reason you're obsessed with the old picture of Roger? Is it because he has long hair and you prefer him aesthetically that way or something? EVERY other current (and final) cast member has a recent photo of the actor from the last year or two. And then there's Todd. He's ruining the attempted streamlining of the cast pages I'm attempting to implement. Not to mention it's from the previous opening so it doesn't even sort of match Trevor's which to me is what's more aesthetically important than what Todd's fucking hair looks like. Alexisfan07 4 January 2012

Woah. No need to use such vile language Alexisfan. That's againt Wiki's rules, also, I believe. It's rude to cuss a user out. You could've handled this much better than you have. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Alexisfan07, Todd (I call him Todd when I'm referring to the character) doesn't have long hair in the current main image, so your assertion is laughable. The length isn't much different than what it is now. So what you and some others consider "long" hair on Todd boggles the mind. His long hair has been gone since the 2000s. I've already explained why I prefer the current image. And judging by how many times the new One Life to Live opening image of the character has been rejected, I'm not the only one "obsessed" with it. You say you don't mean to be rude, but you did. So now it's my turn. Mind explaining why you and the rest of you lazy bunch of soap opera editors are so obsessed with updating images that don't need to be updated because the character still basically looks the same? Mind explaining why you and the rest of you lazy soap opera editors are so obsessed with updating/changing infobox information instead of adding non-infobox text to the article? Why, when it is non-infobox text that you all do add to the article, does it always have to be to the Storyline/Plot section, and no real-world content to make these articles notable and keep them from deletion? Why don't you all take the time to learn how to cite references so that you can do exactly that -- add real-world content to make these articles notable and keep them from deletion? Why must it fall on only several editors' shoulders, as explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Requests for comment?.

As far as I'm concerned, you aren't helping these articles at all. You talk about obsession, but you're the one obsessed, going on about how having the current image is more aesthetically-pleasing because the "[i]mage should match other current (and final) OLTL cast member shots. It also is a nice comparison image for TSJ's since both shots were part of the same opening sequence." Todd looks the goddamn same as he did back in 2002! The only aesthetically-pleasing thing going on with me about this is that the current image, which even has Howarth's name scrolling down the side and bottom, is simply the better image. I don't even have a strong preference for the current/long-standing image; I just prefer it and felt that WP:Consensus should be formed on the matter instead of the current WP:Edit war that is going on between registered editors and IPs. I civilly invited you to discussion about this, discussion which should have taken place on the article talk page, not mine, and this is how you act? Thanks for giving me even more of a bad impression of you editors who have done essentially nothing to improve these articles. New images are not going to keep these articles from deletion. And if you haven't noticed, a lot of them are being deleted. Starr Manning came very close to being nominated for deletion! Your silly, non-policy "keep votes" would not have kept it from being deleted. And you know what? It will likely be deleted...if I don't significantly fix it up, because it seems nobody else has the damn tools to do so. So instead of trying to burst my bubble, someone who has actually significantly helped your precious soap opera articles stay on Wikipedia, how about you go do some real work on the free encyclopedia that "anyone can edit"?! Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my behavior. I didn't realize you had done a lot of work for the pages and it wasn't right to treat you that way. To be perfectly honest, I bunched you in with the lot of the other unregistered posters or (might I say) seemingly unintelligent posters who try and change things based on their opinions and assertions, i.e. "Eddie Alderson has been on the show since he was like four he's on contract" when that is CLEARLY not how life works. I apologize for jumping to those assumptions but it's really hard not to do so when you see some of the ridiculous and absolutely asinine edits people make. I honestly don't give a crap about which Todd image is used, I just figured I'd try to make his picture look like the other recent images and I still don't see how there is anything illogical about that. Sure, he looks pretty much the same, but as far as I'm concerned, images should be as recent as they can be. To be honest, I'm pretty ill-informed about how Wikipedia works so if you can try to dumb down any information about what's going on as a whole with the soap pages, it'd be appreciated. Why are they getting deleted? Plenty of other TV shows have extensive pages on Wikipedia. To me, soaps (and TV in general) play a huge part in our pop culture landscape and that's a critical area of intelligence people ignore. Alexisfan07 4 January 2012

Apology accepted, Alexisfan07. I was a little off in saying "you aren't helping these articles at all." I mean, having an editor take care of the pictures so that I and others don't have to is helpful and is a good thing. It's just that images, updating/changing infoboxes, and storylines are what most of the editors who edit soap opera articles worry about. What they (and you) should be worried about is whether or not the articles demonstrate notability. See WP:Notability. And Talk:Starr Manning. Starr's article recently had some notability added to the lead (intro), for example. From there, after providing notability, you should be worried about providing real-world content to these articles. See the real-world content link I displayed above. These articles are being deleted because they do not demonstrate notability or notability cannot be found for them online, or both. Really, these articles should only be deleted if notability for them cannot be found, not because of their current statuses. But most times, when notability cannot be located for a Wikipedia topic online, it will be deleted. For more of what I mean about why these articles are being deleted, read the first part of the "Requests for comment" discussion I linked to above. Knowing these things will help you to help these articles in the way that they need to be helped.

Images of fictional characters do not have to be the most recent. I understand that is your and others' preference. But, like one IP stated, I generally go for the better image...not the most recent one. Not unless the character looks significantly different. As a compromise, I'd accept a recent screenshot image of Howarth as Todd, just as long as it is better than the long-standing image. His newest opening sequence image is not better, in my opinion.

Also, to sign your name, type four tildes (~~~~). Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you know I uploaded a new Todd Manning pic just a few minutes ago, it's not the opening, but most characters have updated pics of them. In my opinion the previous RH pic was from an opening no longer in use. It was from 10 years ago so the pic needed to be updated. I did the best I could with your request, he isn't smiling and it's not the opening. I hope you like the new pic. It's good quality and you can see his scar on his face in which the previous pic you couldn't. Soapfan2013 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it, but you get points for trying. Like I stated on the talk page, no, I don't see a reason that a new picture was/is needed and I stand by that. But I'll upload a different picture later, since that is something I said that I would do if I didn't like the updated photo and because an updated photo will please you and some others. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe Soapfan traded in the previous image for this one. Not directly facing the camera, the portion used is odd because it doesn't focus in on him. I think the general reader benifits from the previous image much more - hopefully your new one even better though Flyer - then maybe the fuss over nothing will calm down. :)Rain the 1 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why you don't like it, I can get another screenshot if ya don't like it, what's wrong with this one, it's got good quality, it shows the scar, something that Todd was famous for I hear. Soapfan2013 (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an image - In reply to your message via my talk page - I'd say that if you were to update the image, atleast get a better one. I've said why it doesn't match the previous one in terms of helping identify the character. Awkward angle/not head on, portion not focused on the character.. It shouldn't be a big issue really.Rain the 1 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

i have rejected the new image, uploaded by Soapfan2013. it throws the whole article off and is not good or welcoming. he looks miserable in it. why remove the handsome image for that one? 218.204.254.118 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Refrain from edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jessica and Natalie Buchanan

Hey Flyer - Can you keep an eye on this set of twins? The infoboxes are being edited by a super duper fan. Same with Victoria Lord - because they listed everything about her too the extreme. So much so that the guy who assaulted her was listed as a romance!!! Outragous much.Rain the 1 07:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will help out when I can. And the whole "listing a sexual assault as a romance" isn't new, and sadly isn't shocking anymore. Still outrageous, though. It seems that these editors want to make it known that these women had another sexual interaction and, since there isn't a field for rape/sexual assault, they list it in the romance field...often with the word "rape" in parentheses to make clear that it was a forced sex. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Craig Montgomery and Sierra Estaban"

This article was deleted without objections. If you are concerned, go to WP:REFUND. Still, I could not find sources to implicate notability of this couple. Offline sources may not be circulating in libraries. --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not concerned at all. I didn't create it and had no true interest in fixing it up. Fixing it up would have purely been for the sake of keeping it from deletion. I believe you may have overlooked any notability there is for the topic, though. You even said that Sierra Estaban doesn't appear notable outside of her pairing with Craig, which implies that her pairing with Craig is notable. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Another one

Just a heads up: User:Cataconia [24] [25] Think the authorities need to know? Or should we wait and see how big a hole he can dig for himself?Legitimus (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Either will do of course. As we know, he won't be getting his way here. He can call it bias all he wants. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting

This user helped promote 2011 Tucson shooting to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Either let or stop me; see User:George Ho/Block History #1

If you want, tell me to stop nominating articles of soap opera characters. I have already nominated Erin Lavery, Tom Cudahy, and Danielle Frye for deletion. Under that unblock request, if you want me to stop, say "Stop!" Then I'll stop nominating if you say so; if I disregard your warning and then continue without discussion, then I may be, at risk, blocked again. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 17

I have set up a deletion review of Damian Roberts, so you can join in. --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality a sexual orientation

Please comment. Talk:Sexual orientation#Asexuality as a sexual orientation.2C with regard to WP:MEDRS and other things. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oy vey…

It's not so much that I'm sick to goddamn death of Picker78 and its many socks, though that's all very tiresome. It's more that I'm not interested in being a chump any longer. I have donated uncountable amounts of time and effort to Wikipedia. Now it's evident that corporations can buy their own articles, and editors-for-hire can now make their living providing those articles out one side of their mouths and piously sermonising about the integrity of Wikipedia out the other. Not interested. I'm winding down and out of it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd seen the discussion about that going on over there. I don't check in to see what's happening at Jimbo's talk page often, though I may start to, but I became aware of that discussion. I haven't read all of it yet, but when I'd started reading it, I was very busy with online matters and didn't feel I had anything to add that wasn't already stated. You held your own nicely, in my opinion, and I would hate to see something like that/this drive you from Wikipedia, but (as currently still seen on my talk page) I've also been thinking about leaving this site. So maybe I'm not the best person to try and convince you to stick around. But if all or most of the good editors leave, it will be nothing but corruptness left. Still, maybe you have more of a reason to leave, considering what a threat this is considered to be to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And we could have a whole nother discussion with just two words: Violet Fae. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Alerting an editor of an ANI thread about them

Flyer22, Are you going to post the ANI notice on her talk page, or shall I? Ebikeguy (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ebikeguy. As you can see, I just created a heading/section for your comment. You should alert her. I didn't think I had to, because I already commented about it at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. She was, likely still is, watching that page for comments. I also didn't think it would be a good idea for me to personally do so. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery

Thanks for catching my error in this article. You were right—I completely overlooked the second page. I blush for my carelessness. Basically, I was trying to see if the adverbial "everyday" in the quote was actually present in the source cited, or if it was an editor's error; so I hit the link, did a string search for "every", and when the quote didn't turn up, I concluded that it wasn't in the source. Thanks again for fixing my mistake, and I apologize for causing you the extra work. Ammodramus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, Ammodramus. Like I stated, "it's easy to overlook that an article has more than one page, so I can understand how you missed it." I've seen this happen a lot. I think it may have even happened to me. You are certainly not alone on that. The only reason I'm so aware that an article may have more than one page is because I've seen editors make this mistake -- thinking there's only one -- often, and because I often deal with such articles when expanding sexual/social topics. So no hard feelings at all. Thank you for your tweaks. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The trolling editor at One Tree Hill (TV series)

Hi, Flyer. You may know me as the proxy IP stalker of Pass a Method. Well, I also follow you, Herostratus, Legitimus, WLU and anyone who keeps pedophile-POV pushers off Wikpedia. I obviously follow Pass a Method for a different reason, because I believe most of his editing is horrible and he's pretty sketchy on the matter of sexual topics dealing with children and young teens (Herostratus knows how I feel about that). But I follow you others because I admire you, like the work you do, and like to defend you when I believe it is warranted. That brings me to the Wikipedia:Troll you are dealing with at the One Tree Hill article. This person is assuredly invested in this topic or antagonizing you, as you pegged him to be. There is no way that this is a passerby IP address. That he would start the same discussion after you archived demonstrates this. He claimed to not really care, but there he is still complaining and trying to egg you on. You should either report him or ignore him. Or you could hurry and elevate this article to GA, with most of its same content, and see if that shuts him up. I'll keep reverting the creep because the last discussion showed itself to not be productive, which is why you archived, and because his trying to start a new one is trolling. I told him this at User talk:184.38.76.247. 176.227.192.114 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Thank you. Definitely already had reporting/ignoring in mind right after I archived. I knew that this IP would return with a post, but I was surprised that it wasn't one directly addressing me. Usually, when a talk page is archived to remove a discussion that has become inflammatory and is not helping the article, and an IP or two are involved, the IP or IPs start a new discussion about the same thing, calling out the person who archived the previous discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have caused you more trouble with this IP. Never know if she (the person says she's a she) may start stalking you. I'm equally sorry for your recent ordeal with Pass a Method. Thanks for the shout-out, though. 221.194.177.162 (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist, LGBT category

Don't they fit in Category:Fictional LGBT characters? I saw what you said on their talk pages. Just wondering why an editor removed them. I've reverted. 221.194.177.162 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do, from what I can see. And while I appreciate the reverts, I'll broach this topic to the editor who removed them from the category at a later date. I have limited Internet access for the second time this year. Hopefully, that'll change soon. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Illustration request

Flyer22, I completed the additional image you requested for the tribadism article. Please check your email. --SeedFeeder (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in email, thank you. I love it. I've added it to the article of course. We worked great together coming up with an image to demonstrate this position, and I thank you for being so great to work with and for the offer to ask for more requests. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Heads up, Pass a Method in disguise

Flyer, take note that Pass a Method may start to edit under a different account and that therefore any future conflict you have with a "new editor" over things you have combated against Pass a Method in the past may, in fact, be Pass a Method. See here. If it comes to that point, I'm sure that you already know you will have the right to report him for inappropriate use of WP:Fresh start. 222.45.72.124 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)