User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 11

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi flyer22. Do you know who this is? [1] Pass a Method talk 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned here fyi. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass a Method, with the exception of these two comments,[2][3] I have an idea, but as a few people who have corresponded with me via email know, I am trying to keep away from that drama. The only times that I should be involved in any stated problems with your edits is when I choose to be involved. So far, that has only concerned an edit or edits you have made to an article or articles that I also edit. So I ask that you do not address me about this in the future.

Thanks, Adjwilley. I also replied there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note for archive: More on this matter can be found here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

education

I found more links if you have any problems. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butch & Femme Relationships

another issue i'm very surprised is not in the lesbian article is the issue of butch/femme relationships. very often lesbian couples contain one partner where the woman looks and acts female and the other looks and acts like a man (dress, hair, everything). with gay male couples i very very very rarely have seen a relationship where one man looks and acts male and the other acts female and dresses in women's clothing. shouldn't there be some mention of this in the article? the reason i think it is taboo and not discussed is that the feminine women in the butch/femme relationship are actually bisexual (possibly even heterosexual) women who are choosing to be with butch masculine women due to often times past sexual abuse or various issues (often sexist anti-male feelings) with men in general. 24.193.117.138 (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP. I responded at the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brunet/Brunette = Brown.

The definition of Brunet/Brunette is wrong, as Black hair is no where near Brown. Never in public is it said that a person with Black hair is a Brunette. Implying it is wrong as it is not the right colour & saying so demonstrates you lack of colour perception. Black haired people are known as Raven haired, never Brunette. You either have Blond hair or Black hair. As these people have a very poor understanding of what Brown hair looks like. To confuse the issue on a Encyclopedic site is a wrong misuse of information, it only serves to dumb down the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.69.50 (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not state that black hair is anywhere near the color of brown. They state that "brunet" and "brunette" are terms that are used to refer to black-haired people in addition to brown-haired people. For a long time now, the terms "brunet" and "brunette" have not only been used to refer to brown-haired people. Like I told you on your talk page, "The first [source], Merriam-Webster, includes black hair by name, and the second [source] includes dark hair (which of course applies to brown or black hair; it even states 'dark or brown hair')." Refer to those two sources currently used in the article: Read here and here. There are various sources like that, and various books showing that authors use "brunette" to refer to black-haired women just as much as they use it to refer to brown-haired women. Yes, indeed many people in public refer to women with black hair as brunettes. And while black hair may not be anywhere near the color of brown, very dark brown hair is often near the color of black. In fact, it's often believed to be black, as is discussed on the Brown hair talk page. So this has nothing to do with my being wrong, my color perception, my confusing the topic, my being unencyclopedic, or my dumbing down the masses. It has to do with this being a prevalent use of the term "brunette," among the general public, dictionary definitions and scholars. Like I told you, among other things, we "go by WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability here. Read the first paragraph of WP:Verifiability; that is a big part of how things work at this site." Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Buchanan

I actually believe "Teen Jess" is a separate personality, much in the way that Victoria Lord's imitation of her father Victor in 1995 is considered a separate personality. FrickFrack 11:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, FrickFrack. We aren't supposed to go on what we personally believe about the storyline when adding information to Wikipedia, though. As you know, I asked you about that poster adding that information because I only know that Teen Jess was a result of amnesia; she was not a split personality in the sense of dissociative identity disorder, from what I saw of that storyline (meaning that I didn't watch all of it). Teen Jess is simply Jessica from a point in time in her teenage years, so it does not seem accurate to refer to her as a split personality... Well, okay, since the definition of split personality is a tiny bit broad, as even an alter ego may be referred to as a split personality, I state that we should at least not list Teen Jess in a way that our readers believe that she is a part of Jessica's dissociative identity disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Dusty relic

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

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

Arrow

I'll definitely check it out. It's clear from the trailers that they are reusing Smallville sets. I already saw the Daily Planet set used for Dinah's office. We'll see. I don't have high hopes for it, but it could turn out ok. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, reading that the pilot episode was "directed by Smallville veteran David Nutter" is one thing that has me interested in the series. The others are just that it looks fun and intriguing. It doesn't seem like they'll mess up this Green Arrow tale, at least not for some seasons into the series, if at all, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are only calling him "Arrow", and they put a rule of "no powers" in the show. I'm not sure yet. I have it set to record so I can watch it. I'll know by the first few episodes if this is going to be Smallville or Gossip Girl real quick. It has the potential to be a good as Smallville was great, or simply as bad as Smallville was at certain points (ala "Magnetic"). BTW, I see that the discussion on Todd Manning just ended abruptly. Has there been further movement regarding it? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Smallville or Gossip Girl. I take it that you don't watch The Vampire Diaries, LOL? I watched a bit of that show (originally one of the latter seasons, then a bit of Season 1 since its best to start from the beginning with any story), but still have not gotten "into it." I did get into Teen Wolf, though. I noticed that you started editing the Arrow (TV series) article. I'll help look after it if you ever need me to. As for the Todd Manning article.... Well, I'd told that editor that I would be archiving that talk page discussion soon because there was nothing further to discuss. The final statements were on September 23rd, and it was archived on the 29th. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never even tried TVD. Though, I'm a couple of seasons behind Supernatural, so I need to catch up on that. Teen Wolf has looked good in moments, and others it looks like the other trash on MTV. I haven't sat down to watch it straight, from start to finish, but I have heard good things about it. Yeah, I've tried to start editing Arrow, and I've already met resistance to anything. My first issue is with including "Story by" credits. I know some people add them, but my feeling is that you don't have to have written anything (writing notes don't count to me) to get the credit, and since the table is for "Writers" it should reflect only them. Then I mentioned that the international broadcasting section is basically a TV Guide for around the world I've received no comments about it. I'm afraid to start cleaning that up because I feel like it'll just start a new edit war. LOL. I've tried to do basic clean up around the article so far, but nothing truly major (part from removing a table that replicated information that was within eye view). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure that The Vampire Diaries doesn't interest as many boys/men as it does girls/women. And, oooh, I definitely need to catch up on Supernatural. I caught up on it a lot on TNT, but need to get to the point where I'm up-to-date on it. Teen Wolf just really surprised me as a decent series, and, like I imply on my user page, reminds me a bit of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which makes sense, considering that the creators' inspiration for the series is partly due to Buffy). Regarding your edits to the Arrow (TV series) article, I agree with you 100%. And thank you for correcting this, which also corrects part of my initial statement in this section above. And like I stated, I'll be there to support you on that article if you need it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start over

I would love to start over. We have a great deal in common and some of those things appear to be a willingness to discuss...at length.... LOL!...and the willingness to stop and reset. I also know you have a great deal offer in terms of knowledge and I know I can learn a great deal from you. Truce accepted and I offer an apology if anything said insulted you on a personal or professional level.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amadscientist. I appreciate that, and apology accepted. I'm sure that there are things I could learn from you as well. That's one of the good things about Wikipedia -- learning from each other. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I of course apologize for stating anything that may have insulted you on a personal or professional level. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD enforcer

I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer#"Request for stable state" project proposal. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Betty. Seems fine to me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formal proposal is up and running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you are still interested in supporting it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Flyer22 Frozen! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

Feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments/opinion

Hi Flyer - I'm trying to come to a consensus at this discussion regarding the inclusion of some primetime dramas that have been called soaps/soap-like in the WP:SOAPS project. If you have a minute any opinions are greatly appreciated. Take care, Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, Kelly. Seems things have been worked out there. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law

Hello, if it is not an inconvenience, do you mind watching over and adding the Zoophilia and Zoophilia and the law articles to your watchlist? It rarely gets edited, aside from this one user who repeatedly adds unencyclopedic, non-neutral content.

The articles lack active editors and watchers, and I'm asking you because you're a good, level-headed editor who is not involved with the past issues of the two articles. Someone963852 (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Someone963852. I appreciate that you considered me to address this with, and of course appreciate the compliments. I don't use a watchlist anymore; I revealed that some time ago on this talk page and still don't use one. I simply look at my contribution history to check up on articles...because I mainly stick to the same articles these days. And by looking at my contributions, the WP:Rollback feature lets me know if someone has edited an article/talk page since I last edited it. I do all of this because Wikipedia is a very stressful/frustrating place, especially with regard to the topic areas I work in and I have too many pages watchlisted that I don't feel like un-watchlisting; I'd likely be tempted to see what mess someone has inserted into whatever article (which can end up taking more time than I want to spend on Wikipedia for any given day). I have regulated myself to focus on certain articles, and let others deal with the other topics on Wikipedia. Basically, Wikipedia is like a job to me. And the only reason I continue editing here is because I know what will happen to certain articles if I'm not here.

All that stated, I will help you keep an eye out on those articles you've listed above. I have been aware of the zoophilia issue for some time. As you know, there are those who have tried to get zoophilia listed as a sexual orientation, and Plateau99 is one of those users. I have interacted with him and reverted MarkB40n. You noted MarkB40n as a sockpuppet of Plateau99. You are very likely right, considering that Plateau99 was blocked for one month in June...and MarkB40n showed up with the same zoophilia-pushing agenda in July. Editors like Plateau99 often don't go away for long, and, now that the Plateau99 account is indefinitely blocked, he is very likely continuing to edit as MarkB40n. Simply reporting the user to an administrator won't help unless he or she blocks him per WP:DUCK or starts a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise, you should start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation yourself.

Also, feel free to email me any time. It would be good to get your email address, since you aren't on Wikipedia all that often these days and therefore email communication is the easiest way to get a hold of you. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and willingness to keep an eye out on those two articles! I'll open a sockpuppet case soon after I learn how it works. That user edits the two articles multiple times but only in a span of a day or so in a month, and adds unencyclopedic content while doing so. It is getting tiresome having to check and undo it every single month, because not enough editors are willing to look it over. Giving up now will just allow him to advance an ugly agenda, and mislead the readers with false information.

Also, I enabled the email feature on Wikipedia, so you can contact me any time. Someone963852 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Don't see any email in my box from you. Maybe resend? John Carter (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's in your spam box? I'll send it again later since I have a copy of it by way of Wikipedia, and I'll let you know when I do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep a "spam" box for that account, actually. Weird stuff has been happening since the hurricane hit, maybe this is one of them. I'll be watching for it, but I might not be active here for the next day or so. John Carter (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just resent it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with improving the All My Children and One Life to Live character pages

I was wondering since someone created the List of characters from Y&R from 1970s to 2010s, can you help me with this? Thanks! Jester66 (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create any list about the The Young and the Restless characters, Jester. But looking at List of The Young and the Restless characters (2000s) as an example, it's nice to see an American soap opera character list on Wikipedia that is generally well-sourced and encyclopedic-seeming. I emphasize "American" because some British soap opera editors, like Raintheone, have most of, if not all, of the Wikipedia British soap opera articles well taken care of; Raintheone has even taken care of various Australian soap opera Home and Away articles. I'm not too familiar with All My Children storylines from the 1970s; I'm more familiar with that show's storylines from the 1990s and 2000s/2010s.

What are you specifically looking for me to help out with on the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article? If sourcing is one issue you are looking for me to help out with, I must state that sourcing plotlines from that far back is a challenge. But the best place to start looking for sources for that time period is Google Books. Also, are you asking for help with the actual character articles, not just the lists? I've helped with some, as you may know, but have only significantly expanded ones (some of them) that pass WP:Notability....such as Bianca Montgomery and Todd Manning. If I had more time to spare, the Starr Manning article would be significantly fixed up by now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a little more work has been done on the Starr Manning article since I last discussed that article at Talk:Starr Manning. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well can you help we with the one from 1990s-2010s? Jester66 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jester, you didn't have to change your original text above; you could have simply struck through it, which would have been better, per Wikipedia:TALK#Own comments.

As for helping you with the 1990s-2010s All My Children character lists, I will once those are created. Nothing elaborate, but occasional help. But they shouldn't be created if they aren't going to be well-sourced and of encyclopedic tone (notice that the List of The Young and the Restless characters (2000s) article is not just plot, but includes casting, portrayal and a bit of character development information as well). There are a lot of characters redirected to List of All My Children characters. Are you planning to create space for every minor character on that list? Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't state that I wouldn't help out with the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article; I was simply noting that I can't be much help with adding plot to that article...unless it's plot I read from a source. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be EVERY minor character, just those who have made an impact to the show and was a part of storyline with major characters. And yes it will have to be well-sourced and of encyclopedic tone too. I will create the 1990s-2010s pages. Jester66 (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, because you left out "not," for a second there, I thought you were saying that it does have to be every minor character (and I don't mind at all if you add "not" in by the way). Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant does not have to include every character, sorry was typing too fast. Jester66 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jester, are you sticking with the color blue or red for the infoboxes? In the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article, Phoebe has a blue one; the other two have a red one. I'm certain that I know how that happened. You see, all of the All My Children infoboxes were red, then they (most of them anyway) were changed to blue because of what is stated in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put all of them blue. And I created the 1990s-2010 pages. Jester66 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arre redirected the pages, looks like we have to work on them in the sandboxes. Jester66 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Arre 9's reasoning,[4][5] and Arre 9 is of course correct. I stated above that "they shouldn't be created if they aren't going to be well-sourced and of encyclopedic tone"...and I was trying to get across the point that the sourcing and encyclopedic issue should be dealt with before or soon after creation. If these lists are to exist, they should be fixed up one list at a time. You need to work on the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article first. As you know, I tweaked it a bit, but it needs more tweaking. In addition to more wording tweaks, it should have any sourced casting, character development and/or portrayal information that you can find from WP:Reliable sources. Remember that I mentioned Google Books, and remember that I stated that while I will help, it will be "nothing elaborate" and more so "occasional help." My occasional help will definitely include sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messsage to you

Hi, I've left a reply to you on my talk page, regarding the pedophilia article. Regards Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TV, fictional characters and ages

Hi Flyer. I'm writing you because I see you were involved in this WP:TV discussion that formed consensus to remove age related fields from infoboxes. There is currently a discussion here at WP:SOAPS regarding (among other parameters in question) adding date of birth and date of death to the soap infobox. Soap infobox2/UK soaps includes those fields. I'm wondering if you can clarify how, if at all, the WP:TV discussion I referenced applies here. Did removing age become part of official policy or just a guideline? Also, if you have any thoughts on the parameter changes please weigh in. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a soap opera policy, and a guideline wasn't created for it; it was simply a matter of removing the age field from the infoboxes (which, as you know, was carried out for all television character genres) and this being the way that not having the age field was enforced. "Date of birth" and "Date of death" fields are the same as the "Age" field...in that they can be used to assert how old any character is. And as we know, soap operas often don't go by real-world age...either because of Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome or de-aging. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I guess my question is, is discussing adding the DOB etc parameters a moot point because of the consensus formed at the WP:TV project? Or is the SOAPS project free to add them if we wish? Personally I agree with the thought process behind not including them, but there are some that feel otherwise. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion has changed since then. I don't much mind at all these days that the age field isn't included for soap opera character infoboxes. But for primetime television shows and film, where the age matter isn't much of an issue, I sometimes find myself wishing that the age field was included in those instances. I suppose that WP:SOAPS is free to add them, but I feel that the wider consensus -- meaning the consensus that is still carried out by WP:TV -- trumps adding the field. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for weighing in. I wanted to make sure we weren't discussing for nothing, in case we were bound to whatever WP:TV had decided. I do believe we should do what they do, but will see what consensus ends up being. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for alerting me. I most likely would not have known about the new discussion until a month or so later, seeing as I am not as actively involved in soap opera topics on or off Wikipedia as I once was. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescence

Hey Flyer! I hope you are doing well. Just letting you know it's me probably annoying you with the media/body image stuff over at adolescence (I always forget to log in, my bad). Just keeping it balanced a bit. I'm aware that some scholars like to make definitive statements about media/body dissatisfaction issues, but it's important to note other scholars dispute those claims too. I've kept it to the simple "scholars continue to debate..." language with the two cites, although we could probably work to broaden the discussion a bit. Would you want to do more on the "pro effects" side and I could balance it with some "no effects" scholarship? Avalongod (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avalongod. LOL, yes, as you saw, I guessed that the IP was you. I responded on the talk page with this. Discussion about this matter is better had there. I'm not interested in adding any information about this type of research, and am busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia. Maybe Lova Falk, who now helps me watch the Adolescence article, will be interested in adding some of the pro-research you mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm happy to work with Lova Falk to put something more comprehensive together if that seems the best direction. Take care! Avalongod (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now commented on the talk page of Adolescence. Thank you Flyer for involving me. Lova Falk talk 11:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danity Kane image

Thanks for your messages on my talk page. You will no doubt be interested to read my reply to your latest message. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template update

Hi Flyer - I wanted to ask your quick opinion away from the long convo at the infobox soap template on what you think the best way to get this done is... there are so many pieces and opinions and every time I think we've come to a conclusion it seems to open up again. It's also the oldest edit protected request and I have a feeling it looks pretty ominous to any admin looking to help with it. Do you think it should just keep going like it is and whichever admin helps edit it will sort out consensus/no consensus? Or maybe we should change it and request the unanimous changes first? I had also requested a third party to come in and decide if that romances discussion had reached consensus but no luck there yet. IDK, I'm just a bit discouraged in having a hard time wrapping this up :/ Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you should go to an administrator and ask for help. We should go ahead and implement the changes that have been unanimously agreed upon. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And implement the ones that have overwhelmingly wide support. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	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)[reply]

Aw, you're welcome, Surge. And thank you for the barnstar. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, my friend. Surge_Elec (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lova Falk talk 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescence article

Hi, Flyer22. Nice to meet you. Thank you initiating a discussion in respect of the(se) image(s). I laid out my thinking in a more detailed way on the Talk page. Kind regards FeatherPluma (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Killers

Hi Flyer, just to clarify the edit that you didn't revert, the article refered only to US ethnicities such as African American and White, the killer in the picture was Brazilian, and so not relevant to the content which is only about America. Yes, making the piece more relevant to other countries with different racial makeups, and understandings of "race" would be useful, but that would mean a great deal of country by country information. To put it simply, the guy pictured is not "black" as the word is used in the article, in fact, he would not be called black at all in Brazil.

All the best

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boynamedsue. I take it that you are the IP that I was talking to in this edit summary? What I was referring to in that edit summary are the following texts:

1. "However, there are African American, Asian, and Hispanic (of any race) serial killers as well..."

2. "...crimes among minority offenders in urban communities, where crime rates are higher, are under-investigated, and that minority serial killers likely exist at the same ratios as white serial killers for the population."

3. "Other reports show about 80% of serial killers being identified as white, placing nonwhite serial killers as accounting for less than 20% of serial killers."

So although the first two paragraphs are mostly discussing white vs. black serial killers, they are not only discussing that. And the rest of that section isn't about that at all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, the point I was making is that the section only refers to the US, and no non-US ethnicity is mentioned. It would be idiotic to have a section stating "99% of Mexican serial killers are Hispanic", or "0% of Nigerian serial killers are African American", though both are probably verifiably true, as the discussion is solely about serial killers in the US. Therefore a picture of a Brazilian is not relevant to the section. I have no objection to seeing a picture of an African-American, or hispanic American serial-killer but I can't see how a Brazilian or Nigerian could be relevant. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the discussion of ethnicity, which was only based on US figures and ethnicities, and placed it in a section named "Ethnicity and serial killers in the US" at the end of the Characteristics section, and left the picture of the Brazilian guy at the top near the characteristics. Having the racial discussion right at the top looked like both undue weight and lack of international perspective. Is that ok for you?

Boynamedsue (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again to you as well. You are correct that the section is mostly about U.S. serial killers. But it seems that there has been some attempt to have the section not only focus on U.S. serial killers. That's another reason I referred to the "However, there are African American, Asian, and Hispanic (of any race) serial killers as well..." and the "Other reports show about 80% of serial killers being identified as white, placing nonwhite serial killers as accounting for less than 20% of serial killers." lines. There was also the Australia comparison that you removed after moving the "race"/ethnicity material into its own section under the Ethnicity and serial killers in the US heading. If the heading were more general, and the section included more material about serial killers outside of the U.S., I wouldn't consider the Australia comparison to be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Yes, the source says "Compared to the United States and South Africa, Australia has a much lower incidence of known serial murders.", but lower prevalence information is usually included in an article or section about prevalence.

When I first saw that you had moved the material about racial demographics (when I simply looked at the edit history), I was going to object because that information concerns characteristics. But then I saw that you made the section a subsection of the Characteristics section, and so I'm fine with that. I did make a few tweaks regarding your changes thus far, however,[6][7] and am still debating with myself on whether or not to place this newly-created section higher. For example, since female serial killers are rare, it seems that information on that should remain the section's final subsection. But the subsection on "race"/ethnicity also seems like it comes best after all the other information about characteristics. So no big objections from me regarding your edits thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no massive problem with seeing the ethnicity section higher up, as long as it's not the first section. My only doubt is the fact it is US-centric, and so it seems logical it go after more universal sections.

The logic behind removing the Australia sentence was that it was an orphan sentence adding nothing to the article, and gave undue weight to Australia. Why compare the US with Australia without mentioning Brazil or Belgium? I think that you are right, long term this should go in a prevalence section.

Re: "However, there are African American, Asian, and Hispanic (of any race) serial killers as well...", this is actually refering specifically to the US as well. The only country where African-Americans live is the US (if two African-Americans have children in the UK the child is Black British not African Americn, and Hispanic is only really an ethnicity in the US.

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to explain the reasoning behind your edits. If we were to have a Prevalence section, one issue that would arise, at least for me, is whether or not to have the racial demographics section separate from it; I'd be torn on the matter because the racial demographics section is also about prevalence, and the Female serial killers section includes a little about prevalence as well. So maybe it wouldn't be best to have all prevalence information in one section.

As for the "However, there are African American" line, yes, I know that the African American part pertains to the U.S., but I was focusing on the "Asian, and Hispanic (of any race)" part when I was speaking of "some attempt to have the section not only focus on U.S. serial killers." Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer 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. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Tyler Michaelson character article???

Hey. I started a discussion on whether the character of Tyler Michaelson merits his own article. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

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.

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ritchie. Most of the sexuality articles (including most anatomy articles dealing with sexuality) at this site still need a lot of work. Because I'm just one person and don't edit Wikipedia as actively as I used to (I mean when it comes to adding content, more than a little bit), and because there aren't a lot of editors who edit these articles or understand some of the topics well enough (besides knowing of sexual acts), most of these articles haven't gotten the attention that they need. I'm always so busy these days. Even when I'm editing Wikipedia, I'm usually simultaneously busy off Wikipedia. And I discussed with an administrator not too long ago that I'm worried about there not being any other editors to satisfactorily take over for editors like me, when I and those like me finally stop editing Wikipedia (for whatever reason we cease to stop editing this site). You know, failing to replenish our ranks in this regard. But I'm glad that I have made a difference concerning what you speak of, for you and others, by editing here. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Arias trial

When you get home and read this, will you or some of your talk page stalkers consider helping out with this article? Or should you avoid it because I created it? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I told you at home, I'll be staying away from that article because it's your creation. And I can't forget that I've been through that type of editing when editing the Death of Caylee Anthony article. The drama that occurred at that article (and may occur again in some form) is another reason that I'll be staying away from editing your creation. Good luck with the WP:AfD; all of that (editing that article and it being put up for AfD) is good Wikipedia experience for you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, some tough times

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you very much, Herostratus. I'll especially cherish this barnstar. You already know that I consider you valuable too, but, if you ever doubt it, don't. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hi there! I don't know if you do this sort of thing, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the article Victoria Newman for GA. I can say that I've put a lot of work into it in the past few months and would love some tips to fix it up even more so that it's GA material. If you're not interested or don't have the time at the moment, do you know of anybody who might be interested? Let me know. Thanks! Regards, Creativity97 17:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Creativity97. I don't review articles for WP:GA or for WP:FA. One GA reviewer I would have directed you to is recently no longer available. There is also a Tea with toast, but Tea with toast generally isn't active on Wikipedia these days; so if you decide to ask Tea with toast, doing so by email is best because of that. You could also ask SilkTork or Bruce Campbell. There are a lot of editors you could ask. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/List of reviewers, but that list needs updating; you'd have to check the contribution history of those editors to see their editing experience and how active they are, or if they are still active, on Wikipedia. But since you've nominated the Victoria Newman article for GA status, there is also the option of simply waiting for a GA reviewer to come around and review it; that could take a month or more. But is there a rush? Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Bruce Campbell is no longer editing Wikipedia. Although I don't think Erik reviews articles for GA or FA, he is very good at writing GA and FA articles about fiction; so is Bignole, they are editors who could help the Victoria Newman article prepare for its GA review (if you choose to go to one of them, let them know that I referred you; Bignole may still be watching my talk page and so may not need to be told that). Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. There's no real rush to review it, but I just figured I'd ask around. Other users who are fluent with soap opera articles are all very busy at the moment, so that's why I was wondering if you could direct me to anyone. Thank you very much for those people, I will definitely consider asking one of them. If I can't find anyone, I'll wait, I just thought I'd see if anyone was interested now. I've put a lot of work into Victoria Newman and I think it's come a long way. On a different note, what kind of soap articles do you edit? I read on your user page you've done work with One Life to Live and All My Children. Are those the only American soaps you like? Creativity97 04:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't edit soap opera articles much anymore. I originally started out editing mostly soap opera articles here because, although I have extensive knowledge about sexual and scientific (including mathematical) topics, it didn't immediately occur to me to edit those articles. But I soon moved into editing sexual topics here and there, while deciding not to edit much scientific, mathematics or screenwriting material due to "being tired of it" and dealing with screenwriting "enough in everyday life." I generally managed to stay out of editing those fields, with the exception of science relating to some sexual aspects (such as sexual orientation) and anatomy. Editing soap opera articles was also a hobby. Not anymore. I don't have any more hobbies at this site, and now I generally edit sexuality articles. As for soap operas I like to watch, I was (and still am in some ways) a huge fan of Todd Manning. That's the main reason I used to love One Life to Live; while growing up, I got my siblings (brothers and sisters) into that show because of my love for Todd. I had always watched The Young and the Restless (where, as you know, Victoria Newman is from) because my grandmother (on my mother's side), who I lived with for several years while my mother needed help raising me, used to watch that show years before her death. My mom is also a fan of that show and she still watches it, while I don't watch it at this time; I'd definitely need to catch up on a lot. I think I stopped watching it at some point in 2012, but it might have been at some point in 2011; the time went by so fast (as it always does for me), that I'm not even 100% sure when. Likely in 2011. So, yes, I am very familiar with long-term characters such as Victoria Newman. 'The Young and the Restless-related articles are also mentioned on my user page. And I've also watched All My Children since I was a child; my mom used to love that soap opera as well. I have watched General Hospital and Days of our Lives from time to time, but I'm not a fan of those shows. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to post on my Talk page.

The page was moved by a family member. My account was previously logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intensity254 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Intensity254. You should also state that on your talk page and/or in the discussion about this at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to assure the administrators. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment

Hi, Flyer. I saw your edit summary at WP:WikiProject LGBT studies and thought I'd touch base. First, you should know that I do not support the reinsertion of the comment in question and have actually requested RevDel (see ANI thread here). Second, while I can sort of see the value of leaving it in the record (both for the reason I acknowledged in my reply to Alanscottwalker in the aforementioned thread and because I do see some value to the project and to larger society in keeping hatred exposed to the light instead of hidden away), I believe this is an extreme instance that crosses the furthest reasonable boundary of decency. No one should ever stumble across a comment like that on Wikipedia. I've been around the block enough times to be almost unshockable, but talk pages, including hatted, archived comments, are available for the public to see. How about some impressionable young newbie who's having a rough time in real life happening upon a comment like that? There's more than enough bullying and persecution in the outside world. If minority editors can't expect some basic level of freedom from that kind of abject garbage being tolerated here on Wikipedia, then I fear Wikipedia is a lost cause. I respect your opinions a lot, so I'd really like to know if you think I'm missing something. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rivertorch. My brother told me of the kind words you had to say about me when he reported a sockpuppet to you and others via email (he apparently didn't want the sockpuppet to start focusing in on me, so he decided to report him privately). I admire you and appreciate your opinion a great deal as well. I don't much object to your rationale for wanting the comment deleted. You have made great points on that. When I made the comment about keeping the part you removed, it was, as you seemed to have deduced, because I felt that we should keep even that portion as evidence of this editor's beliefs/highly inappropriate behavior. In case she is unblocked or comes back as a sockpuppet. I kind of still want to keep the comment for that reason, but I see great validity in deleting it because of what you have stated on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Flyer! As the admin who ended up performing the revdel here, I just wanted to explain a few things about it; perhaps they'll ease your concerns about evidence. (If you know this stuff already, feel free to ignore my ramblins.) Revdel (revision deletion) is in many ways the same as normal deletion. One of these ways is that material that is revdeled is still viewable by an admin, just as a deleted page is still viewable by an admin. Revdeled edits also still show up in the edit history of the article, so there's no loss there; it's just that a non-admin won't be able to click on it to see what's inside. Both revdel and normal deletion just serve to hide inappropriate content from non-admins; neither actually delete anything. There is another level called "oversight" or "suppression" (the two words mean the same thing in a Wikipedia context). It's basically the same as revdel, except material that has been suppressed can only be viewed by oversighters, which is an extremely small group of very highly-trusted Wikipedians. In this case, suppression would be overkill, so Hinata's comments will still be viewable to all admins. I've added a link to the revdel to Hinata's talk page, and of course there's still the ANI thread, so there should be plenty of pointers to it, should we need them. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Writ. Yes, I know how WP:RevDel works. But thank you for considering that I may not and that you should therefore personally explain the feature. By "delete," I mean that providing the diff-link would generally be a challenge to editors (us non-administrators). Not every non-administrator knows how to get the diff-link once it's been subject to revdel, and we'd have to ensure that an administrator is present in whatever discussion that involves the comment, for confirmation of what was stated. In the discussion about it, it had occurred to me to point out that administrators will still be able to see the comment, but I decided that the editors (or most of the editors) in that discussion already know this, and that they will likely go to the WP:RevDel page to read about it if they don't. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, it still shows up in the page history. How do you normally get the URL for a diff? I do it by going to the page history, finding the revisions I want, clicking the "prev" link, and then copying and pasting the URL from the address bar. As far as I know, that should still work, even if one of the revisions has been revdeled; it'll just give you an error when you try to click on the link, rather than actually showing the diff. Revdeled edits are annotated in the page history (the link to the revision is grayed out and stricken through), so they shouldn't be too hard to find, even if you can't check the content. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's how we all get the URLs. But for non-administrators, the "prev" option is un-clickable once the edit has been subject to revdel. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) UPDATE: Oh, you're right; just tried it out and the "prev" links are removed. That's kind of weird; as an admin, those links are still there, but it gives a message when you click on them saying that one of the diffs has been removed and is unavailable for view. (It then gives a link to proceed to look at it anyway, but I thought that was just an extra bit that only showed up for admins.) Fair enough, but I still don't think it's a major concern; as I said, I've made a note on Hinata's talk page about it, and any admin worth their salt will do their homework enough to look at it before making any judgements. I would say that removing from a WikiProject a post advocating the death of most of its members and a great many more besides and asserting that this would be uncontroversial (I mean, jeez) takes priority. In all likelihood, this is just a troll trying to get a rise out of us; the more attention we give them, the more they'll like it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As was stated at the noticeboard, there is evidence that Hinata truly feels this way about this portion of the world (I'd checked her YouTube page before it was mentioned there). Even if trying to get a rise out of people, which I believe is part of this, I also believe that Hinata means what she stated on these topics. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Fwiw, my concern wasn't with whether she meant what she said but rather with the potential RL effect of the words. I do find it odd that some forms of extreme hate speech are tolerated at Wikipedia, while others are nuked on sight. Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Message added 00:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--SU ltd. (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Disorders

Hi there, I have commented back to you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFD#Sexual_disorders Robbiecee2 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. And I will reply there. Hopefully, others will as well (especially people from WP:MED). Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I emailed you also, but the email tries to clear things up. Is there a psychiatrist group we could also involve ?Robbiecee2 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your email, and I prefer to reply to it here. Like I told you in the Wikipedia discussion about this, I don't have much more to state to you on the topic.

As for your queries, when you speak of "edit[ing] the page," do you mean the Sexual dysfunction article? If so, you've already edited it before. That's what editing Wikipedia is like, except that you will get better with practice. But your personal opinion about distinguishing between "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual disorder" should not be added to that article, per WP:Original research.

As for designing your user page like mine or similar to mine, yes, you have to do that manually (which it seems that you now know).

You have been left with a Welcome template on your talk page, which can help you learn the ropes of editing Wikipedia. There are policies and guidelines that we follow. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as for a psychiatrist group, the closest thing we have to that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. But it's not as active as WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tucson shooting article

Thanks very much for kindly leaving notes on people's talk pages. :) —David Levy 20:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message: Michael Jackson article

I do not make edit wars (and I thank you that your not edit wars), but if you think you need to add in the introduction that many media refer to Jackson as the King of Pop, okay, add you this. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) sorry for my bad English.[reply]

Okay. As you may have seen, I replied there about your message. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And tweaked one part of my wording. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-editing Asexuality

Excuse me I didn’t know that you were editing this article just at the same time, too. I noticed that only after I had finished my own revisions.
By the way I have a considerable problem concerning sources again. I’m going to add some facts to the section Physiological changes in the article “Sexual arousal” because the piece of information I’m looking for is missing from the section. It is obvious that you have profound knowledge in the field of sexology. Will you be able to help me with sources again? --SU ltd. (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the Asexuality article.

Do you mean that you didn't know I edit that article as well? I thought you did, as it seems that you have read my user page...and since you commented in a section I'd already commented in.

What is it that you want included in the Sexual arousal article? I will help you look for sources, yes. But I can't promise that I'll help expand anything there at this time, since I am busy with a lot of things on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 is a good contributor to articles like Asexuality and Clitoris, and can probably help with sources. I can't, but I look forward to reading it, it's lovely to have good quality articles about this stuff that's just glossed over in school or sniggered about with all the maturity of a stereotypical Wikipedia vandal. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry my English is too bad to be always understandable. Of course, I’ve read your user page here. So I know you’re responsible for helping the “Asexuality” article reach GA status. I only wanted to say that I didn’t know you were editing the article during the very period of my revisions. As far as I know, simultaneous revisions of the same article can create problems such as a conflict of different users’ revisions or something else. So I only wanted to apologise and say that I didn’t intend to impede you. I simply didn’t know that I undertook my revisions just at the moment when you were editing the article.

Moreover, it is your knowledge of sexology that gives me an impetus to read your comments. As a rule, I don’t read WP discussions. Your comments are an exception.

As for the “Sexual arousal” article, I’ve come across interesting empirical data in Kazimierz Imieliński’s monograph. From them it follows that no one has ever revealed the biological causes which can account for sexual arousal. The problem is that I cannot find similar observations in other sexological publications including the most comprehensive ones (“Human Sexuality” by Masters & Johnston, “Sexuality Today: The Human Perspective” by Gary F. Kelly, “Our Sexuality” by Crooks & Baur etc.) Other writings merely do not examine the point in question. Perhaps there’re some special publications in the form of full-length papers in scientific journals. But it is very difficult to find the most recent and relevant sources because it’s not even clear what kind of key words I should type in this particular case. I haven’t much time today, but I think I’ll have added Imieliński’s remarks (translated from Russian) to the article by tomorrow. --SU ltd. (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, SU ltd.

You don't normally read Wikipedia discussions? Then how do you normally collaborate on Wikipedia? Do you mean that you don't read them unless they concern your edits?

As for the data you're looking for, I'll look into it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP debates if they contain important additional information on the subject matter of the article under discussion, e.g.: references to bibliography and lists of further reading, expounding or explanation of current conceptions etc. For example, these remarks of yours clarify the term “Sexual dysfunction” in Western psychiatry. Randykitty is familiar with publishing matters and can give some tips on that (is a scientific journal notable? what is its real scope? etc.), so that Randykitty’s Talk Page is worth reading. As for my own edits, I don’t think much of them. If I knew English very well, I would prefer journals. --SU ltd. (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't just mean debates. I also mean reading discussions to understand what is going on, or has gone on, with an article or reading discussions that concern edits you've made. For example, our discussion at the Asexuality article about defining asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is its organic basis?

Translated. Of course, this revision of mine suffers from the same fault you’ve already blamed on my contributions, viz., my source is too old and non-English to boot. It is not the Tarkhanov phenomenon (not to be confused with the Tarkhanov effect as the form of electrodermal response), however, whose importance should not be overestimated, that determines my inquiry concerning relevant sources. I need further and more recent bibliography on the problem indicated by Kazimierz Imieliński. I don’t know English-speaking sexologists who are discussing the same problem. It seems to be overlooked by sexologists. My citation from Eli Coleman book can serve as an example. That a similarity exists between sexual drive and search for food is suggested by him. But he doesn’t answer the question as to whether sexual and feeding behaviours do have similar physiological mechanisms. It is known that sexual arousal is accompanied by the physiological processes which the article describes. But “to be accompanied by” is not the same as “to be caused by.” Imieliński’s observation relates to the latter rather than the former.

At present his monograph turns out to be the only publication where I came across an allusion to such experimental data. Many textbooks and professional studies in sexology do not contain such information at all. I’m sure I simply don’t know relevant sources in English. But I can’t find them. The term “psychohydraulic model of sexuality” coined by Imieliński haven’t become currency of contemporary sexology, so that it cannot serve as a proper key word. Such key words as “sexual arousal” or “physiological models of coitus” lead to an immense amount of materials which are absolutely irrelevant here. As you read sexological literature very much, your advice might be very helpful again. Maybe I should type such key words as “biological causes of sexual drive” or something of the sort? --SU ltd. (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "organic basis"? Do you mean "biological causes of sexual drive"?

One thing about your contributions that you should keep in mind is WP:Blockquote. A blockquote is not needed for a few words, and is advised against. Style-wise, for sexuality articles and most other types of Wikipedia articles, instead of using the type of blockquote you use, I'd use <blockquote></blockquote>. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding this, I meant that using blockquote at all is not necessary. Blockquote isn't needed for text that short; quotation marks wills Suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your remarks concerning the normal asexuality concept was an example of interesting discussion. You told me about the existence of some discrepancies in defining this concept in Western literature. You have knowledge and share it with others. That was why I joined discussing the question you had posed there. If debates do not expand my knowledge of the subject matter of an article, I don’t feel like taking part in them. So I’m not very interested even in discussions which nominate my articles for deletion. Sometimes they’re foolish (e.g., this one – LOL) and add nothing to my knowledge.

To my mind, it would be a good thing to improve the article “Asexuality” by explanation of the grounds which allow some scientists to consider asexuality a normal phenomenon. It is obvious that such a point of view is incompatible with the F52.0 diagnosis in ICD-10. It is not clear from the article how the concept “normal asexuality” is possible.

And yes, I mean biological causes, for example, the biological data (strictly speaking, the absence of them) indicated by Imieliński. Both professionals and lay people often liken sexual deprivation to sensations of hunger and thirst. In contrast to these views, Imieliński points out that hunger and thirst are caused by the state of physiological deficit which have never been discovered in sexual arousal. The link you recommend does not even touch upon my point. Unfortunately, Imieliński’s book is too old. If there are more recent studies of this particular issue, they must be added to the article. At present the article does not reflects the problem which Imieliński refers to. --SU ltd. (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SU ltd., remember that I did not state that asexuality is normal. I stated: A lot of people may have a lack of interest in sexual activity, for a number reasons, as some of the sources in this article mention, but that doesn't mean that those people are asexual. Asexuality is defined among researchers as the significant lack of sexual interest in others and/or the significant lack of desire for sexual activity at all (meaning even masturbation)...or as the absence of sexual attraction, absence of sexual interest in others, and/or the absence of desire for sexual activity at all (meaning even masturbation). But there are those, especially those among the asexual community, who define asexuality only as having absolutely no sexual sexual attraction to, or sexual interest in, others. The Definitions section, of course, goes over the different definitions.

I then stated: I have not regarded asexuality as a normal phenomenon, SU ltd. I have regarded the lack of sexual desire as a normal phenomenon, and that is because various reliable sources do. Lack of sexual desire is more common among women than men, however. You also have to keep in mind that "lack" does not necessarily equate to "low" or "absent," which is why I made sure to use "significant" when speaking of "lack, and also used the word "absence," in my comment above. The ICD-10 does not include asexuality by name. And since "lack or loss of sexual desire" is in the ICD-10, which is primarily for diseases and disorders, it is clear that the ICD-10 is speaking of "lack or loss of sexual desire" in terms of sexual disorder...while some researchers and most asexual people do not consider asexuality to be a sexual disorder (they don't think of it as something that suddenly happens, for example).

I just repeated the above to you because it is important to stress that the lack of sexual desire should not automatically be confused with asexuality. There are people who lose their sex drive and therefore sexual desire due to age (such as being in their mid 40s, in their 50s or higher), stress or whatever else, for example. But these people are not asexual. Asexuality, significant lack or absence of sexual attraction/sexual desire, is not common (which the Asexuality makes clear). What Kelly means by "normal asexuality" is that it is "not necessarily a dysfunction." In that case, he is describing asexuality as being separate from a true disorder. For example, some researchers consider asexuality to be hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Kelly, on the other hand, uses the word "naturally" for one part: "the individual who naturally has low levels of need for sexual gratification." And later states "Normal asexuality: an absence or low level of sexual desire."

Again, I'll look into the information you are concerned with including in the Sexual arousal article; if I don't find anything, then there won't be an update on that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Hi there, this is a reminder that an article you were a significant contributor to, Lesbian sexual practices, needs some serious work in the research section, regarding obtaining a neutral point of view. In the third paragraph, here is the claim of issue;

"Other elements of lesbian sexual encounters include more full-body sexual contact, rather than genital-focused contact, less preoccupation or anxiety about achieving orgasm, more sexual assertiveness and communication about sexual needs, longer lasting sexual encounters and greater satisfaction with the overall quality of one's sexual life."

This is problematic because the Masters and Johnson/Frye claims of a greater quality of sexual life is already made in the first paragraph (and debunked in the Holmberg/Blair study immediately following), so it shouldn't be stated again. Furthermore, Wikipedia's policy on Neutrality, WP:NPOV, states;

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

This claim does not abide by a neutral point of view, because it is presented as a direct statement, when it should be stated as opinion, since it is a seriously contested assertion.

Lastly, The Schwartz claim should probably be included immediately before the Masters and Johnson/Frye opinion, as it is related to research on this topic, and Frye's claim is mostly in response to Schwartz, as seen in the citations linked. WP:NPOV dispute states "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.". This policy applies here, as the sources that don't reflect superiority onto LGBT couples are purposefully and selectively excluded. This qualifies as bias.

Anyway I thought I would bring these issues to your attention as you seem the most qualified to deal with it, having edited this article, and others like it, extensively in the past.

204.112.158.73 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MikeFromCanmore. My brother told you some of what I would have told you regarding this. While I obviously understand you coming to my talk page about it, I don't in other ways. You eventually told my brother, and everyone else, that you would be okay with the article (Lesbian sexual practices) if the Holmberg source was included. Commenting here is likely to cause him to comment here and lead to unpleasant interaction between you two (I already know that even if I were to tell him not to comment here, he probably wouldn't respect that request). You know that you are very likely to be blocked just for evading your block (the way that your above IP was blocked), and that you will be blocked any time you attempt to edit the Lesbian sexual practices article in the way that you did as MikeFromCanmore. You are easily recognizable as that user because, like my brother commented, the Lesbian sexual practices article is not a high-traffic article and only you are concerned with these particular things that you consider issues.

Concerning the prominent studies that have concluded that women in same-sex sexual relationships are more sexually satisfied than their heterosexual counterparts, see the Due and undue weight and Giving "equal validity" sections of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It was pointed out to you that more than one study has stated that women in same-sex sexual relationships are more sexually satisfied than their heterosexual counterparts. It truly is several studies that have concluded this, ranging from Alfred Kinsey, to the 1979 study by Masters and Johnson, to studies done in the 1980s, to as late as 2006. This is versus the one study you added that states that women in same-sex sexual relationships enjoy identical sexual desire, sexual communication, sexual satisfaction, and satisfaction with orgasm as their heterosexual counterparts. It's one study, Mike. And my brother had a point about that one study being only three years apart from the Diamond study (2006), and that it's a study with admittedly significant flaws. It does not debunk the studies that say differently. Currently, to my knowledge, it is the minority report because no other studies have reported this. This means that we must give it its due weight compared to the studies that say differently. This is what is done for a variety of topics on Wikipedia. Psychology topics, which I also work in, are an example. We present both sides when both sides should be presented, but we should not make the minority side look more prominent than it is. And just to show you that I apply this same line of thinking elsewhere and that it's not the result of the LGBT bias you have accused me of having, look at this link where I state essentially the same thing to an editor at the Adolescence article. It's never about bias for me. It's always about those policies and guidelines that I cite in that discussion for situations like this.

The Holmberg study is given its due weight in the Lesbian sexual practices article. We do not do away with the other studies because of what this one study reports. It also does not specifically address everything that Masters and Johnson address about same-sex sexual interaction among women, which makes it even more of a false claim to say that it debunks what Masters and Johnson concluded. It says nothing about whether or not it's true that "Other elements of lesbian sexual encounters include more full-body sexual contact, rather than genital-focused contact, less preoccupation or anxiety about achieving orgasm," for example. In fact, while Masters and Jonhson conclude that lesbians "tend to do more overall genital stimulation than direct clitoral stimulation," they conclude the same thing about heterosexual relationships, which the article mentions.

Sources that "don't reflect superiority onto LGBT couples" were not "purposefully and selectively excluded." Not in my case. I already told you that the Alfred Kinsey and Masters and Johnson studies comparing lesbians to heterosexuals were already there. All I did was add on to them,[8][9][10] including tweaking references. Although I'm mostly responsible for the article's current format, I'm not even currently billed as the top contributor of that article. Currently, the Behaviors section, for example, was not mostly written by me. If it was, it would be tighter and every piece of it would be reliably sourced. What resulted in the article including studies that you disapprove of is that there are more of those studies, and a lot of sources repeating what they have reported, in contrast to the one study you cited. A study that I was not aware of until you brought it to my brother's attention.

Now that I've gone over all that, I agree that the "Other elements" paragraph did seem out of place where it was (given what is stated earlier on). So I moved it up, and split it away from "the vaginal penetration with dildos is rare" sentence. I also attributed it in the text to Masters and Johnson, to take away your concern that it is reported as a fact. I additionally included the study by Pepper Schwartz, since it should be in the article. I did not put it before the Masters and Jonhson research, however, since the Masters and Johnson research came before Schwartz's. Here are the changes I recently made as a result of your comments above, along with other tweaks.

Because this discussion may not lead to anywhere good from this point on, especially if my brother decides to chime in on it, I requested semi-protection of this talk page. If at any point semi-protection needs to be extended, it will be. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MikeFromCanmore, back off already. As you are an indefinitely blocked user, you have no right to request or demand anything from my sister or anyone on Wikipedia about edits. Her editing anything in accordance to what you expressed just shows her great character because I and others probably wouldn't have. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that Mike has reset the timer on the standard offer, since it looked like he was making an honest attempt at it, and he would've probably had a shot at a highly conditional unblock 6 months down the road. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Comments at Hebephilia article

Hi, Flyer. I am avoiding contributing to the conversation at Talk:Hebephilia (for obvious reasons), but I wanted to respond to the point you raised: You are correct that I have never worked with Bailey. I greatly admire his work, but my involvement was to write a positive review of The Man Who Would Be Queen for the newsletter of the LGBT group in the American Psychological Association. I was, however, a student and then colleague of Ray Blanchard's for several years.— James Cantor (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, James. I see that you caught some corrections/tweaks I made.[11][12][13] I usually check the edit histories of not just articles, but their talk pages, and it's nice to see that you do the same; unless it's rather that you looked at my contributions and saw those edit summaries. Yes, it's understandable why you are staying out of that particular discussion, and it really should be over by now. Or needs to be over soon. I don't have to advise you to speak up there when it would be beneficial, as you already do that. But I, and I'm sure the others, don't mind you defending yourself there either; I know that doing so is often falling into Jokestress's bait, and it's often like she's won in such cases, but just remember that you have my support to defend yourself. If it becomes a battle arena, Jokestress only has herself to blame since she almost always makes it unpleasant for others to work with her when she vehemently disagrees with and/or dislikes one or more of the people she's working with and/or when the matter is about one or more of the people she vehemently disagrees with and/or dislikes. As you know, she violates WP:TALK in this way often. I understand why she feels the way that she does toward Bailey, you and some others (aside from the irrational actions she's taken part in), but the way she feels toward you all does not give her the right to treat any of you so terribly. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining what you did above. Because of the hebephilia topic, it was apparent that you've worked with Blanchard. But I wasn't aware that you were one of his students. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hebephilia

Please do not revert that refactor again, as that is an acceptable removal. Jokestress (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are unacceptable removals, and all because of your claim that they are WP:BLP violations. I've taken the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. See this. Consider that your notification. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing my comment on AN/I, I have to agree with Jokestress here. Legitimus accused her of committing what is basically a felony, with no evidence. I'm assuming that he is referring to the The Man Who Would Be Queen controversy, in which even Alice Dreger, Bailey's colleague at Northwestern, says did not happen. Seeing as it's clear cut libel, her removal of the personal attack is warranted, and indeed, I'd block Legitimus until he retracted the claim. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sceptre. In my initial comment at ANI about this, I'd stated: "And if they are WP:BLP violations, I do not believe that she is allowed to tamper with the comments in that way. There are other methods that can be taken." I recently struck through the part my of initial comment there that stated "We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations."

As you may already be aware of, I commented there today that "As can be seen with Jokestress's repeated removals of the text, Herostratus also wrote that she [is the photographer of the pictures of Bailey's children that she used]. It wasn't only Legitimus." But Legitimus and Herostratus have retracted that part of their texts,[14][15] and Legitimus commented about it in the ANI discussion.

On my first read of your "I'd block Legitimus" comment, I concluded that you mean "would have." On my second reading of it, I pondered if you had actually locked Legitimus (although it was confusing as to how he could have retracted the text while blocked, unless through agreement that he would retract it). I'm glad to see that his block log is still clean. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware that you used to be an administrator. Before that point, except for when I saw you at Talk:Gender identity disorder some time ago (didn't remember you until now), I was under the impression that you are an administrator because you, like some other people, simply give off that vibe. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad both editors retracted their claims. You learn diplomacy quick when you're an admin, even if you're young at the time. To be honest, it is sometimes hard to keep such a personal issue from clouding editorial judgement and I've been trying very hard not to let that do so. My opinion of Cantor's colleagues were already low due to the whole autogynephilia-in-the-DSM-5 issue, and until relatively recently TMWWBQ was simply "that awful book" to me. Personally, if I was aware of Cantor's "shemales" quote 24 hours ago the topic ban proposal would never have been created in the way it was. And given the aforementioned issues I have with the DSM-5, I think that we really need to taking a long hard look at anyone involved; as I said on ANI, if they're willing to use the APA to push their theories, I wouldn't put it past them to use Wikipedia to the same ends.

This creates a sort of double bind. As was seen a couple of weeks ago, the medical community seems to have institutionally transphobic streak (to the point we cite a reparative therapist criticising the infamous Spitzer study!). However, the lack of reliable source coverage outside of a few Guardian articles, because the newspapers were too busy talking about some silly journalist who had a meltdown on twitter makes it hard to talk about even as a matter of course on expressing caution when it comes to talking about transgender healthcare.

I still think this is a horrible real-life dispute that has made its way onto the wiki. At heart, I see two issues: one is Jokestress, who is (and in my personal opinion, justifiably) personally very angry over matters relating to TMWWBQ, and is trying, and in some times failing, to conduct herself in a way conducive to productive editing. The other is Cantor, and his editing in fields where he has a rather large COI, often on topics that he and his colleagues and/or friends have worked on. At the very least, the two editors should be interaction banned, but that still leaves the matter of fringe transgender-related typologies around the encyclopaedia...

I think there are a lot of issues editorially that even ArbCom couldn't solve within its remit, but I think that would be a good case to start. It seems that Jokestress would consent to Arbitration, and that Cantor may too, so I think other involved editors such as yourself should do likewise. My primary aim here is to improve the treatment of transgender topics on Wikipedia, and this is one area which really needs some sort of resolution, at least here. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You truly are diplomatic. Thank you for expressing your views on this to me. I am not as educated on transgender topics as Cantor or, say, bonze blayk (a transgender editor I've bonded with here on Wikipedia and a bit through emails). But I have transgender friends who have expressed similar views, and hearing/reading such views from them and you does make me consider how those who are upset with researchers like Cantor, or Cantor himself, are feeling. Like I stated at ANI, there's a lot of things I don't agree with regarding Cantor's research. Still, I have often asked Cantor's opinions on sexual or medical topics because he's one of the few true experts we have here and I have gotten along with him. That shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm Cantor's bitch (pardon my language). As for Arbitration for those of us who are not Cantor or Jokestress, we're not involved in the same way, so I'm not sure what you mean on that. I also don't edit transgender topics much, but I have supported transgender topics/aspects...such as when it comes to MOS:IDENTITY at the Brandon Teena article. See this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, and since it's relevant to the above discussion, I'm listing here this reply Cantor made at WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He also responded to Sceptre; I did already think that the wording is not Cantor's wording, and is rather the author's wording. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this might be more appropriate on another talkpage, but who exactly is it and what statement of mine is it that is being disagreed with? There are people on those committees I agree with (sometimes) and people I disagree with (sometimes). Indeed, there is an old joke about two psychologists, arguing over their three opinions. For reasons I cannot fathom, I keep seeing WP folks generalizing characteristics of some groups of thinkers to everyone in that group. (For comparison, feminist scholars are famous for hotly disagreeing with each other.) Although we recognize the problem of such generalizations with demographic groups, it is just as fallacious thinking for any group. I have no problem whatsoever expressing or defending whatever opinion I hold (and suffering the consequences thereof). But it makes little sense to try to deduce what I think and disagree with the deduction instead of with my actual thoughts. What's the autogynephilia in the DSM debate noted? I'm not sure I'm even aware of one. — James Cantor (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You commenting here about it is fine, in my opinion; I don't know what is a more appropriate place for it, other than email. Are your questions for us both? If so, I don't know what you mean by "who exactly is it"; but as for the statement aspect, I was referring to the word "shemale," which you seemed to tell Sceptre is a term that you did not use. For example: Looking at how your biography article currently is, the term "shemale" is in brackets at one part...which tells us that a different word was originally used (such as "they"). Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the green light. I meant to direct the "who?" to Sceptor's reference to "Cantor's colleagues" involved in "the whole autogynephilia-in-the-DSM-5 issue." In sex research (and, often, other branches of science), we have the same group of top (whatever number) experts who sort themselves out one way on one issue, but a completely different way on another issue. I agree with Paul Fedoroff when he says that pedophiles are not provided with the clinical services they need, but I disagree with him when he says he can cure pedophilia. I agree with Charles Moser that nothing about BDSM should disqualify anyone from parental rights, but I disagree with him when he says that BDSM folks are just as in need of new marriage legislation as are same-sex couples. That is, people are referring to "Cantor's colleagues" as if there exists some kind of major philosophical divide, like Democrats and Republicans. But whenever anyone disagrees with whatever thing I said, it turns out that they are not actually disagreeing with what I said, but with what Jokestress (or someone) says I said...but didn't. Hence my question about autogynephilia in the DSM5. I don't think there is such a debate.— James Cantor (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for going into further detail about your thoughts on all of this. Jokestress has misrepresented what I have stated, believe, or how I act, plenty of times (including at the aforementioned ANI discussion), so I know the feeling. When she makes it out as though I was trying to keep the Hebephilia article mostly assigned to the "hebephilia is a mental disorder" view, it makes no sense because it's shown right there in this archive that I have argued that most researchers don't consider hebephilia a mental disorder or a paraphilia (which, as mentioned, you challenged me on). Further, even before she showed up to the article on January 5, it did not definitively proclaim that hebephilia is a mental disorder; it instead stated "Ray Blanchard and a number of his colleagues from CAMH believe that hebephilia is a mental disorder and argued for its inclusion in the DSM-5." And before that, the longest-standing version so far, it stated "Debate is ongoing over whether hebephilia is a mental disorder, with Ray Blanchard and a number of his colleagues from CAMH arguing for its inclusion in the DSM-5." There's also the oddity of her acting as though it was you, not me, who was actively working alongside her and WLU at that article this month. Maybe she really does despise me more than you after all.

Anyway, James, with regard to what you may have stated, I was also already thinking that some of this wording, not just the term "shemale," that Sceptor objects to may not have been the wording you used. And your comment to Sceptor about what you actually stated makes it clear that you were not represented entirely accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

My bad. Sorry! UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay; I did recognize it as an accident in that edit summary. Sorry that I undid your tweak in the process. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

I just revdeled Halo's edit summary for his last post: it read "i wake up and see this shit? LEAVE MY SISTER THE FUCK ALONE!!!!!!!!!!! she has enough to worry about on Wikipedia right now." That's a bit much to have showing in a page history... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But now it's showing in this section on my talk page. Since Mike loves the last word, and my brother almost as equally as much, this will continue between them unless the talk page is semi-protected. But then again, Mike may create an account and wait until it's WP:Autoconfirmed just to reply here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. And not only was I right that Mike would create an account just to reply here on my talk page once the talk page was semi-protected (though that account was obviously already created), but he and my brother are getting into it at WP:ANI. Now that page will have to be semi-protected. Sighs. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi, sorry for pushing your comments down on the [[WP:AN/I] board - [16]- I'm never entirely sure on comment placement in complex threads. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. A lot of us in that discussion have been doing it (including me). It's difficult not to do it sometimes in that discussion or other such, as you state, complex threads. There is the option of simply starting off the comment with the editor's name being responded to, but meh (definitely meh when your comment is more relevant being placed above another's). Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Hebephilia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sexual intercourse

It is probably not a good idea to get into long-winded debates with ‎Tdadamemd on Talk:Sexual intercourse. He/she has made it clear that they are no longer arguing for particular content, and we shouldn't be encouraging soapboxing on talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy. I've just told him that I don't have much more to state to him on the matter, if anything else at all. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flyer22

Hey Flyer22. I noticed that your statement is 986 words long, but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request. Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Hahc21. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, correct? One difficulty cutting parts in my word count tool is that the Wikipedia links and diff-links add to the word count. Also, does the 500-word limit only apply to the initial comment? I ask because I see others adding comments under their initial comment, usually when replying to others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you left a message with another editor that addresses adding additional comments, so it seems that I have my answer about that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used Microsoft Word to get the count without the diffs. And, yes, you should keep your section below 500 words including the additional comments and responses, not only the initial statement. Usually, statements are to provide a short overview of your perspective to the arbitrators; the whole thing will be provided in the evidence page of the case of the arbitrators accept. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. And about calculating the word count, I had realized that I could simply remove the WP:Pipe linking and the diff-links to see how many words I truly have. I didn't do that at the time because once I got low enough in the 500 word-count range, it was easy to calculate that the word count without the diff links is within the limit. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for archive: This is what my statement looks like now after different tweaks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Female promiscuity

Hi Flyer,

If at your leisure would you please place looking at this article at the bottom of your to-do list. I see the article as all over the place. The article feels more like an over-cited opinion piece. But what bothers me is how many times the word "study" is used. Well anyway take a look if you can.--Wlmg (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen it and some concerns you expressed with it. I've now made a mental note to help out with that article at your request, but it is definitely somewhere at the bottom of my to-do list. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why hello

Thanks for your message, I hope you're doing well too. :) Siawase (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Serial Killer punctuation

Thank you for correcting my punctuation on the Serial Killer article, My writing skills aren't have declined over the years, and I'm not completely update to date on the new policies. Thanks «»Who ?¿? 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde article

Why do you keep reverting the page? The content I removed is unsourced information. Leave it alone. SwediePie (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and others keep reverting you at the Blond (not Blonde) article because you keep removing valid images that actually are sourced on their description pages and are only doing so because you don't believe that black/African people can have naturally blond hair (without substantial white/European blood).[17][18] Your relatively small edit history shows that you've been repeatedly reverted on this matter since last year; one would think that you would have learned not to remove the images by now. But given my prior experience with you at the Adolescence article, I should not be surprised by your lack of understanding regarding the way things are supposed to work here at Wikipedia. If you do not revert yourself soon, or if you revert again during the current 24 hours shall someone else revert you, I will report you at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; you have already violated the WP:3RR policy and will most assuredly be blocked if reported.

Also start signing your user name (not just signing it, but signing it properly), as I've just done for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you watching this article so closely anyway? SwediePie (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about watching the article "so closely"; it's about watching it, period, just as many (likely most) Wikipedia editors watch certain Wikipedia articles. My main reason for having taken an interest in this article, after wanting to see what it looks like, is seeing all the WP:OR (unsourced) text, personal commentary, vandalism or other unconstructive edits, being added to the article. I have clearly remembered your persistent removal of the one image (when it was just one image of a black person instead of two, if these individuals are more accurately categorized as black). But it's none of your business why I am watching the article. Just know that I am, as you already do, and that I will not tolerate your invalid removals.

And you still did not sign your user name properly. You aren't supposed to do it manually, giving a different time than the Wikipedia time. To sign your user name, and as SineBot has told you more than once, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I've just corrected your timestamp. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this piece here for a note of your sockpuppeting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my page! It's true though, I do revert quite a few funny posts in articles... Lova Falk talk 06:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And LOL. I was going to mention that revert to you there on your talk page, but then I decided to wait because it occurred to me that you may be watching your user page (which means that your talk page is also automatically watched by you). The main reason others used to spot vandalism to my user page before I did is because I didn't have my user page/talk page on my watchlist. I've only recently, since some point in January of this year, started using a watchlist again after almost two years of having stopped using it. There were a lot of articles I had to drop from it, considering that my watchlist was in the 3000s. It's currently in the 1000s, but most of the articles apparently aren't that active because I don't have too many articles popping up and overwhelming me at this time. Instead of removing most of the remaining articles from my watchlist all at once, I'm removing articles individually, gradually as they pop up (the ones that I don't want to watch and/or am confused about why they were ever on my watchlist). Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do watch my user page! My watchlist is presently 3,433 pages and growing, even though I try to unwatch whenever I can. But then again, there is so much that I find interesting...

Lova Falk talk 08:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About my sources in the Asexuality article

Thx a lot for your proofreading, Flyer22. It’s very nice of you. I’m always grateful to anyone who corrects my grammar errors, so helping me with my English. It’s difficult for me to learn your native language, but I need it very much.

As for my sources, I’m quite aware of the fact that they aren’t reliable just as an anonymous author’s book “Asexuality: A Brief Introduction” is not a scientific investigation :-) But I only wanted to point out some recent events that were of paramount importance in the asexual community. Besides, I don’t always think much of the sources I add. This must also be said of the so-called reliable sources. For example, I disapprove David Jay’s attitude to the LGBT community and disagree with those researchers who consider asexuality a sexual orientation. Of course, asexuality can’t be a sexual orientation just as the absence of delusion is not a particular form of delusion. In contrast to various sexual sins and orientations, asexuality is a normal state, the inborn virtue of chastity. Unlike the members of AVEN, I was not asexual from the very beginning. I had been struggling against sexual drive for many years before I achieved (unlike Anatoly Wasserman and other unmarried people) the state of asexuality. But WP is not meant for original research. Taking this rule into account, I have to add bibliographical items to WP independently on my personal opinion about them. I very often add external links to WP simply because I’m interested in them myself. --SU ltd. (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SU ltd., like I stated on the Asexuality talk page before, now seen at Talk:Asexuality/Archive 4, I'm sure that reason it's considered part of the sexual orientation category by some researchers is because it has to do with sexual orientation (how people feel towards sexual activity, etc.). "It's an orientation that strays away from sex, therefore making it a sexual orientation." I'm not completely sure whether or not I personally consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation, considering that asexuals, for example, can also be heterosexual or homosexual (what they call heteromomantic or homoromantic, the romantic aspects of those sexual orientations). In this case, I use "homosexual," a word some take offense to, because it goes better with the heterosexual counterpart than the words "gay men and lesbians" and to better demonstrate the alternative term "homoromantic."

As for sources, the aforementioned text and sources you added, SU ltd., should be removed until WP:Reliable sources can be found to support it. That's just the way that this site works. The only thing I can do to help you on that is advise you not to add such poor sourcing anywhere on Wikipedia, and to help you look for suitable sources. If I don't find any, that text and its sources will be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wasn't concerned with the book you used; I am concerned with the fact that you used WordPress.com as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Dean

Hi! I am curious, and not questioning you. Was there a reason why you didn't warn User:The Twilight Zone Spiral after your revision of his mass deletion? This guy looks like trouble to me, and if it was an oversite on your part I will be happy to follow up on it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gtwfan52. When I reverted that user, he or she had already been sort-of warned by ClueBot NG and I knew that an editor would warn him or her soon, which is what happened. I often do my part by helping to revert in cases such as these and leave the warning messages up to others. My reasons for doing so come down to knowing that the matter will be covered soon by another editor, my sometimes being too lazy to issue a warning, and my being aware that edits like the ones The Twilight Zone Spiral made are not being made with a WP:VANDALISM intention. Sometimes, I will leave an article and let others repeatedly revert; this is because when it's not vandalism, repeatedly reverting can leave me in the position of the type of WP:Edit warring that can possibly get me blocked. In the case of The Twilight Zone Spiral, who is also obviously this IP that I reverted, WP:Disruption obviously applies; but like I stated, others already had it covered. I sometimes will warn a user, especially in the case of vandalism, and I did so recently, as seen in this link, but not usually when I know that someone else will soon. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, he will be gone soon enough i figure. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thefreedictionary.com

I understand your reasoning; but why do we have to cite a no-name Internet dictionary for that purpose? Why not use one of the established ones, like Merriam-Webster? Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Nyttend. Like I stated, my point was "to show that 'child' is generally defined, by dictionaries at least, as 'between birth and puberty.'" Citing one dictionary, unless it uses the word "generally" for the information, doesn't show that this is the usual, non-legal definition that is given. But citing a source that shows more than one dictionary defining it that way does. And the Oxford English Dictionary source that's there doesn't use the exact wording "between birth and puberty." Their definition of "a young human being below the age of puberty" for the biological aspect is close, but not very close, and you know how some people at this site are very strict, or odd rather, about things being supported by the source. Simply because the word "birth" isn't used, they might state "Wording not supported by the source" (though I can understand removing "birth" in that case). One might even remove "biologically," even though the definition dealing with puberty is about biology while the legal definition is about being legally deemed no longer a child. I don't understand the rationale that wording in a Wikipedia article needs to be word-for-word the wording used in the source, which would be a WP:COPVIO unless it's put in quotation marks or is so generic (like "between birth and puberty") that it doesn't need to be (for example, limited close paraphrasing may be permitted), but I have seen such editors seemingly display that rationale (even if not a word-for-word rationale, but rather a "words not used in the source shouldn't be used" rationale that is not applied in a way that is supported by WP:Verifiability or WP:Original research) and I'd rather avoid dealing with them. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

creating controversial content

I wrote an essay inspired by another editor's past effort to add new sexual orientations. Edit or post as you see fit. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay, Nick. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check Out My --Contributions

Could you help me out by [creating??] checking out my wiki --contributions-- where I have begun to create articles for notable people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.9.177 (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP. I take it that you spotted me at the Michael Malone article after I tweaked things following your edit to it.[19][20] Checking out your contributions, I see that you mean soap opera-related articles. While I used to be heavily involved in editing soap opera articles or soap opera-related articles, I don't edit them much these days. And I never edited a lot of biographies having to do with soap operas. But I might follow your contributions and help with a few things. You should also take the advice left on your talk page about creating new articles. Make sure the people meet our WP:NOTABILITY guideline first and foremost.

Also, remember to sign your user name when you comment. To sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pedophilia and jurisdictions

hi, thanks! I'm not an expert in this field, I just stumbled upon this paragraph, when looking for some data related to a debate in Poland I read about yesterday. Thank you for adding the source, I know it may look like an overkill, but I am a good example of someone who is familiar with Wikipedia and still found it lacking. Even now I see the statement as problematically vague: beyond any doubt, the article makes a claim about some particular jurisdiction (no-one has the data for convictions worldwide), and since many American states treat the age of consent as a hard-and-fast rule (that is, a 18-year old person hitting on a 17-year old person is a child molester), I intuitively suspect that the numbers reflecting convictions in this claim are representative to some country(ies) only, while are read as a statement about all nations. However, I don't know how to amend this, I have no better sources, and since the claim is a direct quote, let's lay the blame for the vagueness on the source itself, and not try to fix it on Wiki :) Pundit|utter 07:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you left the same response on your talk page. The only thing I feel the need to state to you is that pedophilia (the sexual attraction) is not the same thing as child sexual abuse (the act); that section addresses this. And even in America, most people don't consider an 18-year-old guy with his 17-year-old girlfriend to be pedophilia. It's usually when the guy or woman is at least in his or her 20s or much older than the 17-year-old that some people confuse age of consent/age of majority issues with pedophilia. Like the article is very clear about, however, a sexual attraction to or sexual preference for post-pubescents is not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying on your talk page to alert you to my reply as a courtesy, but I leave a copy on my own discussion to keep the discussion in one place for the ease of following it. I AM NOT adding your talk page to my watched pages! (the reason being having too many pages watched; also most wikis I know use the talk page communication regularly, that is by replying only on the disputant's page, and not making attempts to keep everything in one place). Now, the only thing I find problematic is the part stating that "female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders". What I find problematic is the lack of context: we do not know IN WHICH COUNTRY these numbers are accurate, but quite likely these stats do not reflect a worldwide average (other data seems to reflect the American reality; the age of consent and the actual enforcement in a given country definitely has to influence the number and proportions of convictions). So when we're giving percentages of convictions, but we do not know which jurisdiction they apply to, the data is misleading. If these stats are accurate worldwide and come from some international representative study, it would be equally important to state so. Pundit|utter 08:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about double posting, but I prefer to keep the discussion in one spot. I usually check back when I post to someone's talk page, though I know that you can't know that unless I've told you. As for prevalence, it's not just that part of the text that is tricky. Like the link I posted to your talk page about that section shows, nailing down the percentages for this topic (whether pedophilia or child sexual abuse) can be tricky. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration comment

I saw your email (I think from Sunday) about half an hour ago and I'll take a look. It may be a few days before I can post about it. Jokestress was not who I had in mind; there was another editor. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I stated, I wanted to know what you thought about an aspect of the case since you've been involved in sexology topics. I knew that my focus may of course be different than yours, which you've now stated that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lova Falk talk 08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

I owe you emails! :) I've not forgotten, just that I'm really busy IRL right now - Alison ^❤ 04:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Alison. And, yes, as we've discussed, you're usually very busy. So no worries on getting back to me late. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:HappyLogolover2011

Hey. Yep, I do keep an eye on all of their edits. They are all problematic, just some less so than others. I believe good faith is there, just not a firm grasp on the policies, guidelines, and style of Wikipedia.

And thanks for noticing my efforts elsewhere. Spending most of one's WP time doing RCP and reverting vandalism is generally a pretty thankless job. Yet one I cannot seem to quit. SQGibbon (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that the editor is acting in good faith. And what appears to be some kind of language barrier when the editor makes ungrammatical edits, or gives ungrammatical reasoning, is not the editor's fault. But WP:COMPETENCE is important when editing Wikipedia; that essay should be a policy or guideline, but it's used as one or the other often enough when deciding to indefinitely block an editor.

And no problem about the compliments on your work. You should have a lot more barnstars for your work around here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnimeRonin regarding the inclusion of "Fuck" in the See Also section of the Sexual intercourse article

Thanks for redirecting my attention to the talk page regarding the inclusion of Fuck in the See Also section of the Sexual intercourse article. It would appear that a compromise was reached upon, and that I concur with it. Animeronin (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Animeronin. I was just typing up a message to you when I took a break from typing and saw that you had left me a message here. So I'll reword my message a bit. Like I stated in this edit summary when reverting your removal of "fuck", it was added as a compromise. You've seen this discussion, where an editor was demanding that we add "fuck" to the article. He even wanted it in the lead. While I objected to it being in the lead for the reasons I stated there, I was fine with including it in the lower body of the article. But WP:CONSENSUS seemed to be not to add it in the main body of the article at all, and the editor added it to the See also section as a compromise. No one objected to it being added to the See also section. Two of us were already worn-out from debating with the editor.

Maybe you'd be interested in commenting in the discussion to let others know why you don't feel that the word "fuck" should be in the main body of the article? In my original message to you, I was going to add "and/or the See also section," but now I see that you are okay with it being in the See also section as a compromise. I'd rather the term "fuck" stay linked there instead of being removed from there, as to avoid any further conflict with the editor in question. But now, since anyone may find the "fuck" link irrelevant to that section at any time and remove it, I may do like I was going to do as a compromise and add it briefly (to the Definitions and stimulation factors section) by summarizing that there are various vulgar and/or slang terms and euphemisms for sexual intercourse/other sexual activity (such as the word "fuck"). Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" in 2011 Tucson shooting article

Hi Flyer. I didn't see your null edit previously about further instances of "alleged" in the article till just now by chance, so I went back through and removed four instances of it. Should be good now... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that edit summary came after our tweaks to make the article post-conviction compliant.[21][22]. Thanks for removing the instances of "alleged." Better late than never (sometimes anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tribadism talk page

Just a quick glance at that talk page there are still topics there from 2004! I can see some value in letting low activity talk pages move slowly, but in this case surely the article has changed enough since then that many comments are no longer relevant. If anything archiving at least the most obsolete/stale topics might help bring fresher, more relevant feedback. Siawase (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, that's why I addressed you about it. If you want to go ahead and archive, I obviously won't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for being a vandal fighter.--I dream of horses @ 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being a vandal fighter as well; you've fought vandalism more substantially than me, and I have always greatly appreciated seeing you pop up just in time or sooner than later to remove that mess. I will be using WP:Huggle soon, so I will be able to help fight vandalism better and more often when that happens. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I wish I could use huggle more efficiently. As it is, I'm a mac user, so I can use it, but it's very slow. I use Igloo when it works. Since it doesn't work at the moment, I use STiKi.

By the way, next time, you can just use {{talkback}} template without also putting a message noting the fact that you've used it. ;-) --I dream of horses @ 18:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually see people using STiKi, so I should probably use that instead. As for the message I left, yeah, it was redundant since you'd know why I left you a talkback template; sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. My impression is that huggle is good if you're using Windows. :-) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I use Windows. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petition Asking Surgeon cardiologist.

D's Hi, i hope you doing good ! I'm just curios , cause my uncle pass by a surgery , he got a bypass surgery 3 (bypass). and i was wondering if you guys are doing your surgery's with the patient over an orthopedic bed, i explain , a bed with angles of 60 degree down on both edge's and in the middle of the bed exactly where the vertebrates rest has a standard plane , for resist the column's bone's and maker easier and comfortable to the patient's , after D's open's pectoral's and thorax eliminating the reaction over the column and contraction's on back muscle's after D's open thorax and install the safety bar's , operating using that angle the bone's will open easier because that angle on bed going to help the back muscle's movement and thorax will open putting less energy in your hand's .

thank you very much, i will appreciate answer's from you D's ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbassa14 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is it do you think I am? And how did you find this page? Whatever the case for querying me, this is Wikipedia; and on that note, see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from Pansexuality article

In a sense I agree with the deleter and I don't. I included those sources because I was trying to show that while it was popularly repeated that Jack was omnisexual, he was simply bisexual in a sci-fi context. (I think there is an article in the idea that outside of the show, RTD and Barrowman prefigured bisexuality as a scifi concept to make a mostly-gay bisexual hero palatable, and then later used Torchwood to explore other gradations of bisexuality, but this is OR.) The remover, who is annoyed that "men, women and aliens" is used is quite right from a "realistic" sense, especially when those aliens are always male or female-encoded. The only attempt the show has made to honour pansexuality as a concept, which I'm not sure it really intended to starting out, was Captain John (James Marsters) joking about finding a poodle sexually attractive - but this was in a way shock humour. I think it could probably also stay on the basis that it shows how a production team used the term omnisexual---perhaps outside of its understood usage---with the actor commenting that it was in fact a portrayal of bisexuality (and gay-leaning bisexuality at that!), but there might need to be an additional source included to make that leap more explicit to the reader (who might otherwise conclude it based on what was there).Zythe (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to state on the matter, other than what I stated on your talk page about it. I don't agree with the removal because of those reasons or see how the remover is "quite right" from any sense, especially because Jack is apparently having sex with aliens who make themselves appear to be male or female humans (which doesn't relate to any sexual attraction to something that doesn't look human). But I'm also not hard-pressed on the material being added back, and, obviously, I felt that you should know about the removal because you added the material. Flyer22 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your question, I'm with the section being removed. Upon seeing your removals, I thought that the section in its entirety should go ahead and be removed. And just now, some minutes later, I saw that you suggested it in that edit summary (I hadn't fully read your edit summary until now). Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
Message added 01:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]