Note: Parts of my user page were created in 2007/2008, and I'm either too lazy to drastically redesign that text or have become attached to it in a way.
- 1 Using Wikipedia
- 2 Who is Flyer22?
- 3 Main types of articles interested in creating and or expanding
- 4 Main type of editing style
- 5 Created articles
- 6 DYK articles
- 7 GA (Good Article) status articles
- 8 Awards: Barnstar or other
- 9 Articles significantly expanded
- 10 Other articles contributed to
- 11 Vandalism
- 12 If I, Flyer, ever leave Wikipedia for good
- 13 References
This here is how busy Wikipedia is.
Admit it—you use Wikipedia too. Someone comes to you wanting to know how to find some good stuff on quantum physics, so you sneak a peak at the relevant Wikipedia article just so you won’t sound stupid to your patron. Or someone queries, "What year did George Washington die?" and you could look it up in Oxford Reference, but you don’t. I mean, even Wikipedia couldn’t get the date of George Washington’s death date wrong, could it?
Though traditional encyclopedia producers disdain it, Wikipedia has an edge in one area—currency. If I want an article on "folksonomy," I can’t find it in Encyclopaedia Britannica, whereas Wikipedia will instantly tell me that it is "a user-generated taxonomy used to categorize and retrieve web content…using open-ended labels called tags."
If the average university student can safely go to Wikipedia instead of consulting a specialized print reference source, then academia is broken. It is a finger in the eye of the whole academic enterprise. It’s as if our students are saying, "We don’t care if it breaks the rules, deceives us, or is dumber than print reference books. We like Wikipedia, and it rarely lets us down."
They have never been part of the analog generation. Wikipedia is their world, and it has met their needs wonderfully. To tell them to use only the print encyclopedias for reference information is to make them ask, "Why should I when Wikipedia is at my fingertips?"
Moving Beyond the Impasse
Banning Wikipedia from the academic world doesn’t work either. It doesn’t prevent students from using it secretly (or plagiarizing from it), plus it helps further the anti-academic subculture. We need to be aware that academia is primarily analog and that our students are largely digital. Academics have, for the most part, yet to embrace the new reality that much of the information produced today comes from the users of that information.
Embracing the World of Wikipedia
Truth to tell, much of Wikipedia is simply amazing in its detail, currency, and accuracy. Denying this is tantamount to taking ourselves out of the new digital reality. But we need to help our students see that Wikipedia is also an environment for shallow thinking, debates over interpretation, and the settling of scores. Wikipedia itself advises that its users consult other sources to verify the information they are finding. If a key element in information literacy is the ability to evaluate information, what better place to start than with Wikipedia? We can help students to distinguish the trite from the brilliant and encourage them to check their Wikipedia information against other sources.— William Badke of Trinity Western University
Who is Flyer22?
Some personal detail
I am a vegetarian, but I do not mind if others eat meat. I am female and was born in Pensacola, Florida. I have four siblings, and I'm the oldest; all of my siblings, except one, are adults (the minor is a too-smart-for-her-own-good late teenager).
I was approached by the Mary Lou Modeling Agency at age 16 to consider becoming a model. I turned it down to focus on my own interests, such as screenwriting. Furthermore, I am only 5'3"; thus modeling did not sound like the most promising career. Oddly enough, or maybe it's not that odd, I still look as though I am in my late teens. Basically, late teens/early twenties. For some reason, I don't seem to age. Not too visibly on the surface, at least. But seeing some celebrities who are now in their late 20s/early 30s, they don't look drastically different than when they were teenagers either, and I doubt visits to certain doctors kept them all looking that way.
I am able to access editing Wikipedia quite often, seeing as most of my work is computer-related. When it comes to Pensacola, Florida, I have no interest in staying long, and may often venture out to Los Angeles, California or New York City. I am also involved in acting.
While I was in high school, I thought about careers that differed from writing and matched my knowledge of other things, knowledge that my mother would brag about. The views of my parents could not be imposed on me, and so I left to do my own thing.
To get in contact with me outside of Wikipedia, you may email me if you are a registered user; click on the Toolbox selection to the left of this page, and an "E-mail this user" option will pop up. Select it, and there you go. Keep in mind, however, that, concerning Wikipedia, I only regularly email with a select few (and I do mean a very small group of people from this site). So for others, if you email me, make sure that it is about something that makes my user talk page less than ideal to use for that message. Otherwise, I may very well ignore you, especially since replying back will provide you with my email address (one of them anyway).
I have significant knowledge in the social/scientific/psychological/sexual fields, as well as in popular culture topics such as soap operas, but will not edit much scientific or mathematics material due to being tired of it. Additionally, I will not edit much screenwriting material either, despite loving the medium. Reasons? I deal with it enough in everyday life.
Specific detail on my credentials are without mention on Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, and their contributions are of more note. I see some things as bragging (LOL).
I love to write, read books, play Go... And I have several other hobbies as well, though I will not list all.
Favorite television shows at the moment
Recently past (anime or otherwise)
- Death Note
- Fate/stay Night
- Kurokami (also known as Black God)
- Hikaru no Go (based on one of the most complex games ever, Go). I usually do not watch animes about characters so young, and prefer them to be mid/late teenagers or adults, but this anime is surprisingly very, very good. The characters even age into mature people, as the series follows three years.
- Additional note: There are others, but I am too lazy to think of them. And, yeah, I would have to think about them. I suppose they aren't that memorable.
Most recent (but no recent animes)
- Teen Wolf. Has actually turned out to be a pretty good series. Everyone definitely should give it a try, especially if you loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
- The Walking Dead
- Game of Thrones (excellent show)
Hell on WheelsWithout carelessly spoiling anyone interested in the series, I state that this was a favorite television show of mine until they killed off a major/pivotal character in what seemed to take the heart out of the show. I will have to wait and see if it's renewed for Season 3 and if I will continue to watch it even though there now seems to be a huge void left after the Season 2 finale; most fans are not pleased with that move by the creators. As a hint, three characters were taken out. Two are definitely dead unless a rewrite happens for one of them, and the other may be dead. I'm referring to one of the ones who are definitely dead; that death overshadowed the death of the other.
- A few science shows and reality shows.
- There are other recent shows that I like or sort of like, such as Witches of East End, but I wouldn't call them my favorites.
- Perrine's Literature : Structure Sound and Sense
- Death in Venice
- To Kill a Mockingbird
- Wuthering Heights
- The Curious Incident of the Dog
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Alchemist
- The battle for Wikipedia's soul
- What to Do With Wikipedia
- NOVA Online | Time Travel
- Human race will 'split into two different species'
Favorite reads on Wikipedia
- "Category:Nonsense pages for speedy deletion" used to exist on Wikipedia. It was hilarious. And aside from the serious articles, were a "good" read. One of my favorites was Chuck Cotter:
The only alterations I made to it are: The name Chuck Cotter was bolded, a wikilink was added, bullet points were added, and a few grammatical errors were corrected.
- Chuck Cotter
Chuck Cotter is one of the most mysterious, creative and intelligent men to enter into the financial services industry. His date of birth, place of origin or family history is unknown because if you knew it, you would probably be dead. Over the last 20 years, Chuck Cotter has reviewed, ravaged and destroyed thousands of loan presentations at senior loan committee. He knows the ins and outs of every industry and credit deal ever and he knows future deals coming in.
- The few who have grown close to him have the following tidbits of information to inform the public of the man, the myth and the legend, Chuck Cotter.
- This great nation tried to honor Chuck Cotter by placing his face on Mount Rushmore, however, the stone of Mount Rushmore was too strong to carve out his mustache.
- Chuck Cotter smoked 54,000 cigarettes just to get cancer so he could beat it.
- Guns don't kill people, Chuck Cotter kills people.
- Chuck Cotter has counted infinity twice.
- Chuck Cotter doesn't sleep. He waits.
- There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals that Chuck Cotter allows to live.
- There is no chin under Chuck Cotter's mustache. There is only another fist.
- Chuck Cotter has two speeds. Walk and Kill.
- Chuck Cotters' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
- Chuck Cotter's outlook calendar skips from March 31st to April 2nd cause no one fools Chuck Cotter.
- Chuck Cotter doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
Main types of articles interested in creating and or expanding
- Science articles.
- Human nature articles (such as anatomy).
- Science-fiction articles.
- Action-adventure articles.
- Film articles.
- Prime time television articles.
Main types of articles working on at the moment:
- Sex-related articles. Ranging from healthy sexual thoughts and behaviors to sexual deviant topics (such as rape or pedophilia).
Main type of editing style
- Flexible — usually bounces from human nature articles (whether it be sexuality topics, etc.), to actor/actress articles, or other types, to combating vandalism.
I am stern regarding the first two subsection topics below:
Too many people at this site (longtime editors and WP:Newbies alike) think that being WP:Neutral means that all viewpoints, including minority viewpoints/similar such matters, should be represented alongside and/or as prominently as the prevailing view. Well, this section is meant to clear that misguided notion right up.
Like I will repeat as many times as it is needed to be repeated, Wikipedia cannot do much about the "unequal" matters in the world without creating false balance. WP:Due weight makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections) that there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources. Wikipedia follows the mainstream; it does not try to create the mainstream. I am all for making an article more neutral, but not to the point where we are attempting to give "equal validity." I will always give more weight to what the significant majority of sources state, so do not be surprised if I reword or revert any changes that go against WP:Undue weight. The only time that the majority should not get more weight is when it is a small majority.
I do not tolerate WP:Advocacy. And if you engage in it, chances are that I do not respect you as a Wikipedia editor; I do not care what your cause is. For example, I support the LGBT community a great deal and I will readily campaign for that cause in my non-Wikipedia life, but you will not see me giving "equal validity" to LGBT aspects on Wikipedia. Not ever. As much as I am for diversity, as is obvious by my positive involvement in WP:LGBT topics, I am just as much for following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because I work on Wikipedia sexual topics and follow WP:Due weight on those topics, I am occasionally accused of being gay/lesbian or heterosexist. I do not care what you think I am; I could be LGBT or heterosexual, for all you know. WP:Neutral is about giving appropriate weight to views it should be given to, and WP:Due weight is specifically about the majority vs. the minority; we are supposed to give more weight to the majority. With regard to sexual matters, this is a world that puts most of its sexual attention on heterosexuality (see heteronormativity). It is also a world that is significantly more focused on sexual activity involving the use of a penis than any other type of sexual activity. None of this is surprising if indeed the vast majority of the world is heterosexual. So complaining to me about an article being non-neutral in either regard, when it is what most sources or the vast majority of sources cover on that matter, will get you nowhere. I will give WP:Due weight where it is needed, but do not expect me to sacrifice the quality of the article to elevate the minority view to the same standing. No, I will not employ WP:Gender-neutral language throughout an article when the vast majority of sources do not use gender-neutral language, not unless doing so is clearly appropriate. If a topic is more of a male topic, do not expect me to give as much weight to the female aspect...or vice versa in the case of a topic that is mostly considered a female matter. I will not. And you will have a difficult time presenting the article in such a way, as long as I am at that article and care about you not doing so. Wikipedia has one too many conservative POV-pushers and one too many LGBT POV-pushers; I am neither. And for the record, I am non-religious (unlike the significant majority of my family).
The WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay is right on-target; in part, it states, "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. ... On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. 'Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.'"
Wikipedia also has one too many exhibitionist type of editors, those who insist on including offensive sexual images at the expense of our readership (meaning that it is all about what the editor wants instead of what our readers are most likely to want). I've stated this before on Wikipedia, and I will state it again here on my user page: WP:NOTCENSORED is not the only thing that should be considered with regard to sexual images. There is WP:GRATUITOUS to consider as well. Many of our readers take more offense to images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts than of images of these types that have been drawn. And if we can minimize such offense with an alternative image that adequately conveys the same message, we should. Like WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in an article about that act; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images. Our readers more readily state or shout "That's porn!" or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one, though they make a fuss over some of the drawn ones as well (especially the ones by Seedfeeder). And there is a valid point that using a real-life image to illustrate a sex act distracts from the text and makes the article feel pornographic and less encyclopedic; there is no need for that when an equally suitable alternative is available. As for any assertion along the lines of "That article has a photograph but this one doesn't.", Seedfeeder's images have helped clean up matters concerning the many complaints and much WP:Edit warring that have gone on at Wikipedia over images of sex acts, and it's now standard practice to use a drawing of a sex act instead of an image of a real-life sex act.
Besides, there is some suspicion that Seedfeeder's images are of real people; some people consider his images so life-like that they have suggested that he traces lines over porn to create the images, as seen in this accusation. But whatever the case on that, his images on Wikipedia are commonly substituted for images of real-life sex acts, and, like I noted, that factor has substantially improved matters on Wikipedia.
If we call it "puritan nonsense" to not include a real-life sex image over a drawing or painting of such an act, it happens to be vast "puritan nonsense." From what I have studied with regard to sexual topics (and it happens to be a lot), the reaction to sexual imagery as offensive and/or distracting, except in situations deemed appropriate by whatever means, is the prevailing reaction (meaning it prevails over "Oh, I'm fine with that."). Since I've been at this site (which is since 2007), I've witnessed "That's porn!" and "That detracts/distracts from the article." type of arguments from various walks of life, including on Jimbo Wales's Wikipedia user talk page; those arguments exist whether it's a drawing, painting, some form of digital art or a photograph, but they are far more prevalent when it is a photograph (as in a real-life image). Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy the article as much, or take the article as seriously, with such images. To them, it is simply porn. So we might as well make it less pornographic to them; this approach has been working well, as editors such as Herostratus can attest to, and I see no valid reason to disrupt that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS tell us what to do in the case of an image that is likely to be offensive, whether we should use that one or an "equally suitable alternative." WP:GRATUITOUS is the answer to "prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense," and it is quite valid; it exists partly for that reason.
Being perceptive/having foresight
I'm not too interested in creating articles, unless I'm molding existing articles into my creations. But in my early years on Wikipedia, I created:
- The JR and Babe (Jabe) article.
- The Bianca and Maggie (BAM) article -- I wasn't a huge fan of this couple before, but after refreshing my memory on them by watching clips and videos of their relationship on YouTube, I was pulled in more than when I originally saw chemistry between these two. I'd never been a fan of a gay/lesbian television or film (or play, for that matter) couple. Not because I refused to, but because no gay/lesbian couple had ever pulled me in. This couple, however, is a different story. They also have had a little more real-world impact than JR and Babe, and it was great to work with, as that was my main reason for creating this article. And this article (the second of which I created) was definitely better than the earlier stages of when I first created the JR and Babe article. It's really awesome to see how much of a newbie I was then, how unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies I was then to how I am now with Wikipedia. A few months really did make all the difference. Flyer22 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery article.
- Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article
- The Todd Manning article (did not technically create, but article was a stub before I significantly expanded it).
- Téa Delgado
- Stacey Castor (did not technically create, but was going to before another editor beat me to it; article was a stub before I significantly expanded it).
- The Serial rape article (did not create but plan to; will recreate one day, seeing as the article was a very tiny stub before it was deleted and later turned into a redirect and it needs to be created in a significantly better fashion).
I have nominated six articles to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? section. All, except one, were a successful nomination process. The five articles are as follows:
|An entry from Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 July 2007.|
|An entry from Todd Manning appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 September 2007.|
|An entry from Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 14 February 2008.|
|An entry from Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 November 2008.|
|An entry from Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 January 2010.|
GA (Good Article) status articles
I am responsible for helping the following articles reach GA status:
Helped maintain GA status
Future GA status
- Vagina article (so much work that I'm going to have to do on this article; hopefully, this will not be one of those articles that students randomly target for a class assignment, considering that, in those cases, significantly expanding such an article can be wasted time because the article, like the terrible Gender article, has an increased chance of losing its GA quality in one edit or two or more edits).
Awards: Barnstar or other
|The Barnstar of High Culture|
|For your dramatic improvements to the article Greg and Jenny Nelson, I thank you and award you this Barnstar. I have cherished Jenny and Greg for almost 30 years, and your improvement to this article means there is at last a fitting monument to their everlasting love. Thank you, Jeffpw 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)|
|The Soap Opera Barnstar|
|You have been awarded the Soap Opera Barnstar for your contributions to WP:SOAPS and soap opera-related articles on Wikipedia. IrishLass0128 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)|
|The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|Thanks for reverting all those bad edits on the Supermodel page. Number1spygirl 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)|
|The Soap Opera Barnstar|
|Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery came out really great after your extensive edits! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)|
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|For your stellar work over the last month and beyond for keeping Danity Kane and the related articles up-to-date; free of vandalism, copyvios, and POV; and nice and tidy. You have done an excellent job. Keep it up. Acalamari 18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)|
|The Food and Drink Barnstar|
|Thank you for explaining an old concept for the hundredth time and making Vegetarianism a better article! Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)|
|The Science Fiction Barnstar|
|For your exemplary efforts on the Avatar (2009 film) article. You are a constant driving force in getting things accomplished, and the forward momentum that you have created despite the occasional opposition and garden-variety idiocy are a testament to how articles should be written. Good job. Trusilver 18:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)|
|The Purple Star|
|For being attacked by Miafina at Talk:Orgasm and remaining civil, I award you this Purple Star Zonafan39 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)|
|The Human Sexuality Barnstar|
|Thank you for improving the problematic Frot article, Simon Speed (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|Awarded to Flyer22 for overall excellence - for being just a really, really good editor, for contributing to the Wikipedia in a number of fraught and difficult areas, and for generally being a credit to the Wikipedia. We should all strive to be as dedicated and talented as Flyer22. Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)|
|The Teamwork Barnstar|
|There are many banners that fit your work. I chose this one for personal reasons. Mugginsx (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)|
|I commend you for your work on the Asexuality article. I appreciate your patience, wisdom, and hard work to get the article to GA status! Tea with toast (話) 17:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)|
|We all a bit of tea every now and again, to stop, relax, reflect and prepare ourselves to finish the tasks at hand. I prefer mine Earl Grey, no sugar, no cream. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)|
Here is a kitten to take your mind off Talk:Asexuality. Enjoy.
|The Writer's Barnstar|
|For awesome work on developing the Clitoris article over five years into one of the most profound articles on Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)|
|The Special Barnstar|
|For your excellent and persistent work in getting Clitoris to GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)|
|The Special Barnstar|
|Thank you for telling me to remove my retirement tag, and making edits whenever I can. All I can say is that, you are more open than I am. Surge_Elec (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)|
Happy 2013, and glad to see you're still around. I don't want to talk about my personal life too much on here (I see other editors like work colleagues) but the sexuality articles, of which you're a strong contributor, have been very interesting and useful reading for some stuff in my off-wiki life. Thanks.
|The Purple Barnstar|
|To Flyer22, the Purple Heart barnstar, in recognition of wounds received in the course of defending the Wikipedia Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)|
Ima break my rule of never awarding a second barnstar to a person, 'cause of all you've had to go through. It's tough. I'm glad Alison came through for you, she's a peach. You're really resilient to work through all that, a lot of people would have walked away. A tough gal, you are, it seems. I'm glad you're still here. You're valuable. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
|I think every woman likes sweets. I only want to thank you very much for your article about asexuality. The topic is of paramount interest to me. Your work allows me to become familiar with the state of research in this new area of sexology. I should certainly learn English. Such materials as your article give me information that I can’t get in my native language. Many thanks indeed! SU ltd. (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)|
- Aw, thank you, SU ltd. You're welcome. It's not my article, since we don't get to own any articles at Wikipedia, but I understand what you mean. And like I stated here, you know English sufficiently enough (I just read your last reply in that section, by the way). But I understand about improving. And I wish that I spoke several different languages. Barring any illness that prevents us from doing so, it's never too late to learn more languages, but it does get more difficult as we age. It's significantly easier on the brain to learn multiple languages when just starting to learn one's native language, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|The Human Sexuality Barnstar|
|Thank you for helping the Asexuality article reach GA status. Well, I know this article doesn’t belong to you. And yet you’ve added some very interesting sourced and information. I’m just looking for these sources on the Web and reading them with great interest. (Unfortunately, you don’t always add url, so that I have to search for the articles indicated by you.) The article is very interesting indeed. --SU ltd. (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)|
- Again, you're welcome. As for the urls, I usually add urls if they are available. The exception is when the url isn't helpful, such as when it doesn't go to a page in the book...but rather just the description page (sometimes with snippets that aren't too helpful or aren't helpful at all). So sometimes, I don't add the url in those cases. Most of the references in the article were already there before I started significantly working on the article; the urls not being there for any of those instances are because others didn't add them.
- Again, thanks. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|For being here, for working so hard and so well, for your help, support and encouragement. ♥ Lova Falk talk 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)|
- Aw, thank you, Lova Falk!! It's very much appreciated coming from you, with how hard you work at this site and how kind and assisting you are. Thank you. I'm here a little too much these days, with barely any sleep because of my off-Wikipedia Internet work and because I'm battling my insomnia more than I have in the past, but knowing that my work here is appreciated by some people and that they believe I'm making a great difference is one way that I know it's not necessarily a waste of time editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|I somehow keep coming across your edits, which are invariably spot-on. Nice one. Hogyn Lleol ★ (chat) 10:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)|
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|for your outstanding contribution to make wikipedia a place for unbiased information. Mr RD (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)|
- Thank you. I try. Some people simply neglect, do not understand or refuse to adhere to the WP:Undue weight part of the WP:Neutrality policy, however. Too many editors here think that being neutral means "giving equal validity." We all have biases, but we need to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be about keeping those biases in check with regard to writing articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
|For patrolling the and reverting good faith edits on the article of Narendra Dabholkar. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)|
|The LGBT Barnstar|
|Thanks for your work fixing biphobia. I and many others really appreciate it. Eponymous (fnord) 13:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)|
Articles significantly expanded
Prime time characters
Highly notable soap opera characters
- The Todd Manning article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now.
- The Bianca Montgomery article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now.
- The Josh Madden article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now.
Couple articles, as improved enough from just plot or otherwise
- Victor Newman and Nikki Reed
- Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins; on January 6, 2013, around early 1:00 AM, was surprised to see this article extensively fixed up beyond what I ever did with it.
- Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt
- Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner
- Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter (one of the most improved)
- Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney (one of the most improved)
- TomKat (real-life supercouple, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes)...was finally redirected.
- Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer (one of the most improved, first gay male supercouple in daytime)
- John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean (British supercouple in daytime)
- Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio
- Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery
Couple articles improved, but need improvement the most
- Todd Manning and Blair Cramer
- Leo du Pres and Greenlee Smythe
- Posh and Becks (Yes, the real-life couple. Who else?)
Mother of couple articles and couple mentions
- The Supercouple article
- The Jennifer's Body article; expanded and tweaked article, especially the Production and Reception sections...mostly without even having seen the film and while trying to keep from being too spoiled. (Finally watched part of the film on September 24, 2009, and the rest on September 25, 2009.) Additionally created its Graphic novel section.
- The Zombieland article; tweaks and little additions here and there, but significantly expanded the Reception section and later created the Design and effects subsection within the Production section.
- The Avatar (2009 film) article; tweaks and additions here and there, especially to the Box office and Critical reception sections of the Release section.
- The Titanic (1997 film) article; some of everything.
- Various. One example: Angel of Mercy (criminology) article.
- Casey Anthony trial; parts of the Case section, and formatted and significantly expanded the Publicity and aftermath sections.
Other articles contributed to
- The Star-crossed lovers article (somebody listed "my" two couple articles in this article, but I'd rather that article be fixed up much better than it is).
- The Josh Duhamel article (actor).
- The Kendall Hart Slater article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (very notable character).
- The Lara Croft article (very notable video game character).
- The Greenlee Smythe article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (very notable character).
- The Physical attractiveness article.
- The Chris Brown (American singer) article; added half of the information about his domestic violence case with Rihanna.
- The Taylor Swift, Kanye West, 2009 MTV Video Music Awards articles (one singer; the other a singer/rapper); added most of the information about the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards#Kanye West controversy and debated incidents, and other tweaks.
- The Vegetarianism article.
- Various other articles, in either slight or somewhat significant ways.
Favorite vandalism moments
Stating that I have favorite vandalism moments and or favorite vandals does not mean that I support vandalism on Wikipedia. I repeat: It does not mean that I support vandalism on Wikipedia. For those who feel that I should not have a section titled "Favorite vandalism moments" on my user page, well, what I mainly say to that is that I am human. And for someone who does not laugh a lot, it takes a really funny and/or creative vandal to make me laugh...and a few have done so:
2: 126.96.36.199 -- this vandal vandalized an article I created. If you guessed the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, then you guessed correctly. This vandal, in one visit, made three different edits, all hilarious as heck, to what was then the Maggie's confession section of the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article. This was that article's first vandal. Here are the links to those vandalism moments.... The big ouch about this is that this vandalism was carried out on the same day that this article was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did you know? section. The plus is that those vandalism edits to this article were quickly reverted.
3: 188.8.131.52 -- Got a laugh out of me as well. This edit to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article was later reverted (of course) by an editor that I work with sometimes (Bignole), and it had to be reverted, but I could not help finding this edit funny that day....
4: Not too long after, another vandal --184.108.40.206-- to the same article managed to get a smirk out of me with this edit.
5: Number 5. Yes, at first...this edit to the Romeo and Juliet article by TonyHarrison4lyf did not hit me with the funny, but after reading that one phrase that was edited in throughout the article, it became funny, really funny for a few moments, then back to being a single laugh. Plus, the enthusiasm of this vandal to type or paste in that one line throughout this entire long article... Wow, see what I mean with this link. Priceless.
Some crass stuff, and it may seem as though my sense of humor is on the dirty side, but I assure you that it is more about what I find funny, not anything about necessarily being dirty and crass.
- And again, I do not truly condone vandalism on Wikipedia (really, I do not) and vandals do anger me, but I can appreciate the funny and/or creative vandal every now and then. If this statement sounds contradictory, such as a person feeling that murder is horrific but saying that they can appreciate the creative murderer every now and then, it is not meant to be. That is like comparing apples and oranges anyway.
Least favorite vandalism moments
1: 220.127.116.11 -- My user page (yeah, this user page) was vandalized for the first time and by a person of that IP, and...well...it was not very creative. I laughed once, but all in all, not enough to keep the laughs going for more than a second or two. This link originally showed a picture that the IP presented as me. It was not me, but if this user had used a picture of a penguin, perhaps that might have gotten more laughs out of me.
2:Colaatje5 -- I did not really bother this user much, though I did change some of this user's edits due to wrong formatting. Perhaps this user became frustrated with other editors doing the same and took it out on my user page. However, I do not totally discount that this anger was probably all directed at me. The user just about erased my entire user page.
3: In addition to the above, this page was vandalized several more times. I might list all of that one day.
If I, Flyer, ever leave Wikipedia for good
It is because of one of four things:
- 1: Either I am dead. And if so, I would hope that a good editor take over some of the articles I often edit and keep them in shape.
- 2: Either my life has gotten much busier outside of Wikipedia (though usually I'd be back on occasion).
- 3: For some bizarre reason, I have no more access to computers ever again.
- 4: I just can't take this place anymore, so I left. Cutting any ties that I have to Wikipedia and following the instructions in the How to Quit Wikipedia article as best I can.
Note: When/if completed, the following page may come in handy: User:Flyer22/Editing manual left after death.
- Badke, William. "What to Do With Wikipedia". Trinity Western University. Retrieved 2008-03-14.