User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

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

Who I am
Past introduction page and past user page.

My block log

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

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

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

My views on Wikipedia in general

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

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

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

The Trypophobia article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn this article made me check a website I made in 2005 at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden, and it's the same offending plant. My face now itches and I am having diffulty breathing.[2]--Wlmg (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Wlmg. Stuff like this makes me think we should collapse the image. We are doing harm to some of our readers, and I have little patience for those wanting to argue that we aren't doing harm because trypophobia isn't recognized in some manual. The Trypophobia article is clear that people have it, and that it can fall under under specific phobia. Plus, as was mentioned in the past on the article's talk page, most visiting the article probably have trypophobia. If interested, I also discussed the article with an editor in the #Lamprey and trypophobia section below. Looking at trypophobic images has helped me, but it seems to have also conditioned me to break out in goose bumps when I see certain bubble patterns. I never used to have an issue with looking at bubbles. So I guess there is something to the "conditioning" argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I do not believe it is phobia. Ever since I was a child I was unsettled by things such as seeded breads or groups of small insects. I said , "they're too many of them". This may very well be hard wired on the sympathy, empathy, aversion pathways of the brain (if such things even exist). Just as we are simultaneously attracted to and repelled from for instance burnt human faces and other deformities. Perhaps trypophobia conferred an evolutionary advantage to those who run from small pox, leprosy, etc. My ex-friend made me view bot fly images. I think they're scarier than the plant. [3]--Wlmg (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

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

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

Bruce Alan Wallace Page

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

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

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

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

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

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

Sneaky

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

ping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photogrammetry page

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

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

Applications

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

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

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

[4]

Flyer,

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

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

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

Re: POV editing at Mary Kay Letourneau article

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

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

Please restore my edits or offer some constructive alternative.

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

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

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

Singapore University of Social Sciences

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

Speaking of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Asexuality article

Hi Flyer,

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

Thanks,

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

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

D. L. Hall

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

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

Emmet Till redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

I actually agree with you

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

Best Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts for the Physical attractiveness article:

• [5].

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

• [6] Wallace.

• [7] Swami.

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

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

IP rant about Yaoi

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

Tomgirl

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

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

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

Removals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invitation to the article's talk page

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

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

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

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

British Columbia population

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

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

Medical sexism

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

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

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

Best Regards,

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

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

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?

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

SRS title change to GCS talk page

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

Why not WP:GOODFAITH? [109.206.156.72]

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

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

>because the image you added was an unnecessary addition

Well, it sounds like something unreasonable. 😒

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

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

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

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

>I've been thinking of removing the gallery.

I don't think it is necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why cant create article on a well known person?

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

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

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

Regards

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

Reverting moves

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

WikiProject Investment

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

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

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

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

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

James Dean page

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

Eroto-comatose lucidity

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

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

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

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

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

Your AN/I report

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

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

Flying ointment

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean Fonteneau

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

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

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

Sexual fetishism

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

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

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

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

Re:

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

Wow you're fast

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

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

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

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Talk page at Orgasm control

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Sorted (magazine) article

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

Child pornography article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI and your monitoring of critical articles

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

Just get on with it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your RfC notices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marlon Brando

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

Editing Wikipedia:Good article nominations

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you remove all my link references

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

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

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

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

I Like You

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

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

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

Talk by 69.248.49.73

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

Thanks, Flyer22 Reborn

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

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

Noticeboard: Marlon Brando

Hello Flyer,

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

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

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

Noticeboard: Parent-Teacher conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RfC on the Children of Marlon Brando

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

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

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

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

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

IGM

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

Recent sock cases

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

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

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

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

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

Asking assistance for Wiki editing

Could you assist me with some information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publicizing the RfC on the children of Marlon Brando

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

How will you be publicizing it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think about the comments regarding the introduction of the RfC [8]? How can I make it clearer for editors who are not familiar with the issue? Bluhy23 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I would like you to take a look at this article from 2004 [9]. Bluhy23 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

My apologies! Thanks , Flyer! It's for Johnuniq Could you please take a look at this article ? Would that be enough evidence to list 11 children?[10] Bluhy23 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Flyer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights to sexual orientation

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

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

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

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

Sorry, new at this

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

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

LGBT demographics

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

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

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

Apologies

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

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

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

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

Stonewall edits

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

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

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

References

Dummy edit

Hi Flyer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interleaving

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

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

Rape of males

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

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

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

@65.95.240.89: Fixed, and integrated new data from that source with the existing 2010 data, among other cleanup [11].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Socks

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

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

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

Rape myths NORN / NPOVN requests

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

Just want to reiterate ...

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

Ping!Ping! :)

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

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

Milo

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

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

A Wikipedia Barnstar

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

Lede terms italicized for words-as-words purposes

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

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

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

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

New Page Reviewing

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

Lamprey and trypophobia

If you google "lamprey trypophobia" you'll see plenty of hits, including this.[12] Not everything pictured there gives me the creeps, but some of it does. To me the lamprey, isn't nearly as nerve-rattling as some other things, but it does suggest being sucked into something, as with a maelstrom, or an octopus. I never heard this word until recently. I looked for "trypophobia" in Google Images, and plenty of examples turned up, including lampreys. It's apparently not an "official" phobia, and it's kind of loosely defined. One thing the observers seem to be missing about that lotus flower example is that it looks like lots of "eyes". Anything with more than two eyes is fairly creepy (like spiders). But to each their own phobias! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Please monitor and protect the Mangalore article from Vandalism

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

It's about my edit

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

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

Cambridge Scholars Publishing listed at Redirects for discussion

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

STI

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

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

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

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

HTML note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acrophobia

Just FYI, I started getting sweaty palms as soon as I saw the picture with this article about a daredevil falling 62 stories to his death, even though the picture was not from his accident.[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Keratinization

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Swingoswingo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QPL

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

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

Triple talaq in India

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

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

Continued from WhatamIdoing's talk page...

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

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

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

Adultery and Al-Andalus

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

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

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

Adultery

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

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

New Wiki

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

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

Season's Greetings

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Flyer22 Frozen!!


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

Sarmiento Edition in Let It Be

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

Seasons' Greetings

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

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

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

Beaumont children disappearance

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

HNY

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

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

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

Barbara

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

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

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

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

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

Demographics of sexual orientation in past societies

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got mail!

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

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

Proposed merge: Lipstick Lesbian and Femme into Butch and Femme

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

Surgical lubricants

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

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

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

Echo

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

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

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

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

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Star Wars

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

Last Jedi Audience response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Dankie

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

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

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

Politicization of Candy Making Article

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

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

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

MrKiffy, before I reverted you, an editor similarly reverted an IP. And since I reverted you, you have been reverted by Samf4u and by Dorsetonian. I stand by my revert. Since editors disagree with you, this is something you need to discuss at Talk:Candy making. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Baby You're a Rich Man

If you look at my talk page you undid one of my edits for Baby You're a Rich Man. It may not have appeared constructive because I put a joke about Boulder being the headiest city in America. However I would like to put it back for the following reasons. The cover is extremely notable because Bela Fleck plays banjo. Bela Fleck is such a good musician that it makes the cover notable. The band Umphrey's Mcgee wouldn't be enough as it is, but Bela Fleck playing on it truly makes it a notable cover. Now who says it's notable besides me - I don't have a source for that. However I'm a musician, I've studied and played every genre you can play on the guitar except Flamenco. There is superb musicianship on this cover and it is extremely notable.

I would like to be advised if I should include this cover under Cover Versions or Notable Covers.

Bela Fleck is truly an exceptional musician and I feel strongly that this cover should be listed in some form on the Baby You're a Rich Man page. I'm learning towards Cover Versions.

Please respond on my talk page. Burnedfaceless (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Pisanosaurus taxonomy

Didn't you hear? Pisanosaurus is now found to be a basal near-relative of true dinosaurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.155.181 (talk • contribs)

I certainly intended to go back and look at this revert before deciding to log off for some hours or for the day. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Darkie Ellis

Just curious why you reverted sourced data in the infobox a few moments ago. The cited source says he died on Saturday, 14 December 1946. You have changed that to 30 September, 1950. Again, the source says he died at Beverley Army base, Yorkshire and you have changed that to Texas. Where are you getting your information from? 82.43.223.32 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see you mention "lulu.com" as being an unreliable source. I see no reference to that self-publishing outfit in the article. 82.43.223.32 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Yeah, because I checked the quality of the source, I reverted you. Lulu.com is a self-publishing source. And per WP:Self-publishing, it's not a source that Wikipedia welcomes. I've used Lulu.com before on this site, but that was before I learned that I shouldn't. It's always good to check the publishing aspect of any source you are thinking to add. As for whether or not Lulu.com is a WP:Reliable source, see the archives at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Then how does lulu.com come into it? It's an American publisher (Lulu Press Inc.) with ISBNs beginning 978-140xxxxxxx. The source I used was Lodge Books, of Bridlington, Yorkshire with a completely different ISBN - 978-1-326-xxxxx. 82.43.223.32 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I clicked on the URL link. I read the content. I then clicked on the "About this book" option. It shows the publisher as Lulu.com, 2016. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hello Mr.Flyer22Reborn, you reverted my edits in Mediterranean cuisine. I put sources along with the edits, what was wrong with the edits?. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeMichealEvans (talk • contribs)

You have a brand-new, baby shortcut!

Just a heads-up: announcing the birth of shortcut WP:NOTLEAD ==R==> Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. I can never remember where I saw the "WP follows, it doesn't lead," principle when I need it, because all the shortcuts were non- intuitive for that principle, all of them being based on the RGW section title. So, I finally created a shortcut we can (hopefully) remember, for this part of it.

What finally tipped me over into creating WP:NOTLEAD, was that I bumped into you twice lately, where that very phrase was a propos. You don't seem to have any trouble finding the RGW-style shortcuts when you need them, but I do, and hopefully this one will be even easier to remember, for the follow-not-lead idea in the section. Mathglot (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathglot. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		To Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for maintaining a calm demeanour under difficult circumstances. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Axl, although I don't think I've been too calm with the latest matters at Talk:Vagina. Your help with that article and especially at that talk page is so very much appreciated by me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion for Internal conflict in Bangladesh

An article that you have been involved in editing—Internal conflict in Bangladesh —has been proposed to be renamed and moved. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure about this?

[15] Looking at the first reference of the article, I think 1989 is correct. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Philip Trueman, there is a back and forth at that article for that woman's birth year, and I was tempted to remove the birth date altogether and place a WP:Hidden note there that the birth date should not be added without a reliable source supporting it, like I often do in these cases. I had checked the sources and did not see that they support a birth date. I also checked the bottom of the article to see what birth date category she is in, since those are usually correct and indicate to me if the current listing at the top has been randomly changed. She is not even in a birth year category. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction: Although the first two sources at the top (which are the same source) don't give a birth date, this one (in the infobox) does. And I see that she is in the 1989 birth year category. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite. It was the starsfact reference I meant when I said "the first reference of the article", that is, the one numbered "1". If starsfact isn't a reliable source, it shouldn't be referenced at all. If it is, I think it should be respected. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Philip Trueman, not sure about that source. As you saw, there is also the following, though: "Birth date validated at VRTS ticket # 2016051310004058." I did remember seeing that, but I wasn't sure what date it was supporting. I overlooked the starsfact.com source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Issue on Ultraman article

Hey there, I've noticed you've edited on the Ultraman page before. There is an issue on the talk page that requires your two cents on the matter. Long story short: I've uploaded images (an upgraded version of the show's title card from the Blu-ray) which met Wiki guidelines but another editor disagreed, undid my edits simply because I removed an image he uploaded, and he started an edit war. Your two cents would be greatly appreciated and it would bring a fresh perspective on the issue and contribute to what benefits the article. Cheers! Armegon (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello Flyer22_Reborn, do you see any similarities between this user and this one. I certainly do, aside from the fact that the user's first post (in both accounts) was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and that mixed media (or new media) artists are often the target of the user's deletion requests. You may recall the latter from these deleted exchanges. Coldcreation (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yu Na Kim article

As you can see I included links and quotes so my information is neutral and unbiased. I am not even a big fan of hers, I edited other skaters pages already, I am just noting things that were commonly said at the time with evidence provided by quotes and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrykitty (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Angrykitty, look at this unsourced "speculated" stuff you added. Not the way Wikipedia works. Do familiarize yourself with our policies. As for this, I'm not even going to analyze it. I'll leave the matter to others to deal with it. But when it comes to this, I will point you to WP:PEACOCK right now. "Her spectacular short program"? No, go back and remove "spectacular." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it was a spectacular skate. That is how the CBC commentators where I live, the BBC and NBC commentators all referred to it. So what else should I say. Her successful short program. I need to describe it with some degree of accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrykitty (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Angrykitty, clearly, you aren't interested in how Wikipedia works. I would attribute that to you being new. But when I was new, I was interested in learning the rules, which is why I do not understand those who insist on doing things their way and I am not convinced that mentoring such editors is usually a good use of my time. All I will say to you now is that if you keep adding stuff like "spectacular" and "disaesterous skates by others," you are likely to be WP:Blocked. Your choice. "Disaesterous" is a misspelling, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Not so much "new" as "uninterested in how Wikipedia works". Blocked as a sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarify

Flyyer, why did you rollback my recent edits? Sharif Uddin (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sharif Uddin, the reason is obvious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you were not trying to get rid of one of the templates and were truly trying to improve the articles, I wouldn't be as concerned. Some of the articles may very well be more compatible with one template over the other, but you have shown time again that you are more interested in getting rid of one of the templates when it comes to these two templates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

YE HAI MOHABBTEIN

I have written about popular show . Yes it is true that yhm is one of the most popular show. It is in top 10 shows on BARC TRP rating for a long time and it is also a time slot leader on television at 7:30 pm. So this information is sufficient to include show in most popular serials

Agarjubal (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

I replied to your comment on your talk page. You can access it and reply me there PrinceofFrancia (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I replied again. All future convos just leave on my talk page thanks PrinceofFrancia (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits?

IPV against men article. Please explain. Rousse (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits improved the readability of the text. And you just wiped them away. What right do you claim to do that? Rousse (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The frustration you mentioned with the site in one very long piece on your Talk page, I am now experiencing thanks to your unexplained reversion. Thanks for making it a worse place for this user. Rousse (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Rousse, when it comes to your edits, you do not appear to have read the sources for the piece you added a "citation needed" tag for. The rest was just you changing text to your preferred wording. How is "because male violence causes statistically greater levels of fear" better than "due to male violence causing significantly more fear," for example? And in the future, take matters such as these to the article talk page so that other article watches can readily weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am ready to bet you’ve never worked as a professional editor (as I have) if you think mine isn’t an improvement in clarity. Avoid the passive voice wherever possible. “Due to” is weak wording. I didn’t change those things just on a whim, but to make it sound less like high school writing. I think someone has an axe to grind. Rousse (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Rousse, in my opinion, your edits were not an improvement. A different editor made some changes based on both of our concerns. And, as you can see, I have not reverted that editor. Not sure what axe you think I have to grind. As for grammar, I do have a grammar friend named Rivertorch, who can look at the different versions and weigh in here on my talk page if he's up to it once he's back online. On a side note: Remember to sign your posts. I had to sign your latest post for you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you asked...the changes you reverted did not constitute a net improvement. None of them was unreasonable, and one or two of the wording changes may have enhanced readability slightly, but they also introduced parenthetical statements, which break up the flow and thus detract from readability. They also made some sentences wordier without improving clarity, and I see at least one instance where the meaning was subtly changed. Most glaring, of course, was that "citation needed"—not in template form but in full-sized, boldface text set on the baseline, typographically ugly and contrary to Wikipedia style.

The real concern here, as I see it, is the failure to understand how Wikipedia works that is evident in the complaints made above. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia where anyone's edits necessarily stick; there's supposed to be give and take, and reverting absolutely should not spark sarcastic outbursts and accusations of axes to grind. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Tomboy

I've done a short protection on Tomboy. If I could trouble you, would you also review the following articles this class has been editing? This is based just off the ones that touched Tomboy, pretty sure there's a couple more mixed in.

• LGBT culture in Hong Kong
• Feminist movement
• Gong nui
• Amsterdam Gay Pride
• Gender inequality in China
• Objectification
• Gender inequality
• Women in government

If you feel any of these others (or others you find) need protection let me know. -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, ferret. I left a message at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Tomboy article about the class. Permalink here. I don't know who is directing this class, but they are doing an awful job of it. Doesn't appear that they are directing the class at all, except for telling them what articles to edit. I've been meaning to examine their other content (had a quick look at the Objectification article the other day and saw that an editor didn't seem concerned about their edits), but I will examine the articles more closely tomorrow. Like the Objectification article, Gender inequality is on my watchlist, but I haven't yet looked at the latest edits there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Accepting recent changes

Issues noted here. Just one editor, but there's no doubt that some others are like this. The editor didn't really appear to listen. Was simply defensive. Removed entire discussion afterward; didn't even archive it. Some people cannot take criticism, but they should in cases like these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Help recover deleted images

Hello, all the images was deleted for the wikipedia page I've helped managing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsi_Nami 3/24/14, The artist/actor sent the permission department an email giving me full rights to add pictures.

A month ago, pictures were removed and the actor/artist sent yet another email and permission that all pictures have free use to be published and requested the pictures to be restored. Haven't gotten any response and no pictures have been restored. Would really appreciate your help If emailing is easier please email me at s.zamani34@yahoo.com

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easyheartforyou (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

About some recent comments

Hello there. Just be informed that I wrote to the admin and introduced him about the last statement of the User Путеец on article's Talk page (User talk:NeilN#User:Путеец). I think admin will take this into consideration while analyzing farther actions by the mentioned User. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope that at least someone will appreciate your Миша Карелин contribution and behavior. --Путеец (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, don't worry about that. M.Karelin (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I want to ask you for help. As you can see, I have biological knowledge, I have all the sources that are used in the article. I can improve it. I began to supplement sections on insects, orangutans, Laysan albatross and other sections. I found an error in an article that exists since 2007 [16]. The author of this error recognized her [17]. My opponent, he does not have sources [18][][], he argued, my wrongfulness without reliance on sources and was not right. He completely blocks the work on the article. He suggested creating a section about mice, but does not do it. Please look at its edits, arguments, questions and behavior on all themes. Please. I hope to work.

Please consider his accusation in fraud. [19]. Another user, not I, made a statement to administrators in RuWiki [20]. "An attempt to discredit a participant outside the Ruwiks by distributing diffs from Ruwiki with a distortion of the meaning of the said in these diffs to create a negative image of the opponent." In the cited references, there is no charge of fraud. I said that the organizers of the exhibition had juggling values the number of species of animals (indicated 1500 instead of 450). This not mean fraud. It can affect my reputation, and the reputation of Petter Bøckman. If it requires a call to administrators, tell me where to turn.

Sample stop working

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28][29]

Characteristic behavior. Stop work without argumentation and reading sources. [30]

--Путеец (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please look at its edits, arguments, questions and behavior on all themes - well, that was the best part of your words. Everyone have seen your edits, arguments and behavior, and especially your statements . M.Karelin (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, have you seen this - Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals#Talk (Fox on Orangutan behaviour). M.Karelin (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Your doubt was correct

Hi Flyer22, probably you remember Swingoswingo whom I reported to ANI and who was banned then. Your doubt that Swingoswingo was not a new user when they made their first edit proved correct.

After Swingoswingo was banned, the user created many subsequent accounts (socks) whom I detected, reported, and had them blocked. Then Swingoswingo started using its older account (User:Hometech, created on 27 April 2009) which was eventually detected by CheckUser and was blocked.

But now I doubt that even Hometech was not the first account of the user. Hometech made its first edit on 30 April 2009, and during the middle of that year, the user passed a GA review which is highly unusual for a new user. -AsceticRosé 15:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Augustin Barruel's page

Hey, the article on the french revolution on Augustin_Barruel's page that you re-edited is most definately fine if you're okay with revised history being accepted as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8880:110:1CE4:4E5:766C:7BB4 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

[Titanic] article

Thanks for your comment. The original citation was at the end of the sentence, but wasn’t supported by the reference, so I added a citation for what i could find and asked for a new citation for the end of the sentence. I agree that the later quote should cover, so you or I can remove the citation request now. Postguard64 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Postguard64, see the article's edit history. The matter was already taken care of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Adult

The entry about Germinal is pertinent because it is an accountof a girl who reaches puberty very late in her teens because of poor nutition. Zola has a reputation for fastidious social accurancy in his depiction, so, although Germinal is a novel it is a reliable source for the effects of environment and nutrition on the onset of puberty. Findng good sources for this is very difficult, but this from a socially reaaistic and greatly admired writer is one. If you have not read the book, it is worth finding the time to do so.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Velella. I don't see that this novel material fits in that section. It's not really on-topic even though the text is about puberty. And, for that paragraph, it's poor writing to all of a sudden go into what a character (fictional or not) from a novel went through. There are a number of better sources going over how nutrition can affect puberty. As seen at Talk:Adult#Puberty material (permalink here), I'm already dealing with an editor (who I'm sure is a WP:Sock I've dealt with before at puberty, adolescence and development pages) injecting inaccuracies and WP:Synthesis into the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sex#Which_lead_sentence_should_we_go_with?

Hi Flyer22 Reborn. Just a quick note to let you know I've closed a discussion you initiated, at Talk:Sex#Which_lead_sentence_should_we_go_with?, as per the request to do so at requests for closure. Cheers, Fish+Karate 11:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Human10.0 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Socking?

• Hillbillyholiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm looking at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dimadick_reported_by_User:2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6_(Result:_). Any thoughts? [31], [32] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, NeilN, it's Hillbillyholiday, as I'm sure Tenebrae, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0, FlightTime, Softlavender, Mandruss, Alex Shih and Wikimandia can also attest to. And I see that EdJohnston has identified the IPs as him when blocking the IPs and semi-protecting the articles. In my opinion, this is something that should be noted on Hillbillyholiday's talk page since he is not adhering to his block. He said before that he would sock, and he wasn't lying. I don't see why we should go easier on him simply because the IPs are not registered accounts. Furthermore, it perhaps will not be long before he actually does use registered accounts. He won't get as far by using IPs since editors do not have the same trust in or thought process when it comes to IPs, which is why WP:IPs are human too exists. I see that Davey2010, Arjayay and Dimadick have reverted one or more of his IPs, and Dimadick had an edit summary exchange with him here, where Hillbillyholiday's reasoning is partly based on the fact that he never heard of the guy before. "Never heard of the subject before" is just the type of reasoning that WP:Primary topic discourages with its WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT subsection; so I don't see why he would think it's okay in a WP:BLP context. As you know, Hillbillyholiday does remove material that should be removed, but he also removes material that shouldn't be. He throws the baby out with the bathwater. And he removes material simply because he doesn't like it. Apologies ahead of time if you, FlightTime, would still rather not be pinged regarding matters involving Hillbillyholiday. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping - Comparing HBs edits with this IP and this IP (specifically the removals) I would say the IP is HB, But as I said I'm no genius so don't take my word on it, –Davey2010^Talk 19:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey2010. Their writing and signature style (green text, quoting, sometimes starting off with "firstly," and the two dashes in the front of the signature) are also the same. Compare this to this, for example. I was also suspicious of an IP who closed the latest Hillbillyholiday ANI thread, but I left it alone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries, Ah well spotted!, I can't say anything but this is indeed them, I'd be more than happy to email any admin to say why but for obvious reasons I can't say on wiki, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of any TPS, the AN3 report mentioned by Neil is closed as of 26 March; see this permanent link. The discussion about HBH on my talk page is here. At this moment there is an old SPI for HBH containing some implausible charges about named accounts, but nothing about his recent IP activity. His two recent IPv6 addresses have been from Sky Broadband in the UK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Just ... wow. Kudos to my colleagues for their detective work regarding that problematic editor.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Headless Woman (2008 film)

I'm having difficulty in following the rationale behind the recent editing history of this article. Why is there extensive text on Reception in the lead, rather than under Reception? Why is an incomplete and very personal rather than objective plot summary in the lead, and no Plot section? Why have all the Argentine actors unknown in English-speaking countries been redlinked? Unless you think these are all improvements, how about rolling them all back? Clifford Mill (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Clifford Mill, an IP messed things up with this edit. And I didn't help things when I made this edit. A few minutes ago, I restored plot material that a different IP added, but someone might prefer the previous plot summary. As for reception in the lead, reception should be summarized in the lead per WP:Lead. If it's too detailed, it can be trimmed. In the future, when you see a problem with an article, consider being WP:Bold. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@ beauty queen's kidnap of the Mormon case...

the alternate name with a touch of description not controversial, after all. I'll wait 72 hours, I guess.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, regarding this at Talk:Mormon sex in chains case, it is not up to you to wait 72 hours. That is not how WP:Requested moves works. WP:Requested moves states, "Requests are generally processed after seven days. If a consensus is reached after this time, a mover will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or be as 'no consensus'." You need to wait until others weigh in, period. I don't know what alternative name you are suggesting other than than the one you proposed on the talk page, but you should wait for others to weigh in. This can and often does take more than 72 hours. And you should stop adding on more and more text unless you are going to put all of that in a Template:Collapse box. I state this because WP:Too long; didn't read is a thing. Just Googling the matter shows that there are a lot of sources that refer to the case as the "Mormon sex in chains case" (or something similar to that). The goal is to determine which titl e is more prevalent in WP:Reliable sources or which one is more appropriate if both names or more than one name have about the same prevalence in reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If it turns out nobody will care enough to respond after a listing or two (as you mention), the guidelines would nonetheless seem to support a unilateral move per wp:Bold, since it would demonstrably be non-controversial(?). By the way, what u googled to weren't old-fashioned print publications but a handful of creative new-media folks who I wouldn't want to disparage by calling them bloggers, with most of these same few writers likely mirroringinspired by the choice that's currently used on Wikipedia, ironically. Anyway, I put Diff my list two dozen bigger-cities' MSM on talk into a scroll-up box, per your suggestion. Again, thanks. Maybe it'll be that not too many folks get worked up over which of two shorthands are more appropriate for an affair popularized in Brit tabloids so I think it might help a lot if you yourself were to chime in with your two cents on the matter. Whadya think? Then, hmm---if it turns out you've disagree with my choice and no-one else strolls along unbidden, we could send in a request on Wikipedia's third-party editorial help-line........ --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the silence of your argument speaks volumes w rgd noncontroversiality (per wp:TITLE and preponderance of sourcing for the topic) of the proposed move to the both better-known and less-offensive title.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, my Google searches show some WP:Reliable sources (reliable by Wikipedia's standards) calling the case "Mormon sex in chains case" or similar. Even this 2011 Time magazine source by Richard Corliss, when reviewing a documentary on the subject, notes that British tabloids called the incident "The Case of the Manacled Mormon" and "The Mormon Sex-in-Chains Case." Whether I search "Mormon sex in chains case" or "Manacled Mormon case," I see the same sources pop up. And, yes, many of them are poor. I haven't weighed in, other than to request (including on your talk page) that you stop always moving articles to your preferred wording, because I have enough matters I'm involved in on Wikipedia and I want to see what others state. There's also personal matters in my real life I am attending to, which is one thing that makes me want to spend less time on Wikipedia instead of logging onto this site and spending four to seven hours on it every day, a matter that mainly involves me catching up on my watchlist. In fact, I intend to remove a number of Wikipedia articles from my gigantic watchlist today. My supposed silence does not support your stance. If you hadn't added on to the move request in the way you did, I'm sure others would have weighed in by now. Editors often just want to quickly assess a matter and judge it, not read through an essay. But I might drop in with a vote in a day or two. As for "less-offensive title," you haven't demonstrated that the current title is offensive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Really? You don't find the description of forced sex as sex in chains offensive to assault victims? (By the way: Discouraging reflex-!voting is a not a bug, of providing research to a topic, it's a feature.) Thanks, though, in advance for your, futurely, maybe, I hope, weighing in, though.

  Just because Fleet Street got into a its freeforall, sucked en-mass into Joyce's vortex, there in Sept. of '77, soon after the dawn of the sexual revolution, doesn't mean Wikipedia can't exercise tertiary responsibilities with four-decades-hence hindsight. The San Fran. Chronie's Casey Burchby interviewed 2-time Oscar-winning docu helmer Errol Morris, who had come across period footage, by award-winning 'underground' cult-status director Trent Harris, that fully captured the full hex of Joyce McKinney's then-persona's mystique of an innocent-fairylike earthchild godess. Burchby describes this footage--the original of which is now in Harris's section of Univ. of Utah's Marriott Library, where Harris instructs in film (when he's not gallavanting worldwide as a helmsman for Nat'l Geographic and PBS docs, most written by colleagues and which have embarrisingly garnered Harris a greater slew of awards than his straight-on, 'cult' aurteur work)--this way: "These soft-focus clips show a much youngerkoi McKinney dressed almost like a fairy princess, in the woods. How did that footage come to be? It looks almost promotional." - Morris: It was shot by a Utah filmmaker, Trent Harris [...]. it's amazing, actually. [... ] you look at that piece of filmmaking from the early '80s and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's McKinney reading from this unfinished manuscript -- and predicting the next 30 years of her life...."

  Wikipedia is not an authority, but article sections such as wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse:Positions of power seem right on, to me. McKinney was convicted in absentia of sexual assault. That is not sex-in-chains because it was not "sex," full stop (as those Brits call a period). She admits she was on a mission to reprogram Kirk Peterson, whom she'd been stalking [and continued to do even years later, becoming arrested for stalking him again in 1984, a half-decade after her and then-accomplice Keith May's absconsion back to America]. So she her dominatrix-"submissive" of hers, Keith (soon to be co-charged with the kidnapping) lure Kirk to his car, chloroform him, bring Kirk to the secluded Devon rental cottage and manacle him to a bed, for fairy-princess Joyce to then enter the chamber accompanied by soft music she'd brought along, armed with scented massage oil, her still gravity-defying Liz Hurleyesque velumptuosity wrapped in a negligee. She disrobed Kirk by ripping from him his p.j.'s and---- Kirk said later, he did not want Joyce's fellating and nor her eventually succeeding in enabling her penetration "by" him. He did come to play along, though, the second and third days of his alleged (by then) captivity. Kirk was no longer in chains but something akin Stockholm syndrome had set in. Kirk said he'd decided to play along at that juncture as a ruse so he could cleanly get away. He then had authorities capture Joyce and Keith in a sting. You'd have to turn in your feminism card to call any of that "sex," though.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, without yet reading all or most of your latest post, I'll just state that I'm not interested in continuing this discussion at my talk page. If you didn't notice, the top of my talk page states, "If wanting to discuss an article matter, use the article talk page (and ping me if you think I'm not watching the article), unless it's necessary to leave a message here on my talk page." This doesn't mean that I want you to ping me at the article talk page and continue this discussion there either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Murray Gilmour

Two hints: A> You probably should actually look at what you're editing B> You *really* should look at what you're editing before throwing shade at other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.205.105 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Spoken Word

When you reverted my edit to the Spoken Word article, I was in the process of copying the link of my reference, which justifies the changes I made. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

DangleSnipeCelly, I reverted because you removed sourced material (including the source) and replaced it with unsouced material. As long as you add a WP:Reliable source for your wording, it's fine. That stated, your wording wasn't that different than what was there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Breast pump

Hey. I am working with this new editor in person, at an event. Can you please just remove the piece that you disagree with/are looking for a citation for by hand, rather than reverting the whole edit? I'm going through piece by piece to fix any problems and am instructing the editor to save changes piece by piece, but a wholesale reversion is discouraging. Most of their edit is fine and uncontroversial. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Max Wright

Hi! You undid my recent edit on the article Max Wright. Can you please come and explain why on the Discussion page? --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Rape culture

Hello-I see that you were also trying to help the rape culture article today. Your first objection---" weasel words" (your quote) "in some cultures"-(mine) vs " the statement "Women have historically" ---(meaning as I saw it ALL women everywhere throughout history).............so that is why I weaseled there. I just didn't like that incorrect statement. And yes if there is or was any culture that elevated or had parity for women, that statement is technically false. So I STILL do not like it the way it is and could we seek/collaborate something correct that is not as weasally?

Women have historically been considered second-class citizens who were thought undeserving of being afforded the same rights as their male counterparts (as it is now). That whole part about "male counterparts"---yeah I took that out. It didn't seem to make much sense. What male counterparts? Raped men? Did male rape victims "historically" have more rights than female rape victims? I still want to delete that unless it can be explained better because it was just puzzling to me. "Women have historically been considered second-class citizens who were not thought to deserve the same rights as their male counterparts." is how I found the opening statement, and I changed it around a couple times. I ended up with "In some cultures women have historically been considered second-class citizens who were denied Agency (sociology) agency and civil rights". (which you changed back more close to the previous version).

Okay so my main problem there is I don't like "who were thought" (by who?) undeserving... I just don't like giving authority to "thoughts" or generalizing "what was thought", when there is/was a civil rights/legal problem that denied independent agency for all people. And I put that there to refer back to and validate the "2nd class citizen" statement that was there. In doing that I answered my own question, "who thought that females were not deserving rights not to be raped or to punish rapists?" (The laws and those who denied independent agency for females). If the statement were to stay as-is, I would add a "by who?" there.

Also, because of the way throughout the article there are multiple refs without pg numbers, I was too lazy to hunt down where the references agreed with our text or not. I had that problem with most of the article the way the refs are stacked up, so I was hesitant to stray from the meaning of what our text says and just tried to edit more for readability.

I am going to give the refs a closer look now to see if there is some way to work with those statements and I am looking forward to any suggestions you have about agreeing on something that we both can accept there?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay so I've looked at it some more. And I am putting this here to illustrate that you yourself may be in a very slow-moving edit war here? [33]. So this lede sentence of the "History" section has been disputed before. Also, to answer your edit comment upon my undoing, I would reply with Women's rights which gives historical examples that I personally think is framed better than the Sexisim article that you referenced there. That being said, I fundamentally AGREE that suffrage and Civil rights are key issues, but grammatically the subject does not agree with the predicate is I guess what my problem mainly is there. And I feel that letting it be in that way ---our sentence--is unencyclopedic AND diminutive to women in general. I DID read all 3 of the refs there and actually Susan Brownmiller does NOT say that at all haha. She mentions "counterparts" as men who were lynched and then castrated, which just derails this although it could be good elsewhere in article.

After examining the article, I liked much earlier versions of it better. I was initially drawn to the topic because I was looking for "tagged" articles, and although I do not believe the current tag/ "personal essay-like" fits, it probably does need a tag and in my opinion a bold rewrite. (I do not like the breakout by country sections, for example, they could be subsectioned as "International" or something). But that would be something for the talk page. Thanks!TeeVeeed (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

TeeVeeed, this belongs on the article talk page instead of mine. I think "were thought" clearly points to "were thought by men." Either way, I removed it. I changed "male counterparts," which isn't at all confusing to me, to "men." This edit by you was wrong since you added in "some cultures." Sources do not state "In some cultures women have historically been considered second-class citizens." They state "women have historically been considered second-class citizens," or they state something similar to it. There is nothing "unencyclopedic AND diminutive to women in general" about it. What you added -- "some cultures" -- might be argued as "unencyclopedic AND diminutive to women in general." It makes it sound as though only some women were oppressed, which is untrue. And what is mentioned here in a section at the Sexism article doesn't at all negate that women have historically been considered second-class citizens. That section also states, "Evidence, however, is lacking to support the idea that many pre-agricultural societies afforded women a higher status than women today." And it's supported by two references. Your "some cultures" wording is unsourced. It's WP:Weasel wording. And it's WP:Editorializing. No, I am not involved in any slow-moving edit war. The instance you cited was resolved after much arguing. And I argued with sources and Wikipedia rules. Regardless of what Brownmiller states or doesn't state, there are various reliable sources noting that women have historically been second-class citizens. If you are going to add in your own personal viewpoint to matters such as these when editing, then I am uncomfortable with you boldly rewriting the article. You should contact associated WikiProjects (at the top of that article's talk page) to help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. No way would I be able to bold rewrite the article. I will bring my ideas about that on the TP. I hope I am not bringing a personal viewpoint to my edits, but I do think that there is room for editorial choices that do not have to be so rigidly monitored. I really did not see that bit about "women historically" adequately conform to the three references, and it still seems like it does not belong there to me. I would probably choose something about the history of the concept of "rape culture", especially if starting-off with the Brownmiller citation, but I do appreciate your time in considering-thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

TeeVeeed, "women have historically been considered second-class citizens," or "women have historically been treated as second-class citizens," or "women have historically been second-class citizens" is clearly supported in the article. It's clearly supported by numerous reliable sources. I do not understand your reason for challenging this. But, if you continue to do so, I will list numerous reliable sources to challenge you on the matter and start an RfC on it. I am very busy, and I am not interested in debating something as factual as this. I am not interested in compromising on something as factual as this. The most I would be able to go with is stating "most" instead of "some," but only if supported by a number of reliable sources. There is no room for editorializing. We follow what the preponderance of reliable sources -- the literature -- state. This is per WP:Due weight. We do not add our personal doubt to articles. Furthermore, there are a lot of cases on Wikipedia where not stating "some" or "most" does not mean "all." Common sense should let readers know that we don't mean "all" when talking about certain medical issues where we simply state "people" instead of "most people" or "some people," for example. In the particular "women have historically been considered second-class citizens" case, though, what happened to women is so widespread that it makes challenging not adding "some" silly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is improved at this point in my opinion so I don't plan to change it now and I did find the long discussion which explains how the refs were stacked-up there and even lost some of their content at that point. I don't like using weasels either unless they are directly supported by citation or quote. And maybe that is what I got stuck on there. I do NOT disagree with the statement. I don't like the placement very much just because it is not about the rape culture concept per se and,

if "someone" is "considering" something about someone(s) I want to know who it is, and to reply to the "historical" aspect I think it is safe to say that those "someones" historically would be the people making and enforcing the laws and electing the lawmakers. I kind of take "considered" and "thought" (again unless it is plainly a quote)----as weasels. Like we have some kind of mind-reading capability to say that. Maybe a lot or most or some or none of the "people" "think" or "consider" that rape culture sucks, but we usually can't really know what people are thinking unless they articulate it. I just don't like making assumptions about what "everybody" thinks. it wasn't about disagreeing with the facts that civil rights make a huge difference in whose considerations are validated but that when women are denied civil rights and patriarchy is legislated historically, that women have no real power to have their considerations counted so why would we continue to deny those who considered that women were NOT "less"?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Indentation fix in post of 00:10, 12 May 2018; per good-faith TPO. Mathglot (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Biology and Gender

First of all, I'd like to remind you to mind both manners and tone when you write on Wikipedia: you're not a teacher. Second, You have to get a grip on biology. I do not know any serious study in biology which supports social constructionism, unless done for political purposes by feminists. If you deny the influence of biology on gender, you deny the basic structure of the evolutionistic sexual selection. So I will get on and revert my editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Aristotele1982, my tone was correct. Perhaps you should evaluate why you were warned by me and have been warned about your edits by others in the past before going on an unfounded rant. I didn't deny anything. I did, however, revert your WP:Synthesis and adjust the text properly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And for the record, I am not sure what you mean by "serious study in biology which supports social constructionism" considering that many scholars who note the influence of biology (especially testosterone) on gender behavior are also clear that societal conditioning contributes to gender behavior as well. Of course it does. So much of gender is socially constructed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi, just wanted to thank you for your efforts to getting some balance into the "The Last Jedi" page. I was very pleased to find -- at last -- some mention of the negative audience responses in the Wiki page. It took way too long, AFAIC, but thanks to people like you, it finally happened. ClassA42 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, ClassA42. And you're welcome. Leaving out the fan discontent was not in accordance with the way this site is supposed to work. And when seeing some editors seemingly putting their love for the film and/or franchise as a whole ahead of following something as important as WP:Due weight, well, I couldn't stand let it stand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion

Do a search on gloryholes and you'll find many videos of women partaking.

EoGuy (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

EoGuy, not interested in watching such videos. I know enough about the topic, including that it's mainly a gay/bisexual male thing. Regardless of what we personally know, we follow what the sources state per WP:Verifiability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Emails about User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte

To those emailing about this, yes, I am aware of this. And to any of the interview requests that are legit and are not Larson and/or his ilk trolling me, I don't think I'm interested in doing any interviews concerning my interactions with this person. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Vagina

This user helped promote Vagina to good article status.

. All finished. Well done! SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Kudos for getting such a major sexuality topic promoted! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My reverted edit

Hi Flyer,

I edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=844595625&oldid=843776001

You reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=844776247&oldid=844752173

The point of my edit was to order the information from general to specific. The version you restored puts US jurisprudence into the general introduction to what rape is. This is a global topic and it's neither exclusively modern nor exclusively a legal issue. In this light, was my edit not an improvement? Is there something similar you could suggest? Great floors (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Great floors. I reverted you because not only did you change a solid first sentence that is not solely about the United States, you created an unnecessary and WP:Undue weight section called "Definition of rape in the United States." Why would the United States need to be singled out like that? It doesn't. And such a heading, which was also awkward in its one subsection design (a design aspect that is being debated right now at MOS:FILM) can lead editors to want to create a section for each country, which is not ideal. We already have the Laws regarding rape article. Your section consisted of one tiny paragraph and one decent-sized paragraph. Now it's just one paragraph in the section it was already in. It does not need to be broken out into its own section. Also, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which you'd left in the general section, is a public health institute of the United States. I see no issue with the level of U.S. detail currently in that section, especially given the wide influence of the U.S. when it comes to legal or health issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I made a section with USA in the title to correctly label that info about being about the USA, not about the world or the topic as a whole. I would hope that in the future there would be the same amount of info about how courts/people/etc. have treated the topic in other regions. But more importantly, rape shouldn't be portrayed as a controversy that arose somewhere and was greatly modified by some court case. The current content is completely US-centric, as if the topic of rape within marriage was a topic that started or ended with a US court case. Great floors (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(But I'm not going to pursue it. I just hope it gets fixed eventually.) Great floors (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Wiggles

Hey pal, saw your revert on Sam Moran. To be honest, you are the last person I would've expected to make an edit on a The Wiggles-related article. But it means that you're risking the ire of the kiddos who like to vandalize them! Can't be any worse that the ire you're elicited for some of the other articles you edit, though. ;) But thanks, and welcome to the kids entertainment WP world. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Scott reversion of edits because they were not verified?

Considering I quoted 1st hand accounts from 2 members of the expedition I fail to understand how you can say my material doesn't have a verifiable source.

Considering how many of the citations on this subject simply link to newspaper articles that discuss a source rather than linking to the source itself, it seems that Wikipedia editors are more concerned with maintaining a scant regard for accurate material as long as it fits a certain criteria than actually caring about the accuracy of published information.

Please stop undoing my work without any thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.179.113 (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Verifyable sourcees:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18129/pg18129-images.html South With Scott. Written by the 2nd in Command of the Expedition

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14363/14363-h/14363-h.htm#CHAPTER_IX. The Worst Journey in the World Written by the member of the expedition that was sent out as the final support party to meet Scott.

What more do you want? Another half-assed story in the Daily Telegraph reporting a half-assed story that someone at the Scott Polar Institute actually got around to reading one of the above books 80 years after it was published.

The truth according to Wikipeadia.... what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.179.113 (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you here because you added "Cherry-Garrard noted that the dogs had made heavy weather of the return journey and it made taken longer than expected." without a source for that piece. But as for truth, read WP:Verifiability, not truth. Seems you are already aware of our WP:Verifiability policy, but you don't think much of it. Also read WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I was actually adding to that when you reverted it rendering everything I had written unsusable.

You also deleted the notation that Scott had given the instruction that Meares (or others) should not wait beyond the time that they can safely return on back depots.

This section "contravery regarding Scott's orders for the dogs" is a complete mess of contemporary revisionist and counter revisionst speculation that does not relate to any verifiable sources at all." Ay actual source material has to be added in as incidental detail to the opinions of personalities such as Roald Huntford and Karen May (who'se own material is not veried or sourced. Only newspaper articles stating a background to her work are quoted) I would dearly like to attempt a rewrite of the entire section and would happily submit it to you for approval. Even my own edits over time have proved to be questionable due to the differing accounts of Edward Evans and Aspley Cherry-Garrard.

If you would be willing to review an edit of the piece would happily write one but I find it to be a frustrating waste of time to make tiny edits and have them reversed simply because they don't match something that has previously been written from a different point of view.

The essence of this issue is that Roald Huntford wrote a scathing account of Scott and other have reacted from the perspective of defending his reputation, in some cases trying to lay the blame on others by inferring they were incompetent. Quoting certain passages of Scott's orders to Meares and then ignoring other passages that don't support the context in which they have been used is a prime example of this. It is stated that Karen May claimed Atkinson invented Scott's order that the dogs were not to be risked. Yet there s no reference to this in any source listed in the notes. The only reference is to a newspaper article that states she wrote a piece about the subject without giving an details. That in itself is an unverifiable source. The result is that rather than discussing Scott's order for the dogs the arcticle has becoe an argument by proxxy about Huntford's account and that of more contemporary counter revisionists, with no regard to what they are saying being factually supported. Merely that they have said it. The full letter of Scott's instructions clears up many issues but it seems ridiculous that the very passage of Evans's book that Karen May was quoting from could be considered "original unverified material" as opposed to her own opinion that was briefly mentioned in the press.

What I would like to attempt is to write down the sequence of events as explained by the 2 published accounts that of Evans and that of Cherry-Garrard. They do contradict each other in small details, which adds to the controversy but I feel that a full explanation of the material facts avoids a lot of the biased finger pointing of of previous published work, or at least, puts it into perspective. This is particularly relevant to the choices made by Atkinson. So if you would allow me to attempt rewrite and submit it to you here when I will willingy do so. Please let me know so I don't waste my time.

otherwise I will continue to submit small contradictary edits to the "official" view of reality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.179.113 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC) 

This is not a case I am particularly interested in. I simply saw you via WP:Huggle. I'll leave that article content up to others. But, again, do keep our WP:Due weight policy in mind. It's a policy I strongly abide by on this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: June 2018

Heck yeah! :-) I fully expected my comment to be reverted. I mean, we can't have too much truth on Wikipedia now can we! That would make too much sense! So consider me the Abby Huntsman of Wikipedia. Take care! Luc Donald Vélour (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Luc Donald Vélour, read WP:Not a forum. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, look. Here's the deal. I made a hasty edit in an impulsive moment, and I regret it. I'm sorry. Thanks and have a good day.Luc Donald Vélour (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Whats your issue dude

I added more content and you say it's not constructive? Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:7F00:AA02:F400:81C5:5397:E661:5458 (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You edits do not adhere to Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. Moreover, you added a new section in the article Web brigades without citing any reliable sources. JackintheBox • ^TALK 05:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

IM SORRRRRYEEEEEEEEEE

I just hate the Metoo scandals and I'm sorry for da edits. can you please not block me, I'm too young for dis! Emilyiship'05 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all your edits! I hope and pray you succeed greatly in your life. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thanks for all your edits! I hope and pray you succeed greatly in your life. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Flyer22 Reborn,

Regarding the edits to the sexual orientation articles: the edits were made as the current language in the articles don't accurate summarize the evolving body of scientific evidence on the matter. Firstly, the articles say that "[s]cientists do not know" what determines sexual orientation, but, while it's true that the exact cause is unknown, there is a significant body of scientific evidence which point to genetics, epigenetics, and pre-natal hormones as having an impact on human sexual orientation. Secondly, the articles use the verbiage "believe", which places scientific theory on par with anti-scientific religious beliefs on the matter, which is problematic. Thirdly, the articles mention "environmental influences", but the only "environmental" factors which scientists ever lend any credence to is what occurs in the early uterine environment, with scientific research consistently refuting the notion that post-natal environmental factors have any effect on sexual orientation. Fourthly, scientific evidence indicates that there are biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but that important fact is not mentioned in the leads of these articles whatsoever.

How can these issues be addressed in manner that is agreeable to you?

Hope you are having a nice day. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Justthefacts9. Let me ask you this first: Are you Scientiom? I'm not sure why I'm asking you since I don't expect you to be honest about the matter. Scientiom did, after all, use different accounts to sock, but was never reported (except for alerting Alison to the matter) because I was lenient. But if you are, then you know I've discussed this kind of thing with you before years ago. As for why I objected to your edits, I explained on your talk page, although I meant "no longer than four paragraphs" for the lead.

You stated "while it's true that the exact cause is unknown, there is a significant body of scientific evidence which point to genetics, epigenetics, and pre-natal hormones as having an impact on human sexual orientation" and "the articles use the verbiage 'believe', which places scientific theory on par with anti-scientific religious beliefs on the matter, which is problematic." I see nothing wrong with stating that they don't know, especially when authorities like the American Psychological Association make it clear that they don't. It's not like we state or indicate that they know in the Biology and sexual orientation and Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation articles either. Whether we state "theorize" or "believe," it's the same. And I have no issue with using "theorize" instead. It's all a bunch of theories. Even with regard to epigenetics, the article is titled "Epigenetic theories of homosexuality." I told Scientiom years ago (as the linked discussion shows) that even "some biological models include social aspects." But let's look at some sourcing. The American Psychological Association quote you altered states, "The reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." They also state, "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." By "many," it seems they are referring to scientists. And this 2014 "Principles and Practice of Psychiatric Nursing" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 502, which is also used in the article, states, "No conclusive evidence supports any one specific cause of homosexuality; however, most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation." If sources only meant prenatal hormones when talking about environmental factors, then it's questionable that they would state things like "biological, genetic and environmental factors" since prenatal hormones hormones fall under "biological factors/influences" as well. "Genetics" also fall under "biological," but that's beside the point. Like the Environment and sexual orientation article notes, "Some researchers distinguish environmental influences from hormonal influences, while others include biological influences such as prenatal hormones as part of environmental influences." And these Wikipedia articles are already clear that we don't mean parenting when stating "environmental." Some sources do state "non-social environmental factors," though, to get across the point that things like parenting or societal pressure are not what they mean by "environmental factors."

One source that uses "non-social environmental factors" is this 2016 review of the literature, titled "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science." The authors state that although biological factors appear to influence sexual orientation, and these factors include specific genetic profiles and prenatal hormones, they are not the only causes because evidence suggests environmental factors come into play as well. And, yeah, I know that J. Michael Bailey, one of the authors, is controversial, but he obviously isn't stating anything that other researchers haven't stated with regard to that aspect. And LGBT scholar Lisa M. Diamond is also one of the authors. Anyway, they state, "Because all behavior requires participation of the brain and body, and such participation is at least in principle measurable, all behavior is 'biological' (Greenberg & Bailey, 1993). Thus, the word denotes nothing unique about any trait or behavior. Although 'biological' is often used synonymously with other words in the 'Nature' column of Table 2, that practice should stop, and more accurate and precise words should be used instead. The extent to which a trait is 'genetic' or 'environmental' is a conceptually meaningful and precise question, although it may often be practically difficult to provide a precise answer. The extent to which people differ in a trait as a result of genetic or environmental differences among them can be estimated as heritability, which is expressed as a proportion ranging from 0 (only environmental differences matter) to 1 (only genetic differences matter), using methodology including twin and adoption studies. Based on the evidence from twin studies, we believe that we can already provide a qualified answer to the question 'Is sexual orientation genetic?' That answer is: 'Probably somewhat genetic, but not mostly so.' On the one hand, that answer is not surprising, given the evolutionary pressure against genes that diminish reproduction, as genes for homosexuality likely do, especially in males (Vasey, Parker, & VanderLaan, 2014). On the other hand, we expect many people will find the conclusion surprising, mainly because they have misconstrued the meanings of 'genetic' and 'environmental.' There can be little doubt that sexual orientation is environmentally influenced. However, to acknowledge this does not imply that the social environment shapes sexual orientation. There is a social environment, but there is also a vast and largely unexplored nonsocial environment. Thus, the conclusion that sexual orientation is socially influenced requires evidence in addition to that produced by twin studies." They soon note examples of "nonsocial environment." For example, the fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation effect is given as an example. And when looking at the social environment, they state, among other things, that "MZ twin differences generally signal environmental influence, but the environment causing the differences need not comprise social influence. That is, MZ twins may differ in their sexual orientation not because of different social experiences but because of nonsocial differences, including those that took effect before they were born. In other words, environment can be part of what is generally understood to be 'nature' rather than solely of 'nurture.' " They don't completely rule out the social aspect; they simply believe that "nonsocial rather than social influences" is the much stronger argument. By stating "but if one disagrees," they even show that they are open to other views on the matter. And importantly, they note that "the hypothesis that causal influences on sexual orientation are nonsocial rather than social is better supported for male than for female sexual orientation. [...] Although it would also be less surprising to us (and to others; see Baumeister, 2000) to discover that social environment affects female sexual orientation and related behavior, that possibility must be scientifically supported rather than assumed." Basically, male sexual orientation is significantly better understood than female sexual orientation, and there's a better chance that social environment plays a part in affecting female sexual orientation than it does in affecting male sexual orientation.

As for "biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals," that is covered in the Biology and sexual orientation article. My point about you adding it to the lead of the Sexual orientation article is that it must first be covered lower in the article, and you went into WP:Undue weight aspects on that in the lead. It should have also WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, meaning sourcing not relying solely on WP:Primary sources, given the slow and controversial research on that matter and that some of it conflicts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. Certainly have edited Wikipedia in the past (approximately 9 years ago), but not that editor.

So here's where there is agreement: the term "theorize" can be utilized instead of the term "believe" (the former being far more appropriate terminology when it comes to the statements of scientists), biology-based models are virtually unanimously favored by scientists, scientific research does not support the notion that the post-natal social environment has any impact on sexual orientation (with scientists generally rejecting the notion that the post-natal social environment has any impact on male sexual orientation whatsoever), and science shows that there are biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Would you like to edit the leads of these articles in order to reflect these points of agreement by: replacing "believe" with "theorize", emphasizing the fact that biology-based models are virtually unanimously favored by scientists (and stating that prominently and firstly rather than towards the end), stating clearly that scientific research does not support the notion that the post-natal social environment has any impact on sexual orientation, and including a statement regarding the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (with more detail in the bodies of these articles)?

Hope you have a nice day! Looking forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I reserve the right to suspect or believe that you are Scientiom. That you took so long to reply on that strengthened my suspicion. As others can attest to, I recognize editors all the time, especially if I have significantly debated against them, even if it's been years. And certain behaviors they have, such as edit summary and signature style, is most helpful in recognizing them. Nothing new.

Again, scientists have not completely ruled out a post-natal social environment impact. The review I pointed to above shows that. A number of scientists have stated a likely complex interaction with biology and the post-natal social environment, which is also often considered a biology-based theory. The social aspect, if involved ("if," as scientists state), is not considered to have much impact. And the post-natal environmental aspect doesn't always have to mean direct interaction with other people. There is also the fact that, as some studies have noted (including those suspecting a social factor influence), "determine sexual orientation" is not the same thing as "influence sexual orientation." Besides, we can't ignore tertiary and secondary sources stating that "most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation," or similar. Per WP:PSTS, tertiary and secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. But I will change "believe" to "theorize" in the leads of the Sexual orientation, Environment and sexual orientation, and Homosexuality articles. The Biology and sexual orientation article states "hypothesize." I'll change it to "theorize." Like the Theory and Hypothesis articles make clear, whether to use "theorize" or "hypothesize" can be an issue. I've seen people (including academics) disagree on which to use, which is why use of "believe" can be better in some cases. That biology-based models are favored by scientists is already in the leads of these articles. I'm not going to change that to "virtually unanimously favored," especially with no source stating that. With the review above, I will also add that hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation is weak, especially for men. I object to "a statement regarding the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals" in the lead. Such content should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, not random primary sources. There have already been complaints about the Biology and sexual orientation article, which does go over such reported differences, relying so heavily on primary sources. I have pointed to WP:MEDDATE's statement of "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." in the case of that article and the Sexual orientation article including primary sources, since research on sexual orientation lags behind many other areas of research. But those sources should be replaced with tertiary or secondary sources if possible. If such a "differences" section, which should first be proposed on the article talk page, given the contentious nature of it, is added to the Sexual orientation article, it should be supported by tertiary and secondary sources. And then a sentence or two can be added to the lead on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

And going back to "theory" vs. "hypothesis," the aforementioned review does state, "We refer to these as the 'nonsocial' and 'social' hypotheses, respectively. Both hypotheses require direct scientific support; neither can claim confirmation solely because support for the other is weak. No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test." It does obviously go on to note that "there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes," though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Per your latest edits, involving me reverting your wording, I'm further convinced that you are Scientiom. I can't really start a sock investigation on you since the Scientiom ‎account was abandoned rather than indefinitely blocked, but I can look for any additional accounts you may have. Pinging FreeKnowledgeCreator on that so that FreeKnowledgeCreator is very aware of my feelings on the matter. I will revert any POV wording for the sexual orientation topics, especially wording that implies that scientists are sure about the causes ("causes," not "cause") of sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)‎ ‎

I have read the discussion above, which is rather long and complicated. I am not interested in entering into a debate about the causes of sexual orientation, and I do not think it either necessary or appropriate to have such a debate. Nonetheless, I have a few comments. Justthefacts9, you seem to be overly concerned with advancing one particular view of the issue. I suggest that you should be more willing to take the views of other editors into account and more aware of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge about any subject, including sexual orientation. I do not myself believe that it is wrong to use words such as "believe" when describing the views of scientists, or that "theorize" is necessarily better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read all of that, FreeKnowledgeCreator, and for weighing in. For me, it's more so about going over what the literature states than debating. It's about WP:Due. What we personally think about sexual orientation shouldn't matter when it comes to presenting what the literature states, after all. Anyway, I agree with your take. What you stated about scientific knowledge is similar to the quote I included in my "14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The delay in replying was due to a lack of time to reply comprehensibly, but you can believe what you want. Could the statement that biology-based models are favored by scientists be moved to the front of each section regarding the cause of sexual orientation in each of these articles? Furthermore, from where is the language "Scientists do not know..." coming from? This language is not found in any credible source and does a great disservice to both readers (who will be left with the impression that there are no scientific studies which give insight into the cause of sexual orientation whatsoever) and the scientific community (who are made to appear completely clueless). --Justthefacts9 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it's clear that you won't being stating that you are Scientiom. My viewpoint on it is this: You admit on your user page and above that you are a previous experienced editor who has returned. You focus on the same topics as Scientiom and in the same way (though not all topics since it has been years and television shows, and other things, come and go). You sign your user name just like Scientiom did (with the two dashes in the front, which, yes, helped me to identify Scientiom's socking in the past and gave Alison further reason to look into my suspicions that he was socking). And you take your time to respond when after confrontation (semi-heated or otherwise) or when accused of something, just like Scientiom did. Plus, I interacted with Scientiom enough to know when I'm in the presence of Scientiom. But your response is "believe what you want"? Fine. I am not always 100% on socks, but my batting average is very high with regard to identifying them. I have only interacted with one editor the way that I am interacting with you now, and that editor was Scientiom. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that these articles have not had this type of editing (what you've been employing) since Scientiom has been gone (presumably gone for all these years anyway), but have suddenly been subjected to such edits since your return. I was hoping that I would never have to interact with Scientiom again. But we obviously can't always get what we wish for. I at least I had a years break. We can move on from the Scientiom thing. Again, I can't do anything about Scientiom editing again anyway.

I don't think that "scientists favor biologically-based theories," should come before stating that scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation. I fail to see how that is good flow. It makes much more sense to note that they do not know the exact causes, and to then go into what they believe/what their research indicates.

As for "scientists do not know," that wording is supported by things such as the American Psychological Association stating, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." It's supported by the aforementioned review article making clear that scientists are dealing with theories/hypotheses and that while some evidence is stronger than others, "No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test." This is not like the Big Bang, which is a theory but is accepted as fact. Scientists state time and time again that there is no conclusive evidence to support any one specific cause of sexual orientation, but that they have views on what the causes likely are based on the available evidence. In other words, all of it is the same thing as stating "scientists do not know." Synonymous wording is not WP:OR. And per WP:Copyvio, we should typically use our own wording that gets across the same meaning. Your claim that "This language is not found in any credible source and does a great disservice to both readers (who will be left with the impression that there are no scientific studies which give insight into the cause of sexual orientation whatsoever) and the scientific community (who are made to appear completely clueless)." is perplexing, but not surprising coming from you. Like FreeKnowledgeCreator stated above, "you seem to be overly concerned with advancing one particular view of the issue." The lead does not state or imply "that there are no scientific studies which give insight into the cause of sexual orientation." Anyone with a bit of common sense will know that if we are stating that scientists do not know the causes of sexual orientation but have theories/hypotheses on the matter, then scientists have looked into/studied the matter. Plus, the lead of the Sexual orientation article states, "Research over several decades." Stating that scientists favor "biology-based models" but have not concluded exactly what causes sexual orientation does not mean or imply that they are completely clueless. If I were to add "the research on what causes sexual orientation is inclusive," I don't see how this is any different or better than clearly stating "scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation." Even the word exact in there helps show "not completely clueless." And the exact wording of "scientists do not know" or similar (such as "researchers do not know" or "scientists are unsure" or "researchers are unsure") about what causes sexual orientation are in some credible sources; I've read enough to know that. From what I can see, your wording of "while a singular determinant cause for sexual orientation has not been identified" originated on Wikipedia (the Biology and sexual orientation article). Given the research, I wouldn't call it WP:OR, but that wording can suggest that scientists know of some causes but not others, which is not what they say. Believing in something is not the same thing as knowing something. It's not like these articles are suggesting that scientists don't know that sexual orientation is not a choice. The articles are clear that the scientific consensus is that it's not a choice. It's not like the articles are stating that biology isn't a likely cause of sexual orientation. But to what degree biology plays a part and other things concerning the causes of sexual orientation are debatable.

Like FreeKnowledgeCreator stated when you replied on FreeKnowledgeCreator's talk page, suggestions like these should be made on the article talk pages. This is so that others are aware of the discussion and will be likelier to weigh in. But, per WP:TALKCENT, the discussion should take place on one talk page (preferably the Sexual orientation talk page), with a notification on the related talk pages, so that the same discussion is not had across multiple talk pages. And, obviously, I stand by everything I've stated above. So I'd be repeating myself regardless. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Two dashes? Those two dashes are automatically inserted when you press on the signature button. Good grief.

There is a difference, however subtle, between "scientists do not know" and "there is no consensus among scientists". The former may leave readers with an impression of cluelessness on the part of the scientific community, while latter simply states that there is no agreement as of yet. It's a distinction with a difference. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those two dashes. And here's why: Despite those "two dashes [being] automatically inserted when you press on the signature button," the vast majority of editors do not use those two dashes and those two dashes have helped me catch various socks (including Scientiom) since the minority of editors use them and they are just additional evidence. When taken together with all the other behavioral characteristics, they help to equate to one editor. You know, like the fact that many or most editors (such as myself) do not state "ce" in their edit summaries. Or some, like Scientiom/you, use the variation of "c/e," as seen here and here. I could ping each and every editor, including CheckUsers, who can verify just how many socks I've identified on edit summary and signature style (two dashes included) in part if you like. But do not continue to sit here and deny that you are Scientiom. Every time you reply, it's a confirmation. Not that I need any more confirmation on the matter. I am not someone who forgets an editor I've interacted with before. It feels like 2012 and 2013 all over again because of you. I do not like feeling like I'm going backwards.

As for the rest, I am not debating this any further with you on this talk page. I was very clear that I disagree with you on "scientists do not know." I was clear that "If I were to add 'the research on what causes sexual orientation is inclusive,' I don't see how this is any different or better than clearly stating 'scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation.' " I've thoroughly addressed your cluelessness argument. FreeKnowledgeCreator and I obviously disagree with your approaches and reasoning. I've pointed you to what you should do next if you want to pursue this. Pepperbeast also watches the Sexual orientation article and probably would be willing to discuss. FreeKnowledgeCreator and I have emphasized what should be done in cases like these. If WP:Consensus does not go your way, then you move on. Unless, of course, you want an WP:Edit war to ensue. Of course, I could also use a source that uses the exact words "scientists do not know," "researchers do not know," "scientists are unsure" or "researchers are unsure," or even the APA's wording of "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors," which can also be argued as cluelessness going by your reasoning (and would probably need quotation marks and WP:In-text attribution so that people will know who is stating it), but I'd rather not; it's unnecessary. Besides, per WP:In-text attribution, using WP:In-text attribution for a matter such as this can give the impression that only the APA has stated it, when, in fact, various reliable sources are clear that scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi FLyer22 Reborn,

I just got your message on my talk page, and I believe there's been a mistake, as I have not been editing WP:ENGVAR, nor indeed any Wikipedia page. This is my home IP address, used only by myself and my parents, and I'm certain neither of them would vandalise a Wikipedia page either. I was going to say that I believe you have the wrong IP address, but I checked User Contributions for this address and found that in 2006 and 2015, someone used our IP address to make a bunch of salacious edits to Intake ramp, Areola and Uri Geller. How is it possible for someone else to access our IIP address, and is it possible to safeguard against such intrusions? I'm a little concerned by all of this.

Thank you for your time. 86.137.203.148 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no problem! I just removed the old message and replaced it with a welcome at your talk. It's extremely likely that someone else had the IP in 2015 when the issue arose. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I find it strange that you have accused me of "vandalism", for restoring an image to a wikipedia article. The image having file having been incorrectly edited so that it read Hegazi rather than Hegazy, and whilst Hegazi is a more accurate translation of the surname, the image file was posted under the former and thus no longer appeared in the article when this correction was made. Perhaps next time you should be more careful with your accusations and conduct proper research into the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.148.137 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As the edit history shows, soon after reverting you, I restored the article back to how it was. I then warned the culprit. I neglected to remove my warning from your talk page and will do that now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Quotes and copyright

Hi. :) I got your email. As a general rule, it's probably best to use existing noticeboards to draw attention to issues that need repair, but I'm happy to try to explain a little better the intersection between quotations and the copyright policy.

While this is far too complicated to boil down into a simple formula, the short answer is that overuse of quotations may be a copyright violation. It likely is a problem under WP:NFC (if the source is copyrighted, of course) and is probably going to be not the best writing per WP:LONGQUOTE. The more of quoting from one source there is and the more substantial that quotation is in comparison to the original piece or the new piece, the more likely a copyright problem is to exist. So, quoting three lines from a four line poem might be an issue. Quoting three sentences from a 500 page book probably won't. Quoting three sentences from a 500 page book might be a problem, though, if the article that quotes it is four sentences long. In the latter case, the question is, are you building something new from the copyrighted content? Or are you just using it? If you're just using it, you're edging towards copyright problems. You need to think about whether what you're taking is too much of the source (or the most critical part of it) and whether it's too much of the final article.

Using short quotes from dozens of sources may actually be safer from a copyright perspective, because you are building something new. An individual quote may still take too much from a single source, but if the sources are substantial, probably not. In that case, the overuse of quotations is probably not going to be a concern to address through copyright processes, even if it is overuse under WP:NFC.

To me, close paraphrasing is a copyright issue of more concern than over-quotation. In the case of over-quotation, non-free content is plainly marked. It's not encyclopedic, but it can be addressed by a skillful writer. Overly close paraphrasing can mask when content follows a source too closely, which can be an issue of plagiarism or copyright, if there is "comprehensive non-literal similarity" between the works. That occurs when somebody follows something so closely that even if there is not literal copying, it's obvious that they duplicated the source. This is the biggest issue that I encounter when people who aren't skilled at paraphrasing try to rely too much on a single source. They will often try to rewrite it sentence by sentence, instead of reading the whole thing, stepping away, and creating their own summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. As you know, I questioned the current state of the Sexual consent article. The article's creator has stated on the talk page that they've toned down the quoting. I know that you are busy, but do you think you might have time in the future to analyze any possible copyright (including close paraphrasing) concern with the article? To me, it is like the editor just keeps adding quote after quote from whatever author or organization and is not properly summarizing matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Lolifan (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The e-mail's about a sockpuppet and who it's ran by. Lolifan (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

KODA

Thank you for reverting the garbage at KODA, unfortunately, it seems to be back & with a vengeance. I think it could be all be the same person doing this, but using different IP accounts. Thanks again for your edit earlier!Stereorock (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Stereorock, you should ask at WP:Requests for protection that the article be semi-protected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I will, if it happens again. I was seeing similar activity at WDRV, but an admin refused to grant it and said it was a "content dispute"; eventually it got protection.Stereorock (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Update-I asked for RPP. Thanks again!Stereorock (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverted edit to article about S.S. Ste. Claire

I would like to know why you reverted my recent edit to the historic S.S. Ste. Claire Boblo Island steamboat. Was it because I did not originally source the statement? I simply and accurately stated that the owners are vowing to rebuild it after a recent and devastating fire destroyed it. They even started up a $500,000 fundraiser to help cover the cost too. Here is a valid link to what I am referring to. [[34]]

Thank you for your time,

jmcd88 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

jmcd88, as explained in my followup edit, it was because the addition was unsourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

jmcd88 (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Huggle message

Hello. I just want to let you know that in the coming version of Huggle (3.4.5), there will be a new feature of editing pages directly inside Huggle using an edit form. The edit form functions same as the web one. The default shortcut for this is E and the shortcut for "Edit page in browser" (which previously was E) has changed to Alt+E. If you want more non-automated edits or you prefer editing pages in the browser, you can swap the shortcuts of the above. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or Petrb. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 01:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Re:Reviewing pages

Ok then that is fine enough on that area. I wasn't quite sure as checking through I try and avoid those sort of articles but now I know what to look for then. Animation is developing 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Preadolescence

I’m not going by personal beliefs. Most organizations define early childhood as “0-8 years old” or “0-9 years old”. Just search up the word “early childhood” or “early childhood education” to see PrinceofFrancia (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Plus, by very definition adolescence means “to grow up”, which denotes the time from puberty to adulthood. So preadolescence, by definition, is before adolescence and puberty and shouldn’t be part of the category puberty. Some precocious developers may have puberty between 9-12 but this is a general article that gives generalized ages. PrinceofFrancia (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, PrinceofFrancia. I know I came across as stern on your talk page, but this is because I keep seeing you add unsourced content (including as IPs -- what I presume are your IPs), some of which conflicts with what WP:Reliable sources state. We must go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. Per WP:Verifiability, when reliable sources disagree, we give each side their due weight...except for tiny minority views. The majority view (or views), such as dictionaries giving an age range of 10-13, get most of the weight. In some cases, even small (rather than tiny) minority views do not deserve a mention. This is per WP:Due weight. Also, per MOS:QUOTE, changing quotes to something they do not mean is a no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Adulthood

I’ll give sources regarding the young adulthood article. But most I’ve seen would divide it into three parts roughly being 20-39,40-64 and 65 plus; namely young middle and late adulthood respectively PrinceofFrancia (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ve checked a couple of sources such as the book Economic Foundations for Creative Ageing Policy: Volume I Context and Considerations, among others. Most say young adulthood is 20-39 PrinceofFrancia (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t we just put rough ages there and say it can vary. Ie, old age can begin anywhere from 55-65, so it’s around 60 years on average PrinceofFrancia (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

And for the record, being vague on something like this at the Young adult (psychology) article is due to the fact that the age of majority (legal adulthood) is age 18 in most of the world and so we get editors wanting to change the text to 18 when they see something like 20 instead. The current wording for when one becomes an adult has helped stop editors from adding what age they believe to be correct. If meaning "psychologically an adult," then the wording would need to make that clear. Sources too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to extend a belated apology for being such a prick, then and what seems like now. I read back through my recent comments and it encapsulates antagonistic, and I've wanted to stray far away from that kind of behaviour. I do wish for a better image, and I will not force it in should I find one worthy of usage, I will bring it to the talk page. Apologies again, and any further discussion between us will be more civil from my end. Rusted AutoParts 23:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Rusted AutoParts. I will do what I can to not inflame matters either. We all have different opinions on what is the best lead image for articles, not just in the case of the Scarlett Johansson article, and we shouldn't let that send us into turmoil. They are just images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tyciol. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent attack on violence against women

Flyer22, I just don't know how you manage to hold up what with the repeated attacks on our women's violence articles. I keep tabs on our medical articles and have found that the med group (whatever it's called) recently immediately jumped in to defend additions to a med-related addition to a political-related article. And then there are several women-related groups as well. Can't these controversies be posted to one or more WP support groups? Gandydancer (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I do it because someone has to. And, yes, the title of that section and post by that first poster boggled my mind. It's like calling someone who attacks me with a knife the victim because I defended myself. I should have archived that section before someone else could respond a month later. As for help, I alerted Kaldari and Fyddlestix via email to keep a lookout. WP:Med has helped with domestic violence disputes before. For example, Doc James and Jytdog have helped. Jytdog in particular has helped fend off men's rights POV-pushers and their ilk. But domestic violence disputes usually aren't of pressing concern for WP:Med. I don't think contacting WP:Women would be much, if any, help. But per WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict (GamerGate), the domestic violence articles are still under discretionary sanctions. Recently, though, I've had to concern myself with a POV-pusher on the opposite side. So it's not just men's rights editors who are prone to POV-push. Anyway, the "women aren't the main victims," "it's equal" and similar POV claims that always plague the Domestic violence article similarly plague the Sexism article; see this recent discussion, for example. All in a day's work.

On a side note: We should keep a lookout for Charlotte135, who was recently indefinitely blocked for stalking/harassing me/socking. I'm commonly aware of suspicious accounts, including this one, and the suspicious accounts usually don't know it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Flyer, it is so good to have a few words with you. Actually I really do just love women, in a sisterly sort of way, and there are a handful of women here at WP that I hold in really high esteem - you are one of them and a couple of others are WAID and Slim. Highly intelligent, very focused, down to earth, and...so on... OK, as for Charlotte, I hope to god that "she" (which I always doubted) never returns but one can assume that "she" will - though that does not sound like Charlotte to me. As for our WP women's group, it does not surprise me at all that they may not be much help. As for Doc James, yes very helpful and understanding and as for Jytdog, highly intelligent and helpful as well. As for you, it must be a good feeling since you've been around the block so many times to know that you are pretty much in control of any situation that may present. People like me that remain on the outskirts must really appreciate that, at least I sure do. Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer, not really on the "good feeling" aspect since I always dread these discussions and it often takes the assistance of others; not something I can always take care of myself. Anyway, thank you for the high compliments. I've started an RfC on the matter and included sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

OASIS Criticism section reversion

I believe the Criticism section of the OASIS article should remark that OOXML is a highly controversial standard by itself (a fact highlighted in its own article), so since Microsoft's criticism obviously lacks of a neutral point of view, this important detail should be mentioned. Thanks. --2601:602:9C01:C923:1A5E:FFF:FE14:B135 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:LABEL. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In appreciation...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hope you will accept this token of editorial respect for: 1) your appropriate decision to resolve the debate at Talk:Domestic violence with a proper community process for establishing consensus, followed by an extremely well-considered, neutral, and concise description of the competing views, a feature which is by no means a given when you arrive at an RfC these days, and 2) the skill with which you pivoted to make an effectual and sound advocacy for the appropriate reading of the sources and application of our policies. I actually supplied my own !vote before taking the time to read yours, but if I had, I would have seen I needn't have bothered with repeating what you had already fully observed, and might have just joined the others saying "what Flyer said"; normally I find that a bit lazy and problematic in a content dispute, but I get it here. But it's not just that you conformed your opinion to what I think is the appropriate policy reading here that gets you the shiny, but more the way you went about both the necessary open community discussion and crafting your argument about the appropriate focus of that deeply important article. Snow let's rap 08:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Snow Rise. And thank you for commenting there with such thorough detail. I don't always get RfCs right (as you've seen before, and as my RfC at Talk:Trypophobia shows), but I try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As chance would have it, I actually saw that Talk:Trypophobia discussion as well, because I was checking out the WikiProject Psychology talk page a couple of days ago and saw the notice there. But my time is so sparse right now, I didn't want to wade into such a complicated MEDRS analysis without sufficient time to catch up on the material. Funny how you can run into the same person in multiple disparate areas over such a short period of time; I was just commenting on that to another editor, actually. In any event, RfC (particularly the part of trying to faithfully represent arguments you may disagree with as faithfully and effectively as possible) is complicated and it's easy to make a misstep--but I think you nailed it with regard to the DV discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, yeah, after replying to you above, I looked at your contributions and saw that you had recently been active at WikiProject Psychology and probably saw the trypophobia stuff already. WikiProject Psychology is on my watchlist, but I don't pay much attention to it. Even with WP:Med, which is also on my watchlist, I don't check in often to see what is being discussed there. When coming back to Wikipedia every day or every couple or few days, I'm mainly concerned with catching up on my watchlist and addressing any issues that need to be addressed (either at one of the articles I'm watching or at one of the articles I come across when patrolling). After that, I'm ready to log off. I don't have much time for significantly improving Wikipedia articles these days. My latest substantial effort was the Vagina article and bringing that to GA. As for the trypophobia disputes, they mainly concern interpretations of copyright, plagiarism, extensive quoting from a source even when there is no legal plagiarism or copyright issue, and different interpretations of WP:Verifiability.

Anyway, thanks again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

About Dog Treat

In zh:中国动画列表(Chinese animation list), the author of Dog Treat is Huang Wennong(黄文农). This is my cause. But Chinese Wikipedia didn't have a good citation about Dog Treat, so I leave this uncited. I'll find a better citation later. Clayblockmc (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

metallurgical assay

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potassium_pyrosulfate&type=revision&diff=852925195&oldid=852925171

Why did you revert this, am I wrong maybe? I just don't find any information on fusion in "analytical chemistry" so I don't think the link is very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1812:142a:3300:d476:4b4a:5a88:aa7f (talk • contribs)

Feel free to revert me on that. I leave it to others to handle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Doležal wiki page

You recently changed the spelling of Dolezal to Doležal to keep consistency; I'm just letting you know that you missed a few on that page, also the spelling on her bothers page would also need to be changed to keep consistency. I haven't made the alterations myself as I don't know which spelling it should be and its not my decision. Personally I'd go with whatever spelling of her surname that the press always use but like I said it's not my decision and I don't wanna get into an argument with anyone over it so I've not made the alterations and I'm just letting you know what I noticed. HardeeHar (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

HardeeHar, regarding that, I decided against checking for further spelling inconsistencies. I was annoyed that someone had changed the wording to the form that is not the common one, and I figured someone else would take the hint via my edit and pick one spelling or the other. I'm not a big contributor to that article, and I'm leaving that matter up to others unless it's addressed on the talk page. If it's addressed on the talk page, I will state that we should use the form that the reliable sources usually use. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

==

Alexander von Benckendorff as a Decembrist Николай Троицкий. Декабристы: Становление // Троицкий Н. А. Россия в XIX веке: Курс лекций. — М.: Высш. шк., 1997. — 431 с.; scepsis.ru

Heads up

Thanks for the heads up concerning the discussion. I presume a belated sense of the inappropriateness of 'going behind my back' kicked in at some point. Urselius (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Urselius, there was no "going behind your back." I told you from the very beginning that I was going to alert to alert WP:Med to the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Alene Duerk

I’m curious. I edited the Alene Duerk article a few days ago and have my settings set to auto-add articles I’ve edited to my watch list. A day or two later, someone (IP address) added a Personal Info section with a line about how she never married or had kids. I don’t care one way or the other, but you then reverted that statement. Considering it is true, I left it alone when it was added. Why did you feel the need to revert? I’m just trying to understand. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 15:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

TadgStirkland401, I reverted because it was unsourced. Besides that, I don't see a need for a "Personal life" section just to note that she was unmarried and without children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Fair enough, I suppose. I’ve only recently returned to editing Wikipedia, so I’m trying to relearn common practices. I understand the need to cite statements of fact, especially if there is any question or contention about that fact. But in this case, it’s commonly accepted that she never married or had kids. Does every statement in an article require citation? If so, Wikipedia is far less cited than it needs to be. I’m not going to change the article, but it does seem like a small thing to delete. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: My apologies. I'm not sure if you saw my note above in response because I didn't use your correct userID in the reply-to tag. Sorry about that... I'm not sure why, but a user called JC7V7DC5768 got involved in this discussion by making a comment on MY Talk page instead of here. He/she sent a citable source that does say specifically that she was neither married or had any kids. At this point, I don't honestly care. Here is the link to the source if you should want to put that info back into the bio. Orlando Sentinel article. I'll keep the article on my watch list to see if you edit it to re-add the info. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 00:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

TadgStirkland401, I didn't respond to your "02:42, 12 August 2018" post because I didn't see that I needed to state anything else. I removed the aforementioned material for a valid reason, and I do not see a need to state that she was unmarried and childless. If you want to add the material with a reliable source, you are free to do so. As for questions like "Does every statement in an article require citation?", WP:Verifiability has the answer for that. It's more so that statements that are likely to be challenged require a source. As indicated by WP:The sky is blue, editors don't feel a need to source everything. But most things should be sourced. Many people are not familiar with Alene Duerk. As for pinging me, there is no need to ping me on my talk page since it's my talk page; I will get alerted simply by the fact that you posted on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Forgot ping

I forgot to ping you, but I replied to Talk:Love. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I see you're still here keeping the encyclopedia primed with content and keeping disruptive editors in check. Somebody should give you one of these. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Up-to-date information

The inclusion of up-to-date information is not being debated at Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Everything added to the lead was already also in the article body except for the recent discoveries in Pennsylvania, which I have now included in the body).

I hope you don't have anything against the article being up-to-date?? Clean Copy^talk 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Clean Copy, I ask that you keep article stuff at the article talk page. I am obviously watching the article. As for what I am against, I am against WP:Undue weight and WP:Recentism additions, as I explained. I am also against an article about child sexual abuse being hijacked with material about abuse of nuns or other women, as if the literature on Catholic Church sexual abuse is anywhere close to being as much about the latter (nuns/other women). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

U.S. versus United States

Hello and thanks for your curiosity about the whole U.S. versus United States Manual of Style policy. In the particular instance you cited, I spelled out U.S. because it's used as a noun. If it were used as an adjective—e.g., U.S.-led coalition—I would have let it stand as an acronym for United States because that would be a perfectly acceptable use under Wikipedia's Manual of Style rules. I routinely encounter this common mistake on WP pages, so apparently this rule confuses many editors. Recently WP asked us to vote on proposals to make editing easier for newbies, so I gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to a copyediting test/grammar boot camp idea—because frankly I get tired of fixing the same mistakes over and over. Thanks again for your question, and thanks for helping improve this project. Cheers! Kinkyturnip (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Kinkyturnip, thanks for your reply about the MOS:US guideline. I expected you to reply on your talk page and probably should have stated that I would have checked back there for a reply. But my "centralized discussion" preference aside, it's obviously fine that you replied here. As for the text in question, it was copied from the lead of the Cunt article. So, for consistency, I take it that the Cunt article should spell it out as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see that article spells it now as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Kinkyturnip, the reason I asked is because MOS:US states, "When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective." But there are no other countries mentioned in the paragraph. The paragraph does mention British English, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The US issue is a constant problem for editors like ourselves who want to get it right, yet the policy has several exceptions.

One example: U.S. or UK is acceptable as a noun in infoboxes where space is limited. Sorta gives new meaning to the slogan all the news that fits.

Likewise the policy is confusing on pages where U.S. and UK are both used (though the policy is clear on avoiding the mistake I just made here: avoid using countries' acronyms with and without periods in the same article).

So, what to do? Use your best judgment in following the policy and don't fret about being wrong: somebody will eventually correct unintentional mistakes (though it's best to avoid them in the first place).

Now I'm going to watch "Bart On The Road", The Simpsons episode about a grammar rodeo and fantasize about hog-tying writers who make constant grammar mistakes (joking!) Kinkyturnip 21:15, 23 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Kinkyturnip, I just want to make clear that MOS:US is [[WP:Policies and guidelines|a guideline, not a policy]. I subtly stated this above. But since you have continued to state "policy," I felt I should be more direct. You haven't explained why it was wrong to use "U.S." in the aforementioned case, and I don't see that the guideline states that the use is wrong. It's why I pointed out the line I did. It's why I asked you about this matter in the first place. I could ask at the MOS talk page, but I'd rather just move on. However, if you are going to insist that usages like the aforementioned one is a mistake, maybe I should take the matter to the MOS page for clarification. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Osceola and Renegade

Osceola and Renegade are symbols, not mascots. To label them as such insults them. (Also, the link to your talk page instead goes to User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus.) 67.8.212.22 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you per the WP:Hidden note. Why are you disregarding it and not taking the matter to the talk page for discussion? As for Abelmoschus Esculentus, I'm not sure what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

paedophile causes section

suggest you insert subsections as it is not helpful to readers in current form JCJC777 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

JCJC777, the section is small. It doesn't really need subsections. We don't add subsections simply because a section has four paragraphs or six small paragraphs. But I will keep subsections in mind after I am finished with the update of WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing that I mentioned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Reg Thirumurugan Gandhi

Please refrain from making changes to articles about which you have less knowledge about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavya1333 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bhavya1333, if you keep making unsourced, POV edits like this, you will continue to be reverted. No one needs to be familiar with that topic to know what Wikipedia's rules are and to follow them. And if you keep adding such material to a WP:BLP article, you can expect to be WP:Blocked. I see that Ad Orientem has already had to WP:Semi-protect the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

OANN

Be careful about the reverts. There are others watching the page who can revert any silliness, so there's no need to risk a trip to WP:ANEW. It's easy to get caught up in these things inadvertently. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I mainly revert vandalism and other unconstructive edits. What reverts are you referring to? I highly doubt I need to worry about WP:ANEW. In any case, I am well aware of the rules on this site and how to handle revert situations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you mean my revers at One America News Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Well, yes, I was not planning on revering that editor again. I can tell from the edit history that others are likely to handle that editor. And for good measure, I thanked two via WP:Echo. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Mleiha

Okay, here we go. Why are you reverting - with no reason - perfectly valid additions to an article? The objects were found at Faya-1, Faya is at Mleiha - in Sharjah - and they're displayed there and explained there. And the find has been C14 dated to 125,000 years ago. This is all in the link. So why the silent reverts? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, I stand by what I stated here. Make your case on the article talk page. Explain there why you think it's better to remove "100,000." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and the second revert I meant to do manually...with an edit summary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And as it happens the source says 125k as does my cite on the talk page. You didn't have to be so bitey, BTW... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, I don't see that my tone was any more inappropriate than yours. It's the Internet; sometimes I sound bitey or bitier when I don't mean to be. I have different versions of the article in my head (which can confuse matters when I look at the current version), I have looked at a number of sources in the article, and you didn't explain why you were removing "100,000." If it was a matter of it being unsourced, why wouldn't you simply state that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Biology and sexual orientation

Thanks for your last edition on Biology and sexual orientation article. I understand the topic is not relevant with it. But in the research where researchers used algorithm, it supports the Prenatal hormones theory. I think I can add the info on the Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation article, can't I? Fahim fanatic (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Fahim fanatic, no. That would be WP:OR. Read WP:OR, including its WP:Synthesis section. The source must explicitly tie the matter to the prenatal hormonal theory. But even then, it is a WP:Primary source, is WP:Fringe, and should not be added. I've been over sourcing with you on your talk page. And you got a similar reply at WP:Med. Are you not understanding WP:MEDRS? WP:Secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. Primary sources are strongly discouraged. There is also a matter of WP:Weight. All of that is why I reverted you here (with a followup note here). I know that understanding this site's rules is not always easy, but you must first try. You do that by first reading the pages you are pointed to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the source mentions the prenatal hormonal theory, but what I stated about the type of sourcing that is preferred, WP:Fringe, and WP:Weight still stands. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sexual identity - a comment

Hi Flyer.

I disagree (but not aggressively so) with your statement of "To be fair, couples are called "heterosexual couples" if one is male and the other is female and they are in a romantic and/or sexual relationship (or simply engaging in sexual activity with each other), regardless of how they personally identify their sexual orientation"

I thought I'd comment here, as it has no real relevance on the discussion where it originated, and would only clutter up the focus there.

A persons (or couples) sexual label should be defined by their sexual orientation, surely. In the bluntest form what you suggest is that if couple "A" are male/female and have sexual relationships they are heterosexual, but if male "A" goes and subsequently has sex with male "B" he is now homosexual. By logical extension a person can only be defined as Bisexual if they are having a threesome (or moresome) with both male and female partner at the same time - and indeed only at that time. If a person is not having sex with anybody, what sexual orientation do they have?

I appreciate that you may have been referring to image descriptions, but this is still the case - if the same person is depicted in an image, then the above cannot hold true.

This is why I believe the better option (in the case of image descriptions, which is what started this all off) is to simply ignore any preference label, unless it is inherent or relevant to the topic.

I'm not starting a fight or argument, I'd just be interested in your reasoning, in case I've misunderstood it. Curved Space (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Curved Space, when I first saw this heading, I thought maybe there was trouble at the Sexual identity article. Anyway, as for this, I was referring not only to how couples are labeled in sexuality research, but also by society in general. It seems you are using "heterosexual" and "homosexual" strictly. Like I've stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, including at this talk page, the term homosexuality does not only refer to sexual orientation, but also to sexual behavior and sexual identity as well. Yes, when the term homosexual (rather than the term homosexuality) is used, scholars and the general public are usually referring to the sexual orientation aspect, but it is also at times used to refer to sexual behavior, as in "homosexual behavior" or "a homosexual couple." Similar goes for "heterosexual behavior" or "a heterosexual couple." When researchers state "heterosexual couple" or "lesbian couple," or "gay couple" (to mean two men in a romantic and/or sexual relationship), they usually are not referring to the couple's sexual orientation. They are usually basing the description on the behavior; this is because when studying such couples, it's the behavior and domestic aspect that researchers are usually focused on. Take lesbian sexual practices or domestic violence in lesbian relationships, for example. When studying such practices or the couples, the women are usually referred to as lesbian couples, even if one or more identify as bisexual or one is a self-identified heterosexual, or one or both don't personally label their sexual orientation at all. As you can see in this section of the Lesbian article, the term lesbian isn't even consistently applied by researchers and self-identified lesbians. It may be used by them to "describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction)." Like I stated at Talk:Domestic violence in lesbian relationships about the article title, "'Lesbian' is the standard term for same-sex romantic/sexual attraction between human females." I know that language such as "heterosexual couple," "lesbian couple," and "gay couple" can create bisexual erasure, which is why I mentioned that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions, but it is the way that research is usually conducted and it's the way that society beyond researchers generally refers to couples. When do you ever hear or see researchers or the general public state "bisexual couple"? In my experience, it's infrequent. I was not implying anything about a couple's sexual orientation when I made the comment I made. I am well aware that, for example, a man having sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual or bisexual; I stated as much to an editor who was recently being disruptive. If I didn't know this, I would question my own competence with regard to editing sexuality articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was writing in a bit of a hurry and didn't link as much as I should have. Your explanation is pretty much what I figured. The term "heterosexual" etc refers to behaviour, not orientation. Curved Space (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Curved Space, thanks. And, of course, as you know, the terms men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW) exist to get past sexual identity or label issues that might hamper research. There's also research on mixed-orientation marriages, but it's specifically about differing sexual orientations, while a term such as same-sex marriage is not. I noted before that some people advise avoiding the term gay marriage since it can imply the sexual orientation or sexual identity of the spouses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone page.

I was trying to indicate a missing scale, but apparently I didn't know how. 108.160.124.180 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Mariam-uz-Zamani

its not nice of u to undo my edits Mariam uz Zamani Jodha Begum (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I noted on your talk page why I reverted this and this. Being nice or rude has nothing to do with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Gay penguin couple steal chick from neglecting straight parents at Denmark zoo

Interesting article - [35], and here - [36]. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tom O'Carroll RFC

Sorry to bother you with more of this stuff, I don't know if you are aware of this discussion or care to jump in, or if Snow said everything already, but due to your past work in the area I thought you might like to know this discussion was going on. Thanks for your time, ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you might already feel sick of my "contributions" by now, but

here have another one:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedia,_a_quatertiary_source.

I can't guess how you'd react to this proposal if not opposed.

Then again, I can't much imagine what you'd say even if opposed.

(believe me or not, I don't make these posts to create wiki drama)

Still, I'd appreciate a more thoughtful response than just "you're wrong".

Hence why I'm asking you to respond : D

Eaterjolly (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could vouch for me.

User_talk:Eaterjolly#cut it out

Eaterjolly (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Eaterjolly, perhaps you feel comfortable with me because of our discussions at Talk:Macrophilia, which is where you mostly stayed before recently branching out. But I don't see what I can state to you that others haven't. Yes, I could state more than "you're wrong," but I don't see the point. I know that you think that Beeblebrox's statement on your talk page was harsh, but you have been editing in ways and proposing things that don't align with the way Wikipedia works. I understand that there are a lot of rules here to learn, but when you have a number of experienced Wikipedians telling you that you are wrong (and some noting why), you should listen. To change things around here, WP:Village pump is a start; so I see that you at least tried that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have a solid grasp of the policies, rather the conventions seem different.

For obvious reasons, conventions and guidelines seem inconsistently applied.

I guess I'd appreciate criticism, if anyone responded to my claims.

-

Speedy discarding without reply appears like fear over what might happen if anyone agreed with me.

If no one answered my proposal, then oh well sadface. Why collapse the discussion too? Even in the archive...

Perhaps, I shouldn't respond to everyone who responds to me on wikipedia.

I notice not very many discussions involve back-and-forth on wiki.

I'm not sure if that contributes to the neutrality or just focuses the mob rule // majority rule aspect.

I do think that WP:Fringe gets abused to try to minimalize and marginalize views the majority disagrees with.

-

To me WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:OUTRAGE directly contradict with how most editors interpret fringe.

Someone in the administrators noticeboard compared my VP to WP:PEREN 1.7, which I at first thought weird, because I never once mention the words reliable or unreliable in my proposal. I guess the comparison makes sense, because my proposal kinda throws out reliability assuming honesty and caring more about what sources might likely make mistakes about on a case-by-case basis with explicit guidelines. This feels like a novel approach to me and worth discussion, perhaps I just think I'm a snowflake. Eaterjolly (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The worst non-sense including not citing film or animation credits for the staff. Eaterjolly (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, upon further examination, I did say reliable/unreliable.

I shouldn't have talked about reliability, since I didn't mean to talk about reliability.

I meant to talk about oversight. That Perennial seems even more odd now, since the guidelines do explain criteria for reliability, mostly in that relibility requires editorial oversight, which to me sounds rather unambiguous. We could say accountability instead, but accountability to anyone with strict principles. I don't know: I view investigating claims as happening frequently in a wikipedia context, so I can't determine in what way my proposal deviated from the established norm, besides suggesting sources with a platform instead of oversight should get endorsed for inclusion on wikipedia assuming corroboration without contradiction.

Eaterjolly (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Gesaffelstein

Hello. Thanks for the explanation on Gesaffelstein. Is there a policy regarding DOB that it must be explicitly stated in the source? It seems common sense to me that if RS state an individual turns a certain age on a specific date you can work backwards, in this case subtracting 31 from 2018 or 30 from 2017. Unfortunately those are the best sources I can find; fr-wiki also repeats the 1985 claim without reference. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson, I was simply explaining why I removed any mention of the birth date. I'm not interested in discussing this further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

And now you are denying that Brad Pitt is a sexy MF? Come on... Drmies (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Rape culture, part 2

Thanks for the comments at rape culture. Copyvio is maybe the wrong word, but basically copied and pasted from the source.

I would appreciate any help in clearing the article up. I'm struggling to wade through every source to check if the statements are actually supported, and to make sense of all the synthesis. --hippo43 (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hippo43, regarding that, it wasn't word for word. It's WP:Close paraphrasing, but the WP:LIMITED section of WP:Close paraphrasing is clear that close paraphrasing is permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing.

As for the article in question, it has been subject to a lot of WP:Student editing. There have been a lot of problems with the article, and Jytdog has dealt with most of them. I'm not heavily involved with the article. I watch it, but I don't edit it much. There are going to be editors who want to add the type of historical material you removed because of the definition of rape culture that is currently seen in the lead of the article. They will argue that society was historically a rape culture. It's similar to what I've had to deal with at the Slut-shaming article; see Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?. They will have a point in how society traditionally treated rape, just like editors have had a point in how society has traditionally slut-shamed women. But these terms are not as old and the concepts have been framed in a way that we should stick to WP:Reliable sources defining whatever as being an aspect of rape culture or slut-shaming. If an editor adds reliably sourced material tying rape culture back to ancient times or other older times, for example, then that is obviously an okay addition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I hope we can avoid a discussion/RfC like that. There should be enough RSs covering the topic specifically to avoid having to manufacture a section like the one I removed. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hippo43, regarding this, keep in mind that the Huff Post has been the subject of a number of discussions at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. It is used on Wikipedia as a reliable source in some cases; context matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware. In my judgment it is not a reliable secondary source in this case, given the nature of the article and the authors. It's not necessary to include the Huff Post when there are plenty of better sources covering essentially the same stuff. Let me know if you think differently. --hippo43 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Image relevance question at Ron Stallworth

Flyer22, could you possibly look at the image question at Talk:Ron Stallworth? It needs more eyes. Thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Amsgearing, I meant to reply earlier, but I don't see why you contacted me to weigh in. It seems like you all are working it out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It just needed more people to look at it. There's an RfC on it now, if you care to weigh in. Thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Amsgearing, I'm saying that it seems you randomly contacted me. I don't see that I've interacted with you before, unless you used some other account and we interacted that way, and I don't see that I've been involved with the article. Someone might accuse you of WP:Canvassing even though your request was neutral. Anyway, I'll leave the aforementioned article up to you and others to deal with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Understood. No, I haven't ever had contact with you before. I simply saw that you have weighed in on other image discussion before, and you seemed likea good, neutral, experienced editor to contact. Amsgearing (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Misconduct List

Can you do a list of sexual assault victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:C180:13A5:F519:B011:D10C:7C46 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)