User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 16

WP:WTA

I'm bold, I don't ask permission before posting good information about writing styles to avoid. Its a fairly straightforward thing, taught in many writing courses, and it is not covered elsewhere on the page, which is why I added it. You reverted, now you own it. Your job to move discussion to Talk. Also, don't use extra edit summaries to plead your case or go into in-depth discussion, that's what Talk pages are for. -- Netoholic @ 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic, yes, you were WP:BOLD. You were WP:BOLD with a guideline that should have WP:Consensus for such a big edit, as reflected by what that guideline states at the top of its page. WP:Consensus is a policy and can be achieved through silence as well. But I was not silent; I reverted you. Being WP:BOLD obviously does not mean that you cannot be reverted, no matter how good you think your information is. Your addition used authoritative language for what is a guideline, and you even suggested that editors should avoid use of the word several, despite it often being quite appropriate to use the word several, such as when avoiding a WP:Linkfarm of names. The WP:BOLD guideline and WP:BRD essay make the following clear: You were reverted, so now it is you who should take the matter to the guideline talk page if you wanted it restored; I don't want it restored, so it's not up to me to take the matter to the guideline talk page. I don't own it at all. I made it very clear why I reverted you. And, yeah, I followed that up with this commentary. That's my right. It's not up to you to tell me not to do that. I'm not going to take a thing to the talk page that I can state just as easily in an edit summary. And, by the way, WP:Dummy edits, which I didn't use in this case, are for the very purpose of stating something in an edit summary that does not need to be taken to the talk page. I also suggest you tone down the inappropriate attitude if you want me to consider any proposal you make to that guideline seriously. Flyer22 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and as I clearly stated in that followup commentary, the "several, some, many, few" topic you added is very much already covered by the WP:Weasel words portion of that guideline. So, if your elaboration on that aspect belongs anywhere on that page, it's in that section. And like Template:Who states: "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the BRD essay is that it doesn't cover an equally valid way to handle things... BDR. You could have asked me questions like "don't you think its covered in WEASEL already (No, it doesn't. WEASEL is about bias, LAZY is about precision. They are closely related and perhaps overlap in some examples, but that's all.) You could have made a post on the talk page asking what others think. You know, sometimes the sky won't fall if a fresh idea sits on the page and stews, allowing many people to get a chance to read it (Hell, you could have marked it with a {{Brainstorming}} tag or something). Deleting it within moments is aggressive, and if you're going to do that, you owe it to the other editors to be the one to raise the issue on the Talk page. ADDED: I also see you haven't mentioned a complaint about the intensifiers "very" and "really" (though, you yourself misuse them very much often)... you could have edited my guideline section to just those, and left the "Several" talk for later. --Netoholic @ 11:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic, unless you want to see how long we can go before one of us wins WP:The last word, we are not going to have this discussion in two different places. And if you try to have it in two different places, I'll likely simply revert you here at my talk page, with an edit summary. Since it's my talk page, I can have WP:The last word. The thing is this: I was completely in the right to revert you, especially regarding a guideline page, and there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline stating that I was in the wrong to revert you. It is your opinion that I was in the wrong to revert you. But the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are supposed to have WP:Consensus. You had no WP:Consensus for that addition, as evidenced by my reverting you because I disagreed with your addition. Not that it's simply a matter of what I state. But to assess what other editors think on such a matter, the matter should be taken to the policy or guideline talk page. It's there now. I stated before that I don't like it when editors come to a policy or guideline looking to impose their view on that policy or guideline because of a recent dispute they had somewhere on Wikipedia or simply because of their personal tastes. Yes, in my opinion, the "several, some, many, few" topic you added is very much covered by WP:WEASEL. Above, you stated that "WEASEL is about bias, LAZY is about precision." But, um, the LAZY bit you added is also about bias; it mentions POV. And POV naturally and often comes with bias in such cases. Deleting a non-WP:Consensus addition to a guideline "within moments" is not aggressive, and I find it odd that any significantly (like my intensifier there?) experienced Wikipedia editor would think so. Not just for a guideline, but for editing in general. Wikipedia editors don't have to let an edit stand because it's polite to do so; we revert when we disagree with something. We are then supposed to discuss the matter if it is worth discussing, instead of repeatedly reverting each other. I don't owe it to you or anyone else to be the one to take a matter to the talk page if I'm not the one intent on including the information. The WP:Burden policy, for example, was created for that type of thing.

As for your grammar lesson: No, keep it to yourself. Almost every "grammar expert" I encounter on Wikipedia needs quite a few grammar lessons before attempting to teach anyone on the topic. I'll use the words very and really the way that I want to in discussion. And contrary to your assertion, I don't use them often. Nor do I use them in Wikipedia articles, unless they are a part of a quote. That, other than not every word you added needing to be mentioned, is why I avoided mentioning them to you -- because I'm not fond of their use, and have been known to remove "very" from Wikipedia articles and reword the matter. I don't see "really" much on Wikipedia; must be our tastes in Wikipedia articles that makes the difference there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you've made a personal attack on that talk page. I think phrasing viewpoints using "I" statements rather than "You" statements, and ensuring comments are about the edits/ideas not the editor are beneficial and avoid escalation. Lastly, if I ever cited WP:DICK to someone else, I'd feel like I was the one being a dick. --Netoholic @ 12:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you feel like this is a WP:Personal attack, then go ahead and report me; see how far you get with that. Judging by how you approached this entire matter, including this latest revert, it's clear that either you don't know how Wikipedia is supposed to work, despite your several years editing this site, or you don't care. It's that, or you simply are not as experienced editing this site as one would think by assessing the age of your Netoholic Wikipedia account. You were reverted by another editor anyway, like I knew you would be. Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That editor has never edited that page before, so its unlikely it was on their watchlist. I think devoting so much time to making snap decisions and combating vandalism would make me very aggressive and impatient, but at least I'd probably be in touch with other editors to help me out in difficult moments. Eh, but I don't want things to always be a battle... very stressful and unenjoyable... so I'd avoid that sort of thing. -- Netoholic @ 12:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that the "Contributors" option in the page's edit history is currently not working, how do you know that editor has never edited that page before? Whatever your belief, that editor commonly contributes to discussions on that guideline's talk page, as shown in its edit history. It is on his WP:Watchlist. As for my reverting vandalism: Similar to what I stated of your grammar lessons, save the psychological analysis for someone else. I told you before that I don't tolerate passive-aggressive nonsense; so I suggest you stop replying on my talk page from here on out. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong with this edit?

[1] I think you should've provided edit summary. Tool/software pretty much distracts from the subject. OccultZone (Talk) 12:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because of improper formatting (the heading) and because it doesn't seem to me that those See also links are needed; in addition to appearing to be something a guy added to emphasize a POV about man-hating, they appear random, especially the non-existent Lifetime Movie of the Week link. But feel free to add them back if you want. Flyer22 (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds much better. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 13:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that the IP had already added them back anyway, except for the aforementioned non-existent link. The heading still needs fixing; per MOS:HEAD, we go by sentence case and not title case. Flyer22 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep deleting my edits.. I'm using facts? Sxcz (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Negroni cocktail

Hello Flyer22 I'm a newspaper reporter who's researching an article on the Negroni cocktail. I see that you've edited the Negroni Wikipedia entry several times recently. Specifically, it looks as if you have deleted the alternate version of the creation of the Negroni cocktail. Could you tell me why? MrkHay302 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MrkHay302 (talk · contribs). I reverted you for the same reasons that others reverted you, as seen here, here, here and here. Did you not read their reasons for reverting you? To sum up, your additions go against WP:NOT; do read that policy. Also, why have you moved from the Hanegroni (talk · contribs) account to the MrkHay302 account? Per WP:Sockpuppetry, you should generally stick to one registered account. And, yes, I got the two emails you sent me (haven't yet read them in their entirety). But, like my user page states, "Keep in mind, however, that, concerning Wikipedia, I only regularly email with a select few (and I do mean a very small group of people from this site). So for others, if you email me, make sure that it is about something that makes my user talk page less than ideal to use for that message. Otherwise, I may very well ignore you, especially since replying back will provide you with my email address (one of them anyway)." Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Need your input

On the article, Rape in India. Reason is simple, main contributors have been either indeffed or topic banned from editing this article. I am alone for months, on the verge of 3rr. Recently, I had thoroughly checked at least one section of the article, had figured a number of errors in summaries. So you may also want to check rest of the article, other than the recent changes. Thank you, regards. OccultZone (Talk) 01:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll help out with that later. In the meantime, any backstory you can give me on this? Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I had, before I would write here, check. OccultZone (Talk) 02:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, OccultZone, I see that the editor has not yet revered again. I've put the article on my WP:Watchlist, but I'm not sure that I'll leave it on there. If that editor adds back the material, I'll revert and advise him (via edit summary) to take the matter to the talk page, if you don't beat me to that first. You should also consider leaving a message on his talk page about the matter if he reverts again. Flyer22 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, how you been? Mind giving me your input on something soap related? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Late to replying because I was busy with other Wikipedia matters, but, sure, go ahead and ask me. Is it related to this? When checking up on this WP:ANI matter, I saw that an editor has reported you there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is in response the talk page of Theresa Donovan, actually. The ANI unfortunately followed; an action I did not see being made. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Livelikemusic, there are currently two very recent discussions at that talk page (the Child Actresses and Removal of content sections); which discussion do you want me to weigh in on. Or is it both? Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Both, plus at WP:SOAPS. Sorry for late response. Kind of taking a back seat on Wikipedia lately. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And I just weighed in here. A break from Wikipedia is understandable, especially if you are not getting the Wikipedia help that you need and feel too stressed out as a result. I'll comment in those sections now. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad you understand, and thank you for your comments and opinions. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Rahil Gupta

Hi ,

This is the first work of mine . And i did it for Rahil Gupta because He has done something substantial in militant hit state and provided job opportunities to so many people. I don not know much about editing but what you people feel good like you can edit accordingly . Thanks,

Arjun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun7007 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphan Black

Hi,

I know the review of the second season only consisted of one line, but I was planning on adding to it later on. I was also hoping that another editor would add to the section.

SpiritedMichelle (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, SpiritedMichelle (talk · contribs). Regarding this matter, I still don't think that there is much you can add about the critical reception for seasons 1 and 2 that would not be redundant and would require that the section be split into subsections for that material. In this case, I see it as best to expand first and then divide into subsections if needed. But I will remove subheadings if I feel that they are unneeded.

On a side note: When conversing with me at least, I ask that you consider keeping the discussion on the page that it first started on (unless it needs to be taken to a different talk page); this keeps the discussion centralized. I'm not a fan of disjointed discussion. You can simply use WP:Echo to ping me back to the discussion if you don't think I'm watching the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, got it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSMD (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Pet psychic

Hello. I think the problem in this article is that critics like:

"In 2008, a study using neuroimaging provides the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena. Using the assumption that psychic ability originates in the brain, the authors used fMRI scanning of participants' brains during the use of psi and non psi stimuli.[16] Participants were either emotionally or biologically related to one another. The experiment was designed to create positive results if psi phenomena occurred. While the participants' reactions to non psi stimuli were as expected from previous studies, the psi inducing stimuli showed indistinguishable difference to non psi stimuli."

are NOT related to the article, these critics should be on the paranormal article. Also works of neuroscientist Persinger show contrary results compared to this studie.Thundergodz (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Theresa Donovan

Uhmm... The removal of the quote was not "silly." It was discussed on the talk page and agreed upon. Perhaps some looking around before commenting in the future. Cebr1979 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, Cebr1979 (talk · contribs), yes, removal of the quote was silly and, since I did look around and explained on the talk page why the removal was silly, I stand by my statement that the removal was silly. I am quite familiar with what it takes to create a WP:Good or WP:Featured character, television or film article. Removing the role commentary you removed is silly to me; my opinion on that won't be changing. And since I barely edit soap opera articles anymore, I likely won't have to deal with the WP:Disruptive and WP:Battleground behavior you are known for. Not that I'd tolerate it anyway.

Oh, and if you start a section on my talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For always being a supreme editor, and a great contributor to turn to when help is required! You deserve this! livelikemusic my talk page! 03:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, livelikemusic. I should have helped you sooner on the aforementioned Theresa Donovan issue, though. And I wouldn't state that I am always a supreme editor. As you likely saw before you gave me this barnstar, I can certainly let my frustration or anger get the better of me while on Wikipedia. The reply to that particular editor was a combination of being frustrated by this topic and personal issues that I have to deal with daily. I'd much rather stay as cool-headed as Zad68; I obviously can stay that cool-headed. But consistently the way he does? Sometimes it's just not worth it to me, especially if I'm dealing with a situation where I wish that people's understanding of a topic was as in depth as my understanding of that topic and then I have to compromise what I know with how they perceive the matter. I don't know everything (and I know that many people hate a know-it-all), but the things I do know well are things that I don't like to see compromised. But Wikipedia... It's a place well compromises are often made to ensure the collaborative process. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's fine, Flyer22. We all let things get to us. You still deserve the Barnstar! So don't even think about the negatives. You helped out when you could and that's what matters, especially since others couldn't be bothered to help out! You rock! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: TIM TAM UPDATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinpoor (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

You have crossed the line for undoing my edit to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, you have violated WP:3RR. I will have to report you if you undo me for the second time. Understand? ~NiamhBurns 10 Talk Contribs 17:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No lines crossed. Flyer acted in good faith according to the rules -- length of a summary should be 400-700 words. Making threats is definitely against the rules. Plus posts to talk pages should go to the bottom of the page, not here. Plus it was only one revert not three.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Thanks, Tom. NiamhBurns10 (talk · contribs), you should not be citing any Wikipedia policy or guideline if you do not understand it. I did not cross the line by reverting you here. Nor was the revert a WP:3RR violation, which means reverting more than three times. Go ahead and report me; see how well that works out for you.

Oh, and if you start a section on my talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot. If you revert me on the Spider-Man 2 matter, I won't have to revert you again; someone else will eventually take care of that for me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It was you who violated WP:3RR, not me. ~NiamhBurns 10 Talk Contribs 18:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

NiamhBurns10 (talk · contribs), judging by your interaction with me (including your failure to comprehend WP:3RR even after it has been explained to you) and your talk page, I see that you severely misunderstand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Should not be too long before you are indefinitely blocked. I now will ignore any further replies you make to my talk page in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Email: Sex and gender distinction article

I can only hope I'm replying the right way. How can I email you? I think it would be better for this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthlessgem (talk • contribs) 02:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ruthlessgem (talk · contribs), see this section on my user page about contacting me. But keep in mind that I don't need a lesson on gender, and that I won't base the lead of the Sex and gender distinction article on your or my personal feelings about the subject. There are Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines that we should follow. The sex and gender distinction is about distinguishing biology from social aspects; as I told you on your talk page, that is part of why (the main reason why) I reverted you at that article.

On a side note: 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. And if you start a section on my talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot and gave your post a heading. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Given what you stated on your talk page, it seems best that you simply communicate with me on Wikipedia. Unless, of course, what you have to state is personal and you would rather it not be stated on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick acknowledge regarding Rape fantasy

I didn't remove the link because of a WP:PAYWALL issue; I was merely re-arranging the references before I added three new citations that were more direct.

I paused because I got hung up on the mis-matched page numbers for Strassberg & Lockerd, 1998 (citation #4 lists "page 416", even though the publication ends at 414; I can only assume it was mis-typed and was supposed to be 406). Incidentally, I'm confident the original link to "Specific Sexual Fantasy Themes: A Multidimensional Study" was a WP:COPYVIO and re-wrote it as link to the journal's website.

In short, didn't remove anything. Thanks for keeping an eye out, anyway. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you replying to this and this; I should have paid better attention to the WP:GENREF link (which I associated with WP:USERG); I clicked on it, but only skimmed it (it's not a guideline I've ever referred to, though I have referred to the WP:Citing sources guideline that it is a part of). As for this matter that you consider a WP:Copyvio, your commentary sounds unsure and I'm also unsure of that matter being a WP:Copyvio issue; I'm not sure that when a free version of a source is provided, that makes linking to that version a WP:Copyvio since the paid version is still up and running. I know if the free version is provided by the publisher, that changes matters, but I'm uncertain about WP:Copyvio in the case of an unrelated source hosting the full version. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that you asked Moonriddengirl about the matter. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Image in sexual assault article

See the article's talk page. —a thing 09:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, AThing. The article is clearly on my WP:Watchlist; therefore, you don't have to ping me to the discussion about this matter or post to my talk page about it to tell me about the discussion. I am in the process of replying, even though clearly not fast enough for you. I take my time, and do other things in the interim, such as revert vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have not gotten into many discussions in talk pages before (or if I did, it was years ago) so I was not sure whether you would be notified. —a thing 17:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, feel free to solicit me for any comment; I certainly solicit others on Wikipedia for commentary, whether it's via WP:Echo or otherwise. But, though, I've offered commentary in WP:FAs, I've never truly taken on the role of a reviewer. I might comment in your nomination, but I'm not likely to act as a full-time reviewer there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

		The Diamond STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 100,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A tremendous achievement! Thank you for your continued support of STiki and your tremendous impact on the security of this invaluable knowledge resource. West.andrew.g (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey Flyer, big big congratulations for reaching the 100K mark on STiki! classified edits.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I second that, just noticed you had crossed the 100K, very well done! Fraggle81 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Don't revert and claim "minor" edits: Biology and sexual orientation article

And in the future you might want to actual read what is being changed before you jump the revert gun. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

IP, with regard to this, the WP:Rollback tool marked the revert as WP:Minor; this is because your edit was reverted as vandalism or as otherwise problematic. I've read that source before, but it looked to me like you were removing a quote to state something that is not supported by the source. In the future, you may want to leave a WP:Edit summary before you edit, or better yet sign in. You clearly are not new to editing Wikipedia, and I don't want to see you type a thing about simply editing as an IP. I am not the editor to give attitude to; if you give it to me, I will give right back at you (usually).

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Biology and sexual orientation article " so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

whether i'm using an IP to edit or log in is irrelevant to both my edits and your responses to them. You should always take a deep breath and read the edits in question before flippantly reverting.68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not irrelevant in the least, especially given that the vast majority of vandalism and/or other unconstructive edits on Wikipedia are committed by IPs. Nor is it irrelevant that you use WP:Edit summaries if you don't want editors to think that you are fouling up a quote on a highly contentious topic. I will revert in an instant if something looks sketchy to me, and ask questions later. Perhaps someone else will read that long source and analyze the matter. I'm done discussing this with you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

ahhh, so you've completely eschewed assuming good faith in order to expedite your editorial oversight. Very well. don't let this pesky IP editor waste more of your valuable time.68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Change of subject: The way that you type is very familiar to me; you might want to change that up a bit if you are trying to remain disconnected from your registered account, which you clearly are. All the IP changes in the world, whether a WP:Proxy or not, can't keep me from recognizing a registered editor who is editing as an IP and associating that IP to their registered account. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Stalk

And I wanna also know why you find the need to stalk what I do and change everything. I wouldn't change what you do. And I think that was correct. So next time, please consult me before you change my choices and opinions and facts all together. Jump off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagor423 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hagor423 (talk · contribs), considering that you, at this very moment, only have two edits under your Hagor423 account, and I reverted you once, I don't know what you mean by "stalk what [you] do and change everything."

On a side note: Don't hijack an old thread to comment to me about something unrelated. You should start a section on my talk page and make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot and titled it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Flyer. Don't revert obviously constructive edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This a sock of Don't delete my edits please (talk · contribs) or just someone who doesn't get WP? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Artificial general intelligence article

Is Wikipedia owned by you? No? So, why do you think that you can suppress one edit without any justification? --AlvoMaia (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AlvoMaia, no, Wikipedia is not owned by me. But your unsourced/WP:Original research material does not belong in the Artificial general intelligence article. Thus I reverted you, as seen here and here. There are Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines you are supposed to go by. Wikipedia article content should be based on WP:Reliable sources, per the WP:Verifiability policy. You think you can add anything you want to this site without justification? Think again. But go ahead and revert me again; either way, your content will eventually be removed.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section by changing "AI" to "Artificial general intelligence article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 I believe you are confused, or trying to waste my time. This has nothing to do with "own research" but with common sense. Most Wikipedia text is not just a citation from previous papers... and this by itself, put out of context by some user, as he wishes, can be seen as original doing. There are a lot of "original" papers and biased information built that way. The approach chosen in the this Wikipedia text suppresses a simple mathematical issue, the power set, that anyone with a BSc should understand by himself. Do not confuse that with a research paper, just because you want to suppress what you didn't know, and don't want others to know. Of course, I will put it again... but I will link to power set, perhaps this will help you to understand. Regards --AlvoMaia (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AlvoMaia Please adhere to WP:RS when you make edits. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AlvoMaia, I am not confused, but it appears that you are. Though I am quite certain that you are not new to editing Wikipedia (judging by your instant creation of your user page and you remembering to sign your username, which is uncharacteristic of very new WP:Newbies), you appear to not be familiar with some aspects of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Do become familiar with those aspects, starting with the policies and guidelines page I linked to above and WP:Five pillars. As for your assumption that I am not familiar with the artificial general intelligence subject, that is only an assumption and I won't elaborate on what I may or may not know on that subject for your benefit. But, as my user page is clear about, science, though I hardly edit predominantly science topics (unless one wants to count sexual orientation, anatomy and/or other medical articles as that), is one of my strong areas. And do hold off on the WP:Editorializing, such as the "which is obviously a contradiction" text you used for your entry. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 I'm new in Wikipedia as a contributor, and that is the reason why I thought no justification was needed to add something important (I thought it was obvious!), and that is the reason why I answered you in that way - because your suppression was not obvious... I'm sorry if it sounded hard, but I still do not understand your "good faith" suppression now. It is not difficult to understand some basic stuff. I only entered to see if it is worthy or not to put some valuable knowledge, without being suppressed instantaneously by someone else, without any rational justification. I did not mentioned anything about your particular knowledge on AI. I just mentioned that the text was ignoring a very basic mathematical statement on finite sets and power sets. If you are not able to judge the text by itself, such as to understand that infinity can not be equivalent to finitude, and that is an obvious contradition, what can I say? I will fight you back? Of course not! Do as you wish. Consider this as a simple personal test. --AlvoMaia (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't like reverting your edits, but they do not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. Please research by following the links above and likely noone is going to revert you. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

CFCF I do understand that consensus here can go by adding number and not by adding reasons. The above reasons are fully explained. It is not "own research" and it does not need reliable sources as the text is self-contained. It does not add anything just by putting the name of the author or the source where it was published. If the editors do not understand the simple fact that infinity and finitude are not the same thing, then I have nothing more to say. This was just my test to see if Wikipedia is runned by humans or not. It seems it is not. It is just runned by humans that like to emulate citation machines. Thanks. --AlvoMaia (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I do have experience in this area and can tell you that your addition does need sources (and more context). Articles are not written only for people with BSc degrees. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

NeilN I added this subject, in good faith, as it is an important issue concerning Artificial Intelligence with finite machines. The text is self-sufficient, as many other paragraphs that we can read in Wikipedia. For instance, check the whole paragraphs written about the power set, they have no references, and that is not needed, as it just simple mathematical reasoning. This is mathematics, not literature, or other opinion subjects.

Mathematical reasoning has a problem... it is either true or false by itself. It does not need a citation to become true. If you truly believe that there is something that is unclear, please let me know and I will try to make it as clear as possible. I used the same degree of context that I see in other mathematical subjects.

You might think that is not only a mathematical issue, but you can not ignore what mathematics has to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlvoMaia (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

AlvoMaia, I stated that you are not new to editing Wikipedia; I mean that it's very obvious to me that you have edited Wikipedia before creating your AlvoMaia account. I already went over the reasons why it's obvious to me. You can try to convince me that you are entirely new to editing Wikipedia, but it will not work. The fact is: The vast majority of Wikipedia editors do not create a user page as soon as they show up (the ones who do usually have a specific reason as to why), and the vast majority of very new Wikipedia editors do not remember to sign their username. They also do not use words such as "good faith," a direct reference to the WP:Assume good faith guideline. The fact that you do all three puts you in the "definitely not completely new to editing Wikipedia" camp, as far as I can see. And as for you stating, "I did not mentioned anything about your particular knowledge on AI"... Your "13:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)" post quite clearly suggests that I reverted you because I don't understand the subject. In fact, you outright stated: "The approach chosen in the this Wikipedia text suppresses a simple mathematical issue, the power set, that anyone with a BSc should understand by himself. Do not confuse that with a research paper, just because you want to suppress what you didn't know, and don't want others to know."

You can surely go about your business. I'm not watching the Artificial general intelligence article, and I have no interest in further discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I just did what I saw here being made, it is a shame that you assume other things. I created the webpage as it is said when you enter wiki and I created the talk page because the link here pointed red. If you do not believe, check the history. I signed, because I saw here that everybody signed (and it is the 3rd button on the editor). I used the term "good faith", because this is what it appears in your suppression (again check the history file in AGI). I tried to fit in, and I comply with reasonable things, but not with unreasonable ones.

This discussion here just began because of your supression. I understand that you don't question what was written, you were just doing automatic stuff, following some instruction 22 from the Wikipedia machine processor. I do not argue with machine behavior, machines are always right... in their own world. --AlvoMaia (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that you are still trying to convince me that you never edited Wikipedia before your AlvoMaia account; you are wasting my and your time. Notice that I never stated that you are not somewhat of a WP:Newbie; in my "14:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)" post, I indicated that you are, while also making it clear that I don't believe that you are entirely new to editing this site. And as for your use of "good faith," oh, yes, I considered that you got that from my WP:STiki revert, but then you used it again (without quotation marks).

Move it along, and leave me alone. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I never touched this page, you believe what you want. But, do you think it is a proper way to say goodbye with "Move it along, and leave me alone"? Is this a Wikipedia rule standard? --AlvoMaia (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@AlvoMaia: There comes a time where further conversation is pointless. The addition you're making isn't going to stay unless you provide a proper cite. Simple as that. Flyer's response was no less "proper" than your continual insinuations that we're acting like automatons. Please respect her wishes and do not post here again continuing your fruitless argument. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Date rape drug/Drug facilitated sexual assault (DFSA)

"Someone needs to come up with a better way of keeping these topics distinguished if these articles are to remain separate." Can you come up with something? --David Hedlund (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, David Hedlund. I figured that you might want to talk with me after I made that statement, and you thanked me for it via WP:Echo. As for a solution to better distinguish the topics, it seems that I came up with one following that comment (if that's not already the point of both articles existing); seen with this edit summary (pardon my typo -- the missing word to). Do you think that you can work with that, or is it not distinguishing enough? And while we're on the subject of date rape, do you have any opinion on merging the Date rape and Acquaintance rape articles? Like I stated in the discussion there about it, I'll eventually get around to starting a WP:RfC on the matter. As you can see, the editor (Sue Gardner) who reverted you on merging the Date rape drug and Drug facilitated sexual assault‎ articles is also for keeping the Date rape and Acquaintance rape articles separate.

On a side note: I tweaked the heading of this section by adding "Drug facilitated sexual assault" to it so that it's clearer as to what this discussion is about. I also obviously linked the term date rape drug. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Thanks.  Added incapacitating agent to both articles and I also created Incapacitating_agent#Date_rape_drugs. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL, David (may I call you David?), you don't have to ping me at my talk page; I'll get the message without the ping due to the talk page alert. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I though I was on my page. Yes you can call me David, thats my first name. Interestingly deliriants have been used as date rape drug and incapacitating agent, like scopolamine. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you!

Holdenlaneginsburg (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail. -- User:holdenlaneginsburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdenlaneginsburg (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Holdenlaneginsburg (talk · contribs), see what is stated here on my user page? I see no reason that you need to contact me via email regarding the Human sex ratio article. I also don't visit that email often; what I mean by that is that because Wikipedia has been having trouble with using Yahoo! email, I very recently changed my Wikipedia email from Yahoo! to that address, but I am not very interested in checking that new account (it's foreign to me). Simply reply to me on your talk page or my talk page. Using Wikipedia to reply is not difficult. 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) 05:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you! Artificial insemination article.

With compliments! Mootros (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mootros. And, as you know, I got your message here as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I reworded some more. Cheers! Mootros (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mootros, that's okay. As for your extra rewording, like I stated here, a lot of what you removed in this edit was not a WP:NOTHOWTO violation, at least in my opinion. You caught the "it should be raised a little bit" part that I missed. But, for example, I left in the "The nose should be considerably softer and more pliable than normal." part because it's not telling a woman to make the nose of her cervix a certain way, which is complicated to do anyway; it's simply informing her how it should feel in that specific case, which is a health aspect to me. But, anyway, the article definitely needed cleaning up in the word department (still needs more in that regard), and your showing up at the article has resulted in a better article.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Artificial insemination article. " so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca Budig article

This is amyjow. Sorry, didn't know I had to give sources. As for my editing of Rebecca Budig's page, it was public information. It was either in print previously or things she herself has mentioned on her show or social media or to me personally. I saw that some public info about her was missing and I just thought I'd make it more accurate. Sorry I overstepped the boundaries. Amyjow (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Amyjow (talk · contribs), you're new to editing Wikipedia, so your unsourced edits to the Rebecca Budig article are understandable. The good thing is that you stopped and listened to me about our WP:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) policy. Yes, contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia articles generally rely on sourcing, or are supposed to. Note that not just any sources are acceptable; the sources have to pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. If you aren't sure about whether or not a source is reliable, feel free to ask me here at my talk page about it. In the meantime, you can become familiar with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work by not only reading the aforementioned linked pages, but also by reading the linked pages listed at WP:Five pillars.

And if you start a section on my talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot and titled it. 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: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Greenlee Smythe

How would you feel if I re-did the Greenlee Smythe article, and updated it to match current soap articles? They work you provided on it is incredible, but given the resurgence in soap articles by some of us users, I'd love to tackle the page. But I didn't want to do it without asking you, since I believe there's real potential in its article and since you had a hand in its first reconstruction! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to restructure it and expand it (it obviously needs further fixing up, and my improvements to that article were at a time when I was not as skilled a Wikipedia editor as I am now); I trust that you will do so appropriately. As long as the important content is retained, I don't much mind. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not remove anything from the article; if anything, I'd re-structure and re-organize, as well as add upon! Will start soon! Thanks again! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 04:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some things that need to be removed from the article; for example, some aspects of the Background section that are currently there should instead be paraphrased. The extensive quoting there might be a WP:Copyvio problem. The Plot section is out of control, per WP:PLOT and WP:TVPLOT. I understand that there is a lot more plot information to summarize for a soap opera character that is from a show that usually has a new episode every day of the week than in the case of a prime time character that is from a show that has a new episode every week except for hiatuses, but that plot section can be significantly condensed. I didn't contribute to most of it, and was always concerned about it being too long. There are WP:Dead links that need to be fixed in that article as well, if they can be. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will definitely take these things into consideration when doing the article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

When Louis Met...

Why have you removed my comments regarding Jimmy Saville? I think you will find what I posted was factually correct. You have no right to remove factually correct information. It's not a big secret that he was a dirty paedo, and in the last few days it has come to light that he liked to indulge in necrophilia. Mind your own business, before I start editing your work! ‎Stuartflys (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Having just read through your information I conclude that you are a complete nut job, obsessed with fannys, don't bother to respond to me in filter out mentalists. ‎Stuartflys (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2014‎ ‎ (UTC)

‎Stuartflys (talk · contribs), I reverted you because this bit that you added was WP:Vandalism as far as I can see, not simply WP:Disruptive editing. On Wikipedia, your edits are everyone's business; see WP:Contributions. As for threatening me: LOL, go ahead and start editing my work; see what happens. And as for "[h]aving just read through your information," I'm not sure what you are talking about. Nor am I sure what you are talking about by "obsessed with fannys," unless you mean protecting pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics from pedophiles or advocates of adults engaging in sexual activity with children (which isn't at all clear from my user page, and is rather something someone knows by being familiar with my editing; but either way, it's not a matter I'm obsessed with). Ah, let me look at the dictionaries; there's this one and this one, for example. So you mean that I'm obsessed with the vagina, vulva, the buttocks? That I'm obsessed with sexual activity? Why, because I primarily edit anatomy and sexual topics? That makes me a nut job? Okay then. But as for calling me a nut job, you'll have to come up with a better insult than that. I've been called worse on this site.

And if you start a section on my talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot and titled it. 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: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez has sold 80 million records Worldwide as of 2014 and i don't think it's right you keep changing it

Hi If You actually did your research and read the articles i posted you would know that since may of 2014 Jennifer Lopez has sold 80 million record worldwide i feel that it is not right that people keep reverting my changes when i have included up to date articles from 2014 which state that she has sold 80 million records worldwide as well as a film gross of 2 billion dollars what i want to know is why do you and others keep using articles from 2011 and not 2014 you say always cite reliable sources well i can give you 3 articles which state the same thing that Jennifer Lopez has sold 80 million records for example:1.www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-jennifer-lopez-aka-20140615-story.html#page=1 article title:Jennifer Lopez on dating, her split with Marc Anthony and First Love. 2.www.forthone.com/music/news/jennifer-lopez-reveals-album-title-racy-artwork/ article title Jennifer Lopez Reveals Album title & Racy Artwork 3.www.rantlifestyle.com/20-hottest-female-musicians-in-the-world-today/ Article Title: 20 Hottest Female Musicians in The World Today (Tnays20 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)).

Avatar

I appreciate your notice to me about seeing the talk page and previous discussions. I had previously read these discussions however each page as to stick to the rules set by Wikipedia or there is no point rules being there. Thank you anyway. I have restored the page to what it should be. WARNER one --9999 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WARNER one (9999). I already explained what the deal is regarding the Avatar (2009 film) when reverting you here and here. This is not a matter for my talk page; it is a matter for the Avatar (2009 film) talk page. You should not enforce your recent solution, seen here and here, on every Wikipedia film article and should instead treat the matter on a case-by-case basis. It does not seem to me that you read the past discussions, or at least enough of them, to see why only "American" has stayed in the lead in this case. And as for following the rules: WP:Consensus is policy; WP:FILMLEAD is a guideline. I ask that you do not WP:Edit war over this matter, as your recent edit history shows you have WP:Edit warred over different film matters, and instead try to achieve a new consensus; WP:Consensus can change. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And my follow-up note is here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've also been told about the case-by-case matter by Erik, one of the best film editors around, and yet you have persisted in such contentious edits without discussion. Well, alrighty then. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Enough said. I give in. You want it your way then have it, I will not participate further in the matter. Thank you. WARNER one--9999 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WARNER one (9999), it's not about winning or having it one's way; that's a take on Wikipedia that you need to correct. The matter in question is about you making a case for your changes on the talk page. If you can't hold such discussions, then you will not do well at Wikipedia unless you edit things that generally don't need discussion. We can and should hold off on the WP:Civility violations and see if we can come to a new WP:Consensus. I don't mind much at all not having any country listed in the lead; as noted above and on the article talk page, it's your approach that I took more objection to. As for starting a new heading for this topic at my talk page, not needed; so removed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Just get the fact, I don't want to participate further in the matter. However when you mention the way I done it, you need to clear up your thoughts and facts. I used a reference to Wikipedia guidelines while making an edit, which is done every day by thousands of Wikepedians. I then left a polite message on your talk page. You still ignored what I wrote. You then have tried to manipulate mistakes that I have made in the past. What Erik told me was his personal recommendation. I replied to him to say my reasons and explain that I was restoring the page in question to how it had been for 4 years (with good reason). I appreciate his recomendations and do examine pages on a case by case basis (including Avatar). I am not happy of your ways of trying to continue this matter now that there is closure to the issue in question. I do not want it to continue. If you feel you must continue writing pointless excuses here then fine but I honestly don't care. I have moved on. I am now a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations and am persisting in helping constructively on other areas of Wikipedia. So please don't continue the matter. It's over. Thank You WARNER one. — Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WARNER one (9999), I get the fact you don't want to participate further in the matter; this is why I stated: "If you can't hold such discussions, then you will not do well at Wikipedia unless you edit things that generally don't need discussion." Like I noted at the talk page, you don't discuss; you simply WP:Edit war. And that kind of behavior will be cut swiftly at this site. There is nothing that I need to correct regarding my characterization of your behavior. Your characterization of what I did, however? Namely your assertion that I ignored what you wrote? The above shows otherwise. And there is no "[manipulation of your mistakes]" on my part; I noted your mistakes, plain and simple. Learn from them. I'm not sure what page you are referring to when you state "had been for 4 years (with good reason)." But the WP:STATUSQUO at the Avatar (2009 film) article has been to maintain only "American" in the lead when it comes to what country produced the film, which is why Betty Logan reverted you; she reverted because you had not achieved WP:Consensus for your change. I was not trying to continue the matter. I suggested here on my talk page that you partake in discussion if you want your edit implemented. Likewise, Betty suggested as much on the article talk page. You've moved on? Good for you, I suppose. But the discussion can continue without you. Betty, for example, as shown by past discussion and the current one, has interest in not solely listing "American" in the lead. You don't get to dictate what is and what is not over for talk page discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not dictating anything. I am not in the matter any more. stop this pointless continuation. END. WARNER one (9999) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WARNER one (9999) (the last time I'm going to ping you via WP:Echo in this discussion), you are trying to dictate the matter at hand (the country discussion) if you are stating that it's over simply because you are no longer involved with it; and telling you so is not pointless. What is pointless is you continuing to come to my talk page to tell me how much you are not involved. If you don't want to be involved anymore, then simply stop replying. You don't get to tell me to shut up. Per WP:TALK, I do, however, get to tell you to stay off my talk page. Consistently signing your comments also helps if you do comment on my or any talk page; the bot shouldn't have to do it for you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Userscript you may like

Considering that you use the rollback, and then a dummy edit to signify why you've done it, you can use the userscript 'Rollback "in place"' at WP:US to right click the 'rollback' button and to leave an edit summary whilst using rollback. Additionally, it's useful because it won't redirect you to any other page, but leave you on that page. Just wanted to let you know of this addon. Tutelary (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mau Mau Uprising

Why did you undo my changes if they were in good faith? Do you have sources to support the revert you made? 73.182.225.223 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP; I reverted you for what I assume are the reasons Mail Seird (talk · contribs) reverted you (partly why at least): Your addition was unsourced, and was additionally WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

But Wiki can't become an anti-UK hate site, now, can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.182.225.223 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sex positions

"As the article shows, a sex position is not always penetrative; nor is it always direct stimulation. for example, in the case [of] BDSM, a person may get in a sex position purely for psychological stimulation" [2]

Hmm... that's a really broad definition of a sex position, which would not only include BDSM-related acts such as being tied up or whipped, but also watching somebody (e.g. voyeurism) or standing somewhere. I should also note that BDSM is not mentioned anywhere in the Sex position article, neither are paraphilia. In fact, it hardly mentions anything about atypical sex at all, except perhaps such rare positions like 369. The page is exclusively focused on penetration and manual stimulation of sex organs, and I think we should adhere to that scope. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Manifestation. I figured that you would bring this and this matter to my talk page; I was tempted to advise you in a WP:Dummy edit to not bring the matter to my talk page. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page.

My point of mentioning BDSM (I certainly was not talking about all aspects of BDSM) was to counter your assertion of "I can't believe this was in the *lead* section of the article. If the act doesn't penetrate or otherwise stimulate, then how can it be a sex position?" Obviously, not all sex positions include sexual penetration. A man may get into the coital alignment technique (or something similar), for example, simply to stimulate the woman's clitoris, without sexually penetrating the woman. And some people get into a sex position for foreplay, which is often more so psychological stimulation than physical stimulation. The current state of the Sex position article is not "exclusively focused on penetration and manual stimulation of sex organs," nor should it be. There is a "Non-exclusively penetrative positions" section and a "Non-penetrative positions" section. Oral sex is not always penetrative; for example, oral stimulation of the outside of a woman's vulva (meaning not between the vulva) is not penetrative (even oral stimulation between the vulva, like I noted here, is often not considered penetrative). I made a point of stating "direct" when replying to you, and that's because the article's sentence was not stating that the sex organs are not involved. Sex organs can obviously be stimulated indirectly, which is where sexual arousal/foreplay comes in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all you wrote... but what I meant was: if someone's sex organ(s) is/are not touched one way or the other, then you can't call it a sex position. Of course, you don't have to touch somebody to stimulate (arouse) him/her, but arousing somebody is not a sex position.

I have brought this matter to the article's talk page, as you suggested. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Manifestation, then you missed the point of what I stated. The point of what I stated is this: People can get into a sex position for the purposes of non-penetrative sex, which is indeed covered in the article and is a point you seemed to dispute; your statement above even claimed that the article focuses exclusively on penetrative sex, which is clearly wrong. The "direct stimulation" bit is, I'm sure, not meant to imply "otherwise we mean sexual arousal"; "indirect stimulation" covers more than sexual arousal. I think that the person who added "indirect stimulation" was referring to indirect stimulation of the genitals, which, when referring to sexual activity, is usually classified as anything that does not involve manual stimulation or the penis getting pleasure by penetrating an orifice (meaning penile penetration for a man is direct stimulation for that man); "indirect stimulation" especially concerns indirect stimulation of the clitoris (look on Google Books or Google Scholar; it's there). For example, the coital alignment technique is often considered indirect stimulation of the clitoris, where manual or oral stimulation of the clitoris is usually considered direct stimulation (sources can vary on the matter regarding oral sex, and manual or oral stimulation may indirectly stimulate another area of the clitoris). Notice how this source talks about sexual penetration only indirectly stimulating the clitoris? I objected to your edits because what you removed is covered by the article. But as for sexual arousal specifically regarding a sex position, that is addressed in the Non-penetrative positions section; it mentions orgasm control.

I'll now comment on the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer's Body

I saw you thanked me for that. Do you remember that conversation between us a few years back? I was making some changes to my archives, saw it, and realized my mistake. Funny how time flies, now we've worked together on stuff again. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Corvoe, yeah, thanks again for that. I pride myself on having a very good memory (usually remembering things that people can't remember no matter how hard they try), and such a memory has served me well on Wikipedia, but I don't know what discussion you are referring to. And, yes, time has flown by very fast since I was heavily into editing the Jennifer's Body article years ago. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Right here, haha. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL, that discussion shows the level of our inexperience at that time (I'd only been on Wikipedia for two years then). But still, I was correct. I mean, I'm not sure which rule you were referring to, but Wikipedia:Offensive material states otherwise. You were also obviously going by a different Wikipedia name at the time. Thanks for the reminder. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at when your Wikipedia account was registered; you were more of a WP:Newbie than I was; I was pulling up on three years with the site since I joined it in May 2007 (but there were still a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines I hadn't mastered), while you had just joined the site in March 2009. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Length of comments

Hi again. I'm glad that the dispute on Talk:Sex position is settled. However, I feel like I must make a friendly (I hope!) suggestion about your style of commenting. I've looked at your posts on this page and Talk:Sex position, and they tend to be very long. You ramble on and on about a subject, covering enormous amounts of details, some of them not very relevant. If you would make the comments a bit more abridged, I'm sure they would be much more comfortable to read.

Admittedly, I recognize it: I tend to do the same thing. If you look at my list of edits, for example, you'll see that my edit summaries are often quite lengthy. When I edit an article, I usually ponder over every little aspect of it, but I'm having difficulties prioritizing the information. I should also note that I have been diagnosed with both PDD-NOS and ADD (among other things), which tends to include such behavior.

Anyway, nice meeting you. You seem to be a kind person. Take care! - Manifestation (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Manifestation: Like I've stated before, I am aware of WP:Too long, didn't read; I only make such a post when I think it is needed to sufficiently explain the matter at hand. I don't consider these posts "rambling," especially if it helps a person understand a matter they didn't otherwise understand, as is often the case with sexual topics (as recently as here). My long post at the aforementioned Sex position talk page, in response to you, apparently didn't help you better understand the matter at hand, except for the fact that "indirect stimulation" can be defined as part of a sex position. But I'm not always going to be successful in fully enlightening someone. Furthermore, the vast majority of my posts, as also shown on my talk page, are not long.

Good day to you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

FA comment: Megadeth article

Hello Flyer22. If you have some spare time these days, can you take a look at Megadeth, an FA candidate of mine? The review is here, so I'll be grateful if you can leave your comment/vote whether the article deserves to attain FA status. Have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, it's me again. I don't mean to disturb you, but can you tell whether I can count on your input or should I ask another user to review the nomination? Kind regards.--Retrohead (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrohead, I put off replying to you because I'm leaving the idea of me commenting in the Megadeth WP:FA review open. I'm not certain that I will, but I'm not ruling it out either. So, yes, as backup, you might want to ask someone else so that the person fills my spot.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Megadeth article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, my sincerest apology for being a bore, but I prefer when editors respond whether they're available or not. If busy, can you at least check the non-free media used in the article?--Retrohead (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy 4th

Hi Flyer22,

I know we've never had any prior interaction, but I've been seeing your name pop up on my watchlist for years. (Your user name stands out to me, for some reason, perhaps due to the types of articles I work on.) I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for all you do around here, and to wish you a very happy holiday weekend. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth. I've seen you around as well, and also appreciate the work you do around here. Happy Fourth of July weekend. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, perhaps my username stands out to you because it's "weird." LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha. That is funny. You know what they say, when all else fails, stick you thumbs in your ears and say "Nanny-nanny boo-boo." That person's probably ashamed of their own name. It's been my general experience that people who toss out insults are really talking about themselves. Zaereth (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit you undid: Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata article

I dont think this edit: [3] was vandalism. Jayakumar RG (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Jayakumar RG, I didn't revert that edit as vandalism; I reverted it as a WP:Assume good faith edit. I was not sure about the change, and felt that it's best to stick with the WP:STATUSQUO. Since you have not reverted me, I take it that you aren't sure about that edit either?

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont speak Bengali so I cant vouch for the accuracy of the translation. But it looked better than the one before. I'll go ahead and undo your edit now :) Cheers, Jayakumar RG (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You undid my edit before replying here again. Anyway, noted. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it for what it's worth or not

I honestly do not intend for this to come off as a personal attack, though it may. This is how I've perceived your actions... over an edit of 126 characters.

I thought I'd shown that they had the same function with the initial citations [4] but that got wikilawyered [5] (I don't say that lightly - 5 WPs for 1 undo with updates to address the concern talk about disproportionate response and lack of civility), I ignore the WP:EW & WP:BRD I got after a single revert, address the [6] WP:Redirects for discussion issue [7] to standard. Then I get wikilawyered [8] again[9]. I shrug it off and go about trying to address the WP:Undue weight which I thought I'd done by WP:Writing for the opponent in the first place and citing a religious law that is applies in 25% of the countries in the world. I shrug that off to and go about getting as many varied primary or quality [10] sources as I can. That was no easy task - countries where English is prominent enough to have legal documents I can search are mostly colonies or former colonies who adopted English Law. I get a few new policies thrown at me and a statement of 'I still see no indication that "age of maturity" is commonly used to mean "age of majority."'. You won't find such a thing because where English style law rules Age of Majority is the term used (or no term) and 'age of maturity' does not appear in any case law I could locate. In countries where English law is not prevalent you find the term 'Age of Maturity' used more often due to the influence of various religious laws which use that term in the exact manner English law uses 'Age of Majority' to establish a person as an adult in the eyes of the law. No one would ever have need to compare the two because they serve an identical legal function that is finished as soon as it starts. Despite all this I went back to all my sources and parsed out the relevant passages and [11] connected everything as best I could, flushed out the weak spots & ditched the bad citations (Australia, my initial source was out of date). I sought help [12] here assuming there was some misunderstanding on my part. I was about to contact you on your talk page when I started reading through some of it and found that this is a consistent pattern of behaviour - 93 times WP was used in only 37 topics. You've quoted policy/guides/etc to me 27 times in less than 48 hours and not once did I feel like you were actually trying to work with me to come up with something that would work - just that it was wrong because of X and Y and making sure that every detail was cross posted like you had to make sure the principle knew what I was up to no matter what room he was in. Many of your other interactions read this way as well. Quite frankly, that type of behaviour is exactly why people are not coming back to edit. JMJimmy (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

JMJimmy, you titled this section "Take it for what it's worth or not." I take it like this: I follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, unless there is a valid WP:Ignore all rules reason not to do so. I point out those policies and/or guidelines to editors who are unfamiliar with them or may need a reminder on them (or simply in case a WP:Newbie comes across the discussion). If people cannot take the time to read and follow those policies and/or guidelines, they should not be editing Wikipedia. Call that WP:Wikilawyering if you must; I do not. I do not care not if those people come back, since they are one of the main problems with Wikipedia. I did not point you to so many Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines that you could not get the handle on what was happening. And like I noted to you, the WP:Synthesis policy was pointed out to you on your talk page years ago by a different editor (S@bre, who is now retired); you should have familiarized yourself with that policy by now. In fact, you've been with Wikipedia under your JMJimmy account since 2006; you should already be far more familiar with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work than you are now, even with being a sporadic editor. Editors who have been registered with the site for as long as you have and yet are still significantly inexperienced with it make it harder on the more experienced editors; instead of being on the same experience level, we are put into the role of teachers to the less experienced. And just like teachers often face hostility for pointing out rules or expecting their students to get caught up on those rules and follow them, very experienced Wikipedia editors face hostility from WP:Newbies or otherwise less experienced editors for doing similarly when it comes to teaching.

And as for not trying to work with you to come up with something that would work, I offered suggestions here at the Age of majority talk page. I also stated there that "perhaps it is acceptable to take your alternative approach and simply note in the Age of majority article that 'age of maturity' is another term to indicate the age of adulthood, not that the terms are synonyms." Your response to that was essentially, "Screw the rules because I'm fed up with you." Whatever problems you have with my approach to interacting with WP:Newbies or otherwise inexperienced editors, it is an approach that many very experienced Wikipedians have (except maybe for as much cross-referencing as I do). And I won't be changing my approach, especially since I don't see that I've done anything wrong regarding my interaction with you. (For example, what lack of civility are you talking about on my part? Certainly none that violate WP:Civility.) I told you that I am sorry that I upset you, and I am. But you won't see me stating that I'm sorry for how I handled the matter at hand. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues that relate to civility (only because you asked - I said my bit, getting back to the work):

• I felt your cross-referencing was excessive and brought issues with it that didn't need to be - not to the level of Wikihounding but enough to make me feel singled out
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers while not a Newbie, it's been some time since I've edited here 5. Strive to respond in a measured manner - 2 reverts, 8 WPs in 1 paragraph as the first interaction I've had with you (that I know of anyway)... Not a great way to start out
• Avoid Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases
• Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil - a couple extra sentences and holding off on the EW probably would have gone a long way.
• Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them.

You didn't use the word idiot but calling my experience into question and dredging up something from 5 years ago simply because I do not edit much here and assuming I was not reading up. I read each and every one you linked, I read at least half of the associated essays for each one as well, the five pillars, and a whole lot more. Mostly to catch up on the changes. I have a fair amount of experience, though definitely not as much as you. With that in mind, my first citation, prior to any reversions, it states:

• "In Islamic sources, however, reaching the age of maturity is deemed to be the point of leaving childhood and becoming an adult which results in full criminal responsibility. Additionally, in none of the Islamic schools is the age of maturity under Islamic Shari’a law in complete conformity with the age of 18 as enshrined in international instruments and the age varies for boys and girls."

I bolded what is important. We are not concerned with criminal responsibility or international treaties, those are attributions that are not fixed to the term/conceptualization. We are not even concerned with the specific age or school as the point of trigger.

• age of maturity is deemed to be the point of leaving childhood and becoming an adult ... the age of maturity under Islamic Shari’a law...

Now we compare that to our definition:

• "The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law."

We have 3 elements to our definition: The term, the trigger, and the scope.

Term: Age of Majority - Trigger: threshold of adulthood - Scope: [age of majority as] conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law

Term: Age of Maturity - Trigger: ... becoming an adult - Scope: [conceptualized (and recognized or declared)] age of maturity under Shari'a law

The conceptualization in the latter is implicit, but can be cited. How much more synonymous can you get?! That alone should have been enough to address the issue. Any other considerations are specific to the jurisdiction/situation and cannot change the term (unless absent), trigger, or scope. They can change when the trigger is triggered, but that does not change the term/trigger/scope themselves. Given the above and while fully understanding this these are supplements not a policy or guidelines:

SYNTH is not explanation

SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis.

SYNTH is not obvious II: If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. An example of a perfectly valid citation is given in the guideline on citations, at WP:Bundling: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big." The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison. There is no danger of the Sorites paradox and we are not trying to draw any conclusions or combine them to mean something else.

Addressing TFDs concerns re: synth inferences in NORN. JMJimmy (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Without even reading all of your latest reply to me (I'll read it later because reading it now may test my patience more than you already have by posting this section to my talk page): There were no WP:Civil violations on my part regarding my interaction with you. Even by the non-Wikipedia definition of civil, I was not incivil to you. You, however, have been incivil to me, and all because you apparently took offense to my citing (in your opinion) too many relevant Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines and "cross-referencing." If by "8 WPs in 1 paragraph," you mean Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines, I did not cite eight Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines to you in any one paragraph. And cross-referencing, as you call it, is what I do, even with regard to myself; pay better attention to the above posts on my talk page, if you are going to use them as a reference regarding how inappropriate I've been. If the cross-referencing was meant to be a slight against you, then it was meant to be a slight against me as well. Take notice that I even cross-referenced my post on Legitimus's talk page about the Age of majority article matter. Everything that I cross-referenced was a completely understandable and perfectly acceptable use of cross-referencing, and yet you blew a gasket over it. No one has before, that I know of anyway, until you. I told you at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7, "If a matter is scattered across multiple places, I'm going to note it (except for maybe if the matter is being discussed on your own talk page, a talk page that I see the WP:Synthesis policy was addressed to you before). Such cross-referencing is my way of helping to centralize the matter; see WP:TALKCENT. Ideally, discussions about a topic should be centralized. If they are not, then so that others are aware of where else the topic was discussed, I point to it."

Additionally (and since you like to use bolding, I'll do the same now), you have a view of WP:Synthesis that will not hold up in the eyes of any very experienced Wikipedia editor, as essentially indicated to you by The Four Deuces (TFD) at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard‎. For example, if you think for something to be WP:Synthesis, it requires the combination of two or more reliably-sourced statements, then I and other editors need to tweak that policy right now. I always felt it needed a little tweaking in this regard. One source can be used to create WP:Synthesis, as any very experienced Wikipedia editor would tell you if you asked any of them and they cared to respond to you about it.

You are not a WP:Newbie years-wise, but you are a WP:Newbie in significantly other ways. And if it's one of the many things that I cannot stand about Wikipedia, it's a WP:Newbie telling me how they think I should be editing. Heck, I can barely stand it when a Wikipedian far more experienced than you are tells me how they think I should be editing, unless it relates to the collaborative process of suggestions regarding grammar style, sourcing options and and/or structure style. I'm not sure what you think all this complaining on my talk page will achieve, but I can tell you right now that, despite the encouragement you got on your talk page from one of my talk page WP:Watchers, nothing good is going to come from it (unless, of course, you gain a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines). Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Cubes: Mark Cuban article

Mark Cubes Cuban, is known as Cubes, it even says so in the Cube disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.128.143 (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

IP, I reverted you here and here because we don't usually include the nicknames of celebrities or other notable people in the WP:Lead, and, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP), it should be reliably sourced (whether in the lead or elsewhere in the article). And the only reason that Mark Cuban is currently mentioned as Cube at the Cube (disambiguation) page is because you added it.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Mark Cuban article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate, you are the man :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.128.143 (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Megan Fox

While I agree she is looking good in the photo, I think it would be possible to find one which reflects just how stunning she is. Maybe one when she was in transformers would be appropriate. You know, the one when she is looking at the car.Vagout (talk)

LOL. Best to keep the discussion on the article talk page page, Vagout (talk · contribs). Maybe if we had a WP:Free image of what you want, you could get your way on that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Aerospace Physiologist Insignia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aerospace Physiologist Insignia. Since you had some involvement with the Aerospace Physiologist Insignia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gecko G (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Aerospace Experimental Psychologist or Aerospace Physiologist Badge listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aerospace Experimental Psychologist or Aerospace Physiologist Badge. Since you had some involvement with the Aerospace Experimental Psychologist or Aerospace Physiologist Badge redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (and yes, I'm the one who posted as 108.248.130.182- I wasn't logged in at the time because I had forgetten my password) Gecko G (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Evangelos Zappas

Hello Flyer22

The truth does not have to be constructive, it also can not be flattening to everyone ! Vangjel Zhapa has no role in Albanian history but this does not change his ethnicity ! Bests Engjell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engjell.mehmeti (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Engjell.mehmeti (talk · contribs), I didn't revert you because the material is not pleasant. Whether something is pleasant or not is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I reverted you, as seen here, because it appears that what you removed is sourced...while what you added is not sourced. See the WP:Verifiability policy. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Lennart Poettering

Hello Flyer22,

Is there a reason why you reverted my two edits to the Lennert Poettering page? I am sure there is, but I was curious why. Surely I wasn't vandalizing. Was I violating some other policy? I really feel the mention to Linus on that page is gratuitous & trying to leach off the goodwill of his name. And this by a guy whose work Linus has publicly derided. Thanks! 59.182.255.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that you mean the Lennart Poettering page, and I have titled your post as such above. I reverted you here because of the addition of "highly controversial" that you added. Such wording, at least regarding how early on you placed it, is unneeded sensationalism. It can be seen as POV-pushing and I'm not sure that it's directly sourced in the article. Can such wording be appropriate on Wikipedia? Sure. For example, regarding the topic of circumcision. But it does not seem appropriate in the Lennart Poettering case, where you placed it. If there are sources speaking of the controversial nature, that can be addressed lower in the article; and it is addressed lower in the article in this case. As for the other piece that got restored when I reverted you, I didn't see it until you pointed out my revert, but I'm not sure that it should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! You have a point. OTOH, what's the gray line between POV pushing & genuine controversy? One has got to be able to call a controversy a controversy when the situation so exists. And if one google's Poettering the controversy isn't being created by some fringe element. It is quite integral to what he does. And his work is hated by a good chunk even a majority of the community. In such cases highlighting the controversial aspects of his persona seems the fair thing to do from the POV of a reader. Why bury it deep down? At the risk of invoking Godwins Law it's like not mentioning genocide prominently in an article about Hitler or Milosevich. :)

That's why I think my edit was justified & adds to the quality of the page. Just my opinion though. 59.182.254.31 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view. Regarding Wikipedia rules on such wording matters, a policy that I should have pointed out to you earlier is WP:IMPARTIAL; I would have pointed it out if I could remember it at the time; it's not a policy that I cite often. And the relevant guideline on such matters is WP:LABEL; I don't cite that often either (in fact, this might be my first time citing it). But that policy and that guideline pretty much cover why we should not state the following in the lead: "Lennart Poettering is a highly controversial German computer programmer." The "highly controversial" part should not be ascribed to him like that. You are correct that any prominent controversies should be addressed (summarized) in the lead (if covered lower in the article); this is per the WP:Lead guideline. So it would be fine to state in the lead that Poettering holds controversial views; the wording should be specific as to what those controversial views are, though. That stated, since the article is not big, readers will instantly or soon see the Controversies section when they click on the article; usually at least.

On a side note: 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 twice above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was trying to sign but was stupidly using three tildes instead of four. :) 59.182.254.31 (talk) 59.182.254.31 (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking your critique into account I tried finesseeing my edit to reflect more on the specific software than the person. See if you like this better. :)

59.182.254.31 (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'll try and revert the bit on the gratuitous ref. to Linus. The change that got accidentally reverted by you. 59.182.254.31 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, IP. I appreciate you discussing this matter, being awfully polite about it, and working to improve your wording. Your new wording is an improvement, but I tweaked it a bit, as seen here and here. I can't promise that someone else won't remove "controversial" from the lead, but the new wording makes it less likely that it will be removed. You might want to add a hidden note right beside "controversial," explaining why it's there...including citing WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Apology: User:WARNER one

I previously used to be WARNER one and have since reincarnated myself to be more friendly, useful, cooperative, less nationalistic and all together a better editor. I have identified you as one of the editors that I have wronged in the past which is why I urge you not to consider my previous actions in the future as I am completely different. I would like to be friends so we can hopefully collaborate in the future. If you understandably still don't want to colabarte and/or see my new side then that is 100% fine. Just please leave me a note here so I know for the future. THANKYOU! --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Warner REBORN, I appreciate the offer and it's nice to see you trying to change your approach to editing situations on Wikipedia. A lot of us, including me, sometimes need to change our approach to an editing situation on Wikipedia. I could have handled my dispute with you better than I did, and I realize that. I'm open to working with you collaboratively. As for your name change, it would have been better if you had simply requested a name change via Wikipedia:Changing username instead of dropping your previous account; that way, your older contributions would still be physically tied to your previous account. But at least you have identified on your user page that you are User:WARNER one.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": User:WARNER one" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

JackALope044

I will bring this discussion here, since we both agree it doesn't belong on the lolicon talk page. For reference, yes, I am actually new to editing Wikipedia. I had another account that I made about eight years ago, which I used for a few months and then promptly abandoned, and by this point I've forgotten both the name and password of that account. Since then, I've made minor spelling and grammar edits to articles I've found as an IP, but nothing beyond that. I did not begin actively editing Wikipedia and I did not had another account until the 7th of July, with the GochiUsa article incident over the use of the "yuri" genre. What is it about my actions that makes you think that I am clearly "not new to editing Wikipedia"? JackALope044 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You are not especially new to editing Wikipedia, as indicated by you above, and an editor not being new to editing Wikipedia is something that I easily pick up on. One sign is that you always sign your username; I've stated this before on my talk page, but I'll state it again for your benefit: The vast majority of new Wikipedia editors, in my several years of experience at this site, either do not sign their username or rather often forget to sign it until at least a few weeks of practice. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't fall under the "vast majority of new Wikipedia editors", then. I forgot to sign my name the first few times, but after I realized that there's a handy-dandy shortcut to plug those four tildes in at the click of the button, I didn't think there was any reason for me to have to forget to sign my name again. JackALope044 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You must not be referring to your JackALope044 account; under that account, you've signed your username each and every time. Remarkable, though, that you forgot to sign only a few times; certainly not standard among WP:Newbies. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, by "forgot to sign", I mean "forgot to sign, realized I forgot to sign, then went back and re-edited the talk page to include my signature". Sorry for the misunderstanding. JackALope044 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And again, you have yet to forget to sign your username as JackALope044, as your contribution shows. There is this, but it appears that you simply neglected to add the extra tilde, which sometimes happens to me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you did forget to sign here, but that's the only instance that I see. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

demiromantic

Didn't you read my comment? I started a conversation in Talk, but you ignored it and reverted. Bhny (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bhny, I saw your comment on the talk page. And I reverted (before reading it) because this and this revert concern matters that I disagree with; those reverts also barely have anything to do with the discussion you started on the talk page...yet. And I'm about to comment there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

PROD removed from Current news of india

Hello, Flyer22. Another editor removed a dated PROD tag from Current news of india. You reverted that edit using Huggle. Since the tag was PROD rather than speedy, though, any editor could remove it. A third editor has again removed the PROD tag. Cnilep (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Khomeini's 1988 massacre of Iranian dissidents

Hi, Since you've contributed to Khomeini's article, I was wondering could you add a new section for the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. I think there should be a separate section for this massacre (just before Rushdie's section). The article also gives the absurd minimum figure of 1,400 executions, but when you click on the reference, it only lists the name of 1,400 of the 30 thousand executed; and it does not even suggest that only 1,400 were executed (he executed that many in the first year of his dictatorship, alone)! I also think it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article. The reason that I did not add this new section myself, is that I hate the man (conflict of interest). Thanks. AtheistIranian (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

AtheistIranian, I'm not familiar with that topic; I simply reverted vandalism there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Allowance for contractions

At 02:26, 23 July 2014 you removed from WP:MOS "occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway" (with this edit summary: Who added "occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway" to this section? Was this discussed? In what ways are contractions the better solution, other than in quoted material?)
"Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable; and occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway" was introduced at 06:23, 4 August 2011 by Noetica (with this edit summary: Tightened this; but it needs review anyway; in what circumstances is a contraction best left unexpanded?).
—Wavelength (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wavelength; I didn't feel like looking into the edit history to see who added that (though I planned to do so eventually). For years, I've looked at that contractions section, and was recently brought back to it after this edit I made at the Michael Jackson article, but the "occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway" bit has obviously continually escaped my mind; that contractions were somewhat condoned in the WP:Manual of Style (for reasons other than obviously being acceptable in quoted text) has been unintentionally ignored by me. As you've likely seen, I pointed to this section on my talk page in the WP:Manual of Style edit history so that editors can get more information on the matter; if one of them feels that the aforementioned addition should remain, they'll return it and hopefully tweak it so that it isn't vague. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dangun

Hi Flyer22, thanks for your input, however as you and any other history buff would know, the date of sources are very important, and needs to be highlighted especially in this case due to the length of time between the legend and its recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.111.130 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

46.118.124.156

Thanks for reverting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chairman_of_the_Board_%28disambiguation%29&diff=next&oldid=618239832. However your edit summary said "Reverted 1 good faith edit by 46.118.124.156 using STiki", but this was not good faith at all but spam. I have blocked this IP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Graeme Bartlett. I reverted the edit as a WP:Assume good faith edit because the IP seemed to believe that he or she was doing a good thing. People who add WP:Spam usually do think that they are doing Wikipedia, if not the world, a favor. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Chewing gum

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chewing_gum&oldid=prev&diff=564315463

Sorry, but you're wrong here. If you read the sentence fully you'll see it is referring to Wrigley being the largest maker in the world, not the US being the largest market for it in the world.

Edit on RT (TV network) article

I removed the sentences in question after checking the sources and finding that they were either false or blatant spin. RT was not founded as a PR campaign for the Russian government: that absolutely can not be proven to be fact in any way-- especially not with the source provided for such a statement. Also, the idea that Mikhail Lesin "conceived" the idea for RT because of one quote which has nothing to do with RT is ridiculous.

I edited the page because it is clearly being used as a propaganda platform for anti-Russians. I didn't edit anything to be biased towards any position-- I'm removing the bias so people can get real information without the bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.51.224 (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section from "Edit on RT page" to "Edit on RT (TV network) article" so that it is clearer as to what you are referring to. Yes, I reverted you here, and I stand by that revert. And what about you tampering with this quote? Flyer22 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Fly, hope all is well with you. The ping is to ask you if we could move forward with the Todd article, since it's gonna be August in a couple of days, and my days of summer freedom will soon be over. I'm sure you're swamped, but wanted to check in and see if you could spare some time looking at my next group of changes. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I know that I need to get back to you at Talk:Todd Manning, Figureskatingfan. Lately, during the day, I've been absent from Wikipedia for several or more hours because, though my work is usually computer-related and therefore gives me ample access to the Internet, I've been dealing with a lot of non-computer work these days (and working out things long-distance over the phone). Then, when I get home, all I feel like doing is relaxing, reverting vandalism or other unconstructive edits when I finally do open up my laptop to see what mess has been going on at Wikipedia in the meantime, or working on the Lucy (2014 film) article. I haven't worked on a film article this much since the Avatar (2009 film) article, and I think that I might be interested in taking the Lucy (2014 film) article to WP:Good article status, especially since my writing (and knowledge of Wikipedia ways) has vastly improved since I elevated the Todd Manning and Avatar (2009 film) articles to WP:Good article status years ago.

As you know, I'll try to get back to you soon regarding the Todd Manning article. I think that because I know that there are going to be things that I disagree with you on regarding your rearrangement of the Reception and impact section, and my posts explaining why I disagree can be long (just as your posts explaining why you think your changes are beneficial can be long), I have been stalling on revisiting that matter. But I'll get back there in a day or so. I still "have to" report this sockpuppet matter, since I think that it is Pass a Method in his "best disguise" yet, still unable to stay away from topics (such as LGBT and Islamic topics) that he can never stay away from. So I might report that before getting back to you. And, yes, I'll try to be consistent, time-wise, by replying to you, so we can go ahead and get the Todd Manning article to the WP:Featured article review process. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I hear ya, pal. I anticipate feeling similarly in about four weeks, although sometimes, for me, editing can be a way to decompress. When I get busy, I'm lucky if I edit 90 minutes a day. I appreciate the time and effort you've put into helping improve the Todd article; I know that it can get long and complicated, especially when we disagree. These days, I've been dealing with a difficult personality off-line, so dealing with you has been a breath of fresh air. I'll miss our association when we're done with Todd. (Tea: But one can never truly be done with Todd!) ;)

I feel your pain with the sockpuppet biz, too. This guy has caused a few us no end of headaches. This diff [13] is the perfect example of what he tries to pull. We can't figure out if he's evil, or just stupid. Exasperating, to be sure. We've even had prolonged discussions on FB chat. All that to say take your time. We've come so far, and worked so hard; I don't want a silly thing like RL responsibilities to get in the way. In the meantime, I'm having fun improving individual Sesame Street co-productions; currently, I'm working on the Mexican version. The main article is up at FAC now. So much fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the blocklog of the guy you pointed to, it doesn't seem that he was using a different Wikipedia account (unless it's noted somewhere on his talk page that he was), but I do see that he was problematic and is now indefinitely blocked because of that problematic editing. As for the Todd Manning article, after we've replaced its contents with your Todd draft, and it's been through a WP:Featured article review, we'll still interact on that article or at least see each other there since we're both interested in that topic (that is, unless you decide to drop it from your WP:Watchlist). And you also told me that you're interested in working on the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article; if you do work on that, we'll interact there, but I might step back more on that article and let you reshape things without much of my input.

I hope that your offline dealings with the aforementioned personality get easier or stop if it's a matter that needs to stop. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I just went to YouTube, and this video about Roger Howarth bringing sexy back was recommended for me by the site. It's clips of Howarth from As the World Turns, where he had blond hair for quite some time; have you watched him on that series, and what do you think about him having blond hair? I noticed that he's also had blond hair as Franco, in the role that James Franco originated. He's had blond highlights as Todd, and full-on blond hair in Starr's cartoon daydreams (back when she was a child), but not full-on blond hair as Todd otherwise. He looks okay with blond hair, but I'm so used to him with brown hair. I and a lot of other people followed him to As the World Turns when he left the role of Todd in 2003, and I kind of got hooked on the Jack and Carly love story (Jack's amnesia story), but I didn't stick with that show for long. Flyer22 (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Billings, Missouri article

You are "Edit Warrinng". Your edit changes are NOT cogent. If you continue this behavior I will take this to the community for violation of rules and move to ban your edits. You must immediately stop your serial edit hsrassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbank151 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Burbank151 (talk · contribs), yes, yes, I reverted you here and here. Go ahead and report me; I won't be affected in any way. In the meantime, do read up on the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, starting with WP:Five pillars. And if you start a section on my talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot and titled it. 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) 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Burbank151 (talk · contribs), you might want to actually source that material with a WP:Reliable source proving that the person is WP:Notable. I doubt that either of those listings are WP:Notable (read what Wikipedia considers notable by clicking on the WP:Notable page). Your listing, or both of those listings, will eventually be removed by someone. And if the person you listed is you or is related to you in some way (not necessarily biologically related), read WP:Conflict of interest. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

GH057ayame - Eric Hewitt (article)

So essentially what you're saying is that I need to site proof of my changes? I have no problem linking all of my articles that demonstrate that proof, I just keep editing in a periodic fashion since it's hard for me to find time to sit down for 16 hours straight to edit my public page. Now, what bothers me the most, is that the information previously written about me is mostly false. It has been bothering me ever since I came across my own Wiki, and I've finally gotten around to getting things straightened out. Now, I'm not looking to fight with you. I'm merely looking to "right the ship" and appropriately fit in my true background information. If you could assist me along the way since I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's rule set, it'd be greatly appreciated. Again, I'm just looking to give the full, true story - articles included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GH057ayame (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rape article

Hi Flyer - thanks for comms RE the UCR (FBI) rape definition. The type of male victims I'm referring to are actually "forced envelopment" (aka "forced to penetrate" in NISVS) victims, rather than male-on-male. That includes males too intoxicated to consent to sex, males forced under threat to have sex with another, fellatio without consent etc - as included within the UN's definition ("sexual intercourse without valid consent") and - less transparently but confirmed - the 2012 UCR/FBI definition (see here).

The CDC's NISVS 2010 survey put the number of males "forced to penetrate" in the past 12 months at 1.3 million, which is more-or-less identical to the number of female victims. Clearly that's vastly different from the "95%" cited in the Wikipedia article, so I dug into the citation - turns out it was a 1997 BJS report that used the pre-2012 women-only definition of rape: "Forcible rape in the UCR program is limited to incidents involving female victims" (P6).

I've not identified a reliable up-to-date replacement source that studies the gender of rape victims without resorting to definitions that exclude most forms of non-consensual male sex. Therefore I've removed that "95%" sentence as outdated - hope you're in agreement. Cheers Psdie (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Psdie (talk · contribs) (this will be the only time I ping you via WP:Echo to this discussion, so you might want to keep checking back in the future for a reply). Regarding my edit summaries here, here and here, I did eventually understand what you meant, judging by your edit to the Rape in the United States article. I don't mind that you removed the 1997/1999 addition. That text has been an area of recent contention before; see Talk:Rape/Archive 20#unreliable source: The United States Department of Justice's definition. As seen in that discussion, I objected to the removal before because it was removed simply based on the claim that it is unreliable and biased, which was an action that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and because partial restoration of the text then misrepresented the source. But again, removing the entire text is fine with me, since your basis for removal is more convincing and since I stated in the aforementioned discussion (my "21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)" post), "I would prefer a significantly more updated statistic than that one in the lead."

That stated, since 2013 (or 2014 in the case of other editors), I've seen editors engaging in WP:Activism at the Rape in the United States, Rape by gender, Rape statistics, Campus rape, and a few other Wikipedia articles, regarding male victims of rape. We also now have a Male rape article that needs significant cleanup. Just in case you have not checked my user page (or missed my commentary on WP:Activism there), I'm not a fan of people who use Wikipedia for activism. I understand that male rape victims (men more so than boys) are underreported, that rape is still commonly defined as only a man having raped a girl or woman, and in some definitions a boy, but Wikipedia is not the place to try and change those matters. The definitions of rape you consider gender neutral are still missing from the vast majority of rape laws. It's still common that women aren't even charged with rape, as reflected by this recent edit that an editor made to the Rape statistics article. That's just the way things are, including regarding up-to-date references on rape, and it's because of this (besides being noted in the Statistics section of the Rape article) that I feel that statistics information in the lead of the Rape article should state something about the fact that rape victims are most commonly reported as female. From what I know of male and female biology, psychology, and crime rates, there is nothing that can convince me that there are as many male rape victims as there are female rape victims or as many female rapists as there are male rapists. But this is not about my opinion. It's about the sources, per the WP:Verifiability policy. It's not up to us to state, "Oh, we're not going to use these up-to-date definitions because they are biased against male victims of rape." What you can do is note the specific ways that these definitions exclude male rape victims, which is what I've seen you do. However, such information is usually not WP:Lead material and rather belongs lower in the article. This edit you made, for example, where you put the "or other forms of sexual penetration" text in parentheses based on your interpretation that it helps clarify something about male rape victims, is not beneficial to me. We note in the "Penetrative and non-penetrative" section below that other forms of sexual penetration (such as forced sexual penetration with a bottle) are defined as rape in many jurisdictions, and we don't have that in parentheses; nor should we. This is despite the fact that, in law, rape is still most commonly defined as only penile-vaginal sex or penile-vaginal or penile-anal sex, with everything else being termed sexual assault. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 (talk · contribs) - qood to hear we're generally in agreement. After my previous edit, I actually did further research into the 2012 UCR (FBI) definition of rape and found that it *does* (albeit with poor clarity) include males forced to penetrate a female. See clear, unambigious confirmation from Mary P. Reese of the FBI's CJIS Division's Crime Statistics Management Unit (the main contact on the FBI's updated definition FAQ).

Thus the problem is not actually with the updated 2012 US definition of rape, it's with the citation on WP of studies that use outdated gender-biased definitions as if they were current. Correction of these mistakes is a matter of factual accuracy, not WP:Activism - indeed individuals that cherry-pick long-outdated stats to make the number of male victims appear lower than female are those practicing WP:Activism. This is no more accurate than using an outdated definition that excludes rape-within-marriage.

The article lead originally implied it is always the penetrated individual that is the victim - this is factually incorrect, per the UCR and UN definitions, hence the clarification. Psdie (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Psdie, I stated above, "The definitions of rape you consider gender neutral are still missing from the vast majority of rape laws." See this section of my user page about the WP:Due weight policy. That is exactly what I mean when it comes to this rape matter. You can of course disagree with the definitions of rape that you consider outdated and biased, but those definitions are the definitions of rape used in the vast majority of the world. I pointed out in the aforementioned FBI discussion that forced non-penetrative sex (the exclusively non-penetrative aspect), for example, is hardly ever defined as rape, and that matter is considered outdated and biased by people, but we are not going to exclude the commonly accepted definitions and research using those commonly accepted definitions simply because people have a problem with that. The same goes for your problem with definitions of rape that exclude "males forced to penetrate a female." The vast majority of studies on rape, and therefore WP:Reliable sources about rape, exclude "males forced to penetrate a female" and other sexual matters that you would perhaps like to see defined as rape; Wikipedia should not bend over backwards to accommodate the minority view, which is exactly what the WP:Due weight policy is about. Wikipedia is not supposed to give as much weight to the minority view as it does to the majority view. It is not the place to "correct mistakes" that are perpetuated by society at large. As for your explanation of having added the parentheses, because you feel that "[t]he article lead originally implied it is always the penetrated individual that is the victim," I disagree. But I am not very interested in reverting you on that (it's a simple parentheses matter that I doubt many people will look at in the way that you have), and so it has remained physically uncontested.

And just for documentation here on my talk page, I am not the one who added that FBI data to the lead (except for when I reverted the editor shown in the aforementioned FBI discussion or any tweak I might have made to it before then); but when someone removes something from a Wikipedia article, they had better use a rationale that complies with Wikipedia, rather than "I removed it because I personally think it's biased.," if they don't want another editor to revert them. I already stated that your rationale for having removed that piece is fine with me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Flyer22 - I'm confused how you're missing my point above that most of the official US definitions DO agree that a woman having sex with a man without his consent ("Forced to Penetrate") is categorically rape, just as in the reverse. The Universal Crime Reporting definition of rape used across the US (FBI UCR), the Uniform Code of Military Justice used in most US legal cases, AND the international UN definition ("sexual intercourse without valid consent") all agree on this.

The official definitions are gender neutral and do not require the rapist to always be the one penetrating - please re-check my linked citations. Rape is sex with either gender without consent, and most modern definitions fortunately recognise this. Suggestion that sex with a man without his consent isn't rape is a bizarre, outdated and sexist view IMO - hopefully that's not your opinion? If an unknown woman has sex with a sleeping man with a mechanical erection, giving him an STD in the process, that's somehow not rape? US law and most modern definitions disagree. Psdie (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Psdie, you do not have to keep linking to my username. This is my talk page, so linking to my username is not required. I'm confused as to how you are missing the points I've made above, other than you being unfamiliar with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. But I advise you to become more familiar with how it's supposed to work, possibly by starting with the WP:Due weight policy. I never stated that a woman having sex with a man without his consent is not rape, except for when speaking of how many rape laws are, such as the fact that "[i]t is still common that women aren't even charged with rape." I was specifically speaking of your "males forced to penetrate a female" wording, and I was talking about how rape is defined globally (not just in the United States). As I'm sure you know, rape is not always defined by force, and the vast majority of rapes that involve a woman raping a man are matters where the man is, like you stated above, "too intoxicated [or otherwise incapacitated] to consent to sex." The fact that "too intoxicated to consent to sex" does not automatically mean "force" is exactly why we list "physical force" and "unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent" in the lead of the Rape article. Furthermore, "forced to penetrate" can include males who are forced to penetrate a person by another person, such as in the case of a gang rape. From the previous FBI discussion I linked to above, it is clear that I don't believe that all official definitions require the rapist to always be the one penetrating; I argued a similar point in that discussion.

On a side note: WordPress.com is not a WP:Reliable source, which is why I removed it after you added it to the Rape in the United States article. And you were reverted here by an editor at the Rape by gender article, and here by an editor who called your "gender neutral (including males forced to penetrate)" wording an "erroneous claim" at the Rape in the United States article. You might want to discuss those matters with them, but those discussions would be better had at those article talk pages, instead of at the editors' talk pages, so that they are accessible to a wider audience. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And I see that here you've conceded that the "UCR wording is unclear." Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Arguing that concurrence between the FBI UCR, the mostly commonly applied US legal standard and the international UN definition doesn't satisfy WP:Due weight is unconvincing. Clearly these are sources that carry a great deal of weight internationally and are far from an exhaustive list (just key examples). To argue that *most* international definitions exclude women having non-consensual sex with men ("Forced to Penetrate") would require citations of a set of contradictory definitions that outweigh those that agree. Do you have such a citation? Psdie (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately in your haste you also reintroduced the non-cited (and confirmed to be false by the FBI's UCR Program agent Mary P Reese) claim that the UCR *excludes* MTP. This suggests you are reacting to my contributions rather than evaluating the content, which I hope we can both agree to avoid in future. Psdie (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the UCR wording isn't as clear as it should be, as acknowledged by Mary P Reese in her e-mails that confirm the UCR definition includes "Forced To Penetrate". It lists penetration as an essential component, but then leaves open-ended whether "the victim" is the penetrator or the penetrated. As discussed, I actually originally interpreted the definition to exclude MTP (as did DGAgainstDV) by missing this subtle ambiguity, but MPR's answer makes clear that MTP is included:

“ If [example] number 7 was rewritten as you’ve suggested [female performing non-consensual fellatio on a male], it would still be classified as Rape according to the definition since the act includes oral penetration by a sex organ of another person which was without the consent of the victim. ”

However, I do acknowledge that a WordPress blog doesn't satisfy WP:Reliable source, so will look for a more official citation or request one from Mary P Reese if necessary. Psdie (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I ask that you don't split up and duplicate my comments like this again. I have placed them back the way that they were.

I did not argue that "concurrence between the FBI UCR, the mostly commonly applied US legal standard and the international UN definition doesn't satisfy WP:Due weight." I did not argue that "most international definitions exclude women having non-consensual sex with men." Take note that international can mean "existing, occurring, or carried on between two or more nations" or it can mean "global." If one argues that rape is globally (and by "globally," I mean "the vast majority" or "all") defined to include women raping men and/or the wording "forced to penetrate," then, yes, I contest that. I stated "The definitions of rape you consider gender neutral are still missing from the vast majority of rape laws." and "It's still common that women aren't even charged with rape." I was arguing against some of your specific wording, such as your "forced to penetrate" wording, and I stand by that, given that rape is still widely defined as only a man sexually penetrating a woman's vagina against her will/without her consent, a man sexually penetrating a woman in some other way against her will/without her consent, or as a man sexually penetrating a woman or another man against her or his will/without their consent. I stand by that given that laws regarding rape vary not only by state or country, but by jurisdiction. I stand by that because it was only recently (in 2012; 2013) that the FBI changed their definition to be more inclusive -- clearly acknowledging that sexually violating a male without his consent is rape. I stand by that because, like the Rape article notes, "The [FBI's] definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the federal, state or local level; it rather means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide."

You keep stating "forced to penetrate"; yes, I argue that most definitions of rape do not include that wording, as also currently indicated by the Definitions section in the Rape article. A man can be raped by having his penis inserted into someone without being forced to penetrate that person (for example by intoxication), and you should not use the "forced to penetrate" wording in a Wikipedia article unless it is explicitly supported by one or more WP:Reliable sources; this is per the WP:Synthesis policy. I clearly indicated to you above that a woman having sex with a man who is too intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated to consent to sex is not always a matter of force, which is why I have found your emphasis on "forced to penetrate" somewhat jarring, even with some definitions using that exact wording. The alternative term made to penetrate is a bit more accurate, but even then it's not always a matter of having made the man do anything. Sexual activity during intoxication, for example, is more so a matter of whether or not one or more people were in their right minds when they gave their "consent." If one or more of the people involved feels victimized by the sexual activity and was not in their right mind, then one or more rapes have occurred, there was no consent (unless all of the people were equally intoxicated, such as in the case of two equally drunk people who had sex, and no one was under the age of consent)...at least depending on the type of sexual activity and according to some rape laws. And trying to prosecute a "rape by intoxication" matter is extremely difficult, which is perhaps why "rape by intoxication" is missing in a lot of rape laws.

As for reverting you in haste, there was no haste. I was not obligated to remove wording by DGAgainstDV. I was only concerned in that instance with reverting a non-WP:Reliable source. Also, it's best that you don't speak for DGAgainstDV until he has replied. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

He's made good points. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Replying inline" / "interleved" is a common technique on text based discussion forums to ensure responses are given context, but no problem.

"Made To Penetrate" is the term coined by the CDC's NISVS 2010 study to describe women having sex with men against consent. Previously terms such as "Forced to Penetrate" and "Forced Envelopment" have been used in articles discussing this type of crime, but no problem with settling on "Made To Penetrate". This is an area of sexual violence that has only recently been explored in any detail, so terminology is still being stabilised.

Sex with a person too intoxicated to consent is of course more usually than not defined as rape (and has been for decades), including by the FBI UCR.

"I stand by that, given that rape is still widely defined as [not including Made To Penetrate]" - but you provide no citations to support your opinion. I have already demonstrated that the UCR and UN definitions, as well as the most commonly applied US federal legal definition (US UCoMJ, as listed here) recognise Made To Penetrate as rape (as they count all non-consensual sex as rape, without gender specific language). These clearly carry substantial weight in the international community given the US and UN are leaders on sexual violence policy.

If you disagree, please provide citations of greater weight than UCR+UN+UCoMJ that show international consensus excludes Made To Penetrate, consistent with WP:Verifiability. I will as requested seek a citable source from Mary P Reese confirming inclusion of MTP in the UCR - but hopefully you agree that the idea the e-mail thread is fabricated is unlikely (MRAs would arguably *prefer* if UCR is biased, as gives them something to complain about!). Psdie (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Section break

I'm simply not a fan of the "breaking up/reposting a decent size of the comment" replying on Wikipedia.

Do you have a WP:Reliable source indicating or explicitly stating that sex with a person too intoxicated to consent (drug facilitated sexual assault or a person having sex with an intoxicated person without the initial intention that the drug facilitated sexual assault topic implies) is usually defined as rape? My point above was that many rape laws don't include "rape by intoxication," and that such rape is extremely difficult to prosecute, which is easily verifiable by just looking at any number of rape laws or sources about rape, such as this scholarly source (2010), this scholarly source (2012) this scholarly source (2012), and this scholarly source (2014) about the difficulty of prosecuting drug-facilitated sexual assaults/rapes. Then again, a lot of WP:Reliable sources also state or indicate that any kind of rape is difficult to prove and prosecute. For the record, though, I was more so (not exclusively) referring to being too drunk when stating "intoxication," not intoxication by drugs (though, yes, I know that alcohol is commonly labeled a drug and sometimes as a date rape drug as well).

Why do I need to provide a WP:Reliable source stating that "rape is still widely defined as only a man sexually penetrating a woman's vagina against her will/without her consent, a man sexually penetrating a woman in some other way against her will/without her consent, or as a man sexually penetrating a woman or another man against her or his will/without their consent"? That is common knowledge, as indicated by the Definitions section at the Rape article, Laws regarding rape article, and by a simple search on Google Books; for example here (a 2011 scholarly source, which notes common law), here (a 2012 scholarly source), or here (a 2012 scholarly source which states, "Legally, 'rape' is typically defined as penetration of the vagina or anus without legitimate consent.", and then goes on to list other definitions). Even if you want to argue that these relatively recent sources, and the vast majority of other sources on Google Books, are citing outdated definitions of rape, it still stands that the wording "forced to penetrate" or "made to penetrate" are not included in the vast majority of rape laws. Like you acknowledged, they are new terms. My statements that those terms are not included in the vast majority of rape laws is clearly true; it's not me stating that a woman raping a man or a person being physically forced to sexually penetrate someone are barely covered by any rape law. You keep taking my wording and presenting it as something that I dd not state.

The "UCR+UN+UCoMJ [do not] that show international consensus" includes "Made To Penetrate." What you are pointing to regarding those sources is how they define rape; they don't get to dictate how every country, state or jurisdiction defines rape. Similarly, neither does the World Health Organization (WHO), which is a part of the United Nations (UN) and is of equal weight to the "UCR+UN+UCoMJ," if not of greater weight in one or more of those cases, and defines rape as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object." If these organizations did get to dictate how rape is defined in every country, state or jurisdiction, then rape would be defined consistently across the board. It obviously is not. I told you, "The [FBI's] definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the federal, state or local level; it rather means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide." And by "international UN definition," you sure that you are not confusing the International Criminal Court with International Court of Justice? The latter is a part of the UN; the one that the Rape article cites is the former one. And stating that you "have already demonstrated that the UCR and UN definitions, as well as the most commonly applied US federal legal definition (US UCoMJ, as listed here) recognise Made To Penetrate as rape (as they count all non-consensual sex as rape, without gender specific language)" is more of your WP:Synthesis. Provide a WP:Reliable source stating that they explicitly include "made to penetrate," and then you have a stronger case.

Also, what do you perceive that you are getting out of this discussion with me? It's not helping to improve any Wikipedia article, except for perhaps the article that DGAgainstDV reverted you at. If you feel that you are enlightening me, I have to disagree on that. If you more so enjoy discussing such matters because you think it makes a great difference, okay; I understand that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source showing more pedophiles are homosexual

Could you please give your thoughts on this information which should be added into the Pedophilia article? Others on the talk page have said it shouldn't. I disagree since the source and information seem accurate. Thanks. DMSMD (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean aside from the fact that it's 22 years old? --Manway 09:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

DMSMD (talk · contribs), I've left that discussion up to others to reply to you on; if I had felt the need to reply, I would have. I might still reply regarding that, but I doubt it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 could you at least chime in on whether or not the info is accurate and/or the source is reliable. You seem to be in favor of censorship when it comes to LGBT issues if the information is not politically correct, however you also appear to be an informed prolific Wikipedia editor that may have some insight on this controversial matter. Thanks. DMSMD (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See this section on my user page? I stand by that, I operate like that, and never does it involve "censorship when it comes to LGBT issues if the information is not politically correct." These "politically correct" arguments that editors are throwing my way lately, meaning yours and this one at the War rape talk page, are flimsy. You have had equally, and more so, qualified people answer you at that talk page, including psychologist/sexologist James Cantor and WP:MED editor Zad68. You do not need me weighing in on it. And, without having read IP 173.228.91.3's latest response, I can see by the length of his or her post, that I have enough to reply to regarding that matter. But I will speak of the age of the source to you now: It's been pointed out as too old to you before, including above on my talk page, and that the results should have been replicated by now if they are reliable; those points are key aspects of how Wikipedia treats research matters, especially medical matters. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Definitions, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Respect secondary sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence. The Respect secondary sources section, for example, states, "If no review on the subject is published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed." It also states, "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field—especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments—is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable content about health." It then gives an example. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Flyer here and also replied at article Talk page. Zad68 03:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Flyer you mentioned you've been accused of being heterosexist. If you don't mind could you please give some examples of this? Also you wrote on your User Page "I could be LGBT or heterosexual, for all you know". Just curious, why do you keep your sexual orientation private? I ask this because many people who actively edit on Wikipedia (esp. on LGBT and sexuality articles) identify themselves using various sexual orientation userboxes. Please get back to me, thanks. DMSMD (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

An example of someone on Wikipedia calling me heterosexist, or pretty much calling me that? Sure. Here is an example: User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12#Gender.

As for why I don't identify my sexual orientation on Wikipedia, there are two reasons. First: Once a person identifies their sexual orientation, religion, "race" (I put "race" in quotation marks because I don't believe in "race"; I believe in clines), and sometimes even their sex, on Wikipedia, it's often the case that the person is accused of having an agenda if they edit a topic related to what they identify as. It's also often the case that the person who has identified on Wikipedia with any of the aforementioned identities is discriminated against (ones who identify as white or heterosexual to a lesser degree, but bias is still claimed often enough). For example, a person who identifies as heterosexual and edits a sexual topic that just so happens to mostly conform to a heterosexual view is likely to be accused of heterosexism by a LGBT member; I've seen that happen more than once. It's vice versa for a LGBT person editing a LGBT topic and encountering a heterosexual on that topic; I've seen that even more so. And if a person identifies as Christian on their user page or by any other religion, and edits religious topics, then watch out. Watch the fireworks! Identifying as any of those things on Wikipedia, except for maybe whether you are male, female or identify as intersex, is often not beneficial and commonly leads to ammo that another Wikipedia editor can use against you. That is the dirty side of Wikipedia. Even identifying as male or female can get one accused of bias; because I'm female, I've been called a feminist and as pushing a feminist agenda. See User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#About the "vow", for example. I don't identify as a feminist, even though I believe in equal rights for women. Too much of feminism is too political, and often too radical, for my tastes. The only reason I've identified on my user page that I'm not religious is so that it's clear, at least to those who believe me, that I am never editing from a religious point of view. Yes, we all have biases, but unlike many editors at this site, I do my best to leave my biases off Wikipedia. I cannot stress enough how much it angers me to see editors engaging in WP:Activism.

The other reason that I don't reveal my sexual orientation on Wikipedia is because (like I told a fellow Wikipedian via email, one I also have not disclosed my sexual orientation to) I like the ambiguity; I like editors not knowing, with some editors thinking that I'm heterosexual and other editors thinking that I'm LGBT. I like that there may be some editors who think that I'm asexual due to my significant work on the Asexuality article. I like editors being so certain (what they think is certainty of my sexual orientation), and yet still lacking that confirmation. That includes one or more WP:CheckUsers who checked through my data and may have wondered whether I focused on a sexual topic for research or personal interest, or whether someone else using my computer did. On a side note: With the exception of some LGBT people, I don't see many people who edit sexual topics on Wikipedia identifying their sexual orientation on their user page.

Now let me ask you a question: Who are you when it comes to your experience with editing Wikipedia? You don't strike me as new to editing Wikipedia in the least. Signing your username with each post, looking in the edit history to see what I've stated, relaying that "many people who actively edit on Wikipedia (esp. on LGBT and sexuality articles) identify themselves using various sexual orientation userboxes." I know a non-WP:Newbie when I see him or her, and you are one. If you continue editing Wikipedia for long enough, I'll eventually figure out who you are; I usually do figure out people's past Wikipedia accounts, regardless of how good they think they are at disguising themselves and regardless of whether or not I reveal their past identities to the Wikipedia community. Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 thanks for your response. It's interesting that you reveal certain bits of information about yourself but keep other info private. As far as who I am yes I have edited articles on WP in the past (about five years ago) but due to work and a hectic busy life I no longer have the time. I prefer spending my leisure time doing other things like watching TV, reading books, reading various articles on WP, listening to music, etc. I have a few questions for you and then I'll leave you alone : ) When you say "I'll eventually figure out who you are; I usually do figure out people's past Wikipedia accounts" how do you go about doing this, are you psychic *sarcasm* or do you have exceptional memory, or something like that? Once you "figure out" who certain users or sockpuppets are, what do you base your decision on as to whether or not to report them to Wikipedia community "higher-ups" such as admins or checkusers? You wrote "I have significant knowledge in the social/scientific/psychological/sexual fields... Specific detail on my credentials are without mention on Wikipedia". If you have credentials in specific fields of knowledge why are you keeping those credentials secret, I would think that would lend you more credibilty in terms of editing articles on Wikipedia. Last question: I'm a little confused by this sentence "When it comes to Pensacola, Florida, Flyer has no interest in staying long, and may often venture out to Los Angeles, California or New York City" - so do you currently live in Pensacola? The wording "venture out" is confusing to me also, do you visit those two cities for vacation or is it work-related or something else like that? Get back to me when you can, thanks again. DMSMD (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I don't trust you. For example, going so far back into my user page edit history that you come across a birth date that I posted, but later removed because I no longer want it on my user page? Yep, you won't be getting any more personal information out of me. But like I stated, keep editing Wikipedia long enough under your new Wikipedia account and I'll know who you are sooner rather than later. Flyer22 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am confused, you don't trust me? The questions that I inquired about are mostly related to Wikipedia and editing on Wikipedia articles if you go back and read my last post. Can you at least answer those questions? If you don't want to answer the personal questions no problem. As odd as this sounds the birthday thing I actually recalled from memory, I didn't go back into your edit history to find it (I know you may think I'm making that up but I'm not, I have Asperger's and have very good memory when it comes to remembering dates of birth and certain number sequences, even on obscure things like a WP userpage). The reason I probably remember it is because over the years I have viewed people's user pages only a very small percentage (apx. 1%) post their actual birth dates on WP. DMSMD (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that I don't believe you. Nor do I trust anything that you state. Go away now. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Flyer I'm not trying to bother you but I am truly confused. Why are you telling me to "go away now"? What did I do wrong? I apologize if posting your birth date annoyed you. If I hadn't of posted it here (and then removed it because I thought it was unnecessary to include in my reply) would you have answered my earlier questions? Again I apologize, please get back to me so I understand what's going on, thanks bye. DMSMD (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Already you are reminding me of a particular editor I've had the misfortune of dealing with. What don't you understand about "Go away now."? Either stop posting to my talk page this instance, or I will make you stop. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, how can you "make me stop"? I haven't vandalized your page, or used vulgar language or threats or anything else like that. Again all I'm requesting is that you please answer the non-personal questions that I inquired about in my earlier post. I promise to then leave you alone and not post on here any more. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and apologize again if I'm doing anything wrong here. DMSMD (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Response

Flyer22 could you please respond to my non-personal questions? Not really sure why you are freaking out and what the big deal is here... DMSMD (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@DMSMD: You have been asked to stop posting here. What you are doing now is hounding this editor, bullying them. You need to stop this behaviour and to stop it at once. It doesn't matter whether you perceive your questions as reasonable, they do not. So please accede to their request. Fiddle Faddle 08:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter whether you perceive your questions as reasonable, they do not"...Yes they do not because they are retarded, paranoid, and most likely a bitch as well...

And why is this person even allowed to edit on WP at all when the idiot says something like "I don't believe in "race"; I believe in clines". Seriously, you believe in clines?? WOW.. just proves how ignorant you are....

Yes, thank you for showing me your true colors. You obviously have not done much reading on the topic of biology since you don't understand why I don't believe that race, in the context of human biological classification, exists. I even pointed you to the Race (human classification) article so that you could read up. Apparently, you did not. Let's make it easier for you: Google "race doesn't exist on regular Google, and on Google Books, and see that it is common for scientists to state that race does not exist among humans, but rather that clines (that's the right link, not the one you linked to) do. And yet I'm the ignorant one? Oh, and now you suddenly start forgetting to sign your username, as seen here and here? Yeah. Sure. Sighs. Plenty of idiots edit Wikipedia, but I'm not one of them. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Noting followup commentary here and here. One or two people at Talk:Cline (biology) have been against mentioning race at the Cline (biology) article, but that was mostly because of how previous versions, like this one, were written. Other editors who have weighed in at that talk page are clearly in favor of race being mentioned there. And it should be, since clines are often discussed hand in hand with race among scientists. Flyer22 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And you're caught: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corporate Raider. Thanks, DoRD, for taking the initiative on running that check. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's you!! You're the one who keeps stealing socks from my dryer! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you like some of my odd socks? Ah wait, Wikipedia has enough already! Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they do, whether it's ones I'm personally connected to, random ones thrown my way, or the ones in the general population. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that Fly is like static cling: the socks are attracted to her! ;) The cool thing about that is that by engaging her, they get caught and are flung away. That's right Fly, you are the dryer of WP! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I did try to steer the situation away from me, not only because I can often work the case myself with no problem and then their chance to be free is gone, but because of who may be watching my talk page. But stubborn is as stubborn does. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, and I noticed it at the time, DMSMD quoted a part of my user page that used to use the third person; this further indicated to me that he had looked into my user page edit history and was not recalling a thing from memory. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Igor Bezler

Hello Flyer22. Could you please explain why you consider my contributions to Igor Bezler not constructive? The original quote from the source is "Those who are fighting with volunteer battalions, we question them and then shoot them on the spot. Why should we show any pity to them?... You should see what they have done to my people. They chop off their heads and shit in the helmets! They are fascists!". The sentences "You should see what they have done to my people. They chop off their heads" gives a reason on why Bezler concludes that "They are fascists!" and believes they deserve no pity. Excluding these sentences changes the meaning of the whole quote by Bezler. I see only two possibilities here: either including the full quote or nothing.--Lademoen (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lademoen (talk · contribs). I thought that you were adding your own commentary. So I reverted you. I did not see your "added missing part of the quote" explanation, or it did not register with my brain. Feel free to add that part of the quote back. However, there is often nothing wrong with condensing a quote, as long as it condensed properly and is not presented out of context; quotes are often condensed on Wikipedia, per the WP:Copyright violation policy and sometimes to avoid the WP:Blockquote guideline (at least I often condense to avoid that guideline). It's usually better to break up a quote (not necessarily condense it) than to have one or more blockquotes. By "breaking up," I mean adding "he said" or "she said" every now and then at the end of a statement and wording parts of the quote in your own words (as long as you stay true to the meaning of the quote). See, for example, what I did with quoting at Lucy (2014 film)#Critical reception. Flyer22 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22, now I see it was a misunderstanding. I agree that condensing a quote may be a good practice in general, but this time it was not acceptable as it affected the meaning of the quote. Thank you also for saving me from the automatic reversion of my changes by ClueBot_NG and his discouraging comments on my talk page.--Lademoen (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Lademoen (talk · contribs). ClueBot NG is a bot, and curse words or other bad words will often trigger the bot. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Pass a method SPI

Howdy! Your report exceeds 5,000 characters, it is long. I think that clerk may decline CU and hope for the evaluation of behavioural evidence. Lets see how long it will take.

Once it will be confirmed that this is sock of pass a method then what has to be done? You should recall what happened last time, sock was blocked but pass a method wasn't reblocked. Restrictions on Pass a method were lifted. But he has abused the editing privileges and topic ban should be longer. I don't know where to raise this issue. Have you got any plan? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, regarding the latest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method, you're stating that there is a limit for how long the report should be? If so, I missed that. I have not started many official WP:Sockpuppet investigations; I've usually pointed out WP:Sockpuppets, which led to other editors starting the official WP:Sockpuppet investigations or a WP:Administrator and/or WP:CheckUser blocking an editor on the spot, such as when dealing with obvious WP:Sockpuppets of pro-pedophile users; WP:Child protect concerns that matter. I would hope that a clerk does not decline a WP:CheckUser looking at the latest Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet report, given the evidence that I presented. Sure, Pass a Method might not be all of those editors, but the first three of those accounts need looking into by a WP:CheckUser. Notice that none of them have yet to defend themselves in that investigation, despite the ping they likely got via WP:Echo. Here, I also let User:Overagainst know that I reported him. He has ignored that statement. Perhaps because he's not Pass a Method; perhaps because he is Pass a Method. Either way, I don't trust him. Something is very fishy there.

In the latest Pass a Method investigation, you can see that I requested that the Pass a Method account be indefinitely blocked. Pass a Method doesn't need an extension of the topic ban; he's done with that account, which is why his account was not re-blocked in the second investigation. What he needs is for his account to be indefinitely blocked and officially tagged as a WP:Sockpuppet master. You can obviously voice your opinion on that matter there, which is likely to help. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: He finally answered; I won't be replying. Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

IPs

I believe that claiming that this IP address belongs to that editor is generally taken as a violation of WP:OUTING and probably the privacy policy. You might want to redact those statements. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Please back up that belief with a pointer to a guideline or discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, querying whether or not that IP is the editor in question (notice that I did query, and stated that, to me, they are the same person) is not a violation of WP:OUTING, especially since the editor has admitted to being that IP. If we were not allowed to query such matters, then WP:Sockpuppet investigations would be partly hindered. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and, yes, I am aware that WP:CheckUsers usually (note: usually) will not publicly tie an IP to a registered account. They will all but state that the IP and registered editor are the same person, though, by blocking on behavioral evidence. When I see an IP's editing matching a registered editor's editing, I am likely to note that on the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. When submitting an SPI, we are supposed to give behaviorial evidence linking IP's to user names so action without a CU can be taken. On ANI, linking IP's with registered editors and citing WP:DUCK (making sure the evidence is strong) is a regular occurrence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment". The privacy policy defines "personal information" as including "your real name, address, phone number, email address, password, identification number on government-issued ID, IP address, user-agent information, credit card number".

I have seen editors get in trouble over this in the past. I'd rather that you didn't get tied up in a complaint like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I appreciate you trying to help. And you and I both know that I can be stubborn and take-no-prisoners at times, but I've explained above that I don't see that I've done a thing wrong regarding indicating that the IP and that editor are the same person. I've explained above how I roll regarding the likelihood that an IP and registered editor are the same person; I stand by that. Have for years. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING gives a definition of: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." Nothing about IP address. If you want that as part of the definition then you need to lobby to get that added (and prepare for the backlash). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Article about Arif Hussain Al Hussaini haven't strong resources except you mentioned two references to resource which when click on second of it, liked to page with user name and password .for entering that site need user name and password .Please remove and put it when your part of article have strong resources. thanks

m8

wat r u doing m8 my perfectly legal edit got rolled back. top lel m8. 1v1 me m97 78.148.197.114 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dummy edits

Stop witht he dummy edits, you're messing with the spacing inside the edit window. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edokter, there was one true dummy edit. And it was perfectly acceptable. This edit, however, was a revert of your silly need to chastise. I will use dummy edits when I see a reason to appropriately do so, as is clearly allowed by WP:Dummy edits. You are not the first person I've encountered who has stated something that gives the impression that dummy edits are not allowed when it comes to leaving a note, including coming to my talk page to voice that belief. But you are wrong, just like the others. Don't return to my user talk page making useless posts, like the one you made above. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Post deletion: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Hi,

I'd like to archive my own posts, or delete them, on the "Fair Use" talk page. The last time I posted on a high-traffic talk page, I ended up getting overwhelmed with useless posts for months. That page is very high traffic, I can already see it starting to happen again.

Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Cliffswallow-vaulting. I reverted you here and here because it's not up to you to decide that the discussion is over. Sure, you can decide that the discussion is over for you, but that talk page section does not belong to you even though you started it. I also reverted because I think it's best that things are archived in order, and there was no need to start a new archive. But now that the bot has archived the only other section there, I wouldn't mind if you archived the section to that archive. How about asking in that section if anyone minds if you go ahead and archive it? Also, regarding this, yes, be more careful when it comes to creating archives.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Wikipedia talk:Non-free content" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you! I see your points and that also sounds like a good option. I'll post to see how others feel and then maybe archive my posts tomorrow.

I'll try to be more careful too.

Appreciatively, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If You Didn't Laugh, You'd Cry Edit

Sorry about that. I know it wasn't very constructive but just putting 'citation needed' didn't feel adequate to address what looked like a review written up by one of the band members stating Stephen King said they were 'The American U2'. Half the references on this page are hilariously 404'd too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.1.66 (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding cites and four linked articles: Lucy (2014 film)‎

Hi Flyer: There are 4 links in the article section and I am adding a further citation on the new film. Toga and Mazzioti are professors at UCLA and their book also cited is well respected. There is no original research in the text at this time. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LawrencePrincipe. Read the WP:Original research policy, specifically the WP:Synthesis aspect of it. That is why I reverted you here and here. You are taking matters and tying them to the film Lucy in the absence of WP:Reliable sources doing so. Where are the WP:Reliable sources stating that these are themes of the film, similar to what is stated at Avatar (2009 film)#Themes and inspirations? That is my point. Also, this is a matter for the article talk page, not mine.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Lucy (2014 film)‎" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ejaculatory edit?

Hi [Flyer22]], thanks for the re-add of a small, but important, word in my edit. I've responded to NeilN and hopefully won't get knocked back with my next effort if I can better reference the edits.

I noticed that you redact a lot on the sexual orientated pages and I'd appreciate your view on a few changes I have been considering, since I first viewed the ejaculation topic last week, and got rather bothered by it. Reading your Wiki page, I admire that you approach redacting from an LBGT supportive standpoint and your policy of neutrality would be very helpful to me. I'm not sure how you can deal with the stress of it all and stay sane but would you be willing to review my thoughts on the changes I think would improve the page images, given that quite a long time has passed since they were up for debate?--BigBearLovesPanda (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, BigBearLovesPanda (talk · contribs). When you link to editors' usernames, make sure that you use the word "User"; so it's "User:Flyer22," not simply "Flyer22." Also, "redact" on Wikipedia means something different than what you are thinking. See WP:Redact. Regarding LGBT matters, my userpage notes that I will not give WP:Undue weight to LGBT matters or engage in WP:Activism regarding those matters, no matter how supportive I am of the LGBT community. Yes, I am willing to consider your thoughts regarding the Ejaculation article. Like NeilN told you on his talk page, he reverted you because of one of the sources you added. Yes, I indicated that the other source is WP:MEDRS-compliant. It is. I Googled Shaw's Textbook of Gynaecology on Google Books; mostly the older books, from the 1950s or 1960s, came up. But the Shaw's Textbook of Operative Gynaecology source, for example, is WP:MEDRS-compliant.

As for staying sane while editing Wikipedia, I barely do. I suffer from depression (including suicidal thoughts), so editing contentious topics on Wikipedia certainly often raises my stress levels and my depression worsens, but someone has to do the dirty work. And far too many editors at this site don't want to do that work, so I fill that spot when I can manage it. The name-calling rolls right off of me, for the most part. Sure, it and other incivility (see WP:Civil), can anger me (the general incivility often does), but it's not often that I'm hurt by any of the words. Being called a bitch, cunt, idiot, etc. is a part of the job here (at least for me). I know that my depression often contributes to me being less than civil (usually when someone is uncivil to me first), but I often try not to be (even when my mindset is simultaneously "If you are rude to me, then expect me to be rude to you in return."). I wouldn't recommend anyone edit Wikipedia unless they stick to relatively uncontroversial topics. But even editing fiction can lead to a lot of unpleasantness, and editing relatively uncontroversial topics can lead to editing controversial topics. That's how I and many others started out on Wikipedia. I came to this site interested in documenting the fictional couple JR Chandler and Babe Carey, and I spread out to other areas that I'm knowledgeable in from there. Sometimes, like many people at this site, I wonder if Wikipedia would be significantly more peaceful if more women edited here; but with some of the women I've encountered at this site, and given the catty nature of many women, perhaps that would not be the case. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, I'm pretty rubbish at proof reading my own work and no matter how many times I try to be better I always miss something so I really appreciate you pointing out my Wiki mistakes. I'll get there eventually. I'm so sorry to hear you get depressed. My ex-partner and I both suffered with it in the past so I know just how awful it can be. It really pisses me off when I hear people saying "why don't you pull yourself together" or "you'll get over it", they are well meaning but really haven't got a clue. The anti-depressants we both went on were a fucking nightmare (excuse the language) and we both ended up like zombies. I could only stick with them for a few months before I gave up and decided to try other solutions. We were very lucky because for some reason, neither of us ever worked out, we both recovered. I took up cycling for fitness and I think that helped my mind recover as I was almost meditating on my regular circuit but who knows? I have to say the legacy of my depression is being a 51 year old man that weeps at the silliest of things. My emotions have been a bit of car wreck ever since but life goes on I guess. Anyway, stay strong and 'don't let the bastards grind you down'. It may take me a while to get my editing act together but many thanks for agreeing to check out my edits. I'm sure I won't get it right first time so I really will appreciate your honest candid views. I hate people pussy footing around a subject so your candour is rather lovely.--BigBearLovesPanda (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BigBearLovesPanda. No need to link my username while you're on my talk page. As for depression, I tried anti-depressants as well (the first one being Zoloft); my mother thinks that they improved my mental health, and that I wasn't on them long enough to see a big improvement, but I'm convinced that any improvement by taking that so-called medicine was due to the placebo effect. And this, to me, means that there is no cure for my depression. Well, unless one thinks that the placebo effect can be a cure (which it is for some people). If it was light depression, I don't think that the medication would be needed, but, at the same time, I don't think that I suffer from major depressive disorder...at least going by the first sentence currently at the Major depressive disorder article. Other times, I wonder if I do suffer from that. I'm not sure if a doctor has characterized my depression as major depressive disorder, clinical depression, major depression, unipolar depression, or unipolar disorder (I'd have to check my medical records); but the lead of the Major depressive disorder article also uses the term recurrent depression, and I definitely have that. It's nice that you were able to overcome your depression. And, yes, it aggravates me as well when people think that depression is a simple matter that one can simply get over; maybe in a few cases, one can simply "get over it." But in the vast majority of cases, it's not so easy to shrug off. A lot of people are wondering how Robin Williams‎, so successful and rich, could have been depressed and killed himself. Some people think that he was lacking mental strength, selfish or cruel to commit suicide (the pain it has caused his family). These people simply don't understand depression and suicide. But there will always be people who think about these topics in those ways, regardless of how informed the general public becomes on them. Yes, suicide may be selfish. But I query: Is it not just as selfish to ask or force a person to live simply for your sake, when that person is in mental anguish day in and day out? I've told my mother that; it made her cry. But that's how I feel. And when people ask me if I'm doing well or imply that they wonder how I'm doing, I don't like to answer because I'm usually "forced" to state, "I'm okay." or "Doing fine." (such as when on the phone with someone), when that's technically a lie. No one wants to hear about how terrible someone is doing. Too many people don't care, and it makes those same people and many others feel awkward. So lie. And I hate lying.

Anyway, yes, feel free to make a WP:Bold edit at the aforementioned article you edited or start a discussion on the talk page about the changes you want to make to that article, and I'll review the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Wow, that looks like an intense amount of careful work that you did with the Sockpuppet investigation of Pass a Method. Thanks for the important work you do which helps to make the lives of other wiki editors easier and more importantly helps make wikipedia a better resource. --Pengortm (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hi Flyer22, it was a mistake of mine. You can say that I am experienced because I am also a wikiHow author. Thanks Ikhtiar H (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

why did you remove my post of corroberated source of prophet yahweh passing away?

why did you remove my post of corroberated source of prophet yahweh passing away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.8.30 (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

Please read sources and talk page before reverting unnecessarily (and marking said revert as "minor"). Thankyou. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs), I reverted you at that article because you were WP:Edit warring and Charlesdrakew spoke of consensus. WP:Consensus is policy. Handle that matter on the article talk page. I didn't mark the edit as WP:Minor; WP:Huggle, the tool I used to revert you, did. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexting picture

You are invited to respond, here: Talk:Sexting#The photo being used here. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CapnZapp. That article is on my WP:Watchlist, though, so no need to inform me of your reply. I had overlooked your latest reply there, but I would have gotten back there eventually and decided on whether there's a point in continuing that discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

You can change this for tea if you prefer tea. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Threatening people

Hi. I just received your threat. Please read what I wrote and revert yourself. Lysergic Casserole (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: My talk page

Please check your email. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

All this secrecy regarding the latest editor who shall not be named at the Pedophilia talk page, including this edit you made at your talk page, is not something I'm keen on. You've already gone through WP:Suppression regarding this editor while there are similar editors I could point to who have not had their histories run through WP:Suppression, so I don't know why more censorship is needed. But whatever the higher ups want to do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Glen Eira College

Hi and thanks for your edits reversing vandalism on Glen Eira College! Do you think you could take a deeper look at this? This has been vandalized most thoroughly - I stopped because I already did three reverts there today. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

JaconaFrere, one of the exemptions of the WP:3RR policy is WP:Vandalism. If it's all WP:Vandalism, then revert away. But I'll have a closer look at the article later. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks again! I didn't know about the exemptions to 3RR, guess I've never actually studied that - but I need to as it's been used against me unjustly in the past! Many thanks! Jacona (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

When I reverted, I didn't even read this entire entry; now that I have, and see the Shrek matter, it's clear that it's nothing but vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested semi - lots of nonsense on that article today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Flyer22. As one of the main WikiProject Africa contributors, your input here would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I'm not one of the main WikiProject Africa contributors (not that I know of). I have the African American and Recent African origin of modern humans articles on my WP:Watchlist because of how controversial they can be, but I'm not primarily involved with any African articles. That stated, I might comment on that WP:RfC later. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

2012 Presidential Election Ohio

Hi, Obama won Ohio fair and square. Those alleged voter fraud perpetrators did not successfully vote twice. The system is set up to catch attempts at double voting.

Handan Sultan

Sorry, this is not vandalizm, but Handan Sultan had no connection to Circassian or Mahidevran.

I saw many Articles here about woman of the ottoman Dynasty, since Muhtesem yüzyil series always made false statemants by this so called Mahidevran Fans.

In the Ottoman Harem at this Time there was no circassian, or any own cousin of a Ottoman Prince.

There is nor source who claimed before this series that Handan was a Circassian and a relative to Mahidevran.

She was a Greek and her name was Helena when she enter in the Harem.

This storys of some Valide sultanas are a joke...only written by one person...

Handan Sultan was a native greek girl named Helena and she came into the harem as all the other girls as slave.

Best regards

Handan Sultan

I didnt know why there is two links posted?

I only want to explain that the article of Handan is wrong...she was not a circassian.

Sony revenues incorrect

Hi, I don't know how any of this Wikipedia editing stuff works but I tried to change some financial information on the "Sony" page, regarding their revenue and net income and it was reverted back to its incorrect figures. If you look at the PDF that Sony put out, you will see that their income is much lower than what is currently on Wikipedia. For example, it reports net income of 31 Billion USD, when in fact Sony had a loss of 120 million. Their revenue, operating income, and net income are all wrong. Please fix them.

Thank You. 2604:1500:8011:3800:B19D:7C8B:78:F081 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page re: Jury rigging

Hiya. Just letting you know that you made a mistake and shouldn't have undid my edit. I realize that I'm an anonymous contributor and thus am not as important in the grand scheme of Wikipedia though so I won't add it back myself but I urge you to please un-undo it. 98.145.9.55 (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Daemons, His dark materials

Hello, just to let you know that I (partially) reverted your edit on Daemons, His dark materials. Whilst I understand why you would think this might be vandalism, in fact 'homosexual' is one of the speculations that Pullman agrees to in the interview. I slightly modified the previous text to make it clearer that Pullman is very much saying 'maybe, I don't know really'.As here:[14]Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A wiki etiquette tip for you: Sham marriage article

When correcting a minor typo, it isn't necessary to embarrass the editor who made it by identifying him on the edit summary. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

JustinTime55, which typo are you referring to? Whatever the case, I disagree. If the matter is embarrassing to that editor, then it's an embarrassing matter that is noted in the edit history regardless. What I did is done often on Wikipedia. It is not something that would be embarrassing to every editor; for example, someone acknowledging that they corrected my typo is not at all embarrassing to me. We all make typos. It's common. If you don't want your typos ever pointed out, then don't make them. Flyer22 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing you pop back up on my WP:Watchlist, I now see which article you mean.

I altered the heading of this discussion section with ": Sham marriage article " so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

keep your eyes wide open.

Hello, I am Divya. I had edited the content featuring Anees Salim. I hail from his place and know a lot more than you know about him. So, what's the point in editing my content? It's not like you have added something new, so I suggest you to carry out a nice deep research before editing others content. No offence meant! Divya Krish (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Divya Krish (talk · contribs), I don't care about what offense you meant. I care about you not replacing reliably sourced content with POV-wording and unsourced content, especially on a WP:Biography of a living person. That is why I reverted you here. If you've researched the person so well, then provide WP:Reliable sources for your additions, and don't add POV-wording such as "popularly known for" and "claims to." Read WP:Biography of a living person, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Words to watch, including its WP:Claim guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Erogenous zone

Why did you undid my texts ? I do not know any other studies about this topic. How will you improve this article if you do not use these studies ?Yohan Castel (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yohan Castel (talk · contribs), I explained when reverting you. You gave WP:Undue weight to two relatively small studies ("small" concerning what countries they focused on and the number of people assessed); they are also WP:Primary sources. I told you on your talk page what are the best types of sources to use for biomedical information (WP:MEDRS-compliant sources), and that "you can also cite book sources, which can be secondary sources." If you had cited this information using book sources (reliable books by authors, other than the authors of the study, noting these research results) and hadn't given so much space to the matter, I would not have reverted you. The article needs enough improvement as it is; it doesn't need any more primary sources. And it can certainly be improved without those studies. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agree w/Flyer here, the sourcing was a primary study and a thesis, generally very weak sources, and the resulting image placed far too much undue weight on the findings. Zad68 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when literature reviews or systematic reviews are available, it is more reliable sources. But when there are only two studies, how can you make systematic reviews ? And WP:MEDRS is for medecine. There are thousands of medical researchers around the world who publish every year thousands of biomedical articles. It is then easy to make systematic reviews. But erogenous zones is not a medical topic. In the field of sexuality (not sexology), researchers are few. Kinsey Institute, Quebec university, and a few more people around the world. Then how can you find systematic reviews ? How can you find a book written by an expert (neuroscientist and sexologist) with an article published in 2013 ? I only know Simon Levay, Anders Agmo, Erick Janssen or Jacque Balthazart who are experts in these fields. And only Levay update regularly a book about human sexuality. And moreover, Cortex has an Impact Factor of 6.042 and is published by Elsevier. It's "written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher". And besides, if you have other and better sources to improve this article, I will gladly use them. Yohan Castel (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Erogenous zones concern biomedical material (anatomy), which puts it in the domain of WP:MEDRS. This is, for example, why WP:MEDMOS includes how to format an anatomy article. As is noted at WP:MEDRS, if a biomedical study (any study, really) has not received literature reviews or systematic reviews, or is not commented on by authors in a reliable book source, it is usually not worth noting. We can wait until, or rather if, it receives such attention. In the vast majority of cases, we should wait; this is per the things that WP:MEDRS points out about WP:Primary sources. Like I told you on your talk page, there are cases where citing primary studies by themselves for biomedical information is fine, but this is rare; I pointed out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence, which states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." It also notes WP:Recentism. And the point of WP:Recentism is that what is recent is not always what is best. And then, of course, for anatomy details that have not changed or changed much in many years, it's okay to use much older sources...such as Gray's Anatomy. I'm not clear on how you are dividing the field of sexuality from the field of sexology (unless you are limiting sexology to human aspects, like the Sexology article currently does, which is a matter that needs fixing). Sexology is the study of sexuality, especially human sexuality. The medical field, excluding the sexual aspects, does have a lot more experts. But the sexuality/sexological field is not as small as you are making it out to be. For books that may cover a sexuality matter published in 2013, you can look on Google Books. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy is not a medical field. In theory, yes, sexology is the study of sexuality. Practically, most of the research in this field is medical research made by physicians. A search in PubMed with the keyword "Erectile dysfunction" retrives 19616 results. Outside medical research, research about the biology of sexuality is scant. For example, when you make a search with PubMed with the keyword "erogenous zones", you get only 14 results. And the most recent result is the study from Turnbull. Then explain me, please, how to improve this article ? Because, except for the section "genitals" there are no scientific references or no references at all.Yohan Castel (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy is a medical aspect, is a branch of the field of medicine, as noted by this 2007 scholarly book source, this 2007 scholarly book source, this 2013 scholarly book source, this 2014 scholarly book source, and many more WP:Reliable sources. I don't see how you are disputing that, especially given what anatomy involves (such as dissection and histology). Look at the Anatomy article. And, like I've already stated, since anatomy concerns biomedical information (it clearly does), it is within the domain of WP:MEDRS when it comes to sourcing. If anatomy did not concern the medical field, there would be no section on it at WP:MEDMOS and the Anatomy article would not be tagged with the WP:Med banner at the top of Talk:Anatomy. The fact that anatomy is an aspect of the medical field is also why it is listed in the Basic sciences section of the Medicine article.

Yes, there are not an abundance of WP:MEDRS-compliant sources discussing erogenous zones; this is because the study of sexual response is usually focused on the genitals (for example, the human sexual response cycle), which, yes, you've indicated by mentioning the Genitals section of the Erogenous zone article. Researchers and layman know that the genitals are erogenous. Everything else, except commonly for the lips, breasts or anus for some people, is far more subjective (a case-by-case matter) and dubious when it comes to naming them erogenous zones. This does not mean that we should use poor sources for that material. We should generally stick to WP:Secondary reliable sources for it, regardless of the fact that there may be only a little to address when we leave out all of the bad or low-quality sources; more is not always better. When it comes to book sources for that material, this and this scholarly source (both from 2013) are the types of sources you should be using. Certainly not sex guide books, unless written by an actual expert in the field. You can type in a sexuality/sexology researcher in the Google Books search bar, plus the term erogenous zone, and see what, if anything, Google Books pulls up about that researcher's take on erogenous zones. I don't know what else to tell you other than what I've told you on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you well, you suggest me to use books ? But from where do come the data used in books ? From research. So, if there is only 14 studies about erogenous zones, of whom only two are recents, and half are old psychodynamics studies, what is then in the book ? Very few scientific data, and a lot of common beliefs, which are in many books and cross cited from one book to an other. Exemple : "erogenous zones include virtually all other region of the body" (from Crooks), is a claim made first by Freud and written from then on in nearly all books. Is that science ? To put it simply, I do not want to start endless discussions. I am a behavioral researcher, and I think I know how science works. I know the kind of people who write the books. They are experts on some topics, but most of the book is just what they take in other books. If you want a good example of a good sexological book, look at Agmo's book. If there was a book like this one about the topic of erogenous zones, il would have used it. So, please, as we have only these two studies on the topic (plus the classic human sexual response from Masters and Johnson, but with only an evaluation of the genitals), how can we use these data to improve the article, and in a way which can improve wikipedia and satisfy everybody ? Yohan Castel (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that "books" should be used but secondary sources. Secondary sources have surveyed and evaluated the existing primary sources and can place appropriate weight on good quality primary sources and less weight on bad ones. A primary source cannot establish its own weight, only a secondary (or tertiary) source can. I have a hard time believing that there are no authoritative secondary sources that cover this. Regardless, the enormous graphic created using the primary data places far too much weight on individual study findings. Zad68 02:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yohan Castel, you think that the Crooks source is citing Freud on that? I don't think so. I don't think it has anything to do with Freud, whose works have mostly been discredited. Stating that "erogenous zones include virtually all other region[s] of the body" is the subjective matter I was referring to. Just about all parts of the body have been categorized as erogenous zones based on people's own reports on what they personally find erogenous. It's generally a case-by-case matter; the especial exception is, of course, the genitals. That's why the Erogenous zone article currently includes body parts that are not well researched as erogenous zones. When it comes to book sources, I am talking about going by solidly reliable book sources that report on the literature of erogenous zones; that's why I stated no sex guide books unless written by an expert in the sexual field. If a study on erogenous zones has not even made it into a solidly reliable book, then how can we trust that the study is worth noting? If the study has not been reviewed (not simply peer-reviewed...but noted in a review article), how can we trust that the study has a good likelihood of being accurate? We don't only have those two studies on erogenous zones (or Masters and Johnson's report on the human sexual response cycle, which does not only address the genitals). Perhaps we only have those two studies regarding some of the reported non-genital erogenous zones, but, again, "As is noted at WP:MEDRS, if a biomedical study (any study, really) has not received literature reviews or systematic reviews, or is not commented on by authors in a reliable book source, it is usually not worth noting. We can wait until, or rather if, it receives such attention. In the vast majority of cases, we should wait; this is per the things that WP:MEDRS points out about WP:Primary sources." You keep asking how the article can be expanded, especially regarding the non-genital material; I already stated, "We should generally stick to WP:Secondary reliable sources for it, regardless of the fact that there may be only a little to address when we leave out all of the bad or low-quality sources; more is not always better."

And, yeah, Zad, the topic of erogenous zones, except for the genitals, is not well studied. That's partly why Yohan Castel wants something added to the Erogenous zone article about these two studies. The whole "[t]hese instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published" matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for the Crook book, that is the question. What are the scientific sources for their section about erogenous zones ? There are very few scientific data available (PubMed results). Then what are the scientific sources in all the sexological books ? And when you talk about WP:Undue weight, you compare to what ? The numerous books with chapters about erogenous zones, but without scientific sources ? What are the scientific data you weight against ? Correct me if I am wrong, but I know only two other studies about this topic Winkelmann and Schober. And these four studies are complementary. So I do not understand why there is an undue weight when I cite 50% of the existing scientific data about this topic ? And for WP:MEDRS « if a biomedical study (any study, really) has not received literature reviews or systematic reviews, or is not commented on by authors in a reliable book source, it is usually not worth noting». Do you believe that erogenous zones are « not worth noting » ? Are they not, with the reward system, a main factor in sexual behavior Pfaus, an expert and Kringelbach, also an expert on the topic ? Are you aware that in the sexology field there are strong ideological influences ? In USA GW Bush belonged to an evangelical church, and churches are opposed to sexual researchs (see Bancroft (an expert) or more recent America's war on sex). So why studies about erogenous zones are not available ? Because erogenous zones are not worth noting or because of a strong ideological (and political) opposition to sex research ? And please, could you help me to understand how we can improve an article with so few available research ? As I told you last week, I agree that systematic reviews or pluridisciplinary work are generally better than a single study. But what should we do when there are no systematic reviews ? I truly do not understand why you do not want these only two existing studies comparing the erogenous zones, but, on the contrary, you did not undid all the sections (except "genitals") without any references at all !!! I am not against high quality articles in wikipedia, but then why keeping texts without any references ? Are wikipedia rules just an excuse to exclude these articles ? Please, can you tell me precisely how to improve this article ? With a section with methodological warnings ? With explanations why there are so few research on this topic ? Both ? Please, explain me. Yohan Castel (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As for a solidly reliable book source commenting on the literature, it is not required of us to ask where they got their data. You are making it a requirement. All we have to do is follow what the sources state. There are plenty of studies that look at the genitals as erogenous zones, as is clear by the Genitals section in the Erogenous zones article. I've already explained above regarding the non-genital erogenous zones; I stated "the study of sexual response is usually focused on the genitals (for example, the human sexual response cycle), which, yes, you've indicated by mentioning the Genitals section of the Erogenous zone article" and "[r]esearchers and layman know that the genitals are erogenous. Everything else, except commonly for the lips, breasts or anus for some people, is far more subjective (a case-by-case matter) and dubious when it comes to naming them erogenous zones." Yes, I am aware that there are "strong ideological influences" in the sexology field. That goes for a lot of research areas, but I highly doubt that "strong ideological influences" is the reason that so few studies focus on non-genital erogenous zones. After all, non-genital erogenous zones are far less controversial than genital erogenous zones (well, except for the anus), and yet, out of the two, genital erogenous zones have been studied far more than non-genital erogenous zones. Sexual activity is well studied; "strong ideological influences" clearly have not stopped that from happening. I reiterate that the study of sexual response is mostly about the genitals. So that's one way that your text was WP:Undue weight. I see nothing wrong with the Erogenous zone article being mostly about the genitals when that is what the vast majority of research regarding erogenous zones concerns. You are making it out as though we need to include these two small studies to improve the article. That going by a solidly reliable book source commenting on the literature is not good enough. I disagree.

The WP:Due weight policy is clear that WP:Due weight can be given in a number of ways; it states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Look at how much space you gave these two relatively small studies, as though they generally represent all men and women. That is WP:Undue weight. The first study states, "A sample of some 800 participants, primarily from the British Isles and Sub-Saharan Africa, completed a survey of 41 body parts, each rated for erogenous intensity." For one, that's a small sample. For two, Sub-Saharan Africa is an area that is well known for female genital mutilation (FGM); such mutilation is very prominent there. Given that prominence, it's also clear why many women there would rely on body parts other than the genitals as erogenous zones. Therefore, how can women from Sub-Saharan Africa accurately reflect the general material on female genital erogenous zones? Third: Your material included the G-spot, a highly debated area that the vast majority of scientists don't even believe exists....unless attributing it to the clitoris. So why should we give so much weight to these two studies? That is a part of my point. My points on this matter have nothing to do with my thinking that erogenous zones are not worth noting. They have to do with my not liking dubious research about sexuality being given so much weight in a Wikipedia article, or any weight in many cases. The other dubious material in the article? Feel free to remove it. I'm not defending it. I stated above, "The article needs enough improvement as it is; it doesn't need any more primary sources." Arguing that I should not have reverted you unless I removed the other poor material is not a good argument. It's a WP:Other stuff exists argument, and it fails in this case because edits of dubious quality are reverted all the time, regardless of whether or not the article is already of dubious quality. All that stated, perhaps it's fine to give these two studies a bit of placement in the Erogenous zone article, based on the "[t]hese instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published" aspect. But, after a couple or a few years, if this material still is not reviewed by high-quality sources, it should then be removed. Zad, any opinion on that? How would you format this material if we include it? Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You removed my edit, which WAS constructive.

Hello. I made an edit to a page on Michael Persinger and you removed it claiming it was not constructive. On the contrary, it was very constructive. The study in question on the page was incorrectly reported and I was correcting it to match the actual study. I could question the constructive value of your edits, because all you do is revert changes which is more destructive than constructive. Thank you. I will redo this AND list the summary of changes with reference.

Robertlee79 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Robertlee79 (talk · contribs), I don't see anything constructive about you inserting question marks into areas, like you did here. So, yes, I reverted you. And as for "question[ing] the constructive value of [my] edits, because all [I] do is revert changes which is more destructive than constructive," you must not be familiar with all that I do on Wikipedia. But whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the OP's other contribs. All except the first used dubious sources (putting it politely) or removed well sourced material and all have been reverted. Robertlee79, please read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.127.108 (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Competence issue with an editor

You reverted Samuelzohmingliana.[15] Any suggestions as to what to do about this well-meaning editor whose edits are pretty nigh incomprehensible as well as unsourced? Thanks. @@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, the only suggestion I have is explaining on the user's talk page your objections. As you no doubt know, so many WP:Newbies ignore warnings or advice and/or don't see them and therefore don't respond. Sometimes there is a language barrier. If the problematic editing continues after you explain your concerns to the editor, it's time to seek action for WP:Disruptive editing. I will temporarily put the article in question on my WP:Watchlist to help you out (backup). Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Possibly one of the longest user pages I ever came across . Enjoy this. Cheers! Happy Editing! →Enock4seth (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Enock4seth, you mean my user page or my user talk page? Whichever the case, I've seen longer. Much longer in certain cases. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Was referring to your user page though! →Enock4seth ^(talk) 07:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Just in case

Hello Flyer22. I have posted a couple things on the thread on the Pederasty talk page. I want you to know that I value your knowledge and research skills. If anything I have posted causes offense then I want to apologize to you ahead of time. I always remember Leo Buscaglia's adage about learning something new every day. That includes changing something I thought I had learned when it is in error. Thanks for your time and efforts here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 02:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD. Thank you. I very much mean that. And, no, you have not offended me at the Pederasty talk page. You likely offended the editor in question, but not me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. You post is gracious and I appreciate it very much as well. Remember that this also applies to future posts/stumbles that I might make :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that ended as we suspected that it might. You did your best. Logging on this morning I found that the editor JaysonSunshine (talk · contribs) was indeffed for the same reason. This persons user page had many of the same arguments and sources on it as N used. The page is now blanked but it is still in the history if you are interested. It makes me wonder if the two are connected in some way - maybe Meatpuppets. Or perhaps I have watched and read too many mysteries and this is just a coincidence. In any event have a great week on WikiP and even more so off. MarnetteD|Talk 15:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I know about the JaysonSunshine case; I commented on it here at NeilN's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the link. MarnetteD|Talk 15:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My edits review request

Hi Flyer, I am a fraud. I confessed to admin that from the jump I've been a POV pusher. I've never even bothered to read the 5 pillars. So could you please peek at my edits to see if everything is kosher now.

[16] [17] --Wlmg (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wlmg, at first, I thought you were entirely serious about being a fraud, etc., LOL, which speaks to not always being able recognize humor via text. Regarding your edits, they look fine to me. However, regarding this edit, I don't usually consider the word significant to be a WP:Weasel word. It wasn't needed in the text you removed it from. But, for example, it's a popular word regarding medical content. And I usually prefer it to the word very; for example, a piece of text might state "very painful." In that case, I prefer "significantly painful" for an encyclopedic tone. And regarding this edit you made, "In popular culture" sections are allowed, but they need to be done well, similar to the Homer Simpson article. And given that some editors like to remove "In popular culture" sections, it can also be best to title such a section "In the media" to throw them off, similar to the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles. But your reasons for removing the aforementioned "In popular culture" section is valid. Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer you're the greatest ;-).

Vandalizm?

Safiye >Sultan was not an native Albanian so what is Vandalizm to changend it?

She was a Venetian, Sofia Baffo.

Please look the the real ottoman archive sources and not from any selfmade mahidevran sultan fan historian who wrote bullshit here in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.112.141 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Sexual harassment page

Sorry about that. My spell checker said that they were wrong. Do you know of a good tool for spell checking? What about UK vs USA English differences? BollyJeff | talk 13:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's fine, Bollyjeff. And, no, I don't. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Animal Hospital

Hi, I changed it to include the 'later shamed' as it is true given Mr Harris's recent conviction. I don't get how it was 'not constructive' according to your message - it is factually true and not unneccesarily deflamatory. Please can you review. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.191.236 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM question

If someone is violating an arbcom ruling (namely repeatedly misgendering a transwoman on File_talk:Woman_Montage_(1).jpg) after the {{alert}} has been posted on their page and subsequently been asked/warned not to misgender, should they be reported to WP:AE or WP:ANI? It seems the former is more for regular users where a detailed case needs to be made, but I'm honestly not clear on the whole thing. I figured you'd know about this. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I saw of this matter at WP:ANI about the sex and gender distinction and the topic of misgendering, I'm not sure that WP:ANI will be much help to you. You can try, of course. Far too many people, including WP:Administrators, do not fully understand the sex and gender distinction, and even more people (the vast majority) either have not heard of misgendering or don't understand it (even when it's explained to them, they will usually have a black and white way of thinking). But for WP:ArbCom enforcement on the matter you have brought up, the place to post about it is either at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology or at WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and like the aforementioned WP:ANI discussion shows, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is another option. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally installed 'Cloud To Butt Plus' a year ago.

I completely forgot I had 'Cloud To Butt Plus' turned on. I had installed it a year ago for some reason. As you can guess, it changes all the 'cloud' words to read butt. Sorry about that :(. (childish I know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwinters (talk • contribs) 05:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Cloud To Butt Plus until you mentioned it to me minutes ago on my talk page. LOL!! I thought you might simply be attempting to be a smartass with your "Cloud To Butt Plus" story, but it exists. Learn something new every day, I suppose. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

/* Childhood gender non-conformity */

Why is an interview with J. Michael Bailey an unreliable source? J. Michael Bailey is an American psychologist and professor at Northwestern University who specializes in sexual orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.102.76 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You have reverted the reference by the Bearman, too. The Bearman reference is already used by the article, and it is a solid reference. Why is it not a reliable reference? 76.88.102.76 (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

76.88.102.76: This should be discussed on the article talk page, not on individual editors' talk pages.- MrX 00:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

MrX, I'll mostly sit this one out. Like I just told the IP, he or she is focusing on WP:Fringe material when it comes to the topic of changing sexual orientation and on parental factors influencing sexual orientation. As you saw, I noted, for example, that the vast majority of scientists do not at all believe that sexual orientation can change, and they are clear about that on matters such as sexual orientation change efforts. They believe that sexual orientation identity changes, of course, but very few of them believe that sexual orientation actually changes. Furthermore, it's common that scientists mean "sexual orientation identity" when they state that sexual orientation can change. And the IP needs to be careful with the WP:Primary sources.

There's also WP:Edit warring going on with Frimoussou (who is likely Mardochee1) and this IP at the Epigenetic theories of homosexuality article, and I've been staying out of that as well. I see that the IP reported Frimoussou at WP:ANI. For some topics, there's only so much of the same type of dispute that I can tolerate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I recently took that off my watchlist. There's some serious sock puppetry going on there. I'm going to see if we can get it semi-protected of PC.- MrX 20:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:Semi-protection will leave Frimoussou to WP:Sockpuppet, of course, though. There's no doubt in my mind that Mardochee1 is Frimoussou. He or she should have been blocked on a WP:Duck basis. But if people want to take it to WP:Sockpuppet investigations to "be fair," then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up with all these sockpuppets. I'm not familiar with Frimoussou so I can't offer much of an opinion there.- MrX 21:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than the article in question, I'm not familiar with Frimoussou; I simply compared Frimoussou's edit history to Mardochee1's edit history, which is what the IP did as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Creation Seventh Day Adventist Edit

Hello,

Re: your message, the edits to the URLs on Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church were intentional. According to the official Twitter account of the church, the previous URL is no longer in service. I replaced the dead links with the IP address provided in their announcement, which is functional.

50.135.252.247 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Labia majora image

Before deleting a revision do you do any research or do you just assume what you know about the topic is correct? Nipplewoman (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Nipplewoman (talk · contribs), as you know, I noted in this and this edit that you should explain how the presentation of this image is incorrect.

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: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. And if you start a section on my or any other Wikipedia talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot and gave your post a heading. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you offered an explanation with this edit. You should take the matter to that article talk page. You can also ask WP:Med and/or WP:Anatomy to weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Pest

That section promotes animosity and violence against living creatures with its poorly "researched" or unexplained content. "Pumas kill and eat people", "feral dogs eat people food" and so on, and it doesn't even explain how that is created by people in the first place. The world isn't anthropocentric you know? You should delete biased stuff. And the part I deleted was already challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.160.69.0 (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

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

DangerousJXD (talk · contribs), there is no need for me to talk back. I already told you that there was no need to post at my talk page about my querying whether or not you are new to editing Wikipedia, since I have your user page/user talk page on my WP:Watchlist, and yet you did it anyway. That's that then. Your reply is there on record, and that is what I was after, much like this recent case and other recent cases where I've asked that of people because they immediately pop out to me as not new or as at least not very new. We'll see how things work out for you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I put the talkback because I thought you'd reply on my talk page. Can you tell me what your trying to do? Why do you think I've edited before? What are you talking about? I am very confused. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If you ever plan on replying can you please let me know? --DangerousJXD (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Why have I given you the sexiest food in the list of foods to give? Because you've edited a lot of stuff related to sexy things, I like that. Not being creepy or anything. DangerousJXD (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

<sarcasm> No, you're not being creepy at all.

This is the second time today that I've warned someone for coming close to inappropriate behavior. Ask yourself: would you do this to a male editor? If the answer is no, then yes you're being creepy and need to watch yourself. I haven't looked at your edit history, but I would suspect that this isn't unusual. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a message on your talkpage. Just making sure you know. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Dear Flyer22, thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent revert of the content forking occurring here. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Anupam. As for the article in question, as you can see, Dar tribe of kashmir has recreated the page again. I don't feel like telling that editor that what he is doing is wrong and trying to get him to understand why it's wrong. I'm certain that he is the type of editor who will keep reverting and will not listen. There might also be a bit of a language barrier when attempting to communicate with him. Therefore, I'll leave that matter (the Dar tribe of kashmir editor and the Dar (tribe) page) to others to attend to. Dealing with WP:Newbies is one of my weak points on Wikipedia, because, over the years, I have developed an "I'd rather not deal with them" attitude. This is because they often don't want to listen and/or read our policies and guidelines (yes, there is a lot to read regarding that, but reading at least one cannot hurt), and they often WP:Edit war, sometimes while issuing personal attacks (as recently as Nipplewoman (talk · contribs) above on my talk page). They might get a warning from me, and/or manual (non-automated) explanations from me when I see that they need help being pushed in the direction of understanding the way that Wikipedia works. But beyond that, I'd rather not take on the teacher role at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Either get rid of the lies about me off your page or I will delete it.

Hi. I deleted your WP:User Page. If you dont remove the crap about me, I will do it again. I am not a sockpuppet, any halfwit who reads my articles can see that. Thanks. zzz (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have protected User:Flyer22 due to the edit warring. If there are unsubstantiated claims about you, you should pursue those claims through Wikipedia admin assistance such as at WP:ANI; not by edit warring and insults. I did search User:Flyer22, aand see no mention of the username from which you are editing, so I recommending being very clear at WP:ANI as to what issue specifically you see on the userpage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Barek (previous thank you via WP:Echo), and thanks, NeilN, for this and this. Signedzzz, I finished replying to you several (or more than several, depending on how one defines "several") hours ago. After that, you kept commenting and commenting, to CambridgeBayWeather, to yourself, and because you knew that I would see it. Look at how you kept commenting. The way that you kept obsessively commenting certainly leads me to believe that you are not Pass a Method; I'd already suspected that you may not be Pass a Method, given the way that you express your opinions. My suspicions that you are Pass a Method have not completely evaporated, but they are down to about 2%. Still, I believe that you have edited under a registered account before you edited as Signedzzz; my opinion on that won't change. I don't see that there is a lot left for me to state to you. I do apologize for this edit summary, however, since it was somewhat inappropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care how much you think I've edited before. I say not hardly, you say more, (obviously I have some justifiable doubts about your instincts. And your wrong, again.) I don't know why you think its important. My first account never got far, because someone decided I was definitely a sockpuppet, and I had a 5-page argument with him (on an article talk page), and after that I'd had enough. (several or more years ago). For some reason, I really don't like having my identity questioned. I think it's about protecting anonymity, or something else. You are going to say something, no doubt, about how I still need to worry about breaking the Clean Start rules, like you mentioned in your user page bit about the sockpuppet (and me). But I dont, because, again, Im not lying. When you have proof, then you should do something about your suspicion, if indeed it is genuine and not just a private joke, which is how it seems (either that or something else. I've no idea). I had a quick look at the sock's writing, and he has no solid grasp of grammar, whereas I do. You mentioned earlier about how you don't think much of what I've written in articles. That is totally reasonable. How would I improve on my/Passamethod's level of writing (given that they are fairly similar)? I don't know why or if I care about you removing the stuff about me/him, but you might as well, since you accept it's not me, anyway. And I might get upset about it again (for some reason). Probably because I have no real life to get upset over, or whatever. I read some of the stuff on your user page ages ago, randomly and I thought the vandal stuff was funny. I was surprised when I spotted a few weeks ago that it was you who had it in for me. Oh well, I really wish I didn't let things get to me. I was stuck on that administrator's page for hours. Like totally insane. It is a worry. Another big mistake.zzz (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me that keeps getting accused of being a sockpuppet? I must write in a common style.zzz (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I just remembered, I also read the bit, ages ago about Passamethod, being British and spelling "grammar" wrongly. How weird. That would have been before you thought it was me. I hadn't written much yet, a couple of months ago. I would never spell grammar wrong, I have no idea why you didn't compare our different levels of grammar and spelling. zzz (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

At least, if you take out the stuff about Boko Haram and Drug use. I will spot Passamethod if he goes near those pages. And I will inform you of it immediately. No one hardly edits those pages (either before or after I started, I hasten to add) so it would be totally obvious. Thanks. zzz (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I see from your log of sockpuppets that Passamethod used the Urban Dictionary for the Erection article (last year). That is a ridiculous thing to do. I did, however, use it for Roach, which was lacking a decent source, and, while I did hesitate, it seemed vaguely reasonable, given the subject matter. The first definition is the one with the most votes, so that's something at least. I may have used it on the joint article as well. I should stress that I fully appreciate its lack of credentials as a reference. And I don't edit physiology/health type articles. Although, I did add something about the Mcdonald Triad to the bedwetting article - despite what the article previously stated, wrongly, it is a significant cause for concern in terms of future homicides. zzz (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I should not have theorized that you had some sinister scheme possibly going on. It was unfortunate timing of various events combined with my jumping to, unlikely, conclusions. But you should not have suspected that I was some sort of impostor. zzz (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew why you accused me of being a fraud, based on the fact I use British English. The sock couldn't spell or use grammar. I can. Surely that should be pretty conclusive evidence that I cannot be him? Why have you been so certain, all this time that I have been lying? I'm not asking about your theories about how much I edited before this, that is irrelevant. I have said I used WP before, the precise amount is impossible to quantify. I never wrote so much as a small section of any article; now I've written 2 entire articles. So there's no comparison.

THe fact that he has a similar style of writing is no doubt due to the British English, in part. I can't obviously explain the similarity beyond that. Maybe the newspaper sources impart a certain tone to whoever cites them. They do all tend to have a kind of peculiar tabloid forthrightness, for want of a better word, about them (Boko Haram sources, that is), which it is natural to want to impart the flavour of. However, much of the article was compiled from academic sources. I guess it could be a comination of factors that concinced you. I would suggest that grammar and spelling should be one of the first things you check, though. And isn't it better to leave new editors (whether you believe they are new or not) alone until you have proof of your (unreliable) guess-work, which you didn't even bother to check properly, eg spelling & grammar.

For the above reason I am having a very hard time believing that you, a self-professed expert in sockpuppets, ever really did think I was a sockpuppet. Spelling and grammar alone make it immediately obvious that I'm not.

If you could explain or suggest why you saw fit to put me through all that grief, that would satisfy my curiosity. Please remove the section pointing people where to find me, since it constitutes a very clear personal attack. zzz (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But I suppose it is just a big joke, and, your going to spin it out as long as you can, or until I give up with WP, as I did years ago when someone was convinced I was a sockpuppet. Well, I'll take it to ANI, I suppose, as suggested by the editor above. That will then be a massive waste not only of my time, but whoever deals with things there. Why is it so important to you to continue hounding me? I am not aware of any interaction between us that sparked off your campaign against me. zzz (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Per what I stated at NeilN's user talk page here, I have removed the "any main editor" commentary. And as for your obsessive posting, which CambridgeBayWeather warned you about, I have to ask is there a relation to obsessive–compulsive disorder there for you? I don't mean that as an attack. As someone who knows that she has that disorder (one or two doctors agreed when treating my anxiety and depression), but has yet to be officially diagnosed with it (as mentioned before on my talk page), I personally know how difficult it can be. For example, I have an obsession with even numbers, and often will finish editing an article on an "even number edit" (having edited the article four times for the day, for instance). And as a teenager, I would often flip my room light on and off a certain number of times, ending on an even number. I also had an obsession with cleanliness for a few years as a teenager (though I don't see that as much of a bad thing). My obsessive–compulsive disorder has gotten better as I've aged; I can easily turn it off (often anyway), as opposed to when I was age five.

As for the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents alert below, I'm not interested. I signed your username for you in that alert. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. zzz (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Flyer22. It's clear the consensus is that you should not keep such material on your user page. I have closed the discussion and removed the material. Please don't replace it. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, John. I know that we've been civil to each other these days, but I noted at WP:ANI that I don't think that you were the right person to close that thread or remove the section in question from my user page. I would have removed it myself, as noted there at WP:ANI. And even with you having removed it, I was not going to restore it, since WP:Consensus does appear to be that it should be removed (if going by votes alone anyway). Like I also noted at WP:ANI, I will make another WP:Sockpuppet section on my user page, but without directly naming any editor; the editor who proposed that the section be removed from my user page agreed that creating a section like that would be fine. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I had forgotten these dealings I had with you a year ago to be honest. Having reviewed them I do not think there was anything irregular in my close of that discussion. If you feel there was, I suppose you could continue to press it at AN/I. I'd probably suggest that doing so wouldn't achieve anything but you must call it as you see fit of course. Thanks for reminding me about those discussions a year ago though. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

John, regarding the level of passion concerning those interactions, and how strongly you feel that you are right on all WP:BLP issues, being willing to violate the WP:INVOLVED policy, not only regarding me but in this latest case regarding Viriditas, I find it difficult to believe that you don't remember these very big disputes, which led to a very big WP:RfC at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard affirming that the use People magazine is fine to use for WP:BLPs. As far as I'm concerned, that big WP:RfC not only validated the use of People magazine, but the use of similar publications with a record for fact-checking, as pointed out in this discussion about you from January of this year. If you don't remember all of that, it might be the case that you are no longer adhering to WP:Consensus (a policy that I highly respect) on this matter. Indeed, I don't think that you should be acting in an administrative role regarding anything concerning me or Viriditas, for that matter. And if I wanted to press the issue of your WP:ANI closure and your removal of the aforementioned section from my user page, as if I needed you to remove it, I could successfully do so. It would be better, however, if you would undo your closure and let a different administrator close that section; all of those sections. It would also be good if a different administrator would see how very heated and/or inappropriate our interactions were from last year (which is not as long ago as you are making it out to be) and undo your closure. But we all know that some administrators stick together, meaning even when one of them has acted inappropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'm asking you - can you please drop this? Hopefully John will give consideration to refraining from closing discussions centered on you in the future and re-opening the ANI discussion will only prolong the drama. I know it's hard, but sometimes you need to let go and move on. It lessens the tension and shows you can deal with the occasional unfairness by taking the high road. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. I did drop it, and moved along with my usual editing, as shown by my editing history, and then, as you see, is John's "21:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)" reply; so I replied. His statement that he does not remember, and his implication that I can do nothing about his closure, obviously irritated me. Those who know how I am had to have known that I would reply to that. I'm sure that John knew that I would reply to it with distaste. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perronet House?

Why do you keep undoing the edit on Peronett House? I assume that a Florida resident such as yourself has superior knowledge of south London than a local taxi driver?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.55.1 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and created this section for your above post. I only reverted you one time, as seen here; surely, you can see why someone would think that the edit in question is WP:vandalism. The fact that it looks like WP:Vandalism is why you were reverted here by Bollyjeff after I reverted you. Next time you edit a Wikipedia article, try using a WP:Edit summary for that initial edit and subsequent edits. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

are you foreal?!?

why do you keep deleting what i put up about van der wiel... with your petty warnings/!??! EVERYTHING I SAID WAS A FACT WTF please contact me right away this is some BS thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderwielobsessed (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your work in maintaining articles, thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TheRedPenOfDoom. Given the aforementioned WP:ANI matter, your barnstar makes me feel very good. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD

Hi, I was wondering if we have enough of a Talk page consensus on MOS:LEAD for me to make a change and add the new language into the policy?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OnBeyondZebrax, I see that you have asked about the consensus at the talk page. People there (me included) are in agreement that material from the lower body of the article can be repeated in the lead, but I don't see that there is any WP:Consensus to add the text that you want to that guideline. Wait another day or two, and then, if no one objects on the talk page, WP:Be bold. Another person can obviously revert or tweak what you added. If a person reverts you on the matter, it would be ideal for that person to explain why on the guideline talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism? Not!

Please refrain from accusing good faith edits as vandalism. You disrupt the project with such accusations. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you and Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, briefly looking at your edit history, I see that you are referring to this matter, where I made this revert. The edit looked like a WP:Test or WP:Vandalism to me. And it apparently looked like that to the vandalism bot, User:ClueBot NG. I use WP:STiki and WP:Huggle to revert vandalism and/or unconstructive edits (note that those tools are designed for both), and I will at times make mistakes on these matters. When an edit is a WP:Good faith-edit, I will usually revert it as such if it is unconstructive, as my current edit history shows. I am not in the habit of reverting it as WP:Vandalism. I don't understand your angry post to my talk page and to the other editor's talk page, and your suggestion that I, with several years of experience editing Wikipedia and knowing the policies and guidelines better than many Wikipedians, review the WP:Vandalism policy. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No anger. You made a mistake. Even with all that experience...you still made a mistake. Please do not accuse editors of vandalism unless it is clearly such. Be more aware of your actions please. Thanks again...and again...Happy editing. PS) I have supplied a reliable source to show the editor was, in fact, correct.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I am usually very aware of my actions when it comes to my Wikipedia editing. Can I be more careful? Sure. And I will be. But I would appreciate it if you would be more careful not to treat very experienced Wikipedia editors such as myself as though I don't know what I'm doing. There is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline that I need to review. I know each and every one of them like I know the back of my hand. And I do mean each and every one of them. Your posts on this revert, with exclamation marks and "Get over yourselves!", do indeed sound angry. And needlessly angry, in my opinion. Posts like that only anger me. Posts like that disrupt the project. I made a mistake. So did User:ClueBot NG, a bot that vandalism reverters such as myself often follow and trust. I reverted that edit as a test/vandalism, meaning one or the other, and part of that edit was indeed unconstructive. Yes, with all of my Wikipedia experience, I am subject to human error on Wikipedia. I don't need another experienced Wikipedia editor coming at me with posts about how I need to get over myself and as though I have a WP:Competence issue when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Get over it. Seriously. You made a clear mistake and sound far more angry that another experienced editor has questioned your actions. What you need...is to calm down.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So your latest reply is to respond with more hostility and to turn my feelings about you around on me? Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No hostility. Perception does not create the reality. "Get over it" simply means to not take yourself to seriously. I have no particular "feelings" about you...niether positive or negative.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

10 Percent Myth

The popular culture examples were on the page for over a year and no other editor/reader objected. A single objection by Harizotoh9 is not justification for their removal since the majority of the readers did not see a problem with them. 174.22.15.246 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

IP, I don't care too much about the popular culture topic at the Ten percent of brain myth article. But Harizotoh9 is correct that we shouldn't have an indiscriminate collection of popular culture items. See the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay. Such sections should be formatted well, drawing on why the ten percent of brain myth has impacted popular culture. Look at the Bart Simpson article, for example; his Reception and cultural influence section. For the Ten percent of brain myth article, until further (or actual) analysis of its impact on popular culture is included, a few examples are enough to get across the point that popular culture loves that myth. I agree with you on including Limitless and Lucy as notable "ten percent of brain myth" examples. As for readers not seeing a problem with the content you want included, this is because the vast majority of our readers are not familiar with Wikipedia's formatting/content standards. We have a lot of WP:Fancruft readers (and editors). As you can see in the Ten percent of brain myth article's edit history, I have agreed that we can have a Popular culture or In culture section, if done correctly. For now, a bit of the culture material is included in the Origin and culture section of the article. I don't know why Harizotoh9 has not yet responded to you at the Ten percent of brain myth talk page, but he or she should, as a form of WP:Dispute resolution.

And, Harizotoh9, for two days now, I've been meaning to talk with you about your moving the O. J. Simpson murder case article to People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson and the O. J. Simpson robbery case article to State of Nevada v. Orenthal James Simpson, et al.. I think that the WP:Common name policy comes into play here, and that the former titles are best for our readers. Look at 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and Trial of Conrad Murray for examples. So I'll start WP:Requested move discussions for those articles soon, if they are not moved back to their former titles before that point. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Irony guideline

My head almost exploded when I visited Village Pump. Perhaps we should introduce an irony guideline on the inadvisability of rewriting politeness guidelines while revert warring suction pages :) Alsee (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, yes, Alsee, I can see why your head nearly exploded. If you saw here, one editor has felt similarly. I do feel silly debating that and that. I'm trying to get back to Figureskatingfan‎ so that we can finish working on bringing the Todd Manning article to WP:Featured article status at Talk:Todd Manning and at her Todd sandbox, but I keep getting into Wikipedia drama. I'm no stranger to Wikipedia drama, as you've likely deduced, but it sure can suck away a lot of a person's time. I'm also supposed to be busy with a different matter at WP:Anatomy, but alas semantics about oral sex pull me away. Flyer22 (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And this recent edit that I made to my user page was in response to that drama. Yeah, I really don't like it when people engage in WP:Activism. And when they don't see that they are engaging in WP:Activism, or deny that they are, it annoys me all the more. Flyer22 (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorely tempted to taunt our friend with an endless series of redirect titles, many which easily top the comic value of ones she's already editwarring. In particular I note that she seems to be making certain gender assumptions in the activity, chuckle. However I fear that I would only be sticking beans up my nose. Alsee (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)