User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Re: Your welcome message to me[edit]

Hi Flyer 22, I am in fact working on the Sexual Orientation page as part of a project for a university seminar class. I was supposed to put all of my information in my Sandbox before editing the actual Wikipedia page. For that reason, I have removed all of the information I have added and placed it in my Sandbox. After it is marked, I will re-launch it onto the Wikipedia page. Sorry about that. Thank you. 8sjg2 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Make sure that when you add back the text you removed,[1][2] that you add it back in its appropriate format (the WP:Manual of Style formats I explained to you). The same goes for any new text you add to the Sexual orientation article or any other Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hiya Flyer22, thank you for your welcome message to me! <3 Shelly Pixie (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kim Leine[edit]

Why did you change De gyldene Laurbaer - it is right!!! Have a look at the german page f.e. I´ll fix it again. Is it english: "For romanen"??? -- (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. -- (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


I noticed you have had some issues with Star767. He/she has now been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet see User_talk:Star767#Blocked.--Penbat (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because I was watching Star767's talk page (but will cease to do so when it looks like no further comments related to the block will be posted there), I'd seen your posts there and the block that resulted from that. I'd also seen your post in the Blocked section before I stopped editing Wikipedia for several hours. Very soon after the Blocked section was started, I considered posting in that section about the editor not seeming like MathewTownsend, who, like Star767, was confirmed as a sockpuppet of Mattisse, but I decided not to. Mattisse was referred to by female pronouns, and MathewTownsend (given the name "Matthew" and maybe because the editor also identified as male) was referred to by male pronouns, and MathewTownsend edited psychology articles every now and then. So that matter is confusing, like one can't be completely sure of anything regarding it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for removing the vandalism from the article about Harrison, Arkansas.

I went in today to fix it, and noticed you had already been there.

I tried to send you an email, but the "send this user an email" option wasn't available. You seem pretty good with Wikipedia, and it would be nice to have a Wiki friend who can answer some of my questions.

Take care,

Richard. Richard apple (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, Richard apple. You're welcome. When I reverted this, I initially didn't know what was going on with that edit. But the kkk addition to the URL was a dead-giveaway that it was vandalism.
Earlier this year, due to limited email abuse, I disabled the option that allows others to email me. I won't be re-enabling it any time soon for longer than a few minutes; if asked, and if the request is valid, I will re-enable it for a few minutes in order to give an editor a chance to email me. But the editor can just as easily allow me to email him or her, and then email me back that way.
As for experience with Wikipedia and help, I see that you are still relatively new (having registered for a Wikipedia account on December 22, 2012). I (as the top of my user page currently states) have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 (maybe tried to edit it as an IP address at one point before then) and I understand what you mean about it being good to have a Wikipedia friend/someone willing to help you on Wikipedia. There aren't many, or even several, Wikipedia editors I'd call my friends, however, on or off Wikipedia. Still, you may ask me for help about anything concerning Wikipedia whenever you feel like it.
I signed your user name for you above. Judging by your user page, it doesn't seem that you need to be told that all you have to do to sign your user name is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. But your signature should provide a link to your account. If you have your signature formatted so that it doesn't do that, you should fix it so that it does. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to send me an email. I'm very curious about you. Richard Apple 04:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Flyer22 Reborn. You have new messages at Jackson Peebles's talk page.
Message added 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson appearance[edit]

Dear Flyer, I agree with you it did not fit. But thing is and there's also another source I can give you that this person also gave other statements about MJ and later under oath she admitted she did not see anything. So how do you know the comment that is posted here is correct? I don't know who had the idea for this page and why. But the health of an individual ist sth. very private and people should be very careful with what they write. As far as health is concerned tabloids are not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. Yes, this clearly does not belong there. And I clarified that a bit more in this edit summary. As long as what you add to the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article is reliably sourced and is about Jackson's health and/or physical appearance, I likely won't have much of or any problem with what you add to that article. Like I stated earlier the previous hour on that article's talk page: "When I cleaned up [that] article on January 10, 2013‎, I returned and added neutrality to [it] and removed crap." This edit by an IP undid that. That article is of WP:GA status and should stay that way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it loses that status at some point, given the IPs and registered users who continue to add or re-aad junk to it every now and then in order to bias it. Like Bookkeeperoftheoccult stated on its talk page, because it's no longer a WP:BLP article, concerning Michael Jackson at least, it is no longer afforded the high degree of protection against the type of junk that the aforementioned IP added back. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, I just placed my today's add in another paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Remember to keep in mind what I stated in my 16:15 edit summary. And if you want a Welcome template added to your talk page to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, let me know and I'll give you one. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, I'd be pleased to have one:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 14:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Flyer,

Would it be okay if I place a link in the "see also" box reffering to another page dealing with the topics I wrote about in the section "weight & drug addiction"? I did not edit that one so it would be a neutral post. It's about the trial in 2011. I'm not sure because it's not a page specifically about health. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that Huon answered you. Before I checked your talk page, I was also going to ask what article do you want to link to. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Flyer, Could I start a new section called e.g. "descendancy" or is the addition too short? I can't write it in the section "skin colour" or another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Such a section just to include this text is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and is advised against by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs. But either way, I don't see that text or any other text about Jackson being "mixed" with whatever "race" as too relevant to that article. The fact that he did not originally have "European features" is the whole point when it comes to the physical appearance he eventually developed, other than weight. Being "mixed" with whatever "race" does not cause someone to suddenly develop those features, and so I am not seeing how the text you added is too relevant or relevant at all to the article (even if the text were meant to imply why his children have "European features"). Most scientists believe that no one is 100% one "race" anymore.
You need to stop driving home your point in that article (like I stated before in my 16:15 edit summary noted above, it's covered sufficiently there) and stop adding random text to it. Also, there is no need to repeat Jackson's full name as "Michael Jackson" unless a paragraph is about other members of the Jackson family as well and clarity is needed regarding which one the text is referring to at any given moment. In other words, since the article is about Michael Jackson and his full name has already been clarified, it is otherwise clear that we are referring to Michael Jackson when we state "Jackson" in that article; see WP:SURNAME. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, my 16:15 edit summary noted above is referring to the Weight and drug addiction section. The Skin color and Cosmetic procedures and diet sections can do with a bit more balance on the "Jackson didn't bleach his skin/didn't have more than one cosmetic procedure" side. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

okay, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 14:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Flyer,

I have a question regarding the section "Death". Source 65 does not exist anymore. Can it still remaine or does it need another source? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 11:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you mean it was a WP:Dead link. I've replaced it. In cases where a link dies, you should try to find a replacement at Internet Archive. Or also, as in this case, Google the article title. I did both, and Googling the article title brought up a copy (or rather the original moved to a different URL destination). WP:Dead link goes over what else should be done in the case of a dead link. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer,

There's another problem: the text does not correspond with the source. The source does not say when the incident took place. According to her testimony in court the last time she treated him was in April and then they had a conversation but not in May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talkcontribs) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it's fine for you to remove the unsourced part of the text. Or you can search and see if there is a different reliable source that supports that text and then add it.
Also, remember what I stated on your talk page about signing your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot has signed your posts for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Flyer, I wanted to replace a dead link (#66), but now it does not work and I can't use the undo function. I don't want to mess it up even more. Can you help me please? Quaffel (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason that references #66 and #68 no longer worked is because you removed the complete versions of those references and only left their refnames. For what I mean about that, see Wikipedia:NAMEDREFS#Multiple references to the same footnote. Using a refname in absence of the source in its entirety leaves the reference invalid. I fixed them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you:) Quaffel (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Flyer, I'd like to post this Medical advice but I don't know where it is supposed to be and what I have to keep in mind. Quaffel (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't go in our Wikipedia articles. I've been meaning to tell you that with regard to information you keep adding about Jackson's health and medical experiences, you should limit yourself or maybe stop. Wikipedia doesn't have to cover every health-challenged experience Jackson has been through. And we certainly shouldn't be covering much about what random doctors have had to state about Jackson's health. When it comes to detail, Wikipedia is more about summarizing. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I'll stop. Thank you! Quaffel (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Flyer22 Reborn. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As you know by now, I'd already replied, Stefan2. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


I think you warned him enough :) JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen the IP's edit and was about to report him or her just before you left me this message. I have reported the IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The reason that I warned the IP at least twice is because I did not want my report to be turned away with some annoying "IP was insufficiently warned" comment. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good :) forgot to sign first time JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

* A barnstar for you! *[edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being here, for working so hard and so well, for your help, support and encouragement. ♥ Lova Falk talk 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Aw, thank you, Lova Falk!! It's very much appreciated coming from you, with how hard you work at this site and how kind and assisting you are. Thank you. I'm here a little too much these days, with barely any sleep because of my off-Wikipedia Internet work and because I'm battling my insomnia more than I have in the past, but knowing that my work here is appreciated by some people and that they believe I'm making a great difference is one way that I know it's not necessarily a waste of time editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome, you deserve it. And from the sound of it, you still need lots of hard work in case you ever feel like becoming a wikisloth. Face-smile.svg Lova Falk talk 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Child abuse article[edit]

Dear Flyer 22, Well, you stated that my adding abortion is not valid due to no links with it, now, in the first 2 paragraphs in the child abuse writings in Wikipedia, there also has not been any source added except only in a few circumstances, now, in the line "There are four major categories of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, including abortion, psychological or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse.", none of these forms of abuse words have any relaible source to validate them, now I am getting the feeling that even if I would provide reliable source (despite the other forms of abuse are not linked in any sources) you would still be removing them as unreliable sources, to be honest, it this because you are personally pro abortion? Nayan Mipun, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talkcontribs) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but if you check the two sentences below the heading Types, you'll see that there is a source for the four major categories of child abuse. Also the subsections have lots of sources. When there are sources in the article, the sources don't always need to be repeated in the lead. Also, the lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no text on abortion in the article. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
[ WP:EDIT CONFLICT ]: Nayanmipun, you are not the first to suggest that I have, or accuse me of, some sort of bias (regarding a topic in question) for following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines, and you won't be the last. Most of what I have to state to you about the Child abuse article is what I stated on your talk page about it. The forms of child abuse that you claim have no sources to validate them are sourced lower in the article, in the sections about them. Per WP:LEAD, they do not have to be sourced in the lead if they are sourced lower in the article. It remains that your text is not sourced at all, and should not be in the article unless added in the way that I described to you.
Also, never again post at the top of my talk page, or at the top of any Wikipedia talk page unless replying to a discussion post. New posts go at the bottom. And you can start a new section by clicking "New section" at the top of any Wikipedia talk page (unless the option to post to that talk page has been disabled). And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Biology and sexual orientation[edit]

It's biology and sexual orientation. Shouldn't it include biology-related statements specifically? --Scientiom (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You've been reading the talk page, I'm sure. You know what the current consensus is about what that article should mention. Of course the Biology and sexual orientation article should not give the false impression that scientists generally think that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why I reverted you. Should that article mostly be about biology? Sure. But when it comes to reporting what scientists generally think on the matter, we should report accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gangadhar Nehru[edit]

The IP is still quite active there. It hasn't responded to the warnings from a bot and doesn't appear to respond to our efforts, so I'm going to go ahead and report it for what I think is vandalism. Since you were also reverting, I think it's apt to let you know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I realize now the IP has been warned only twice with my warning now. I reverted it for the third time though since it seems like vandalism I believe I have a 3RR exemption, though I won't push it. We'll have to see what happens after this second warning now (if you're still interested). MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, MezzoMezzo. Yes, I reverted that IP three times.[3][4][5] I didn't bother reverting after that because I concluded that the IP would be reverted and blocked soon (or the other way around), and, like you, I didn't want to risk a WP:3RR violation...knowing that WP:VANDALISM may not define the IP's actions as vandalism. If the IP continues to edit in the style that we've objected to, and the IP likely will, then, if Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't do something about that, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring will. Despite risk of breaching WP:3RR, I had checked back in on that article and decided that I would revert again if the IP's edits stayed for longer than a few hours. Good to know that you reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jay Stamper[edit]

Hello Flyer22. The unregistered user is continuing to vandalise the lead section of the article. Since you reverted his vandalism, I've reverted him three times in two days. He is ignoring all attempts to communicate and I even warned him on his talk page. Could you possibly revert his vandalism and try asking him to stop as well? I think he might if a second editor does so too. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted. There's nothing left for me to warn the IP about, however, since you have warned him or her three times, unless you want me to try to discuss the matter with the IP. But I would prefer you try to start such a discussion first. Like I stated in the section before this one to a different editor, if the IP continues to edit in the style that we've objected to, and the IP likely will, then, if Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't do something about that, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring will. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I've left a message on his talk page explaining why we're reverting and asking him to discuss before removing the information again. Tiller54 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. And, remember, you can report the IP at either of the pages I noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi, You said we don't determine what is appropriate by citing examples from similar pages. It seems to be a fairly reasonable method of showing a Wikipedia consensus on a certain matter. I just wanted to demonstrate that the Wikipedia community seems to have decided that sexual photos are OK.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding regarding the statements made about your image additions. You might want to explain yourself on this matter in that section about this on the article talk page, in case others want to reply to you and so that it's there when that section is archived. Or I could leave a note there stating that you replied about this on my talk page. I hope that you understand what we meant about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Flirt Club[edit]

Hi Flyer, nothing exigent. I wanted to make sure you're checked out on the Anti-Flirt Club. it is a very remarkable article.--Wlmg (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for pointing me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 ;-) --Wlmg (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Fianna Fáil Liberalism[edit]

I was going through the Fianna Fáil page as an exercise is editing another page when I noted that you reverted an update which highlighted their shift towards European Liberalism. I was wondering why you removed that edit as the previous edit would appear to have reliable referenced sources?sittingonthefence (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sittingonthefence. Look at this; it shows that I reverted the IP, then very soon afterward reverted myself. I can sometimes make mistakes when prowling to revert vandalism, and I was not sure about that edit; that's why I reverted myself, though reverting myself restored a cite error. Flyer22 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
  2. User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
  3. User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hi, there. List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests.[edit]

Hi, Flyer. Did you want to talk more about List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests?— James Cantor (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really, James. We covered the bases in our discussion about it. Why do you ask? You want to revisit that discussion?
Also, as you can see, I expanded the heading of this section with the List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests mention/link, so that I or others know what this section is about from looking at the archives when it's finally archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, all good. It's just that that discussion happened in such a whirlwind, that it wasn't clear to me if it was done.— James Cantor (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that analloerotic, gerontophilia and object sexuality are on the list. But the Analloerotic article includes Template:Paraphilia and is listed in Category:Paraphilias, the Gerontophilia article includes Template:Paraphilia and is listed on it, and the Object sexuality article is listed in Category:Paraphilias. So those three listings are a bit contradictory. We know that "sexual interest" is not the same as "sexual preference." So if sexual interest in an elderly person can be normal, but a sexual preference for elderly people is not, that needs to be clarified. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. When just cut-and-pasted the existing list when I moved it over. I didn't actually check the entries on the list, so I carried the error over. My bad. Gerontophilia and object sexuality should both be on the List of paraphilias and not the List of nonparaphilic sexual interests. I reflexively avoid the word "normal," but in the upcoming DSM, they will be be considered paraphilias but not considered disorders (unless they cause harm to someone). I'll move them back. Good catch.— James Cantor (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, using the term normative over normal is preferred by sexologists, correct? Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: I just created the List of nonparaphilic sexual interests link by redirecting it to the List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's a consensus; it's one of the most politically laden idea there is for us. I just put my own opinion atop my userpage.
And: Done, I took the words out of the list. I didn't change List of paraphilias, however. Gerontophilia was already there, and "Objectophilia" pipes to Object sexuality.— James Cantor (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I had seen (and read) your take on stigmatization of paraphilias on your user page before; thanks for reminding me that it's there. You used "the norm" at one point there, and I have seen some researchers prefer that wording (or "norms") as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: The word social, Virginity article edit[edit]

Yes, legality is a social construct and a consequence of it. But laws, legal opinions, etc., do not necessarily reflect the social, moral, ethical attitudes of the place and time they're active. They may, and often do, reflect past attitudes no longer held by the society in question. Legal and social attitudes may even conflict with each other, particularly when social attitudes are changing and there's no consensus about which one should be held. Nor are laws necessarily amended to reflect the social attitudes of the time in question, they may simply be ignored.

The implied causality of the original wording is therefore too strict - removing the words "the resulting" allows for a looser relationship between the two. In my opinion, of course. Ngebendi (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my statements. I didn't think of the wording the way you did/do, obviously, so also thanks for giving me a wider perspective on that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ngebendi (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Macbeth[edit]

The source provided does not say what the article is claiming it says. How do I know? Because I know this person and I know that what has been quoted is incorrect. The source provided only states that there was a name change. People are assuming that because Jesse's name is MacBeth today that the name change was FROM Al-Zaid to Macbeth, but this is not true. His name was changed TO Al-Zaid when he was a toddler when his mother married a Saudi Arabian. His name was later changed back while in foster care. I can't provide a source because the source would be the same one that is listed with wrong personal assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the source provided is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The examples given for 'unique environment' in the 2010 Swedish twin study - Biology and sexual orientation Article[edit]


I'm not sure where this 'direct quote' is coming from. The paper largely does not try to define what factors attribute to the 'unique environment.' Making the assumption that it is attributable to "circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups (other than those shared with a twin)" is just that, an assumption. In no place have I seen disease mentioned, for example.

Yes, the paper does mention that "It has been suggested that individual differences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result from unique environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive maternal immunization to sex-specific proteins, or neurodevelopmental instability" and I would be more comfortable including that line than the one given. But ultimately the study purposely did not go into what factors play a large role in the 'unique environment' and I think it is best to not assume which ones are as it is misleading. As it is now, the three concrete examples given make it appear as though those are important factors that attribute to 'unique environment' when in reality the factors or even their relative strengths are really not known. (At least not from this study)

Perhaps rewording it would be better. Maybe something along the lines of "It has been suggested that such and such, and such and such, are two factors that could make up the 'unique environment' of each twin."

That said, if you are looking at a different paper than the one I've linked then obviously all of this is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weinbergerc (talkcontribs) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Weinbergerc, I stated why I reverted you; the whole thing is in quotation marks, which means that it is a direct quote from the publication or it's a partly or completely fabricated quote. If you do not have access to the entire publication, considering that it's something people usually have to pay "$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95" to read, then of course you wouldn't see that statement. If you do have access to the whole publication, and that information is not in there, then it should be removed. I don't have access to anything about it beyond the abstract. I was agitated by your removal because I'm tired of editors removing things from that article and others solely because they don't like what the scientists or other type of scholars state, what science suggests or shows, a reliable source states, or what history shows. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, like I just stated in this edit summary, I see that the text is put in a bquote format, but it doesn't show up as a quote in the article. If that quote is real, perhaps it's from a different publication. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't showing up as a quote because it was indented. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, remember to sign your username when commenting on a Wikipedia talk page. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, the entire paper is available at the link I gave, not just the abstract; please go over it; it does not include the text in question. I personally have no problem with the text I removed other than the fact the it is not from the study it seems to suggest and it is not cited if it is indeed from another study. Hopefully you can see my intentions are for the best. Personally I think it should be removed all together but a rewording to better define 'unique environment' in a more unassuming way might be appropriate as well. Please read the paper and decide for yourself. Best, Weinbergerc (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You have to click the "download pdf" button to see the whole paper. But, perhaps I can see the paper because I am on a university network though I don't think this is the case. Weinbergerc (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Here, Weinbergerc (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no "download pdf" button for me when clicking on that link, even while logged into my Springer account. There are the "Look Inside" and "Get Access" options. The "Look Inside" option is simply an extended peep at the publication. And the "Get Access" option relates to paying for the publication. There are some publications that I pay for, whether relating to my Wikipedia editing or not. But I am not interested in paying for this one. I have instead taken your word for it by assuming good faith, and I have removed the text. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I think removing the whole paragraph is overkill though. The variances given were kind of the whole point of the study and quite informative. I think my original edit stays closest to the original intent of the study so I'm going to revert it to that for now. You can see that the variances are also given in the abstract. Best, Weinbergerc (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Above, I added in that I don't have the "download pdf" option even while logged into my Springer account. I should have also added "at least not at this time" on to my "But I am not interested in paying for this one" line. As for removing the whole text, above you stated, "Personally I think it should be removed all together but a rewording to better define 'unique environment' in a more unassuming way might be appropriate as well." So I took that in mind. But regarding your add-back, it shouldn't be in quote form unless it's a direct quote from the publication. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Correct, it should not have been in quotes as it was not directly taken. I think the best way this section would read is replacing the wrongly bquoted section with the correct quote form the abstract. "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior."
I'll leave that up to you to change. The current edit I just read looks good, though I do think directly quoting the article is slightly better. Weinbergerc (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
As you know, I took it out of quote form. But you are free to replace it with the aforementioned quote from the abstract, since doing so is perfectly fine. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandal at my user page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. That editor was apparently out to vandalize various user pages. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is likely the same editor; decided to come back and antagonize me during more user page mess (such as creating user talk pages for user accounts that have never edited). Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]


Thank you for fiercely defending my talk page - and I am sorry you ended up getting your own page vandalised as well! Lova Falk talk 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And no problem. And, after all, I did invite the IP to vandalize my talk page; the true downside of that is that it resulted in the IP vandalizing your user page, not just your talk page, as well. While editors flocking to my user page to revert the IP happened quickly, it did take the IP longer than desired (by us anti-vandal people) to be blocked after I reported him or her at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (very unlikely that the IP was a "her," since Wikipedia mostly attracts male editors and since I'm sure that most females don't act that way, but being gender-neutral in this case can't hurt). Flyer22 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but....[edit]

Hey, Flyer, thanks for looking out for my talk page! WK-test is actually my test account, though, and I'm using it to test things on my user talk page, so please don't revert edits from that account. Writ Keeper  14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Writ. I don't watch your talk page, though I might in the future. Your talk page popped up on my WP:Huggle view, and that's how I ended up reverting you (without at first mentally disgesting that it's your talk page). I immediately thought that my revert was not a wise move, considering that it may have been an editor testing something on your talk page before posting. And I was going to reexamine the matter, but I got distracted. Thanks for letting me know. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that I wasn't the only one to revert due to Huggle. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignorant & Unhelpful[edit]

i've made numerous valid statements on correcting the eye color page and yet you continuously ignore me and aim to prove me wrong because you seem too obtuse and self centered to even bother listening. I'm afraid i'm going to have to lodge a complaint to wikipedia about how unhelpful and oblivious you appear to be towards peoples pleads on talk pages when making valid statements of corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from your talk page and the article talk page that I've tried to help you. If your numerous statements about the eye color topic you go on and on about are valid, there should be WP:Reliable sources to support them; you have not provided any WP:Reliable sources for your assertions. And considering that I've pointed you to the WP:Reliable sources page and told you that forums, especially forum comments made by you, are not reliable sources, and yet you continue to cite such sources, it appears that you are the one who is ignorant out of the two of us. You were certainly ignorant in our early interactions, continually adding WP:Original research to the Eye color article against warnings not to do so. Those are the reasons that I now ignore you, except for when you violate WP:TALK. Or except now, considering that you have posted here at my talk page. I was going to revert your above message at my talk page, but I decided to reply instead. However, if you continue to present me with the same WP:Original research stuff you always do, I will continue to ignore you and may remove this section from my talk page.
I care not if you "lodge a complaint to wikipedia" about me. Go right ahead and do so. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Stupid Asian Bitch[edit]

You're an idiot and you should go back to ching chong land (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't laugh at that, but LOL at your behavior. I'm neither stupid (obviously) nor Asian. A bitch? Maybe sometimes. Interesting that you somehow inferred that I'm Asian. What, because I watch anime and play Go (as noted on my user page)? LOL!!!!
Move along now. I'll probably combine this section with the section you created above. No need for you to have two sections on my talk page, or any talk page, to vent your nonsense.
And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. Like I told you before, all you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above, and a bot did it in the section immediately before this one.
That stated, you really aren't welcome to comment on my talk page with that attitude (or, obviously, with your WP:Original research mess). Now again, move along. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
"You call me bitch like it's a bad thing!" Face-smile.svg - Alison 05:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain me this revert -- "super female" at Triple X syndrome article?[edit] Thanks. --Kyknos (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It's unsourced. And there's no reason that it should be placed before "47,XXX aneuploidy." If you do not source it, reliably source it, and preferably with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, I will revert you again. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god, it is written in any textbook of human genetics. Obvious. No other term in the leading sentence is sourced. Do not abuse the rules. --Kyknos (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The other terms in the lead sentence are sourced, reliably sourced. See the ICD-10 and Diseases Database (DiseasesDB) links in Infobox Disease. There's that, and other sources in the article that support any one of those terms. Your addition is the only one in the article that is unsourced. You have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 (though sporadically) under your Kyknos username, which is three years longer than I have been editing Wikipedia; you should know that Wikipedia does not go by "Oh my god, it is written in any textbook of human genetics." No, there is WP:Verifiability to take into account. It is obvious to you that the syndrome is also called "super female"; it is not obvious to people who are not familiar with the topic of the syndrome, which is most people. There is no valid reason for you to come to my talk page to complain about the suggestion that you source the material. If it's so easy to source, then source it. But if it's not sourced, I can remove it. This is following the rules, not abusing them. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
YOU DID NOT ASK for sources. You have deleted the information without explanation, without discussion. If you are referring to sources used later in the article, then read them. Super female term is sourced in two of them. --Kyknos (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I should not have to ask you to source the text you added; you should have sourced it to begin with. But I did state above: "If you do not source it, reliably source it, and preferably with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, I will revert you." That is when you should have sourced it, instead of presenting me with the reply that you did. Did you even read the "I can remove it" link I provided you with above? That is the WP:BURDEN part of the WP:Verifiability policy. The burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the information, not me. Per that policy, I can remove unsourced material without discussion. That I and others do so on Wikipedia ensures that a lot of inaccurate or completely false information is not on Wikipedia. That is why I sometimes revert unsourced information; the other times I do it is because the information is clearly vandalism and therefore false, simply false, or dubious. Note that I am not stating that the text you added is inaccurate, vandalism and therefore false, simply false, or dubious. I am stating that you should have sourced it. It is clear that you had no idea if the text you added was already supported by a source in the article before you added it. And telling me that two sources in the article support the "super female" term, without even specifying which two sources they are, is not sufficient. I should not have to search any of those sources to see if any of them support the "super female" term. Per WP:BURDEN, you should add an WP:Inline citation that supports the term, beside that term, in the lead now that I have challenged that text. You, not me.
Also, I ask that you stop shouting on my talk page. And leave the WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude off of it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you want the inline citation for one obvious term, add it for all others. It does not make sense to spam the leading sentence with it, but if you want it, it should be consistent. (Looking at your talk page, I am not the person who wages battles.) --Kyknos (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
About the "super female" term, there's not much more that I have to state to you. Either provide a reliable source for the "super female" term, by adding it or specifying exactly which source(s) in the article support it, or I will revert you on that term again. And if you continue to revert me after I have made it explicitly clear why I am in the right to revert you, I will then report it at one of the appropriate noticeboards. As for my talk page, it's mostly filled with thank yous or other appreciation. Any WP:BATTLEFIELD section above, like the one immediately above this one, shows itself to be without merit on the part of the person who waged the battle. As for your behavior, it is the way you have acted here at my talk page that shows me that you wage battles at the drop of a hat and that you are inexperienced at editing this site, despite having been here since 2004. Instead of doing the reasonable thing, required by policy, you decided to debate here on my talk page. You should already be familiar with the policies I pointed you to; you obviously were not and still are not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are misusing the rules, probably because you are just mistaken, of course, because I will not assume bad will. The article has just 6 inline sources, most of the information in the article, including everything in the leading sentence is lacking inline sources. You just insist that one small piece of information, information generally well known and commonly taught in high school biology classes, requires some special attention. This is more than strange and by apllying it everywhere, most of Wikipedia would be deleted. I will add that useless inline reference for you, losing 5 minutes of my life that would be better spent improving the article and hoping that the inline reference in the middle of the leading sentence won't look too awkvard. And next time, request the sources immediatelly (we have the "citation needed" template for it), and do not delete useful information without discussion or any comment. Bye. --Kyknos (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The policies above show that I have not misused any rules in this case and that I am therefore not mistaken for having reverted you. Read WP:BURDEN; it is mostly about things that are likely to be challenged. People are not likely to challenge any of the other names listed in the lead for this syndrome, especially since they are mostly sourced in the article's Infobox Disease. Like I stated, the term you added is not. Triple X syndrome is not commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes, and the alternative term "super female" even less so. If you honestly think that most people would not look at the lead of that article and see the term "super female," which is unlike any of the other names listed, and not find it dubious or outright vandalism, then you are mistaken on that. I am quite certain that an editor (registered editor or IP) other than me would have removed your addition. You should have the experience to know when something is likely to be contested on Wikipedia and therefore tagged or removed; I do. When I and most other editors (from what I have seen) come across a recently added unsourced addition, usually when surfing for vandalism or dubious edits (as I often now do), we usually do not focus on whatever other parts of the article are unsourced; we focus on that recently added addition as being unsourced, revert it, tag it, or ignore, and then move on. That's what I did in this case. The fact that a lot, maybe most, of Wikipedia is unsourced, not just lacking inline citations, but unsourced, is a bad thing. And it's no reason to add more unsourced information to the site. As for losing five minutes of your life, I was thinking something like that regarding the both of us by you wasting time debating me here instead of simply sourcing the material. Good thing that you finally added a source for it, and I tweaked the placement. You should also review WP:REFPUNCT. I will delete any unsourced information whenever I feel like it, without discussion, per WP:BURDEN, just like, per WP:BURDEN, I may tag it as needing a citation or add a citation for it myself. Again, the burden is not on the person reverting the unsourced material. Now bye. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Triple X syndrome (and other common human chromosomal disorders) is commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes and the term "super female" as well. At least on my side of Atlantic (yes, we also speak English here and the USA are not the whole world). I will not comment on the American secondary education system, as I have no experience with it. And remember, you may have the formal right to do something, but it does not mean it is the good thing to do. Removing useful information without discussion is a bad thing. --Kyknos (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, it is your word that, where you live, Triple X syndrome, including the term "super female," is commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes; I won't contest that, considering that I don't know. But I still believe that most people would challenge that term as an alternative name for Triple X syndrome, more so than the other listed names for it at least. We will have to agree to disagree about removing unsourced material without discussion, especially since people often cannot know if something is credible and therefore useful if it is not reliably sourced. That's why Wikipedia has the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies. This site would be even more of a joke than many people already believe it to be if citations were not required for most of the information added to its articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I've heard this term before. My high-school biology class introduced that one to me (and no, I'm not saying when!! :D ) and it's pretty-common. Same with XYY being 'super male'. I'll dig out some decent refs in a while - Alison 23:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in on this, Alison. I know you are significantly more educated than me on the matter, and so I greatly appreciate your input and help on it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there's a lot that I can't remember if I was taught in high school. I mostly studied things in addition to what I was taught in high school, because there was a lot that high school questionably did not teach us. It's the same for newer generations in some regard. Triple X syndrome was likely a topic of study in my high school biology class and is likely a common topic of study in high school biology classes in general; because of these factors, I struck through my assertion above that it's not commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes. I'm still not sure about the "super female" term, however. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that an editor just moments ago removed "super female", stating "'superfemale' is not a generally accepted term for 47,XXX." I'll suggest to that editor to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I also just expanded the title from "Can you explain me this revert" so that it's clear what this discussion is about from the table of contents and once this section is archived. 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I will also likely duplicate this discussion at the article talk page; it's more appropriate there, and can be beneficial to readers to see that this matter about the article has been discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Comments on the terms "superfemale" and "supermale":

Per WP:MEDRS, tertiary sources such as undergraduate (or high school) textbooks are generally not good sources. They are often exceptionally bad, unreliable sources for information about sex chromosome abnormalities. Good secondary sources for Wikipedia medical genetics articles on sex chromosome abormalities include chapters on sex chromosome abormalities written by experts in the field in current standard medical genetics reference textbooks, e.g.:

  • Emery and Rimoin's Principles and Practice of Medical Genetics, 6th edition (2013)
  • Genetic Disorders and the Fetus: Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment, 6th edition (2010)

Panda411 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on this, Panda411. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

Hi there! I've begun a discussion here about titles for soap opera supercouple articles. Your opinion would be gladly appreciated! If you get the chance, could you contribute to the discussion? Thank you! Regards, Creativity97 21:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, and was just about to reply. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

May 13: WP:TENSE[edit]

I suck as a person... thank you for fixing my formatting error

CensoredBiscuit (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you mean this. No problem. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ryder Skye[edit]

Hello Flyer22. In regards to Ryder Skye I can also say that I know this person well and can confirm the age of 34 is absolutely correct. I understand why women (and some men) want to lie about their age, but I am more interested in the information being correct than someones vanity. Even if there were no age at all that would be preferable to lying about it. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasseorace (talkcontribs) 15:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I have also added the external link to Ryder's agency to prove her age. Adult performers must have valid ID to work in the industry and her agency must have the correct information. Tasseorace (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Also, If you check the Adult Film Database external link on Ryder's page it confirms that 1978 birth year as well.Tasseorace (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tasseorace. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. In this case, WP:Verfiability is what matters. We cannot take your word for it that Skye is the age you state she is, not without WP:Reliable sources. I understand that you have directed me to sources on this matter, but I don't know how reliable they are and still don't completely know what to make of this situation. You have made WP:BLP violation edits to this article, like this one from last year, apparently the actress has edited the article as Ryderskye, and you have reverted Ryderskye while editing as an IP. Like I stated in this edit summary, I am taking this matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; you can make your case there. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

i admit i'm not up on the wikipedia policies but if you think a porn star is a more reliable source in regards to her age than the agency she has to submit her valid ID to then you aren't as interested in the actual truthfullness on that page. I'm not worried about making my case. You can take the matter to whoever you like. I was just trying to offer a truthful account on a wikipage. Of course no one should just take my word for it, but a porn agency is never going to list a performer as OLDER than they actually are, especially in a buisness where youth is king. If Wikipedia is actually interested in factual information than the 1978 birth year will stay. If they are just interested in the fact that I may not have known all of the polices and procedures for changing the false information than so be it. Why a performer would lie about their age when it's easy to find on the internet is beyond me but to each their own. Tasseorace (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply in the section about this topic at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
And for the record, I'm not taking Ryderskye's side either on this matter (whether Ryderskye is the actual Ryder Skye or not). I'm following WP:Verfiability; that policy is especially important in the case of BLPs (biographies of living persons). Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you are not on her side and I appreciate that. I do feel that it Ryderskye is probably the real person which is probably why she is fudging on the date of her birth. I am just a stickler for the truth even though this shouldn't bother me. I'm just beginning to learn more about the policies and procedures of Wikipedia so going forward i'll try to do things more "by the book". Tasseorace (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. And if you want a Welcome template added to your talk page to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, let me know and I'll give you one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Tasseorace (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I take that to mean that you do want a Welcome template. I'll give you one now. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did, and thank you again. I appreciate your help. Tasseorace (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Notes for this section: The resolved WP:BLP matter is here, and Ryderskye identifying as the real Ryder Skye and removing birth date information is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


The things you stumble upon. There's a user box that links here [7] apparently you are the 503th top editing editor on Wikipedia. Not too shabby. --Wlmg (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an old list, though. Period: 2011-03-01 — 2011-03-30 (UTC) Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The list seems to have been updated irregularly since its creation. This is the second time a gap of two years has occurred. Since a link to generate a new list requires knowledge of Java programming or the Unix utility awk, I will not be the editor generating the new update.--Wlmg (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Pie Jesu v. Pie Iesu[edit]

I wanted to verify about the back and forth that appears to be happening because there is technically no letter "j" in the Latin alphabet. Since a)the most common usage has it spelled using a j, b)the Latin is wriiten using the English alphabet, and c) most of the cited sources use the j spelling including the dies irae, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind removing the j altogether. I don't want to arbitrarily change it but I'm not sure where to get an official ruling as I'm not a regular Wikipedia user. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As you know, I reverted myself because the title of the article is Pie lesu. You should not change the rest of the text in the article to be opposite of that title. Do a WP:Move request for that article's title first. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that a seemingly inexperienced Wikipedia editor moved that article on May 3rd of this year from the title Pie Jesu to Pie Iesu; you should also mention that in any move discussion you have about this article. Mention that the move was controversial and without WP:CONSENSUS. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but I am unclear on what exactly you mean. I don't know how to change titles or put in requests. I will not change the article, but I do feel as if it should be changed to be consistent with the dies irae spelling. (Not the Wikipedia dies irae, bit the dies irae from the Catholic encyclopedia which is a definitive and primary source.) I am sorry for my inexperience and I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up on this issue, I'm very unclear on who makes these decisions or where to put in a request. Are you available to "fisher price" the instructions? Thank you. Rds747 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)rds747


Oh, I forgot all about the LGBT watchlist. I could help us catch vandalism easier :) CTF83! 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Idiotic Sad Case[edit]

You're an ugly dumb slut and perhaps you should do something more constructive rather than being a stupid whore on wikipedia constantly deleting peoples valuable contributions on the grouds of your bullshit 'wikipedia guidelines' maybe you should stop to think that even though they may not have what you consider 'reliable sources' they still want to share their valuable knowledge they've gained from their personal research and experience on wikipedia in order to improve some of the bogus information that has been misinterpreted/misconcieved however still managed to be approved just because it was 'sourced'. You choose to refer to this as 'vandalism' i call it valuable primary contributions. you're an extremely self-centered & obtuse looser, you should get a life. (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2013‎ (UTC)

LOL, I've never been called ugly before, at least not to my face. Never been called a slut, whore or extremely self-centered and obtuse either, except maybe from some angry individual on the Internet (similar to now). Being called ugly is certainly a new experience compared to being complimented on my looks, though it's odd to be called ugly by someone who has never seen what I look like. Maybe you are referring to my personality being ugly? LOL. See the #Ignorant & Unhelpful and #Stupid Asian Bitch sections above that you created. My comments in those sections sum up what I think of you. But for good measure, I also think that, between you and me, you are the idiotic, sad case; your behavior is idiotic and sad -- that you continually try to add inappropriate material to Wikipedia articles, despite being told what you have been told about that, and being continually reverted, and that you think it's acceptable to talk to a person (who does not deserve it) in the disparaging way you have talked to me...partly (quite obviously) because you are protected by anonymity and don't have to state anything to someone's face that way. As for vandalism, where have I called your edits vandalism? Per WP:VANDALISM, I only refer to edits as vandalism when they clearly are. Removing my comments from Talk:Eye color, for example, is clearly vandalism. Continually removing my comments from that talk page is more of your idiotic and sad behavior. On the vandalism accusation, you must be confusing me with this editor who warned you today.
Now stop creating new sections on my talk page, and forgetting to sign, or purposely not signing, your username. A bot should not have to sign it for you, and I shouldn't have to either. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Merle and The Walking Dead characters[edit]

Thanks! I realized that most of the episodes are linked to reviews, and wherever we have reviews we might find commentary about the characters. So I'm going to build up a few of these articles, starting with Merle.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well I'm glad that someone is doing such work. It'll be great to see all of The Walking Dead comic book/The Walking Dead television series characters have articles as developed, or close to as developed, as Rick Grimes, Shane Walsh and Andrea. Thanks for taking on such expansions, BOZ. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You got it! I'm going to focus on charaters with little or no out-of-universe text. See the difference between where I started and where I left off - not hard to do, but took some time and work. :) BOZ (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, considering that I've been watching the Merle Dixon article since he last appeared on the series, I'm very much aware of the contrast between what the article used to look like at that time and what it looks like now. Again, thanks for your work on these articles. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Merle was definitely an unusual case! I was originally going to start an article for him, but I noticed there was already a redirect… but the funny thing was that someone had started a stub of Merle based on his season 1 & 2 appearances, and instead of being merged or redirected anywhere, about a year ago someone actually moved Merle's page and used it to start the character list page! So about 6 months ago when he came back in season 3, I actually went and split the edit history to pull the Merle article back out, and then restarted it from there. You see weird things like that around here from time to time.  :) BOZ (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I have also put a bunch of work into Tyreese and Milton Mamet. :) Planning to get a few more characters next week! BOZ (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems that there's a lot more to state about Milton than there is about Tyreese, even though Tyreese is both part of the comics and television series; it's understandable television-wise, though, given the fact that Milton got a lot more screen time than Tyreese. But I wonder if there's not a decent amount of reception for the comic book version of Tyreese. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
There probably is, but I don't know where to find stuff about the comics - I'm sure it's out there somewhere, though. The bright side here is that Milton is done; he wasn't in the comics and he is dead in the show, so there won't be anything more to write about him, and I was surprised and glad to find as much as I did. Whereas, Tyreese has a ton of potential, so I am sure that sources will come up over time, and we can build it to be more like the more 'finished' articles. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think so as well. I haven't read the comics yet. I'll likely start to read the comics at some point to see for myself how they differ from the show (I already know, from the characters' Wikipedia articles, about some of the differences, including their looks), but I'm not sure I'll read all of the comics. I know that the comic book series is still ongoing. And, LOL, I was avoiding mentioning on my talk page that Milton is dead, just in case someone who watches my talk page also watches the show and isn't that far along yet (is playing catchup) or is interested in beginning to watch the show. But when you just mentioned he's dead, it did free up the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that! You know, Wikipedia is one of the worst places to go if you're worried about spoilers - I know I have ruined more than a few movies, books, and shows for myself by reading too much here. :) Yes, definitely read the comics, because they are like apples and oranges with the show. I mean, it's the same basic plot (Rick wakes up in the hospital, finds out Shane is sleeping with Lori, meets Glenn in Atlanta, they go to Hershel's farm, they go to the prison, they fight with the Governor, etc) but all the details are totally different, even the way the characters behave. Characters like T-Dog, Daryl, and Milton are not in the comics, but some characters in the comics like Sophia, Allen and Otis live a lot longer than they did in the show. I am up to the 5th graphic novel now and they have just gotten to Woodbury, so maybe the 6th or 7th book would be about where you would catch up with where the show is at, so start any time you like! As for me working on more character articles, I was going to focus primarily on dead characters - I won't name any more names - and ones who haven't appeared a lot yet, like Tyreese. I don't think I will do much for ones like Daryl or Glenn, because you know I have to leave stuff for other people to work on. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm mostly done with T-Dog now! :) BOZ (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry that I'm just now responding to your latest replies, BOZ. Believe it or not, I've just now read them. Sometimes, I take care of the business aspects of Wikipedia, including my talk page, and then read/respond to the more relaxing aspects (which is what this section is an example of). No need to apologize about the spoiler; at least it didn't spoil me, LOL. I will keep in mind your suggestion that I should definitely read the comics. I know that some character arcs for the comics are longer or shorter in the show, such as Shane having a much bigger part in the show. The T-Dog article looks good; I had seen you go to the person who closed that article as delete, with you stating that you could create a decent or good article for that character. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

sorry, im interested in starting to do edits on Wikipedia i thought following users was a helpful way, minor things stuck out to me while i was viewing the pages, so i edited them very slightly. on the eye page i removed one source because i saw it was outdated and did not refer to the sentence it was mentioning, that sentence had three sources, one was outdated and that's the one i remove not the others, and then i also noticed on the page sentences like " Hazel eyes may be found in Iran, Iraq...etc" i just changed it to Middle east since both countries are in the middle east and is more reliable since there was no source for that, LOL i am not into vandalizing, i tried to email you but i couldn't figure it out. Yeah those are the types of edits i made so their more broad because those types of sentences had no sources, so they look reliable and match the rest of the article, i think users previously added their countrie's names to certain topics for some reason because they did not match the rest of the article and it stood out to me while i was reading it for a project, i studied Anthropology for 8 years and some sentences were also slightly incorrect and those were also the ones without sources and i changed so their more broad, please e-mail me again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursingxmajor (talkcontribs) 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Youleft me this message and changed my edit. "No, it's not just about biology. That applies to non-cisgender as well." Cis-gender is not a biological term at all. Cis-gender isa self-identifying term, even if a person does not have that term in their vocacabulary. A person can still understand what that term means. What I edited was a sexist statemet that specifically applied to people who fit the Western Binary gender system of man or woman. People all over the world do not identify with either of these terms, especially here in America.I was not incorect in my edit, I was correcting the sexist preentation of the gendered terms used, which was assuming all people on earth have to conform to either or gender identity and have to perform masculinity or femininity. Wstotts (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Wstotts

Hello, Wstotts. I reverted you at the Gender article because your edit was unsourced and what you added is not how most sources define gender; there is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to take into account.
The term cisgender is often used as a biological term, which is clear by the Cisgender article (which cites some reliable sources). Your edit to the Gender identity article was wrong because it was unsourced and that line does not only refer to cisgender people; the line is also not sexist; it's speaking of how the term is generally used. It's true that gender is primarily used to refer to the categories "man/male" and "woman/female." The lead of the Gender identity article obviously then goes on to explain the fact that not everyone fits into the gender binary (as does the lead of the Gender article). That's why I reverted you at the Gender identity article as well.
Also, per WP:TALK, make sure that you start new sections at the bottom of Wikipedia talk pages instead of at the top. That's why I moved this section you created from the top of my talk page to the bottom of it. The "New section" option at the top of talk pages is there to help you create a new section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, your edit to the Gender article inappropriately capitalized the term neutrality, and it was misspelled. And your edit to the Gender identity article was not spaced appropriately between the words cis-gendered and woman. In the future, make sure that you source your text when it should be sourced, and with a WP:Reliable source, and that your text is added correctly; you can use the "Show preview" version for making sure that your edits are tidy before clicking "Save page." Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the misspelling goes, I apologize for that i did not realize I made that mistake. I was using my iphone.I am new to wikipedia, so still learning how to use this site. However, as a person with a degree in the feild of Gender Studies and who identifies as a feminist/Women's rights/LGBTQ rights activist, I am hardpressed to see a need for any sources for information that is basic common knowledge, and that does not include a qoute. Am I supposed to source myself than? I am sorry, I am not trying to start an arguement here. But what you just said to me reinforced the the heterosexist tone of the article. While obtaining my degree and in extensive reasearch in my studies, not once has any gender identity terms, ever been used as biological terms. Male, female or intersexed are biological terms. Man, woman, trans-man, trans-woman, cis-gender, third-gender, bi-gender, and gender queer, are distinctly different from biological studies regarding sex. Also, one does not need a source for that specific information that should be common knowledge. I don't know what country your from, or if your from America; but you can take yourself to the the nearest LGBTQ center or Transendered outreach center and they can tell you why what your saying is completely heterosexist. (Which is not an attack on you, most people are not aware of their gender priviledge.) They can not only teach you about how they personally identify with their gender but how they also express their gender whether masculine, feminine, or neutral. Your little line about how gender is "generally used," was also sexist, because your renforcing traditional western htereosexist views on gender. Gender identitity through out the histroy of mankind has never been just man or woman. Also, regaurdless of what was later explained in the article, I was altering the defintion of the term in the article as it was completely heterosexist! You just changed it back. The article is therefore misrepresenting the term as it is still enforcing heterosexism on a binary scale of gender. This is severely problematic as around the world entire cultures do not have a binary scale of gender, including western cultures like in the U.S., just because the Mainstream culture does not accept people who do not idenitfy as Man or Woman, which is a large population, doesn't mean they don't exist. Perpetuating that belief in heterosexism, is pretty much a slap in the face to these people. I am currently in the presence of few people who personally feel that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstotts (talkcontribs) 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Wstotts. I feel that I've sufficiently explained why your edits were in the wrong. But to further elaborate on the cisgender aspect and your edits: Though you believe that cisgender (similar to what some people think of the term gender) is not a biological term, it and cissexual are often used as biological terms; that was my point regarding that. Though these two terms are rare among the general public and specifically scholars, it has been often that I have seen people, scholars included (though to a much lesser extent with regard to scholars), use the terms to describe a person who is genetically (or, if you prefer, the word physically, then physically) male or female. Like the Cisgender article notes, the term is used to refer to people whose assigned sex, which is primarily based on the appearance of genitalia, matches their gender identity. You and I also view heterosexism quite differently, if you consider stating the fact that gender is primarily used to refer to the categories "man/male" and "woman/female," as heterosexist, which you clearly do. The term/category gender is mostly used to distinguish between male/masculinity and female/femininity, which states nothing of whether a male/man and female/woman should be romantically/sexually paired; the term is not usually used to represent "neutrality between the two," which is what the majority of the sources in the Gender article also support me on. This view is not only or mostly a Western view, and I did not state that gender identity has been viewed throughout history as just "man or woman," though I would prefer a reliable scholarly source over your word stating that gender identity throughout the history of mankind has never been just "man or woman."
What I stated above is also, again, where WP:UNDUE WEIGHT comes into play; that aspect of the WP:Neutrality policy is there for you to see what type of weight we are to give the majority view, as opposed to the minority view. For another example, this is what your wording in the Gender identity article stated: "This is generally described as one's private sense of being a cis-gendered man or a cis-gendered[[woman]." But most sources on the topic of gender identity do not define gender identity that way. It's not common sense-wording, since it's not used often among the general public (scholars, and most non-Western societies, included). The terms cisgender, genderqueer and bigender (which is an aspect of genderqueer) are not in widespread use. Wikipedia goes by what the majority of reliable sources report over what the minority of reliable sources report, which is what I've essentially recently told an editor who doesn't like how murder is generally defined, and is what others have repeatedly told people at the Female genital mutilation article with regard to calling that article anything other than Female genital mutilation. And, no, you should not cite yourself...except for what is covered by the WP:Reliable sources and WP:Conflict of interest guidelines. There is also no need to put in "cis-gendered" in the aforementioned line because that line applies to non-cisgender people as well. Transgender men and transgender women usually simply view themselves as men or women, not as "transmen" or as "transwomen" or as "non-cisgendered." And as I'm sure that you know, some transgender people live a stealth life because, biological sex-wise/gender-wise, they only want to be viewed as males/men or females/women and don't want the discrimination that comes with being known as transgender.
I'm from America, as is clear on my user page. And especially since I am for LGBT rights, edit and protect some LGBT topics here at Wikipedia, as a lot of people at this site know, I understand your cause and don't need a lesson and/or lecture on the topic of LGBT matters (it's funny how I can be accused of having a LGBT bias, or specifically a lesbian bias, by one editor, and now almost accused of having a heterosexual bias by another; can't win or lose, I suppose). But though I understand your cause with regard to LGBT topics, Wikipedia is not the place to right the great wrongs of society or make popular a definition that you view as more accurate than the definition reported in most scholarly sources, old and new.
I have no interest in further debating these topics with you, as I am following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as should you. You generally shouldn't be adding any unsourced text to any Wikipedia article, and, per above, should not being giving undue weight to any topic in a Wikipedia article. And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Susane Colasanti[edit]

First you deleted the bulk of the article, giving the reason as "Unsourced. Bad formatting", then you sent it for speedy as no indication of importance--after removing the material that contained the book reviews that are the reliable sources that proved not just importance but notability. From the looks of it, that section was probably copyvio, so it did have to be removed, but the actual references in there should have been rescued, or at least given reason not to tag it as A7. As I frequently work on this type of article, I've rewritten it. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

DGG, all I did to that article was this, which was completely in the right. There were no sources in that version; there was just text without inline citations. You feel that I should have cleaned up after this editor by significantly cutting down and tweaking the text and providing the inline citations myself? If so, I disagree. I didn't tag that article for speedy deletion, and I clearly don't feel that I removed any sources from it. You and I are familiar with each other on Wikipedia, and you have come to me before to help out unsourced or poorly-sourced soap opera articles, and I thought you knew that I would not have an article deleted for lack of notability simply based on the current state of the article, so I am confused as to why you have come to me this time with the frustrated and/or angry tone and accusations that you have. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Pandoras Page[edit]

It's a work in progress. Sit back and watch written by people who were there and know. Don Williams (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you should make sure that you use proper headings, per WP:Manual of Style, and WP:Reliable sources for that work in progress. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lethe Press[edit]

Working on it as we speak. I had to apply the redlinks in advance because once an article is created it will come up as the result of a search and there's no longer any easy way to search for pages that include the unlinked name in body text. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for answering my question. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Clitoromegaly and Clitoris enlargement: Why are you reverting my edits?[edit]

If you have some sort of an objection, use the talk pages of relevant articles. Just don't try to play charade or hide-and-seek or whatever the fuck with me! Behemoth (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Or use my talk page to convince me in any way. Just be respectful enough to act in a civilised manner. Behemoth (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your edits, as seen here, here and here, because you were incorrect and were misusing the sources. You still are. I clearly explained in my edit summaries why I was reverting you. I was not playing charade or hide-and-seek. It was your job to then follow the WP:BRD process. You didn't do that; you kept WP:Edit warring your versions into the articles. You then came to my talk page to complain, with foul language included, and had the gall to state that I was the one not acting in a respectful, civilized manner.
Your versions are obviously still in the articles. I will take the matter of your changes to the Clitoromegaly talk page, with a note about it at the Clitoris enlargement talk page as well, and will ask WP:MED to weigh in on the matter. I would state that you got the point of what I was stating, judging by this edit you made. But then you again made the "not to be confused with" edit to the Clitoris enlargement article and this edit, which are misuses of the sources. This source, for example, which talks about "true clitoromegaly" and "pseudoclitoromegaly," shows that "clitoral enlargement" does not only refer to body modification. The lead of the Clitoris enlargement article should have never started off attributing the term "clitoris enlargement" to only body modification, if people, such as yourself, are going to take that to be the only definition and completely disregard, downplay or misrepresent the other definitions.
Also, you should consider making your talk page headings more accurate, so that people besides you and me know specifically what they are about; that also helps when the sections are archived. That's why I changed your heading above by adding "Clitoromegaly" and "Clitoris enlargement" on to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Note for this section: Here is the section I started about this topic at the Clitoromegaly talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism: Assume Good Faith[edit]

Just a note: this certainly didn't look like vandalism to me. Please remember to assume good faith. Thanks. =) - Amaury (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Amaury. As you saw, Jim1138 reverted that IP before me and, to me, what Jim reverted looks like vandalism (though I've just now looked at Jim's revert). When I reverted, I considered it either vandalism or what Jim described (I had seen Jim's edit summary when I reverted). WP:Huggle is not just for reverting vandalism. I also have the option to indicate that I'm reverting problematic good-faith edits. I didn't use that option and simply left my edit summary for the revert blank because I did not know if the edit was good-faith. And if I'm not sure that it's good-faith, but I know that the edit shouldn't stand, I'm going to revert without calling it a good-faith edit. I see that you have also reverted that IP. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's no Revert (AGF) option on Huggle like there is on Twinkle. However, there are additional options, such as Removal of content and Biased content. By just clicking revert and warn, it just leaves Reverted edits by X (talk) to last revision by Y, the default summary for reverting obvious vandalism, whereas if you were reverting an unexplained removal of content, it'd be Reverted edits by X (talk) unexplained removal of content. There you're not exactly calling it vandalism. As I'm sure you know, if you're not 100% sure it's vandalism, it's important to err on the side of caution and either revert as good faith or manually revert and explain why. Trust me on this. If you look at my 2009 and 2010 talk page archives and block log, you'll see I had a lot of problems with this in the past. =)
Please take this as constructive feedback. - Amaury (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
See this revert; it shows that there is a "Reverted good faith edits" option on WP:Huggle. Thanks for the advice about erring on the side of caution; yes, I already do so in some cases (for example, the aforementioned revert, though I understand how you feel it would have been best to revert it as a good-faith edit). Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Describing female humans as "people"[edit]

Thanks for the links, Flyer22, on the comments on Women are People, on the Menstruation article - especially to the Due and Undue Weight policy. I haven't been working on Wikipedia for very long, and it's helpful; it will also be helpful for my Women's and Gender Studies students, as they are struggling with same issue in some the articles they are working on for the Wikipedia: Feminism project.
E. Kissling (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, you're welcome. Thanks for not biting my head off about it, LOL. And for similar comments to yours, see these two sections at the Human female reproductive system talk page. Those same editors posted the same things at the Human male reproductive system talk page. My first time encountering such suggestions, elsewhere on Wikipedia, was back in 2007. It is simply WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to carry out the aforementioned suggestions, though, as you saw, my suggestion to satisfy both sides at the Human penis article had some support. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You have some support for that? (re Biology and sexual orientation)[edit]

  • Curious about your assessment that outdated research goes first? You have some support for that somewhere I could see?
  • You also entirely reverted careful re-writing within the second section - any support for that wholesale action?Tobeprecise (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I answered a minute (or seconds) before you created this section; I answered in this edit summary (with a correction). And the proof is having experience with the order matter on Wikipedia, such as if we were to include the research on a list. Keep in mind that I did not state "always" or use the word outdated. Most of the research on sexual orientation that has happened since 2000, for example, can't even accurately be considered "outdated." It is often that older research is mentioned first to better give newer research context; the same order goes for any other type of text. Not to mention, that a lot of our readers, as expressed at this site over the years, don't like to feel like they are reading backwards. However, this is better discussed on the article talk page, not mine. As for reverting you wholesale, it is time-consuming to sort out what other edits you made and keep those. Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure, Talk page sounds good.Tobeprecise (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User page content FYI, and plot section of the Titanic (1997 film) article[edit]

Your user page says "To get in contact with on the Toolbox selection to the left of this page..." Emailing another user is now in a pull-down menu, and when I tried it I got "This user has chosen not to receive email from other users." David F (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ferrierd (David F). Yes, I know. I had some recent trouble with abusive emails; therefore, I have cut off the email option from my account (not sure for how long). My user page, which has mostly been the same way for years, needs reconstruction anyway (then again, I keep planning to stop editing/visiting Wikipedia for good). If there are any grammatical errors you want to fix on it, feel free. And though I reverted you at the Titanic (1997 film)‎ article because of your edits to the Plot section, I do appreciate these changes you made to that section (which is why I thanked you via the new communication system; I'm not sure why you thanked me for reverting you, unless the thank you was an accident). You added "make love" in place of "have sex," and I prefer the "make love" wording for that text; it was there at different points, but was reworded each time by one or more editors due to WP:EUPHEMISM. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Appreciated background on user page/email situation, Titanic plot section edits. "Make love" is artistic, "have sex" is crass. ;^} David F (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Your second go at extensively reducing the plot was obviously much better. Thank you. I altered it a bit. I removed the ellipsis because they are always removed from Wikipedia Plot sections, and I added back mention of Rose's mother having boarded one of the lifeboats because, like I stated in that edit summary, it lets readers know that Rose's mother survived. Also obviously mentioned in that edit summary is whether or not to retain mention of Rose's granddaughter. I don't especially feel that mention of her granddaughter is needed, but people have been known to add her in. All of this (what to include or not to include), which I left a WP:Dummy edit summary about, is why the section's hidden note stated that everything had been thoroughly worked out. We worked out every important aspect that should be mentioned in the Plot section, as well as minor ones that editors and/or readers kept adding back. WP:FILM makes exceptions for its 700-word limit for Plot sections, and it was decided through discussions on the article's talk page that relaying (? - "relaying") the Plot section of Titanic (1997) is an exception. We made sure that what we left in was not too much as to violate WP:PLOT. But again, you did a good job of reducing the plot even further. It's been reduced further before you got to it, though. And it's mostly at its reduction limit, from what I see. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Appreciated getting further background. Reviewed Wikipedia's plot guidelines and skimmed the Titanic (1997 film)‎ talk page archive. Planning a few minor changes, will put something about them in the article's talk page. David F (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Just make sure that you don't cut any more detail; by detail, I mean the scenes that are included. I'll likely restore it, per above. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. Proposed changes are in instead of the article talk page. Feel free to edit sandbox. David F (talk)
I'm fine with your proposed changes, except for removing "The crew starts to launch flares to attempt to obtain help from nearby ships." Why remove that? It seems like something we should keep. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This scene makes only a minor contribution to plot development, but it's a contribution. Every vessel in distress signals its plight, so it's not a startling plot twist but it enhances realism. OK, let's keep it. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, beside the "In order to get aboard a lifeboat, Cal pretends" line I see that you have "OR" in parentheses; you mean that you think that it's WP:OR to use "to look after," "care for," "take care of" in that case? Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. "OR" was about substituting either the first or the second item for existing text. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, here are some more discussions about the Plot section: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2, User talk:Flyer22/Archive 8#Heart of the Ocean, and User talk:Alfietucker/Archive 2#Titanic. So, yeah, not all of what to include and exclude from that section was decided on the article's talk page. You may have already taken a look at the 2010 featured article discussion; if not, there it is, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for links to FA, Heart, and Alfie items. FA mentions a problem with plot bloat; sorry, no easy solution struck me. Heart of the Ocean discusses what Old Rose said and did about the diamond; "had it all along then threw it away" is fine. Alfie says they managed to cut text without cutting details - AOK. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
And I expanded the heading of this talk page section so that it is more accurate as to what it is about; it will also help find the section when it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff!
No comment on Lizzie Calvert? OK, she's still out.
I'll post a revised change plan on the article talk page then go ahead with revisions. David F (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for explaining and taking a look at other discussions about the plot. And you've invited others to comment on your proposal. So we're all set. I just now saw that you went ahead and implemented your proposed changes.
I fixed our signatures (mostly date additions) above with regard to your dividing up my comments. But in the future, if we continue to talk with each other, do you mind not dividing up my comments? I can't help it; that type of division irks me, LOL. I'm fine with the way it is now, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. Enjoyed working with you on the article! David F (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I enjoyed working with you as well. At some point, I might ask you to copyedit something for me on some other Wikipedia article. Have you ever thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? I know that on your user page, it says that you are with Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality article: Asexuality and the term homosexuality[edit]

Hi Flyer22, can you discuss the issue with Nathan on the talk page Talk:Homosexuality#Edit war before reverting again. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I was already going to do that. Thanks. But I did revert again. Nathan should have followed WP:BRD. Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's agree on wording together then here. The warring is getting us nowhere good (and it's irritating to watch for the uninvolved page watchers). Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Note for archive: I expanded the heading of this talk page section (from simply Homosexuality) so that it is more accurate as to what it is about; it will also help find the section in the archive. Judging by this, this, and this, I don't trust Nathan Johnson not to hold a grudge against me for the matter and resume fouling up the Asexuality article or possibly following me around to cause me trouble (despite having previously edited that article productively). With regard to that Asexuality diff-link (the first diff-link in this paragraph), an editor should not act like that (what he did) on Wikipedia. Ever. And his response with regard to being called out for vandalism about that Asexuality article edit (seen in the second diff-link of this paragraph) is bizarre, most assuredly him and not some compromised account; it's a mock. And no wonder I thought he was an administrator, considering that he acts like one. I've seen him at administrative boards acting like one. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There are some good admin.[Citation needed] I hear they don't all abuse their power.[Original Research?] The homosexuality article always attracts the most aggressive/passionate people anyway from what i've seen. Jenova20 (email) 21:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I know that there are good administrators. I didn't mean that there aren't any when stating that Nathan Johnson acts like an administrator; I mean that he closes threads that should be closed by an administrator, which he has been criticized for, as seen here, here, here and here, and he presents himself at administrative noticeboards in a way that a person could get the impression that he is an administrator, which is how I assumed he was one. When I first saw him months ago in November, which was also the first time I saw him at this article, or later for the first time at the Asexuality article, I can't remember if I checked his talk page or user page (which currently redirects to his talk page) to see if he is an administrator, but I know that I checked his talk page to see what type of editor he is. I also know that some Wikipedia administrators have been known not to have anything on their pages (including a category) that identifies them as an administrator. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Soap Character: Sonny Kiriakis[edit]

I wanted to ask can you make the soap character Sonny Kiriakis wilier page better because I have seen your work and it needs serious revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, It's flattering that you would come to me about this. I don't heavily edit soap opera articles anymore, and I'm busy with other things on and off Wikipedia, though I can often be seen reverting vandalism these days, but I'll consider fixing this article up for you. I made one tweak thus far. Sonny Kiriakis is a new gay character (though the character was apparently born off-screen in 1991), I see, who is a part of a new gay male supercouple. Interesting. There are soap opera articles that I still need to fix up better than what they are, such as the article for the first gay male soap opera supercouple Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer, but, again, I'll consider fixing up the Sonny Kiriakis article. Keep a lookout for it, and feel free to remind me of the matter if weeks go by and I still haven't started significantly working on the article. You might also want to put a request in at the WP:SOAPS talk page about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Note: I fixed the tweak I made, while making a few other tweaks. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I assume that the IP seen here is you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"True Name" Revision Undo[edit]

Hey there,

Not sure what happened, but i think there were a few mixed edits. The other user on the page must of cleared that i went to roll back his other vandalism or something.. weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuntguy3000 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted even further to get any other vandalism or otherwise bad edits the IP made. And regarding the "thank you" you gave me via the notifications system, I appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting my edits, question. WP:Dead link[edit]

When you reverted two of my edits, because of dead links, did you not provide living links for the information? LogicalCreator (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, LogicalCreator. It's been since May 27 that I reverted you; I had to refresh my memory a bit on the details. I clearly explained on your talk page why I reverted you here and here. The WP:BURDEN is not on me to source the material that you removed, because, like WP:Dead link states, the material you removed is not unsourced. For the reasons I stated, you really should not be removing text, and the associated reference(s), due to the link supporting it being dead. And I hope you stop that practice. Imagine if you removed a big chunk, or chunks, of valid material from a WP:GA or WP:FA article, for example, simply because the link supporting it is dead? That would be very destructive. That would be very destructive even if the article is not of WP:GA or WP:FA status. I'm not sure why you are asking if I replaced the links, when, clearly, I have not, and when I pointed you to the means of doing so or using Template:Dead link instead.
On a side note, I expanded the heading of this talk page section (having added in "WP:Dead link") so that it is more accurate as to what it is about; it will also help find the section in the archive. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Content forking/transclusion dispute[edit]

In this discussion, you described some of my edits as "content forking", but I've noticed that the WP:Content fork article doesn't mention transclusion at all, so the guideline seems ambiguous here. If the creation and transclusion of templates doesn't create multiple versions of the same article (but instead creates a single version that is automatically synchronized between multiple articles), can it still be considered a type of content forking? Jarble (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more to state to you about this, at least at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note for archive: This matter is resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


I thought you may be interested in the fact that i have just started an SPI on User:Farrajak - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Star767. I did read your interesting contribution to Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_May_13#Editing_style_of_User:Farrajak. I am 100% sure that User:Farrajak has edited before but wont admit it and is a sockpuppet. I am 99% sure that User:Farrajak is a sockpuppet of User:Star767. There are just so many coincidences. Incidentally, I'm convinced that User:Star767 is in turn not a sockpuppet of User:Mattisse but instead almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Zeraeph - but this is incidental to the current SPI.--Penbat (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, without knowing about the background, it looks very sad for User:MathewTownsend to get banned with his dozens of barnstars and he even gave you one. User:MathewTownsend has absolutely nothing in common with User:Star767 or User:Farrajak. I dont know enough to rule out User:MathewTownsend being User:Mattisse (who I know is female) tho.--Penbat (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Penbat. I was very busy off Wikipedia yesterday. Even though you'd never confirmed that you'd read my comment about the "Farrajak is a sockpuppet" matter at Wikipedia:Help desk, I figured that you had...especially since I notified you on your talk page that I did. Thank you for alerting me to the sockpuppet investigation. I had recently checked in on Farrajak and, looking at his talk page edit history, saw that you two were debating whether or not he is a sockpuppet, but I didn't get around to reading that debate. I'm sure I'll do so soon.
As you know, and like I pointed to at Wikipedia:Help desk, I've had doubts that MathewTownsend and Star767 are one and the same. I wasn't familiar with Mattisse. It sounds like you weren't familiar with MathewTownsend. Were you familiar with Mattisse? Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. There is absolutely zero chance that MathewTownsend and Star767 are the same person (or that Star767 is Mattisse) - totally different personalities. I was a contemporary of Mattisse and actually interacted with her on 1 article - she came over very polite and constructive - nothing like Star767.--Penbat (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the background information. I wish that more than one WP:CheckUser had analyzed MathewTownsend's sockpuppet case. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at MathewTownsend's sockpuppet case again, it appears that two CheckUsers analyzed that case. It's still confusing, though, for the reasons I've stated before. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Its probably less clear cut whether or not MathewTownsend is Mattisse but im not familiar with MathewTownsend.--Penbat (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Above, I called Farrajak a "he." In the sockpuppet investigation, you referred to Farrajak by female pronouns. Has Farrajak clarified on Wikipedia what sex/gender he or she identifies by? Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thats because in turn i am fairly certain Star767 is Zeraeph who is certainly a she.--Penbat (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Its now all over for Farrajak Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Star767/Archive Now quite a big job clearing up the mess.--Penbat (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that Farrajak is now blocked. That editor will likely be back, however. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably true but may not be for a while.--Penbat (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In case Echo isn't Echoing today . . .[edit]

I took your name in vain here. Rivertorch (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For namedropping, Echo, as currently designed, only works when you Wikilink my username. As shown above, you didn't do that. Though you don't need me to state it because you'll see it or already have seen it, I've commented about the matter (you linked to above) on the article's talk page.
Side note: I'll probably add on to the heading of this section as to better remind me, or better signal to others, what it is about. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I should have wikilinked. I confess that I'm finding Echo to be strangely inconsistent in what it does and doesn't do, though. I thought it was a cool idea, but the devil is in the details. Rivertorch (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I feel that there are downsides to Echo. For example, what if I don't want someone to know that I've mentioned them at a talk page? The discussion could be as simple as complaining about an editor; the last thing you want in those cases is the editor following you there and continuing drama by replying there. That's why I'm glad that, by not Wikilinking the username, there's currently the option not to have the person know you mentioned them. Another downside, possibly the biggest, is that we get a message when someone reverts us; like I stated elsewhere, where it was also further validated, this makes WP:Edit wars more likely to occur. The last thing you want, for example, is some newbie Wikipedia editor reverting you because they think they are right and/or because they are stubborn...when you know they are not right. Ugh. If a person wants to know whether or not he or she has been reverted, he or she should check back at the article or put the article on his or her watchlist. Now we get a message about being reverted even on articles we could not care any less to put on our watchlists. I'm not yet sure if reverting without directly reverting (I mean by clicking on the previous version of the article and saving it) alerts the person through Echo that a revert has occurred; if it doesn't, then that's a method to get around alerting someone of the revert and likely having to deal with some debate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Shhhh ;) Some of that had occurred to me, but you've obviously thought it through more thoroughly. I wonder how thoroughly the developers and WMF staff who were responsible for Echo's rollout thought it through. There is a vast disconnect between community and Foundation—especially vis-a-vis the needs of established editors. The Foundation is deathly afraid of declining participation, and that's understandable, but trying anything and everything to acommodate the needs of new users comes at a cost, and that cost is borne by those of us who have been here for a while. I may be overstating it, but I do get the feeling sometimes that once a Wikipedian becomes a Wikiholic, the powers that be in San Francisco do rather take him or her for granted.
But I ramble. My biggest issue with Echo so far is that notifications of new talk page messages, once so reliable, have become inconsistent: sometimes I get them, sometimes I don't. This has also carried over into the email notifications as well, and I have been slow to become aware of certain posts to my talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert Viki Lord to Victoria Lord[edit]

Hi! I see you originally commented your disapproval in postscript on the move of the Victoria Lord article to "Viki Lord". I've now contested the move, requesting a reversion to the prior title and would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! FrickFrack 04:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Using My Name[edit]

As I said before, I don't appreciate you using my name in Sam McCall's talk page. You are vandalizing my privacy. If you don't remove my user name in the talk page in the next 24 hours, I will block you. User: Historylover18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover18 (talkcontribs) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

How are you this out of touch with how Wikipedia is supposed to work and yet editing here? I can mention you on the Sam McCall talk page without any penalty for doing so. How you don't understand that is mind-boggling. That is not vandalizing your privacy. Read WP:Vandalism. Your username is not private. We can all see it. We can all see your contributions. And you cannot WP:Block (read that page) me because you are not a WP:Administrator. You should consider taking my advice. I don't see you lasting long at this site otherwise. That is, unless you keep coming back with a new account every time you are blocked.
And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You may think that I am wrong, but you are just asking to be blocked. Historylover18 —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Siiiiiiiigh! Speaking with you any further is clearly pointless. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Glossary of professional wrestling terms[edit]

Why did you remove "such as a reverse chinlock" from the wrestling terms rest holds section? It's an excellent example. It was a very small addition. It was 100% accurate. Put it back immediately!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted because the editor who reverted you before me called an addition of yours unsourced. If what I reverted with regard to your follow-up edit is sourced, then add it back. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OR dispute[edit]

Hi. If it's not too much trouble, could you comment at this talk page regarding an editor's OR addition to an article? Dan56 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dan56. I've seen you around before today and know that you've done excellent work on music articles. I don't remember if we've interacted before, but I'll weigh in on the matter you've linked to at your request. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

IP and its WP:Sockpuppets[edit]

I asked GorillaWarfare at freenode. You can see User_talk:GorillaWarfare#Bhimsen_Joshi. Though RFPP or EWNB should see it now. --TitoDutta 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the heading of this section as to better remind me, and better signal to others, what it is about. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Note for archive: Conclusion (at this point anyway) here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Followup note. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer review comments[edit]

Hello there. I was wondering, should you have a chance, if you could contribute comments or opinions to the peer review of Cane Ashby. They would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Regards, Creativity97 00:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Moneyweek revert[edit]

Why are you reverting the edits on moneyweek? My last edit was fine, there was a previous edit that included some emotionally/politically charged rhetoric, someone else thankfully deleted that content, but in doing so went too far and deleted too much content, my last edit brought the relevant content back without the politically charged stuff and reference to fox news, and includes citation. (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, IP. As I'm sure you saw, the editor who reverted you before me explained why he reverted, and then I explained that I reverted you based on that rationale before reverting you again. That editor, similar to what he posted on your talk page, was basically stating that blogs are generally not WP:Reliable sources. See the WP:USERGENERATED section of WP:Reliable sources and the WP:BLOGS section of WP:Verifiability. An exception to using blogs as sources, as those sections state, is using a (reliable and reputable) news blog. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You can warn users[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Huggle not warning automatically for you? 930913(Congratulate) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know about that. I generally leave the warning matters for others to handle. As can be seen above on my talk page, other times I don't. Thank you for trying to help.
Also, I changed the heading of this section from "June 2013" to the current title so that it does not look like I've received a warning. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Gellar revert[edit]

The edit you reverted on SMG is arguable. That was the body-swap episode, where Faith essentially stole Buffy's body. So, for that one episode, SMG was playing Faith as well as Buffy.

Of course, if we get into that, we'd have to mention when she played Robot-Buffy too... Morfusmax (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I made that revert almost reflexively when looking at it in WP:Huggle; I didn't much analyze it, which was a mistake. But I later reverted the IP here and here because, like I stated in those edit summaries, "That was for one episode, in a switch matter." Yes, I am familiar with the series. And I feel that we don't need any readers thinking that Sarah Michelle Gellar was a primary portrayer of Faith and that Eliza Dushku was a primary portrayer of Buffy Summers, when they actually portrayed those characters for one episode because of a plot device used by the writers. I don't mind if it's mentioned in their Filmography sections that they portrayed those characters, since those sections clarify episode counts, which is why I didn't revert the IP on that aspect when I made this edit to the Eliza Dushku article; instead, Nymf reverted the IP on that portrayal matter. But I do find the Gellar-and-Dushku-traded-roles mentions to be trivial. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi. FYI. This PA was directed at you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks for warning that user and for the note here at my talk page, Jeff G. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm sorry I didn't spot the problem earlier. Thank you for your vigilance - attacks are one way to tell you're making a difference. :)   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Vandalism[edit]

Hi. I am right because this IP has been already involved in war edits. I provided him sources from both official websites of the two clubs:

UEFA site is not right. It was scheduled before for Arena Nationala. Since the reviewal of the stadium not anymore. The Astra Arena is allowed to host at least this round (also in the Romanian press). Bollfooot (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, Bollfooot. I've done my part, and will be staying out of this now.
Also, I expanded the heading of this section (having added on ""), as to better remind me, and better signal to others, what this section is about. And you should remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If what he said was really true, the official website ( would have changed it. (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Philip N. Diehl[edit]

Hi Flyer22 I am in the process of editing the web page for Philip N. Diehl. I have been hired by Mr Diehls staff to update the page and any changes are per their notes. Also I sometimes use place holders (for example I use Wilma Flintstone as his wifes name) until I get the actual information. We expect to be done the the edits by weeks end. Thanks. (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2013‎ Mickey2814

You are referring to this revert I made, and now I am even more concerned about your editing of that article. See WP:Conflict of interest, especially the WP:Paid editing part of it.
And you should remember to properly sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your IP username for you above. And your registered username is actually MIckeyp2814, not Mickey2814. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22 Thank you for pointing out your concerns. I now understand why you may feel concerned. Let me try and explain...I was asked by a friend to update the page as I have done editing before. The main corrections were dead links and word usage. I added an info box (which needs a picture) and moved paragraphs around. If you read the article it is not slanted one way or another. Please review the article and let me know if there is anything I can do to correct any conflict regarding this article. Thank you. MIckeyp2814 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN: Homosexuality and Sexual orientation articles[edit]

I suggest you take a look a WP:OWN, you do not own any article, and consistently trying to impose a version of an article simply because that is what you like is not acceptable. --Scientiom (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Flyer, I've readded the sourced additions on Homosexuality, but left the part about what determines sexual orientation intact, with a slight clarification. I would also like your opinion as what can be done to properly integrate RCP sources which clearly state, to quote, "It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006)." [8] The RCP seems to have concluded that it's biology without a doubt. --Scientiom (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you bring this to the articles' talk pages and reach a consensus before you try reverting to your version again. Plus, accusing Flyer (someone whom I've worked with on these sexuality articles in the past and who has been very cooperative) of "owning" the articles does not help your case. Someone963852 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of suggesting, Scientiom, I suggest you look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this and this, among other things. As those links show, it is you who thinks you own articles and it is you who "consistently [tries] to impose a version of an article simply because that is what you like." In fact, you don't just try to impose it. You have gotten away with imposing it more than once at the Homosexuality article, such as here, though Little green rosetta reverted you on that twice before it stayed.[9][10] That "WP:STATUSQUO version" that you reverted to that time was not even the WP:CONSENSUS version that you had agreed on. You always soon revert. Or you wait a little while, weeks if so desired or if you can't help but wait due to offline matters, and then revert to your preferred change or add something different, or do both. And you often do that without joining in on the talk page discussion about what topic is at hand. Or you extensively sockpuppet to get your way. As most of the links above show, reverting you has never been about WP:OWN; it has been about reverting your WP:OWN edits, your POV-pushing, your removal of valid sources that further your POV-pushing, your WP:Original research, and especially the WP:Synthesis aspect of WP:Original research. I have already given my take on the Royal College of Psychiatrists source, your favorite source on the topic of sexual orientation, the source you misuse time and time again. Like I stated in the most recent Homosexuality talk page discussion that you still have not participated in (linked above in this section), "It's rare that scientists believe that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why you don't see any authoritative scientific organization stating that it is. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists doesn't state that; it states 'it would appear': 'It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006).' And, as can be seen, it is basing that on two separate studies. It is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to make it seem as though the Royal College of Psychiatrists has the most authoritative and/or final say on that. I'm very familiar with that source because Scientiom has used it enough times to make it seem as though scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is only biological."
I should not have discussed with Alison to spare you the public humiliation of being known as a sockpuppet. She was obviously too nice in doing so. After all, it's not like you had more than one person in your home editing Wikipedia, editing the same articles you edit without your knowledge of them doing so, thinking they are doing a good thing. No, it was you who was using multiple accounts to get your way across various LGBT articles, and I should have reported you in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation instead of letting you get off way too easy and continue your POV-pushing as one of the worst POV-pushers there is around here. My not reporting you was also because, if you had been indefinitely blocked, I didn't want you to know that I was the one who spurred it on; you know, just in case you decided to target me when you eventually came back under yet a different account. You are a detriment to Wikipedia because you will stop at nothing to have your POV in an article, including removing what authoritative sources state and repeatedly misrepresenting sources, and I'm tired of it. I have absolutely no respect for you when it comes to your Wikipedia editing. You are at the opposite end of where Acoma Magic is; while he stops at nothing to push a negative LGBT view, you stop at nothing to push a pro-LGBT view or something you think helps the LGBT community, such as asserting that sexual orientation is only caused by biology...even though no authoritative source states that. I have made it crystal clear to you various times that while scientists generally favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, they state that they do not know what causes sexual orientation, and that sexual orientation is very likely formed by a complex interplay of biological and social factors (some biological models include social aspects). And I have backed that up with sources, while all you have done with regard to that matter is offer your personal opinion, lend WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the Royal College of Psychiatrists source and misrepresent it.
Note: I expanded the heading of this section (having added ": Homosexuality and Sexual orientation articles"), as to better remind me, and better signal to others, what this section is about. Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded[edit]

Your recent reverting of Muzeeenoze was correct. Contrary to their edit summary, the user's edits violated several sections of WP:NPOV, particularly disproportionate weight given to positive reviews of the album, unbalanced research, and puff phrases endorsing reviewers who gave the article's subject a positive review. This editor's history shows questionable changes to articles related to the album, and they may fall within fancruft. Dan56 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I figured that I was correct, especially having seen you revert the editor before I did; I didn't take the time to study that editor's additions to the article, however, and was busy with other matters. As you've seen, I told the editor, "I have no agenda on this topic, as I'm not familiar with it. I reverted you because the other editor did. However, I won't revert you again." While I know who Nicki Minaj is, I am not very familiar with her music/career and what critics have to state about any given album of hers. I left the matter to you to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Teenage pregnancy[edit]

Hello, Sunuraju. Yes, I saw that this and your creation of that article afterward was in response to my removal. However, that article existed before and was deleted. And the current state of the one you have recreated will ensure deletion as well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute[edit]

Hi. If it's no bother, could you comment quickly at here? It's turned into a dispute, although a pretty straightforward one. Dan56 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll comment there at your request. Will read that matter over first. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice spot[edit]

With this edit! Almost reverted myself and hoped someone else would do it. Thanks for being that person =D Jenova20 (email) 16:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As you've no doubt seen by now, I further explained in this WP:Dummy edit. I almost left someone else to revert as well, because I really hate getting into Wikipedia drama (though it may not seem like it considering some of the issues I tackle), but I figured that he or she would be more receptive to my reverting him or her...and I knew that I would explain the revert better. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe next time i'll go with my instinct to prevent someone else having to deal with the drama then. I've been enjoying this quiet editing for the last few weeks though. Much easier to focus on a topic without the edit warring and replies everywhere. Have a nice friday and an even better weekend! Jenova20 (email) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You too, Jenova. And thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Arnold!: The Movie[edit]

Hey, I fixed the Hey Arnold page. Hope it works for ya. I'm comfortable with "mostly negative".  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my comment about that into consideration and making the effort to apply something that works for the both of us. I truly appreciate it.
On a side note: If you don't already know, some WP:FILM editors are against a lead-in summary for the critical reception sections (meaning "The film received mostly," "The film received generally," etc. type of wordings), feeling that we should let Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic speak for themselves (in the cases where those sites should be used for such information; by contrast, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Critical response, those sites generally should not be used for films that came out before those sites launched, because a true percentage score may not be available in those cases). But it's still standard practice on Wikipedia to include a lead-in summary for the critical reception sections. So thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, this is the first time I'm seeing this response I think, after you linked to it at Wikiproject television. I appreciate your show of appreciation! Face-smile.svg Had I seen this sooner, (I blame myself) I think your explanation would have influenced a few decisions I've made, but I'm glad I'm reading it now. Take care! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for bringing up this matter. You take care as well. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Murder" page[edit]

Thanks, I'm sorry for screwing up the article on murder (as you can tell I have no idea how to add tags). Can you point me to some kind of basic tutorial so that I know what I am doing before I edit? Thanks! Dionysos4444 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll add a Welcome template to your talk page. And at least you are already good about signing your username; most new Wikipedia editors, from my experience, are not. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


If it's no bother, could you comment too at this discussion? It concerns this removal/revision made by an editor. Another opinion couldn't hurt. Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll comment. And as you can see, I reverted that editor there earlier. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
By the way, it's been a long time since I've looked at the Aaliyah article (I can't remember if I looked at the Aaliyah (album) article before), and it's come such a long way; great to see that it's at WP:Featured article status now. I see that you don't have it listed on your user page as one of the articles you brought to featured article status, but the Aaliyah (album) is; excellent work, Dan. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


About 90% of the time I look through articles' histories these days I see you there reverting disruptive users. How do you manage to be everywhere at once like that??? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL. I would have replied soon after you left the above post, but I was busy. *Grins* To answer your question, a lot of the work I do is online and I'm often in talks with agencies while I'm at it. So while doing that, I have my WP:Huggle open and often revert any problematic edits I see, sometimes while also editing a Wikipedia article. When my WP:Huggle acts up, or when I'm not looking through it, I revert vandalism or edits that are similar to vandalism using WP:Rollback. Though it can sound funny and/or sad, I hate it when someone beats me to a revert that I've focused on reverting (almost like a game, I know); that happens a lot when using WP:Huggle. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels that way about their revert being stolen. In December last year, though it can be considered joking, I've seen at least one such case expressed with regard to the Aspartame controversy article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi there, in regards to Scott John Wilson, It was an accidental revert. Ever since I updated my version Huggle, it's been going a bit crazy and its taking time to reset all the settings that i'm used to. Thanks for fixing the error for me :D James'ööders 12:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are referring to this and this. You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


You were on the ball to remove it. None of the text is supported beyond the quote, and it to a newspaper. It was an anti-vaxxer POV push, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

After I reverted, I looked in the edit history and saw the editor had been reverted there before. But because my revert was a different matter, I'm not yet too familiar with that controversy, the article looked well-watched (especially since I saw you in the edit history), and I was simultaneously busy with a matter offline, I decided to revert myself and move on. Considering that the matter is what you described, I'm glad that you reverted soon after me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction[edit]

Hello Flyer22. Fyi, I have started an AfD process (I believe this is appropriate for a page based on wild claims). Unfortunately, editing as an IP I am unable to complete the submission process. Of course, if you don't think my submission was appropriate in the circumstances, you won't want to complete it. Best, (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. Yes, I saw it pop up on my watchlist. I figured that the red link would either turn blue or that the WP:AfD was linked wrongly. I'd completely forgotten about the fact that IPs can't start AfDs. As for starting AfDs, I've never started one; I leave that up to others. So far anyway. I'm sure that your rationale for deletion was appropriate; like you stated, it's the same rationale you put forth on the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I felt that a page based on wild claims shouldn't be left apparently (to the eyes of general Wikipedia readers) unopposed. But I don't know whether the situation could be resolved more simply by replying a redirect... Fwiw, the submission process itself is straightforward (WP:AFDHOWTO). (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Danquah, and sexual orientation categorization[edit]

Why do you object to Danquah being categorized as a Category:Gay actors rather than Category:LGBT actors? In practice, it's best to use the more specific category rather than the general one. If you believe him to be bisexual, there is also the Category:Bisexual actors you can place on his article page.

Otherwise, you need to provide a reason in the edit summary for reverting my good-faith or I will undo your reversion.Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you reverting all of my good-faith edits without explanation? If this continues, it constitutes harassment and I'll file a complaint on the appropriate noticeboard. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This here is pretty much all I have to state to you on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been directly involved in the specific edits, but as an administrator I have to ask you please not to revert the categorization changes without providing a specific explanation of your reasoning in the edit summary. I do understand your reasoning for the reverts, but I shouldn't have had to follow a treasure map of multiple user talk pages to find out what it was; initially I couldn't tell whether you were reverting it because it was actually unclear which specific identity label should apply, or whether you thought that we keep all actors in a single common LGBT category. So you should at least provide a brief rationale in the edit summary so that it's clear up front. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Bearcat. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Note for this section: Here is the wider discussion about the categorization matter with Newjerseyliz. And here and here documents further commentary on my having reverted the way I did. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antoine Dodson‎[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Antoine Dodson‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Notability isn't temporary but in the past 3 years, I think a BIO:1E has emerged. EBY (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, EBY, that you prodded that article for deletion. Given the past WP:AfD for that article and the reliable sources in it (including recent coverage), the prod, in my opinion, is not appropriate in this case. You should nominate that article for deletion instead if you are hard-pressed on having it deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not hard-pressed. Prior consensus was 3 years ago and seemed to sway on additional work outweighing that 1E but that hasn't happened. A PROD is a quick, easy way to check and see if another editor has any disagreement with deletion.EBY (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with it being deleted, but I don't care much one way or the other whether it's kept or deleted. That's what I meant by "hard-pressed" -- I'm not interested enough in challenging the prod by removing it while suggesting you take the matter to WP:AFD, and therefore likely resulting in you doing so. If another official deletion debate starts for that article, I may or may not weigh in on that matter. And if I do, my comment will be brief. And if someone responds to that brief comment, I'll try to respond in a way so that neither I nor that person feels the need to continue our specific debate. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: This edit made me see that this article went through two AfDs, and passed the second one. Since I almost always check the talk page of a Wikipedia article I arrive at, I likely already saw that this article went through two AfDs thus far...but I likely didn't focus on the matter enough to remember. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Just saw your edit note - let me be clear: The Dodson note was a courtesy to you and the other active editor, per recommended PROD process. I tripped on that article via a different "YouTube Celebrity". In 7 years and thousands of edits, I do not follow any editor. There's an auto-watch of any page I edit which I undo as I go for user pages. EBY (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
EBY (linking your username for notification again, in case you happen to neglect checking back at this talk page), you appear to be responding to an edit summary that was not meant for you (judging by your "follow any editor" bit), which was in response to this. This is the edit summary that was meant for you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad to be wrong, seemed out of nowhere.EBY (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

So, can any user throw a { block } tag on another user's Talk Page and get them blocked? That seems ridiculous. Or did that tag just make it appear as if I was blocked when I actually wasn't? Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And, yes, any user (even an IP) can do that mess. Just one of the many things I hate about this site. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
However, throwing the block tag on your talk page cannot get you blocked. As stated, and as shown with your blocklog, you were never blocked. Cherish that clean blocklog. I know that I did when I had one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I read through your block history (well, skimmed most of it) when we were having our dispute. What a nightmare. It's amazing how much influence one Admin can have (either as an opponent or an advocate). It's not that they use Admin tools unfairly, it's just when they weigh in with a point of view, many other editors jump on the bus with them. It really helps to know a couple who you know will evaluate the whole case and not react to the situation in a knee-jerk fashion based on past experiences with other users. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning users[edit]

Hello Flyer22, could I kindly ask you to warn users next time when reverting? I noticed above of why you don't warn and I don't know about you, but isn't that a little bit of an insufficient explanation? Not everyone is going to pick up the slack of warning people, which means people aren't warned properly. Another reason is that it can become confusing sometimes, in the case that you're not the first person to revert something unconstructive. The first thing I usually see when reverting something is the user's contributions or talk page, not the page history, which means I see another users warning and assume that I need to place the next warning level. But then afterwards I watch on the page to see if he/she is at it again, which is when I notice that you have reverted before me and you didn't warn him. This means I have to go change the warning that I just placed, which is pretty unnecessary.

Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Insulam Simia. I've been considering your suggestion and will ponder it some more, but per what I stated in this James Dean discussion that was had on my talk page and in the #You can warn users section above, there's a good chance that I still generally won't warn users. That James Dean discussion documents me stating when I will warn them. It's not always necessary to warn the user; for example, if it's an IP who has made one edit and clearly isn't likely to return to make the same edit. And depending on the level of vandalism or other type of disruptive editing, the level warning can be initially mild or high; it doesn't always have to be a low-level warning to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand your reasons why you don't warn, but I still believe that it is general procedure to do so (even if the user probably won't go back and do it again) and whenever I see blatant disruptive editing (e.g. going against an established consensus, genre warring, or in that instance unwarranted removal of content) I am certainly not as cautious as you are, but that's generally because I know that I won't be blocked for reverting it (because I know that I'm not the one in the wrong). I also think that warning is good in the instance of informing them that they can and will be blocked for disruptiveness (take this - he told me to stop reverting his edits. I noticed that he/she did the edit again so I warned him with a level 3 notice, that as you will know tells them that they can be blocked. He stopped when I issued that warning). Insulam Simia (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm only cautious with regard to content disputes. No matter how right you are, or anyone else is, when it comes to a WP:Edit war, a block can still happen to the person or people in the right because of the edit warring, unless it's a matter such as dubious and/or harmful material in a WP:BLP article. Few things allow a person to be exempt from the WP:Edit warring policy; I'm very aware that vandalism is one of those things. And I know what you mean about the sometimes effectiveness of warning a user. Again, I'll think it over. After all, now that I have WP:Huggle, I don't always have to warn manually. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


Why you reverted my edit on djuice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talkcontribs) 09:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a reflex revert, Umais Bin Sajjad, because I had already reverted your disruptive editing at this article and this one; your editing is... Well, let's just state that you need to get a better handle on how you are supposed to edit Wikipedia articles; otherwise, you are likely to be indefinitely blocked. Judging by your talk page, you've been warned enough to try better to stop editing so oddly. Flyer22 (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My uploaded file gets deleted all the time, can you give me specific link to understand image copyrights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talkcontribs) 10:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Vegetarianism, Ranleewright[edit]

An SPI has already been opened on Jimbob Williams. Regards -- Taroaldo 07:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Taroaldo. Thanks for the heads up. Doesn't seem like I'm needed to weigh in at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ranleewright. It's a WP:DUCK case. I knew that it wouldn't be long before he was called out by someone other than me. I was going to state: "Oh, c'omn. Do I have to report you at WP:Sockpuppet investigations? The fairly new registered account Ranleewright gets indefinitely blocked. Instead of appealing that block, the newly registered Jimbob Williams account shows up at the Homosexuality article arguing in the same section that Ranleewright started and then at the Vegetarianism article arguing in the same section that Ranleewright the same order that Ranleewright appeared at both articles. As an experienced Wikipedia editor who knows a WP:DUCK when I see one, I know that you are Ranleewright. So pretending not to be him is futile. Move along now." But it's certainly not a bad thing that I didn't have to further put him on the spot.
By the way, the reason that I added ", Ranleewright" on to your heading above is so that what this section is about is better categorized, especially once it's archived. It'll help me readily remember what the section details. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Camelot brothel story[edit]

The Camelot story could be right seen as no one knew if Camelot really existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, no. Your version of the story is not how the story goes according to any reliable sources. Was plain vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Anilingus "Etymology" section edit. Thank you for your help![edit]

Now THAT'S what a fine Wikipedia editor is good for... making sure the paragraphs all line up nice and neat, per the standards. Keep up the the quality work, Flyer22!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

After this, this and this, I pointed out that the edit is not the standard. But okay. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gene Clark citations[edit]

Hi! Just for the record, I've added very little text to the Gene Clark article and whenever I do add stuff to Wikipedia, I am a stickler for inline citations (just look at any of the articles I've worked on or gotten up to GA status). However, as something of a Byrds expert, I can tell you that most of that Gene Clark article is sound in terms of biographical accuracy.

It's an article that is on my "to do" list as far as improving the citations and getting it up to GA standard goes. I'm not expecting others to add citations for me -- I have plenty of books on the subject that I can use to do that -- but I do think it's overkill to delete vast amounts of an article for a deceased celebrity, rendering the remaining text nonsensical, as that deletionist IP user did. My point about "adding your own sources" (which was directed at him/her and not at yourself BTW), was that if it bothers him/her that much, then they should get off their arse and source the citations themselves. Just deleting three quarters of the article smacks of laziness in my view. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

EDIT - Actually, according to the "contributions" stats, I'm the second largest contributor to that article, which is something of a surprise to me. I'm sure most of my activity on that page is reverting vandalism or good faith edits and small things like fixing capitalization. I maintain, very little of the article text was actually written by me. :) Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Kohoutek1138. When I saw that you had posted to my talk page, my first was reaction was: "Oh no. He or she has come to my talk page to complain about this and this -- the fact that, per WP:BURDEN, I stated that it is primarily his or her job to source the text you he or she added. Editors like this, who don't source their material, are one of the types of editors that frustrate me." Good to see that I was wrong about your posting to this talk page. Thanks for explaining your stance/history. Per WP:PRESERVE, you have a valid point about not deleting all that material, and I didn't take the time to look at what was being deleted. But the IP also has a valid point, since you have become the person adding the unsourced material by restoring it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible interview[edit]

Hi Flyer 22! I'm working on an article for about the people who edit wikipedia sex articles; I'd love to ask you a few questions. If interested, will you please email me at ? Thank you so much! Cal beu (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I just got through Googling that email address and it's apparently legit, belonging to Callie Beusman of So if I were to contact that email address, at least I know that my email wouldn't be going to someone impersonating a writer of I was skeptical of you contacting me, and I considered that it must be a joke by some disgruntled editor who feels that I wronged them, because you registered with this site solely to post this message to my page. I find it odd that you would know about my editing here unless you frequent the contribution histories and/or talk pages of Wikipedia sexual topics. So how is it that you know of me? Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed, earlier this hour, that you'd also contacted two other people on their talk pages about such an interview. So that makes me less suspicious, as opposed to thinking you had contacted me only (intentional on your part or not). Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: The interview request was apparently legit, as confirmed by a reliable source on the matter. The interview with Beusman did not materialize, however, as Beusman ceased email communication with me; this may be due to the fact that she got the desired information from one or more other editors who edit Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting changes to Robin Williams page[edit]

Hello, I whole heartedly disagree with your reverting the additions that I made to Robin Williams page. I do not believe it is relevant, nor do I believe it is within your authority to determine what is "constructive." Wikipedia pages are not meant to put a positive spin on any individual to make their personal pages appear "constructive." I listed several links where multiple people have given accounts that correspond with the information I posted. Considering you reverted the changes almost immediately after I posted them tells me that you did not bother to read any of the sources I listed.

Whether or not you feel these allegations against Williams are fair or false (or constructive) is irrelevant. In the stand up comedy scene, Williams is very notorious as a "joke sampler." I'm not here to state whether he is or isn't. But the allegations are there, along with sources. If you're going to remove Robin Williams' alleged joke thieving on the grounds of "it isn't constructive," then by rights you need to do the same to Carlos Mencia. You also need to remove the child molestation accusations from Michael Jackson's page and the sexual harrassment accusations from Bill Clinton's page. Those aren't constructive additions to those pages either.

In conclusion, I have no problem with you discussing the issue in the talk forum, but you do not have the authority to delete legitimate information from a personal bio page because your opinion is that the information is "not constructive."

--Jmurdock21 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reexamining the entry, I do think the wording indicates Robin Williams as guilty and does sound like a biased stance. I would be willing to reword the entry to sound more neutral. But I must insist the additions stay in unless you can give very good reason why those allegations do not actually exist or if you can refute the individual accounts that I listed.

--Jmurdock21 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I care not if you wholeheartedly disagree with me for having reverted you. SummerPhD explained why you were reverted that first time. And I reverted you and left a note on your talk page because of that. With your aforementioned edit to the Robin Williams article, you are going against one of our most enforced policies (if not the most enforced) -- the WP:BLP (biographies of living persons) policy. Your having reverted me is a further violation of that policy. As for the child molestation accusations about Michael Jackson at the Michael Jackson article and the sexual harassment accusations about Bill Clinton at the Bill Clinton article... No, those are not unconstructive additions. Those are well-documented aspects of those peoples' histories. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

SummerPHD reverted me because I did not have my sources listed. As I mentioned as a memo when I posted the changes and on SummerPHD's talk page, I merely saved to prevent losing my work. I was not using the "Edit Source" module and was in the process of switching to "Edit Source" because I am much more familiar with editing in that format. I did not realize there were a group of people who were constantly monitoring Robin Williams' bio page. I thought I would be able to add my sources and clean up my paragraph before anyone noticed that there was unsourced material on Williams' page for an entire 4 minutes.

Therefore, SummerPHD had good reason to revert the changes.

I'm also failing to understand where the policy was violated. Some of the sources were FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS, and almost all of them were from the stand up comedy community. Not to mention, I ask again, how in the world did you make all of these determinations within 1 minute of my posting and without checking any of my sources?

Robin Williams has been alleged at using materials since the 1980's. I consider that just as legitimate as the accusations of plagiarism on Carlos Mencia's page. Carlos Mencia has never admitted to taking jokes (although there is a video where he does, but it is obviously in jest.) But he is well known within the community for having that reputation.

Robin Williams has the exact same reputation. So by ignoring the sources and deleting such information, then the authors of wikipedia are picking and choosing who has potentially negative information on that page.

Since his page has a long history of people removing any information of his long held reputation, whereas there seems to be no problem listing the samne information on Carlos Mencia's page or Dennis Leary's page (Once again, Williams is just as notorious as either two within the stand up comic industry and Williams probably has more evidence working against him than Dennis Leary) for allegedly using other comedians' materal. I can't help but think it has to do with Williams' popularity and achievements compared to the other two. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even yet read all of what you've stated in your initial or latest reply in this section, but my patience is thin these days when it comes to informing editors on how they are supposed to edit on Wikipedia. So this is the last of my reply to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the insurmountable stress that wikipedia seems to be having on you. I would possibly recommend stress reduction activities or perhaps a short break from the thankless job you assume. However, in the future I would ask that you verify the listed sources to ensure they are in accordance with the "NPOV, V, and NOR" and be aware of wikipedia precedents on other pages concerning identical information before hastily reverting changes. Failure to do so will likely cause others to question your rationale for instantaneous deletions. Avoiding this will also prevent goofs like me from arguing their stance with long winded diatribes full of facts and precedents that you don't want to burdened with.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I need no advice from you, especially with regard to how to edit Wikipedia. It's you who needs that guidance, and I'm not going to give it to you. Seek a WP:Mentor or something. This is not about any "insurmountable stress" that Wikipedia may be having on me. You were pointed to the WP:BLP policy; now follow it. It makes explicitly clear that the information you added can be removed without question. No one who knows how they are supposed to edit Wikipedia is going to question that rationale and instantaneous deletions because of it. Not unless the person truly believes he or she has a good reason to go against WP:BLP policy. I could easily take you to the WP:BLP noticeboard and have everyone there who weighs in on the Robin Williams matter support removing the content you added. But SummerPhD is taking care of some of that material, and I'm not interested in pursuing this. Now cease trying to teach me about things you obviously know nothing about. And as for what may seem like rudeness on my part with regard to you, it's simply a matter of barely having any more patience for that type of editing/type of rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Fleming[edit]

Hi there, You said I didn't support my recent changes to Paul Fleming's bio page, but I have all my citations on the bottom of the article. Please advise. Thanks, Ani — Preceding unsigned comment added by AniDAAD (talkcontribs) 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit on V. Johnson[edit]

Hi, I am wondering why you edited my note on Ms. Johnson? APA (American Psychological Association) defines psychologist as "An individual with a doctoral degree in psychology from an organized, sequential program in a regionally accredited university or professional school." It is a protected term, just like a Psychiatrist, Social Worker, etc. In most states one also needs a license, besides just a doctoral degree. I am not attacking Ms. Johnson. She made a hige contribution in many areas, including feminism. However, she cannot be called a psychologist and she did not consider herself one. I made that comment because I am a Psychologist (have both Ph.D. and a state License) and it is important for me to educate public and to protect my professional credibility. Please, undo your edit or change your information in appropriate manner. thank you. Dr. HLG Dr.HLG (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dr.HLG. The reasons that I reverted you at the Virginia E. Johnson article are stated in the WP:Edit summaries here and here. The reason that I reverted you at the Psychologist article here is also clear; additionally, I tweaked that matter. Without a WP:Reliable source, you should not add "Despite being called a 'Psychologist' in popular culture, Ms. Johnson has not earned a Doctoral degree in Psychology and did not have a Psychology license, therefore, she was not a Psychologist. However, she was a therapist, a counselor, and a researcher." In fact, you should not use despite at all in this case, which seems combative. Without a WP:Reliable source supporting the text as presented, you also shouldn't add "Despite being called a Psychologist in popular culture, Ms. Johnson was not a psychologist, since the American Psychological Association has protected the term Psychologst and limits it to individuals who have earned Doctoral degree in Psychology." In that case, you are using the American Psychological Association as a source to assert that Virginia E. Johnson was not a psychologist, when the Psychologist article, including in the United States and Canada section, cites sources pointing out different ways that a person may be called a psychologist, and when the American Psychological Association source does not specifically state Virginia E. Johnson was not a psychologist; you doing that is engaging in WP:Synthesis, which is a Wikipedia policy. And you shouldn't add "She was [an] excellent researcher, sexologist, and psychotherapist" unless it is coming from a reliable source and made clear that it is an opinion. Except for in rare cases related to the WP:Conflict of interest guideline that are reliably sourced, we should not add our personal opinions to Wikipedia articles. Review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, a matter addressed on your talk page with the Welcome template, and WP:Citing sources, so that you can better understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Longest words[edit]

Hello, I noticed you undid one of my recent contributions to the "Longest word" article. The edit itself is not unconstructive. I can guarentee that as a native speaker and the text I pasted in the entry can be found in dictionaries. I will search for full source. (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten has given you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm still skeptical. If what you state on this matter is true, that text should be formatted better than the way it currently is...regardless. Someone is going to remove it if you don't source it with a WP:Reliable source. Even if you do source it with a WP:Reliable source, a person might still remove it...especially if you add a non-English source for it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the IP said he'd provide a source so I didn't push the matter further. The longer he goes without providing one the less I believe him... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the person who made the edit. The entry will be proved in a couple of days with a scan from the dictionary, although I must admit that it is not a Montenegrin-English bilingual dictionary, but only the official unilingual dictionary. That's the best I've found so far. Cheers. (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


I'd just like you you to know i was not trying to purposely vandalize Wikipedia on the Super Mario Bros. (film) page and bear no hard feelings toward you. Thanks for telling me why you were reverting my edits. (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and you weren't vandalizing the article (see WP:VANDALISM); it's just that, like I stated on your talk page, you didn't provide a source for this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have interacted before with Elizabeth1848 (talk · contribs) and I wanted to warn you. She has numerous large contribs that are indicative of copyright violation. I couldn't verify all of them but I counted at least 3 copy-pastes from the web. I'm keeping an eye on her for now, we'll see how it works out. Elizium23 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, Elizium23. I just now clicked on that editor's contributions as a refresher of who that editor is. Thanks for letting me know. Flyer22 (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoid personalizing discussions[edit]

Talk pages are for discussing the articles, not for discussing editors. If you need links or help in understanding the WP guidelines for this, please ask. --Light show (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL!!!! Posting about the matter for input at WP:LGBT is completely in compliance with WP:TALK. Mentioning you there is not personalizing the discussion. Yes, we are indeed allowed to discuss an editor's edit in a Wikipedia talk page discussion. Any one of my talk page watchers can tell you that. And treating me as though I am some newbie who needs a lesson on how to edit Wikipedia is truly hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Please refrain from deleting updates in progress. Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Again you have been kindly asked to please stop reverting updates to articles before they can be finished. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No. At the Dyke (slang) article, you are updating things and attributing some of it to WP:Reliable sources already present in the article when those reliable sources do not support the material you are adding. You keep failing to provide WP:Reliable sources, and are no doubt adding WP:Original research as well. I've explained here, here, and here thus far in WP:Edit summaries, and on your talk page with warnings, why I have been reverting you at that article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
And by "attributing some of it to WP:Reliable sources," I mean adding material against a source as though the source supports it. And since is likely not a WP:Reliable source, it's likely only one source you've been doing that with at that article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Again you are being politely and respectfully requested to stop you edit war. You have been pouncing on, rolling back and otherwise deleting updates to an article faster than they can be entered. This includes being able to add any citations. This behavior along with the now inappropriate comments (above) certainly makes it appear as if you have abandoned the proper neutral stance expected of all wikipeda editors. Please step back, reevaluate what you are doing and why and do not continue down this path. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been polite to you, though I tend become impolite when an IP, or other editor, continues to go against Wikipedia policies and guidelines (without a valid WP:Ignore all rules reason) because they think know better than those Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But either way, this has nothing to do with my not being polite and WP:Neutrality (you should read the WP:Due weight part of the WP:Neutrality policy while you are citing it, by the way). This has to do with what I have cited above. You need to either follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines or don't add any content at all. You also should not be removing content without a valid explanation. There is no excuse whatsoever for you adding the unsourced material and WP:Original research that you have been adding. You can provide WP:Reliable sources while changing material; I even pointed you to WP:Citing sources, so there is no excuse to not even attempt to try one of those formats. And if you continue to go against the warnings I have given you about this, you will be reported at the appropriate Wikipedia outlet. It is you who needs to step back, reevaluate what you are doing and why and do not continue down this path. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Robin Windsor[edit]

Are twitter references allowed or not? In the robin windsor article you let a twitter reference (reference number9) in, which not even connected to the status and yet removed mine cause you don't regard as a source. And given that it is a verified account i don't see the problem of twitter as a source and i referenced to the status, where i got my information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


I am a new user on Wikipedia and I am very confused on how to prove that my information is reliable.3b3b3b (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)3b3b3b

Hello, 3b3b3b. I understand; I remember how confusing Wikipedia was for me when I first started editing it back in 2007. Since Geraldo Perez has already given you this advice, I point you to WP:Verifiability; that Wikipedia policy addresses how to go about sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the article!3b3b3b (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)3b3b3b


Please see User talk: (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:PRESERVE? (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Like I told you, I thought it was spam. I was not going to preserve something that I thought was spam. If you want to add it back, then go ahead and do so. But again, per WP:External links, external links generally should not go where you placed that one. The WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS aspect does not serve that case well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth Mr. "99" is a sock of a blocked editor. You might keep that in mind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur Rubin. Some minutes ago, I had just saw you at User talk:Thevideodrome when skimming that talk page. So to see you pop up at mine soon afterward is a bit of a psychic feeling or just the simple feeling of a coincidence (though you might have come across me via Thevideodrome minutes ago). It definitely dawned on me soon enough that Mr. "99" (cool name you dubbed him with) has a decent amount of experience editing Wikipedia. Rarely ever is it seen that an IP mentions WP:PRESERVE. I'm curious about what his registered account is. But thanks for telling me. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Carl Grimes[edit]

Please be more careful when reverting the edits of others. The links in this article incorrectly pointed to the film A Killer Within, and I changed them to correctly point to the Walking Dead episode "Killer Within". You then reverted the article back to the incorrect links. Please do not revert this change again. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Tad Lincoln, I already explained about this revert I made and thanked you via WP:Echo immediately after that. I always double check my edits or check them multiple times, so I would have caught my mistake even if you had not. Why would I revert it again, when I was pointing out what would be incorrect linking? Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and so I have no idea how I deleted that part. All I did was add what I told you, and somehow whatever you said got erased. Thanks for restoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for being one of the decent editors behind an IP compared to the majority I see vandalizing Wikipedia. Other IPs are either helping or intentionally or unintentionally editing disruptively.
Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Can you email me regarding the New Mexico Mounted Patrol page? I would send you an email but cannot find your address.

I am a sergeant with New Mexico Mounted Patrol, which is an all volunteer law enforcement agency. Our chief is elected, and rotates every 2 years.



Henbury Meteorites Conservation Reserve[edit]

Henbury Crater dating

I known you think you are doing the right thing by defending the existing data, but the existing data is wrong. What is more you are doing the wrong thing by not checking the references you are defending. Please stop undoing my corrections. If you check reference 2 on page 395 you will see that Kohman & Goel give the age as ≤ 4700 years. If you check reference 3, The Planetary and Space Science Centre (Earth Impact Database), you will see this reference which is the age accepted by Earth Impact Database.

Always check the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Always provide a WP:Edit summary, except sometimes for WP:Minor edits, and you won't have to deal with editors reverting you on such matters (in this case, with regard to me and Bidgee) unless they have checked the references and found that you are wrong. And keep in mind that references cannot always be easily checked (such as offline references). Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Providing a WP:Edit summary also provides you with a better chance of keeping your edits from being reverted by a bot. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Supernatural page vandals[edit]

Please block User: and User:G grace82 for vandalism. Both have posted uneeded and inappropriate language on pages -- (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a WP:Administrator; therefore, I cannot block them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)



Okama is a discrimination against homosexual term in Japan. The redirection to "Homosexuality in Japan" of this item is inappropriate. In wikipedhia the Japanese version, there is an item called "おかま (Okama)".-- (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the redirect is not inappropriate. Your continued creation of the one-sentence WP:Content fork is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, there is no need for an article on that topic whatsoever unless the term satisfies the WP:Notability guideline and an article for it can be expanded much beyond a stub. Notice that we cover negative views of homosexuality in the Homosexuality article. It's not all positive material in that article; nor should it be. The same goes for the Homosexuality in Japan article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it's inappropriate. Short description if not recognized, you should remove the "Okama".
The "okama", meaning is similar in English as "queer". In English wikipedia, Are you sure you want to redirect to homosexual "queer"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Queer, like the term faggot, passes the WP:Notability guideline and their Wikipedia articles are not stubs. Furthermore, queer is commonly used as a positive term for LGBT people, especially by LGBT people, these days. Read the Queer article, or even the Genderqueer article, or research the matter on the Internet for further evidence (if there is no Internet censorship where you live and there is access to similar material), for proof of what I state on this. Either way, the Okama article will very likely be redirected again...though not by me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder[edit]

It's been moved again. Not sure of the background on this, but you were involved in the last rotation so I thought I'd let you know. (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen what was happening before you commented here on my talk page about it. I've already commented on the article talk page about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Getae[edit]

Hi Flyer 22, I would like to ask you the same question. The information in the introduction paragraph about the Getae concerning their location does not result from any of the quotations presented in the "ancient sources" section. The supposition that the difference in the form (Get or Getae) may be due to the "Greek" presence in the area is totally far fetched and you do not support that with any evidence or quotation. First you would need to show us an original, true map or other sources of that time, that names any portion of land or any tribe south of the Danube river as "greek" to be in the position to claim that " the ancient Greeks said......" Second, your subsequent sentence implies the fact that the ancient so called "greeks" made use of the -ae ending in their language, which is not true. Their most frequent ending was -oi, as everyone well knows and the -ae ending was probably latin if not else. I suggest that we let the ancients be named as they were calling themselves Hellenes and refrain from making suppositions which might have nothing in common with reality, for the sake of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is lying[edit]

Why would we call him one type of werewolf if it's known that he is not that type. Leave it generic instead of false. --Onorem (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dummy edits SUCK for discussion, because it puts the discussion in the history instead of where it belongs. And please explain why it's a good thing I reverted myself? Why would I care if you pointed me towards 2 essays that I'm quite familiar with. Simply saying BRD doesn't mean you aren't edit warring. --Onorem (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I don't care about this change. And, no, this and what I stated here is not lying. It is not lying any more than using present tense instead of past tense for fiction is lying. The cast version that I reverted to is describing the cast similar to the same contextual presentation that "Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation" notes. Just because Derek (I use him as an example in this case since you brought that matter up) is now a Beta werewolf, it does not mean that he is not also an Alpha werewolf; this is because, like "Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation" states, "this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed ... At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses." In other words, what is past and/or is now false to viewers watching Season 3 is not the case for people who have not begun watching the series or viewers who are not caught up with those aspects of Season 3, unless they have been spoiled. It is also why I don't mind at all that you removed "Alpha," considering that Derek does not become an Alpha until the end of Season 1. Some Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:VALID, even make clear that omitting material is not necessarily lying. It's also why we have WP:Summary style. It's not as though readers cannot go to List of Teen Wolf characters for in-depth information that will spoil them rotten. You can ask about this cast matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to understand what I mean, if you still do not.
And like I stated in this edit summary, WP:Dummy edits are exactly for discussion that don't need to be taken to the talk page. There was no point in me starting a discussion on the article talk page or on yours just to note what I did to you. You feel that I should have; okay, that is your opinion. But I will continue to use WP:Dummy edits in the ways described at Help:Dummy edit. It's good that you reverted that warning you left on my talk page because you realized that I had not reverted you. And because, as noted in this WP:Dummy edit, I cited Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) and you should not template the regulars (WP:DTTR). It does not matter that either is an essay; what matters is that both are widely cited essays that are generally followed by the long-term editors of this community. Yet you felt the need to template me as though I am unaware of those rules, rules that I pointed out to another editor in the edit history not too long before you felt it important to template me. WP:BRD is all about one person being bold, getting reverted, and that person taking the matter to the talk page after that revert. An editor is allowed to revert once, even twice, within a content dispute, without it being considered something that he or she needs a WP:Edit warring template for. Indeed, WP:3RR is far more enforced than WP:1RR or two reverts. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never been a supporter of we'll have to agree to disagree on that. The way I read your edit summaries, I believed that you were saying that it's not edit warring if the other person didn't follow BRD. I was trying to be helpful by making sure you knew that wasn't a defense. Forget it. Do what you want to the page. I'll take it off my watchlist. --Onorem (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, given the points made at User:DESiegel/Template the regulars, I understand that some people are not supporters or stern followers of WP:DTTR. I also understand that templating a regular can be an easy/quick way to warn the regular and/or remind them of a rule. Thanks for explaining your views. I hold no hard feelings against you with regard to any of this, and I hope that you don't hold any against me either. I've seen you around at various articles helping out. And I feel that the Teen Wolf (2011 TV series)‎ article could still use your help. But if you would rather leave that article off your WP:Watchlist, that is obviously fine as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello Flyer, The source I provided was an easy to read short explanation that linked back to the original medical research paper which is a difficult read for a non medical professional. How would you have me source my claim? Here is the source I gave: and here is the original research paper that my source links back to in it's paragraph:

Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skemez1 (talkcontribs) 23:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I commented about it at WP:MED in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Research about a cure for vitiligo section. You should comment there about it as well. Read WP:MEDRS, which is what I pointed you to when reverting you. Primary sources are usually avoided for sourcing medical content, and should usually be avoided on Wikipedia in general (per WP:Primary sources). Also, are you Quaffel? I ask because you posted in the section that Quaffel posts in and addressed me in the same way that Quaffel does (the "Hello Flyer," comma, spacing. And a similar "Thank you" at the end). 23:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I'll read those sections you spoke of. No I'm not Quaffel. I'm still new to posting on wikipedia and get my cues on etiquette by looking at how other posts are done. Sorry for any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skemez1 (talkcontribs) 02:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer I just read this. No, that's not me, and I don't know the user. I do not use sock or meat puppets. I said I'll stop and I did so. Quaffel (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for your outstanding contribution to make wikipedia a place for unbiased information. Mr RD (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I try. Some people simply neglect, do not understand or refuse to adhere to the WP:Undue weight part of the WP:Neutrality policy, however. Too many editors here think that being neutral means "giving equal validity." We all have biases, but we need to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be about keeping those biases in check with regard to writing articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Pangender , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. April Arcus (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Armstrong Williams Page[edit]

Hello Flyer22 and thank you for taking the time to edit my changes to the Armstrong Williams wikipage.

I have been assigned by Mr. Williams, to edit and clean up the page due to lack of updated news and unnecessary slander throughout the article. The article does not take a neutral tone of voice having a lack of detail on his career and personal life, and immense detail on the George W. Bush controversy. I used the same type of references as the last published version of the article (Which had broken links) so I did not see how I was in violation of them being unreliable.

Also, even if some of my citations are classified as unreliable I assure you that the ones in the newly added career section were reliable. Couldn't that section at least have been left up to have a neutral balance of good and bad on the page?

Look forward to your reply, Theoneag501 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Theoneag501. As seen here and here, I wasn't the only one who reverted you at that article. When I reverted you, what I saw did initially look like you simply moved things around and used inappropriate capitalization (Wikipedia article headings are supposed to be in sentence case, per WP:MOSHEAD, unless it's an official title), but your edit summary made it clear that you were "cleaning up" the article. And minutes ago, I took a better look at your edits to that page. Per WP:Conflict of interest, you should not "clean up the article" solely to paint Williams in a more positive light. Also see WP:Paid editing. And just as importantly, since that article is a WP:BLP (biography of a living person), you should take great care with sourcing., a source you used for that article, is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Kendall Hart article: Reversion of edits - help?[edit]

Hello! I saw that you reverted my edits and I was wondering if I could get your guidance on how to make these edits correctly? I apologize for my mistakes and if you are willing to help me, I'd prefer to correspond via email. However, try as I might, I was unable to find "Email this user" under the Toolbox.

Thank-you so much for your help either way! Courtlea (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I also don't understand some reversion of edits (aside from capitalization edit) as I wasn't changing any information in the Kendall Hart article (re: rapid aging) as per what cited sources contain. I was rewording some sentences for readability and consistency. Can you maybe help clarify what I was doing wrong? I'd really, really appreciate it! And I'd also love to know how to cite episodes as I've been unable to discover how (which is where my plot information comes from) if that was also one of your issues with my edit. Thanks again! Courtlea (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi again! While I understand the reversions you made to my other edits, I did revert some of the reversions you made on the plot details as plots from television series generally cannot be sourced officially - however, if need be, I will search for episode numbers if plot summaries do require sources. I was unable to find limitations on plot summary lengths so while I understand your concerns over plot lengths, I couldn't find any concrete rules. I really appreciate your help and don't want to get into an editing war! I would be so happy to provide you with an email address if this is causing any major issues! Courtlea (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I am certainly willing to listen! I just don't understand your reversion to the plots and why an older version of the plot, still unsourced, is acceptable over a new version of a plot. Please help me out! I am very willing to listen before making any edits. ETA: I still don't understand how I'm in violation of WP:Plot as there is no word limit determined. I feel it is a summary and I've given adequate time for your response. I am going to revert the changes but, again, I'd love to talk this over with you. I feel I'm only communicating with you via editing comments and fear this is turning into an edit war. Courtlea (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already stated enough on this matter (enough in my opinion), as seen here and here. Glad that someone else added a Welcome template to your talk page. Due to past email abuse from two people, I will not be enabling my Wikipedia email for some time or ever again at all. I have enough Wikipedia messes to deal with without having to also deal with Wikipedia while off Wikipedia. Good day to you. Flyer22 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Although we've disagreed, I do appreciate your help and have learned a lot tonight. Thank-you. I hope we can someday come to an agreement. Courtlea (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Light Yagami[edit]

Hey, are you working on this page right now? I can come back later if so. Vashti (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. It's just that seeing you make this edit reminded me to make an edit using the pronoun he...and that led to this and this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Simon Wells". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Kendall Hart, Charmed.jpg[edit]

Is the book notable enough to stand alone? If not, then why keeping this image? There is nothing significant about the cover itself, especially since the article does not mention details about the cover art. And we already have an image of Kendall (Minshew). --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

George, I don't see why it should be deleted. But I know that you are a deletionist, so go ahead and do what you want with it. You probably were going to do so anyway. That article is already a mess, so whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry; I nominated it for deletion, so we are awaiting consensus. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no worry; I don't care much what you do with that image, obviously. And since that article is still on my WP:Watchlist (after I readded it because of the recent matter regarding it that is shown above on my talk page), I already knew that you nominated it for deletion. And as is evident from my initial reply to you above about this, there was not much doubt that you would nominate it for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


Have you seen this yet? --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but I am familiar with The Internal Clitoris blog post that is cited in that source (which I often see cited by men and women in Internet forums). Cliteracy is interesting, Nigel. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Do you want to go ahead and mention it in the Clitoris article, in the section that is about present day knowledge and vernacular with regard to the clitoris? Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ohhh, I'm sure you could do a better job than me. It's a good article you know... You don't want any old kludge messing with such a finely tuned thoroughbred. :-D --Nigelj (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I caved in, and added this. Please feel free to change it in any way you see fit. --Nigelj (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I was going to tell you "LOL, stop it." with regard to implying that you may mess up the article a bit. I always welcome your help, especially when dealing with wording issues such as this one. I'd always rather have you or Rivertorch helping out with that article than taking care of things there by myself, and I can always tweak any of your additions (just like you can tweak mine). I was using the "you" in the sentence above to refer to either you or me making the change. If you hadn't added it, I wasn't sure when I was going to add that information. Glad that you took the initiative and added it. It's likely that Trappist the monk will tweak the reference format you added.
Speaking of the reference formatting of the article, that's something that I've continued to ponder because it is complicated formatting for most editors; I feel that way because it's not a common format on Wikipedia and I wasn't familiar with it until it became a part of the Clitoris article. The article is formatted in such a way that it makes the references look like there are more than there are (which I mentioned on the talk page would happen when the change was being planned). The Cited works section currently looks like it's out of control (length-wise) because each one of those journals and books is used as a reference in the article. I definitely have some WP:Citation overkill going on there, but I take no chances when it comes to citing a contentious topic. I usually use three or four references for things that are very likely to be challenged (not that POV-pushers won't challenge some such things anyway). Other times...I use that many references just to provide variety. Still, where there are more than four references supporting a should (usually) be cut to four or three (or even two in some cases). Since the article is using WP:Bundling, it's easy to get carried away with referencing things there. Do you know if there is a tool that can put the cited works in a column scroll box? I saw one for a References section before (not for a Bibliography section). Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've stuck 2-cents-worth into that Clitoris discussion, but as for wierd references formats, I'm not your man. Now that you mention it I remember something during the GA stuff, but while I was editing, I didn't even notice it at the time. It all looks very impressive and if people want to maintain it, that's great. I haven't seen internal scrolling boxes on articles, but I know what you mean - I used them in web page design in the 1990s using <object> HTML tags. There may be templates here that generate these, but I would be wary: One thing I am keen on is web accessibility, and things like this usually do more harm than good for people using small mobile devices or for visually impaired people using screen readers. I often use a smartphone these days (even for editing WP sometimes), and I'm usually impressed by how well WP pages translate onto a small screen. Yet last week I was in England looking up bus times on my phone and came across a timetable where the internal scroll boxes just wouldn't work - it was a real pain! I don't know if that might apply to whatever HTML code WP's templates may generate, but my instinct would be to leave well alone, and not try to gild a lily. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the in-depth feedback (regarding both the aforementioned Clitoris discussion and the reference formatting). Something needs to be done about the reference setup, though, because that list of journals and books is just going to get longer and longer the more that article is expanded. Some time ago, despite the section being titled Cited works, I even put a hidden note there letting editors know that removing any of the journals or books from that section will mess up some of the references. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note, post archive: And, yes, I know that archives are generally not supposed to be edited. Anyway, I made this edit months after this discussion was archived. Some time after this discussion, I came across the fact that Wikipedia widely discourages the use of scroll boxes for references; see MOS:SCROLL, Help:Scrolling list and the See also section of Help:Scrolling list that currently lists Refbox, Template:Scroll box and Scrollref. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Eulalio González[edit]

I think I'd dared too much to add a new info on the page "eulalio Gonzalez " Perhaps I wasn't a relevant...!!

I do apologize it to you...!! May god be with you...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernest juarez (talkcontribs) 02:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gary Barlow - genre[edit]

Hi, sorry for the interrupt. Can you revert the genre for Gary Barlow page? Yids2010 was not allow other users to revert any genre. But according to AllMusic, genre says pop/rock and classical. As for soft rock was not supported by citation and hasn't cited from AllMusic at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you've seen me around reverting vandalism and/or other unconstructive edits. From what I see, Yids2010 hasn't added vandalism...and reverting that person would only cause him or her to revert me back. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Luvinhorsesbabe[edit]

Sorry, I have no idea how that happened. Nightscream (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me know. I was definitely confused about your revert. That it was a mistake would have crossed my mind more strongly with some other editors, but I've seen you usually be sharp with your editing. So that led to me thinking that you had more likely reverted me on purpose, because you'd already left a message and thought that I was leaving a redundant message. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Please change the certification of In Rainbows from Gold back to Silver. I looked at what the source says and it's really silver, not gold! -- (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If the reference supports your change, feel free to revert me on that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg For patrolling the and reverting good faith edits on the article of Narendra Dabholkar. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2013‎ (UTC)


Hello, Flyer22, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 11:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

STiki logo.png


Thank you for your message - I was not in the sandbox... even though I thought I was! What should I do now? I'm confused. I just want to develop this page for a while before I post it (for real this time!). There's a deletion process in place even... sigh... I didn't mean to get everyone up in arms. It was a silly oversight: the sandbox page looks just like the real page! Please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clfulford (talkcontribs) 23:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Regarding this edit. first of all I'm confused why you claim the sources I cited don't back up what I'm saying, and then decided to keep the text with those same sources. secondly, we are here to educate people, and the common medical definition is not what many people mean when they use the word "bisexual" themselves, or what is meant in most sex research and gender studies. clearing up this difference IS important to discuss in the lead, i don't see how you can say what SEXologists call bisexuality is less mportant than what the APA calls it. You're giving undue weight to one point of view. Thirdly, what would you call someone who's intersexed? They're not strictly male or female, and thus left out of the conversation the way the lead is written. We're don't have to, and shouldn't, be quoting a source word for word, and I'm not claiming anything materially different than a source that defines bisexuality as attraction to males and females by using same and different sexes, only allowing for intersexed people to be included in that definition. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria

Hello, Zappernapper. You should take this to the Bisexuality talk page, if you really want to debate the matter, where I have already responded; there, it is also made clear that bisexuality is most commonly defined as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to two sexes (male and female)/two genders (men and women), and is only defined that way by the authoritative scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Psychiatric Association (also APA). Those organizations include sexologists among psychologists or psychiatrists. The vast majority of sources, including ones from sexologists and other scientists, do not define bisexuality as what is also termed pansexuality. But pansexuality, which is considered a subset of bisexuality, is noted in the lead and in the lower body of the article. I did not exactly keep your text. Other than the parts I completely deleted, I moved your text down to where it belongs (per WP:Lead), worded it appropriately, and fixed its reference formats. Your text claimed "both the same sex, and different sexes" and that "The term is used in medical texts to denote romantic or sexual feelings towards both men and women without regard to gender expression or lack thereof." Your text is not fully supported by the APA sources; in those sources we are using, they do not use the words "different sexes," for example. It's not about wording text word-for-word (I am aware of WP:Copyvio); it's about wording text accurately. Your text made it seem as though bisexuality is only defined as a binary model by medical sources. Not to mention that the American Psychological Association is not simply a medical source. Therefore, because of the aforementioned factors, your text is inaccurate. The vast majority of sources define bisexuality the way that the APA sources do. Your text, using two non-authoritative sources (one from 2000 and the other from 2001), stated "while in the fields of sexology and gender studies bisexuality is often defined to specifically include intersexed and transgender people," making it seem as though sexology and gender studies do not also mostly define bisexuality as a binary model, and as though all transgender and intersex people identify by a gender identity that is not male or female/man or woman. Your text is inaccurate because most transgender and intersex people identify as male or female/man or woman, which is why the binary model of bisexuality fits them fine. You are completely wrong to state that most people do not define bisexuality as being romantically/sexually attracted to males and females/men and women. Yes, they do. Most people do not define bisexuality the way that we see pansexuality defined. Most people, according to various studies, and just from personal experience, do not believe that there are more than two genders (they have never heard of the third gender concept), and most certainly do not believe that there is a third sex. Nor has science proven that there is a third sex. Intersex people are not a third sex (though some sources refer to them as such); they are a combination of both, and, again, most of them identify as male or female. True hermaphroditism, however, is extremely rare.
Read WP:Undue weight; it states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." Therefore, I am not giving undue weight to the binary model; I am not because the binary model is the significantly more widely held view. It is presented first because of that. And the alternative definition is presented after that, which is partly what WP:Neutrality is about. Like I stated in the #A barnstar for you! section higher up on my talk page: Some people simply neglect, do not understand or refuse to adhere to the WP:Undue weight part of the WP:Neutrality policy, however. Too many editors here think that being neutral means "giving equal validity." We all have biases, but we need to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be about keeping those biases in check with regard to writing articles. And like I've stated elsewhere with regard to the topic of sexual orientation, we go by what authoritative sources state when initially defining sexual orientation. Different authors may define sexual orientation differently, and editors could cherry-pick their favorite authors, or favorite lines from whatever book, to support any stance they have on sexual orientation. One aspect of that is those who have tried to add zoophilia and/or pedophilia as sexual orientations to Wikipedia, because a few sources call them sexual orientations (though such a categorization is WP:Fringe). This is why we are supposed to defer to authoritative bodies for defining sexual orientation. Going by a single author's and/or scientist's definition, or even what a few of them state, is WP:Undue weight, while going by one or more recognized scientific organizations' definition (usually) is not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
i commented here because tbh i didn't read the pansexuality discussion first, since i didn't feel it applied to what I was trying to say, and furthermore, still don't think it applies (but am not interested in debating that). I'll concede that psychology isn't technically a medical text, poor choice of wording. However your argument that since overlap exists between psychology, psychiatry, sexology, and gender studies, drawing from only those first two sources is authoritative. Sexology has overlap with anthropology and sociology too... it's not represented accurately by fields which only overlap. My biggest concern though, is that you dismissed the Journal of Bisexuality as non-authoritative. It's a peer reviewed journal dedicated to the topic of the article. It should be given equivalent standing to any statement by the APA, at least (and on the topic, GLAAD is NOT authoritative about bisexuality). I need to go to work. I'll address more of this later. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Zappernapper, psychology is a part of the medical field, but, again, "[y]our text made it seem as though bisexuality is only defined as a binary model by medical sources." If you had used "psychology" in place of "medical," it still would have been wrong because it would have made it seem as though bisexuality is only defined as a binary model by psychology sources. All of the fields you mentioned, and I know from much experience, are mostly consistent with how they define bisexuality -- they mostly use the binary model (male/female, man/woman, two sexes, two genders, both sexes, both genders). As for authoritative sources... Soon after I reverted you, I looked at the sources to find out what journals they are coming from and did not see any, so I missed the Journal of Bisexuality. But a journal being peer-reviewed does not make it authoritative. Sources such as the aforementioned organizations, as well as World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), etc., are authoritative sources. What you used are two WP:Primary sources, unless they are literature reviews or systematic reviews. For what I mean by that, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Definitions. Or even read all or most of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline (WP:MEDRS). However, for the topic of sexual orientation, authoritative sources (such as American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) are what are the major psychological and psychiatric organizations that fund and conduct research on sexual orientation and that are what other sources follow when it comes to the current medical knowledge on the topic. As for GLAAD; that source is simply presented in conjunction with the authoritative sources for clarifying that the term bisexuality "is mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward both men and women" (after all, for example, it's not a term that is usually applied to non-human animals, but the lead and lower body of the article also discuss bisexual behavior among non-human animals). Furthermore, GLAAD, as I'm sure you know, is the most prominent LGBT organization there is.
I did not state that we can or should only use the authoritative sources for the topic of sexual orientation. I stated, "[W]e go by what authoritative sources state when initially defining sexual orientation." This is the case at the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles as well. And I explained why that is. Anyone can pull something out of one or two peer-reviewed journals and present it as mainstream science or scientific consensus. And if we allowed that act, which is an act that is often attempted at the Circumcision article and some other medical articles, a lot of our medical articles would be in very serious trouble. The topic of sexual orientation, which is a part of the medical field due its significant relationships with psychology and psychiatry, is no exception. The WP:MEDRS guideline is clear about the sourcing issue. We should use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources first and foremost for defining sexual orientation and follow that guideline appropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

i love you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG yyour the best Dingleberry995 (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You mean for this. You're welcome. Thanks for the love declaration and food. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png
The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
STiki logo.png

Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)