User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 13

Active discussions

User: JohnEdit

Initial informationEdit

Hello. FYI, see the recent discussion on my talk page here. Apparently the issues with "John" and his obstreperousness as a WP "deletionist" on the Brad Pitt article are not unique. ;) Centpacrr (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I've mentioned him as being on a power trip and being power hungry. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Well done! And best of luck with that. Basket Feudalist 14:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013Edit

  This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As thoroughly supported at the WP:BLP noticeboard, I did not violate the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy with this edit. So not only do you have no valid reason to block me because of such a violation, doing so, as has already been mentioned, would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm EatsShootsAndLeaves. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Flyer22 that didn't seem very civil, so it should be removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. This was wholly inappropriate, and you already know that. ES&L 10:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves (also known as User:Bwilkins), as someone who does not like me (but watches my talk page just waiting for a moment that I will "act up," ever since my brother's actions resulted in my blocks), and has clearly expressed their dislike of me on this very talk page, you should not find it surprising that I take any warning you issue me to be dubious. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I do watch this talkpage to help to ensure that you do not act up again - hence the gentle poke that you were going in the wrong direction, and giving you personally the chance to fix it. Unless you can show proof that I have ever stated that I dislike you, I would recommend you withdraw that statement as well. Your AGF seems to have gone right out the window in the last 24 hours - something that led to your troubles in the past ES&L 13:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Like I stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI), you consider my calling out John's antics (being on a power trip and power-hungry) to be a WP:Personal attack. I do not. Nor do I consider calling out the fact that you are not a neutral commentator on anything regarding me to be a personal attack.
You watching my talk page to ensure that I do not "act up" again is ludicrous because I am not a problematic editor (regardless of you associating me with my brother and his past or future mistakes editing at this site). After the way you treated me during my block cases, especially my second block case, there is no way that I can consider you a neutral editor regarding anything that concerns me. And given the post Herostratus left for you during that time, I'm certain that it's more than just me or a few people who agree on that. That is why I do not WP:Assume good faith with regard to your posting any warning to my talk page. I will always believe that you are only watching this talk page to wait until your chance to help oust me from Wikipedia, as you have very clearly expressed that you believe that I do not belong at this site. And my opinion on that is very unlikely to change. But I should thank you, because it's those who clearly want me gone that partly keep me motivated to stay when I know that I would be better off without this drama and other issues like it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's rather horrifying to see that you believe that an adult could and/or should retain some form of grudge against you - I'm literally aghast. You know full well that my comments/actions/inaction during that block were based solely on the evidence available to the community at large. You also know full well, that since your unblock, I have actually supported you on more than one occasion. Those facts, plus the polite and gentle notice above are clear and obvious signs that I harbour no ill will towards you and your edits. Indeed, my warning above was repeated by someone wholly unrelated on ANI. I'm also disgusted that you would suggest that I am lying about my intentions - absolutely inppropriate to suggest that, and just plain wrong - and the proof of my actions since your unblock speaks louder than anything else. I'll encourage you to simply "get over it" (forgiveness is more powerful than anything) and "get over yourself" (you're not worth having a grudge against anyway) and try to recognize better when people actually are trying to help you. ES&L 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Not "should." As for "could," it is "horrifying" that it could happen. But it does happen, including on Wikipedia, and you know that it does. So your being "literally aghast" causes me to be literally aghast at your response on that. As for not believing you? I'm entitled to that, just like you are entitled not to believe people and often don't believe people on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you expect me to believe that you no longer wish that I was not here at this site. But I don't, and I have valid reason not to believe that. You state that you have supported me since my unblock, but I know of no such case. And even if you have, that is supposed to qualify as an apology for your actions during the aforementioned time? You kept poking me, making me feel worse than I did, during a time that I was going through a hectic, emotionally draining period in my life off Wikipedia (a period that was also partially documented on Wikipedia during that first block case). That is not something one easily "gets over." Nor does one easily "get over" supposed friends who turn their backs on someone they should have better faith in. But even so, my wariness of you is not about not having gotten over your behavior toward me during that time. It's about not having forgotten it. It's about not feeling that you regret any of it. That you can't understand any of that and think this is an ego matter that requires me to "get over [my]self" speaks volumes. As for forgiveness, I don't need a lesson on that either; but I do know that, from personal experience, that saying is not always true. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It's peculiar to be "literally aghast" at the suggestion of a grudge against Flyer22, ES&L, and then say that she is "not worth having a grudge against anyway". I don't know the entire history of the animosity between you two but I think it is not unreasonable for Flyer22 to be suspicious. Liz Read! Talk! 11:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
If you don't know the background, and you haven't taken the time to read what I stated, why on Earth would you comment? Even Flyer has blown the background out of proportion - I declined to unblock some months ago ... but to be told that I "dislike them" is ridiculous - how can a human being "dislike" someone they have only interacted with on the internet? ES&L 11:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Bwilkins, I haven't blown a thing out of proportion on this matter. It is not that you declined my unblock request, and you know it. It is how you acted; anyone who reads it (that second block case debacle) can see that you were being antagonistic. After all, that is why Herostratus chose to target you to stop commenting on my talk page at that time. And being a Wikipedia editor, you know very well that people can dislike or hate someone on the Internet and that the notion is not ridiculous. Various editors, especially the IP messes we often get, have expressed that they dislike or hate you; for example, the editor You Can Act Like A Man, below in this section, also doesn't appear to like you. I've had enough editors, usually IP editors, state that they dislike me (though usually with different, and sometimes with more provocative, words than dislike); for example, IP and his #Ignorant & Unhelpful, #Stupid Asian Bitch and #Idiotic Sad Case posts (like I told that IP, I'm not Asian nor stupid, but I can be a bitch). And there's also one of the two abusive emails I got during my second block case to keep in mind; the indefinitely blocked User:RJR3333, who was one of the two editors who sent me an abusive email, does not like me at all (at one point, even stated that he hates me and he wished me dead). It is not always a matter of simply stating something we don't mean. There have been Wikipedia editors I do not like. For example, it is obvious that John is fitting that category for me these days. There is nothing ridiculous about disliking someone online, especially when that person's personality shows through, any more than it is ridiculous to dislike someone in an in-person workplace. Like an Internet workplace, it's not like we usually know (instead of "know of") the people we work with in-person. Being in-person offers three-dimension, but it is not much different than my interacting with you on the Internet; not unless I were to actually spend time with you to get to know you. And you referring to me by male pronouns at the WP:ANI discussion regarding John, or as "them" above, instead of by the female pronouns I rightly deserve, is more of your disrespect. Alison can assure that there is no reason to doubt that I'm female, so you should cut out the silly pronoun angle that is akin to the pronoun game. And that I have somewhat bonded with Alison since she blocked me further shows that my distrust of you is not simply a matter of "Oh, Bwilkins didn't believe poor me." Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
And Liz has read some of the backstory, which is why she stated she doesn't "know the entire history of the animosity between you two." Keywords there are "entire history." But to answer Liz, most of the history is there during that second block case. Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the entire history of the animosity between you two does not mean that I can't read the comments on this Talk Page and look at the conversation happening here. I don't know the entire history of any Editor on Wikipedia! I was merely noting that I didn't know about this blocking dispute and was just rendering a comment based on what I was reading on this Talk Page. As for "why on Earth" I would choose to comment, well, I've had interactions with Flyer22 in the past (both positive and not-so-positive), I saw the case on AN/I about the original dispute and I followed the conversation over here. And I comment when I have an opinion to offer. I think that should be easy to understand. Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
*sigh - I can state here for the record that I have seen and spoken with Flyer22 on more than one occasion and would like to point out that Flyer22 appears to be 100% female to me. I did not do a karyotype nor did I check her genitalia (these things seem important to some) but she appears to me to be a 20-something woman, so let's try to keep up with our pronouns, mm-kay? If you're not sure you can just use the {{Gender}} template, which will return the correct pronoun - Alison 00:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that Alison, especially the much-needed humor. As for my age, well, I have noted on my user page that I look significantly younger than I am. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Noting here (especially for the archive) actual personal attacks, brought to us by the lovely John, with responses from me: [1] [2][3][4]. Oh, and assuming good faith is not something that has ever led me to any serious trouble in the past. A lot of, if not most, Wikipedia editors have had a problem assuming good faith at Wikipedia at one point or another. I'm an extremely good judge of character, am right about 98% of the time (as many Wikipedia editors here can attest to, especially when it concerns problematic editors and/or predicting their editing behavior). And I was/am absolutely right about John. Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Also sure that I've never called anyone a dumbass on Wikipedia before, and I can't remember a specific case where I have off Wikipedia. But the other editor gave a most excellent response. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Deal with BWilkins too! Cheers! Basket Feudalist 14:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

slow downEdit

You're going to want to slow down and let the ANI thread develop (weekends are slow on WP). You've got a clear consensus at BLP/N. Don't let the discussion be sidetracked by something you post in haste.
Also, if you find an editor's GF effort to help not helpful to you it's generally acceptable to post a polite request they cease posting on your talk page. NE Ent 13:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, NE Ent. Yes, I've noticed how slow Wikipedia is on the weekends; I usually like that because it increases the chances that I won't have to deal with any drama here. Today is obviously an exception. And I'm also aware of the talk page aspect you note, except that I usually have not been polite about that matter; it has only been a few times that I have restricted or tried to restrict someone from posting to my talk page and it has usually been in the heat of the moment, due to frustration and/or animosity. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

We say a lot of things in the heat of the moment. I can dig out edits on WP that I have personally looked at and said to my monitor, "yeah, and **** you too". The absolutely essential thing you have got to do is never ever transfer that thought onto a keyboard. All it takes is for one person to see you calling John "stubborn" and "disruptive" ([5]), and people will think "well, it's tit for tat, they're as bad as each other, no action required". I don't think that's your desired outcome from this, is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What I stated here and here about John summarizes my feelings on that. If people want to put me in the same category as John, despite the fact that I was adhering to the WP:Consensus policy while he was violating it, then so be it. Everyone has an opinion, and always will. Having reverted him twice, and referred to him as stubborn and disruptive, among other things, on Wikipedia, is not something that I believe I will regret; in fact, I know that I won't. The way he has communicated, acted, during this is... Sighs. Even speaking of him now frustrates me. This, this (side addition here), this, this, this and this post by others perfectly and/or sufficiently describe my feelings and/or John's disruption. None of the posts there are about "how disruptive Flyer has been during this," except for the one post that was clarified as an error. But again, if people want to categorize me as disruptive during this dispute, then so be it. I admit, however, that I should not let John (or anyone else) bring out the worst of me (which includes hurling any insults); that, however, happens from time to time with humans (even in a working environment), often spontaneously when it does happen. All in all, I appreciate your calm, understanding, neutral approach with respect to both sides. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone protests way way too much (modern meaning); but please let it goEdit

All over AN/I I see editors being blocked for ignoring community consensus. But, all of a sudden, when an administrator is against community consensus, edit wars against community consensus, and calls another editor a "dumbass," it's the editor who raises the issue, the "dumbass," who is at fault, and WP:Consensus and WP:Administrators no longer have meaning. It's like a mobile phone company, only one party is held to the contract. Very disappointing.

I don't think John would have blocked you; there is no evidence he has done that before (someone would have provided a diff if he had). I disagree with you about People, it should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. I will discuss that on the BLP sources board.

Try to let this one go. User:John has promised to continue disrupting editing by ignoring community consensus. Other editors will get tired of his disruption and name calling. People will then cite this AN/I report as evidence that he continues to be disruptive.

Please continue bringing differences of consensus to community boards where the issues can be discussed by the community. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for your views on all of this, AfadsBad. Yes, I see you debating with the others at the WP:BLP noticeboard. I'm done there on the matter, though, for now anyway because the consensus is the same and there's not much more I can add to that discussion. As for John, I'm still discussing that matter at WP:ANI because others are still discussing the matter with me. If I come across John removing sources and/or the text that goes with it because of his personal dislike of those sources instead of whether or not they have actually been deemed unsuitable by Wikipedia policy and/or the Wikipedia community, I will revert him. I have a few celebrity articles of living people on my watchlist and I won't sit back and let him pull that mess at those articles, and I have good backup at those articles as well. It is especially important not to let him do so on WP:Good and WP:Featured articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, I corrected your link to the People (magazine) article above in your post. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think you would be better off dropping it. I keep forgetting about the People (magazine). Thanks. One revert, then talk page, then report, okay? Take care. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
You take care as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite what I recently said on ANI, I really don't deliberately go around and upset people - honest! It's just that threads tend to generate lots of hot air and drama, and sometimes improving an article can take your mind off it and clear your head a bit. How about, say, taking Romantic orientation to GA, or even B class? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you meant badly, but Flyer22 tried to deal with the issue as a member of an editing comunity, got called a dumbass by one admin, and now has two other admins really going after her, so it might seem a bit unfair to suggest any of the admins dropped the stick, when it looks like Flyer22 is the dead horse. However, I think you meant well, and I think taking an article to GA would be more fun than continuing to be beat, and I hope Flyer22 will take your suggestion, and I thank you for making it, trying to do something positive. --(AfadsBad (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
I can't emphasise this enough - Flyer22 is a good, nay, excellent contributor to the encyclopedia. Somewhere on this talk page I gave her a barnstar for some of the GA work she'd done, and I stand totally by that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, that's why it bothers me the way she is treated, and I assumed that is the motive for your efforts here, that you see her value to the encyclopedia.. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
Ritchie333, this reply to you was not meant as a jab at you. Well, maybe a bit, LOL. As you know, I was/am simply frustrated with this matter. If anything, I'd rather you close that thread now than for me to be further subjected to RegentsPark's odd logic. And I'm intentionally not linking his name in this paragraph, because, whether he is now watching my talk page (by means of a WP:Watchlist or manually), I don't want him alerted via WP:Echo that I or anyone else has mentioned him here, as if I welcome him to defend John on this talk page; I most certainly don't.
As for working on articles, the Romantic orientation article is a waste of space; it shouldn't exist for a number of reasons (such as the fact that sexual orientation is also about romantic feelings), and you can see similar comments from me about the existence of that article in its edit history. My brother saw these changes to that article and stated that he almost reverted it and/or almost edited it as an IP (our real IP address of course, given past problems with him using a WP:Proxy), that what a terrible copyediting job it was, that it added WP:Original research, and that he still plans to speak with the editor who did that copyediting job. I don't blame him, though it is significantly best that he stay away from my editing area. Alison may have to remind him of that, but she keeps an eye on things regarding us. I won't be touching that Romantic orientation article any further, and have already set my sights on bringing the Vagina article to WP:GA standards (which is also noted in the GA section on my user page). With that article included, there are two other articles that I want to bring to WP:GA status, at least before I retire from this site (if I do).
AfadsBad, thank you for the support, kind words and compliments. It was NeilN that John called a dumbass, by the way. I don't doubt that, offscreen or off-Wikipedia, he's called me one, among other things, however; but I'm certainly not focusing on any thoughts he may have with regard to me. Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, after our discussion at BLPN AfadsBad might agree with John's assessment :-) :-) --NeilN talk to me 12:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
lol. I disagree with you, and you are annoying me, but I do not consider you a dumbass. Your arguments, maybe, but not you! Now get over there and define what can be used from People.
These diffs are mind-numbing trying to read them to follow a conversation, Flyer22. Vagina should be an FA! Great GA choice, article is awful. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
It doesn't matter what article you choose take to GA, as long as it's nothing as mind numbingly dull and pointless as Texas Recreational Road 8, it's all good for the encyclopedia. Vagina isn't really in my area of expertise or interest (to put it as mildly as possible :-/), but still a worthy subject to improve, I would have thought. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The road articles are mind numbing, but they are very useful, and I appreciate editors who do gois work on articles that would knock me out. I travel for work and like to check out Wikipedia road articles before I go, very useful. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
So John has obviously followed me to the Sexual orientation article after my interaction with this IP. He's either watching this talk page (note that I'm not watching his) or is checking in on my contributions. Well, if he starts WP:HOUNDING/WP:STALKING (which I do not put past him, given some of the inappropriate behavior/comments I've seen from him), I will be reporting. Usually, one stays clear of someone they clearly do not get along with. That he has sought possible further interaction with me (it's seeking because he knows that I watch/occasionally edit that article) is nothing short of suspicious. Flyer22 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

More on John's behaviorEdit

Note: I've started this section; it is simply documentation here on my talk page of John's continued less-than-desired behavior.

Those at WP:ANI or elsewhere asserting that John would not have blocked me were wrong. This is an instance where I feel the need to state "Told you so." Not too long after my unpleasant interactions with John, he blocked someone that he was in a dispute with; that person was unblocked because of the rationale that John was WP:INVOLVED. Like me, that editor made an observation that John is on a power trip. Clearly, the Daily Mail is not a good source to use, especially for biographies of living persons, but there are still some experienced Wikipedia editors who are iffy on its use and therefore John blocking that editor for his or her repeated reversions of him on that matter was inappropriate. If repeatedly reverting the editor is generally considered prevention of a WP:BLP violation, then I wouldn't classify that as WP:INVOLVED; I wouldn't because reversions of WP:BLP violations are, for example, exempt from WP:3RR. A different administrator took the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) not only because of the block, but because John has continued to remove sources and the text the sources support...even though others may not categorize such sources as tabloids. From what I see, however, John has mostly continued to remove the Daily Mail. The Wikipedia article on it calls it a tabloid newspaper, but the word tabloid is WP:Pipelinked with the Tabloid (newspaper format) article; that article makes it clear that "tabloid format" does not necessarily mean "tabloid" and that many valid newspapers use that format. Either way, the administrator who took the matter to WP:AN removed the report from WP:AN and has been discussing the matter on John's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also this, this and this showing John refusing to drop the silly stick and to stop disrupting Wikipedia at just about every turn. The last diff-link documents the worst case of it (showing the absolutely ridiculous lengths he will go to in order to try and get his way and that he does not respect community consensus one bit when that consensus opposes his views). Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo vandalism repair, thank you so much.Edit

Just wanted to say thanks for your help in removing the ongoing vandalism of this page. It's turning into daily upkeep with a vandal adding irrelevant references to The Exorcist and demons. Sigh. Longchenpa (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comment earlier, but am just now replying because I was too sleepy to reply earlier (though not too sleepy to make a revert or two). You are welcome. And since you are having the type of trouble you are having at that article, I might put it on my WP:Watchlist. Keep in mind that you can also request that the article be protected at WP:Requests for page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Cotter factsEdit

I hope this doesn't disappoint you too much, but the items on User:Flyer22#Favorite reads on Wikipedia aren't original. They're part of the large collection of Chuck Norris facts, merely re-attributed. --GRuban (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL!! No, not disappointed. I added that some time back. Like the top of my user page currently states, "Parts of my user page were created in 2007/2008, and I'm either too lazy to drastically redesign that text or have become attached to that text in a way." Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

the subject, talkEdit

I am sorry for talking to you bad, but that idea still angers me. Anyway, the real reason I came to this page again, is the gender card.

Yes that's right, gender card. I don't know you were a female or male, I just want to get the record straight. I honestly don't call anyone uses he or she, and I use you and variations of online. I also didn't honestly think of what your gender was male or female, and didn't take that into account insisting you were sexist. Part of the gender neutral movement of English, I just want to make clear that while you are female, and I am, I will continue to use third person when referring to you. I never, in my history of wikiepdia, referred to using he or her. I have been on Wikipedia since 2008, but all this time I never created an account. During this time, I used a verity of ATMC IP addresses, as they are dynamic. As they change when we have a power outage, which happens occasionally, I don't have a lot of history on me. -- (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Pedro Passos CoelhoEdit

OK, he's the worst asshole in Europe, at least, but I've finished. --Nmgscp74 (talk) 4:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you know, a different editor reverted you on this. And this type of editing, which I reverted you on, is also inappropriate...very inappropriate; continue to WP:Vandalize, and you will be blocked...temporarily or indefinitely. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Good faith" reversion via STikiEdit

I recently edited the Komi Grammar page and found that you reverted my edit as a "good faith" reversion. In reading the STiki page, I notice that Good-faith Reverts are for edits which are "clearly unconstructive, but lack the intent and malice that characterizes vandalism." My edit was not clearly unconstructive, and as such I have since undone your reversion and provided a citation for my original edit. Please do not hesitate to ask for citations!

I also cannot help but notice that your reversion count using STiki has gone from 1,000 STiki reversions on 05:41, 10 September 2013 to 5,000 reversions on 05:08, 19 September 2013. I am aware I do not have a user account, but that does not mean my contributions are as such "clearly unconstructive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Hello, IP. Your edit (before you reverted while adding a source) initially looked unconstructive to me. And, yes, I know about the revert via WP:Echo. Notice that I did not revert you again. I don't see what my STiki count has to do with this, unless you are implying that I must be wrongly reverting a lot of people; I'm not, considering that I usually double check my edits (whether adding additions or reverting). I apologize for making a mistake in your case. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mailed you some pretty private mattersEdit

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(do not tell anyone what its contents is) --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I likely won't be reading it. Seriously, as it will likely lead to some debate and your logic is sufficiently odd to me. And per Wikipedia:POSTEMAIL#Private correspondence, I certainly would not reveal the contents of it at Wikipedia anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It really does not contain anything bad, and no criticism. It contains... nothing related to sexual I was discussing. It is related to my life, problems with it, and what I do. You have to really read it to get your understanding, and I really want you to read it. it's to sensitive to talk about, and it is kind of long, but it's just for you. I cannot say what it is publicly, as I don't want nobody but you to read it. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I will read it, and may get back to you on that. Are you sure that it was a good idea to post the personal things you did on your user page? In addition to the good or decent people we have at this site, we have some really mean-spirited people here as well (as is likely the case for any site). As someone who knows what it is like to be depressed, even severely depressed, I somewhat understand how you feel; though I'm not sure that it ever got to the point of major depressive disorder, it did get to the point where I tried to harm myself after "a trigger" here at Wikipedia (which is well documented during the first time I was blocked from editing Wikipedia). That wasn't the first time I've tried to physically harm myself, however. I apologize if I contributed to your feeling bad in any way. Depression is a tricky thing because almost anything can trigger it (bad things, or perceived bad things, especially of course), even when you think you have a good grasp on it (your mental state). A person or incident can trigger the return of the depression even when that was not the intention. I obviously had no intention of making you feel worse. And again, I apologize if I did. There's not much I can do about how Wikipedia is supposed to work; I follow the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as best I can (which is usually a good or great "best"). Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
(stalking) I'll give you my (totally unsolicited) advice. Change your username (see WP:RENAME for how to do it) to something more neutral that doesn't suggest at your sexuality in any way shape or form whatsoever. PinkAmpersand's in a similar position to you (afaik) and he does alright. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


Happy to. Hopefully you can keep an eye on him elsewhere and we can nudge him toward learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll help you with that editor at the Mariah Carey article. As for keeping an eye on him or her elsewhere, I'm not sure about that; the editor is not a very active editor and I'm certain that he or she is the type who does not care/will never care about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. However, if I see you explaining such policies and guidelines to the editor, like you recently did, I will assist. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hegel problemEdit

Flyer22: You removed my note of warning posted on a pernicious "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" page[6] posted in support of over 3,000 words (by my count) of pollution dumped onto the G.W.F. Hegel page[7] by I-don't-know-whom. How would you suggest I flag this content as highly speculative and deriving from a single author (who was an economist, not a philosopher, I have discovered)? Those hoping to learn something about Hegel should not be exposed to this controversial speculation as if it were true and widely-accepted, when, in fact, it has been refuted. Thanks. JBurke01 (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2013‎

Yes, I reverted you on this for the reasons stated in that WP:Edit summary. You can flag that material by adding a Template:Dubious to it. For further information on tackling the accuracy/inaccuracy of content, see Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute#Disputed statement. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

deleted infoEdit

I deleted the page at the request of the person it was about. Zzebra138 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi flyer22, in pwbradley07, can I please ask why you keep undoing my edits to the Kippax Knights wiki page???? All the changes I have had are true to many locals in our village. My dad & grandfather played for Kippax, I myself play for Kippax, a pride myself on kippax's history in rugby league. Many locals saw my changes and said they were as accurate as ever, and illustrated our history in good order, so I don't see how Iv violated any codes. I feel you were wrong to undo my changes. Thank you for reading this. P W Bradley. Pwbradley071178 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pwbradley071178, I'm not the only one who has reverted you at that article. Though that article is not on my WP:Watchlist, I have reverted you twice, on two different days, because your additions mostly are not in encyclopedic tone (see WP:TONE), are otherwise formatted improperly and are unsourced (see WP:Verifiability).
And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You deleted my changes to Brian McCann (baseball)Edit

Dear Flyer22,

Why don't you like fun? (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Casus Belli EditEdit

Thank you for your insight. That sentence was not constructive as I forgot to include a very important part. It should have read " The expression is often uttered whilst observing failing Pakistani restaurants through binoculars from the 5th floor of an Upper West Side apartment. I will change it immediately and then there will be no need for you to edit again.

THANKS!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanthecaddy (talkcontribs) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Your edit looks like vandalism to me, either version, unless you mean the word falling instead of failing. But I wounder in what way falling would make sense unless the restaurants are being knocked down. Therefore, your addition, if you readd it, will be reverted again, either by me or someone else. Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of محبةالكتبEdit

Hello, I saw your notes in the edit summaries for the Blond article. I also thought it was likely that the IP 41.96.x.x is a sock of محبةالكتب. The edits are of a similar nature but not exactly the same so I'm not really sure. The intent seems to be the same but usually the socks I run across just keep making the exact same edits instead of trying to change it up. Editor Samer154 is also making edits from a similar position (a kind of anti-Western thing, maybe?) but again there's some room for doubt. But given the grammatical issues and the general tone of the edits they do seem to be quacking rather loudly. SQGibbon (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I was going to state I completely agree with you, including that there is room for doubt, and that it's because of this that I am only 99.9% sure that they are all the same person. But even if we were to state that IP 41.96 is not User:محبةالكتب, one thing is for certain: IP 41.96 IP is Samer154; compare the and Samer154 contributions. Samer154 also changed it up here and here after I reverted him or her as an IP here and here. And all of them, User:محبةالكتب, the 41.96 IPs and Samer154, write in the same broken English way, with the same inappropriate capitalization; compare here and here. Also compare use of the word dear here and here. WP:DUCK. User:محبةالكتب has been WP:Socking as Samer154 for some time. User:محبةالكتب registered as an account in May 2012; Samer154 as an account in May 2013. I'm actually 100% certain that these are all the same person. User:محبةالكتب simply isn't so dumb as to keep making the same exact edits that got him or her indefinitely blocked, but is still prone to be caught on socking matters (like now). Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, looking more closely I'm with you that it's 100% certain they are all the same person. The weird use of "Dear" was the final straw. SQGibbon (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

School Project on Verizon FiOSEdit

Hi. I am currently working on a school project, and I was wondering if you could provide my group with some assistance. I noticed you gave some assistance to some of my colleagues who are working on the Wikipedia page on Marissa Cooper. Our group is working on the Verizon FiOS page, and we are looking for some advice. Would you be able to take a look at our talk page and comment on something that we should improve upon? Are our suggestions good for the topic or is there anything else we should add/remove? If possible, can you comment on the talk page for Verizon FiOS? We appreciate your help! Andrew.prafder (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew.prafder, there isn't much I can offer with regard to your request. One thing I can offer is to state that the second paragraph in my aforementioned post at the Marissa Cooper talk page obviously applies to all Wikipedia articles. I'll post that same paragraph at the Verizon FiOS talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Marina Oswald PorterEdit

Hello. Yesterday I read the article on Marina Oswald Porter. I noticed that it stated that the "backyard photos" taken by Marina of Lee Harvey Oswald were manipulated. This is a viewpoint held by fringe conspiracy theorists that has been thoroughly disproven. Every reputable expert who has examined those photos has verified them as being genuine, including those consulted by the Warren Commision and the HSCA. The article also stated that Marina told the Warren Commision that she had taken a "single" photo with the word "single" emphasized for some reason. In fact, she initially told the WC that she only remembered taking one photo, then later said she may have taken two. She later said she probably did take all four. She told the FBI after the assassination that she had taken all four. Again, only fringe conspiracy theorists claim that Marina only took one photo. The source given for this information is Robert Groden, a discredited conspiracy theorist who was torn to shreds when he testified for the defense in the OJ Simpson trial when he testified that photos of Simpson were manipulated. There was no disclaimer regarding the comments informing the reader that the claims of photo manipulation by conspiracy theorists have been disproven by experts, the comments are simply presented as undisputed fact. I removed the spurious statements and you reverted my changes claiming it to be vandalism. If you are going to present the claims of fringe conspiracy theorists as fact, why not change your 9/11 article to state unequivocally that Bush was behind it? Why not change Barack Obama's birthplace to Kenya, or for that matter remove Elvis' date of death since some believe he is still alive?

Please get rid of the conspiracy related nonsense. Or, if you are going to present it, at least indicate that the info is strictly the view of conspiracy theorists and is not supported by the mainstream. This is about the fourth JFK assassination related article I have tried to clean up after conspiracy theorists have edited it to present their outlandish allegations as fact. (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. I wasn't presenting anything as fact. I reverted you because you removed sourced material and changed the wording without providing a reason for having done so. If you are editing the article properly, I don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Refactored editEdit

Hi Flyer22. I was notified of your use of my quote, and I appreciate that you found it useful. I did notice that the diff you used is not to the original location, so I took the liberty of substituting the original diff. Please look at my edit and the edit summary. I hope you don't mind. I don't usually edit other people's comments, but I felt this would improve the content in a manner which you would find to be okay. If not, please accept my apology and just revert my edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, per this and this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Capitalism page changeEdit

Hi flyer. I was undoing someone's "rm test edit" by re-bolding one of the headers. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojo1498 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bojo1498, your edit was incorrect. MilesMoney knew what he was doing; this is because headers, at least the standard headers that are used (such as the one MilesMoney was targeting), don't need bolding. That's why I reverted you, before noting in that article's edit history and at your talk page that you must have made a mistake.
Also, remember to sign your user name when commenting on talk pages. As you can see above, a bot signed it for you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the miscommunication... I didn't realize exactly what he did. Thanks!--Bojo1498 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes to My Brest Friend's GirlEdit

On the page for My Best Friend's Girl (2008 film), I recently changed the name "Brad Garret" to its proper spelling, Brad Garrett. You changed it back because it was "not constructive". Why is it not constructive to change the name to its proper spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. I saw your message earlier, but I didn't reply at that time because I was sleepy and rested for a few hours (though intermittently reverting), and later because I became busy with some edits. But here is the revert in question, from a number of days ago. You are obviously correct that your edit was not unconstructive. The only reasons I can think that I reverted you and gave you that warning are either because I accidentally hit the revert option or because your edit seemed wrong to me because it looked like you were adding an extra t as a test or as an action of vandalism. Considering that I hardly ever hit the revert button by accident, I'm certain that the latter is why I reverted you. Because you placed the t outside of the bracket, which is not correct formatting, that also factors into the revert (having signaled "test or vandalism" to me). I apologize for my mistake on that, have fixed the matter (the text) and will note this on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with The Wachowskis' issues in The Matrix article.Edit

Thank you for informing Cecildeed for us about edit warring on The Matrix article. Good job noting that he/she is engaging in edit warring. Some people are either meat/sockpuppets, clueless, in denial that trans were once male, or they want to feel important about knowing that Larry is Lana now - forget the fact that The Matrix WAS directed by Larry Wachowski. Active contributors on that article constantly battle this for ages, and it's nice to see some fresh help. I sincerely thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. As you have seen, during that same comment I also warned the editor about deceptive edit summaries. It appears that after I reverted one of those deceptive edit summaries, Grayfell, who I think watches the Clitoris article with me, caught on to the editor's deceptive edit summaries and tackled two of his or her edits thus far. One is mentioned in my aforementioned message to Cecildeed; the other is seen here. Four things, among various things, I cannot stand about this site (all four things seeming to apply to Cecildeed) are those who use deceptive edit summaries, those who edit based solely on their opinion and/or advocacy (disrespecting WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutrality and the WP:Due weight aspect of WP:Neutrality), those who intentionally disrespect WP:Consensus without a valid WP:Ignore all rules reason to do so...and those who fail to reliably source their article content (especially if that content is contentious). I will only tolerate (and not for long) newbies placing the WP:Burden on me and/or other Wikipedia editors; editors who have been editing this site for some time should know better than to do that. I don't know if Cecildeed is disrespecting WP:Consensus on The Wachowskis matter, but he or she obviously needs to stop doing that if he or she is. WP:Consensus is one of our least respected policies, probably less respected than WP:Civil, and that needs to stop. What is the point of building consensus, if people can just disregard it at any given moment? People are back at Square 1 when that happens. Consensus can change, but unless it has had better be respected unless there is valid cause to ignore it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Politics of...Hair Color?Edit

I do not know why but there seems to be a certain vandalism or subtextual POV pushing in articles about hair color. I noticed you addressed Blond (though there is still some odd information on that piece) but did some unconstructive edits to Black hair a week ago...can you use your rollback powers to bring it back to the last good version?
I really don't understand why hair color is seen as some kind of point of pride or an anatomical aspect that reflects on ones ethnic or national pride. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Geolocate says that IPs - are from this city in Algeria. Not sure if this explains anything, more of a curiosity. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, there is an odd focus and especially bias that some editors have concerning the hair color articles. See the current discussions at Talk:Brown hair as well. WP:Rollback can't be used to revert an editor once a different editor has edited the article after that one; what I mean by this is that since Samer154 edited the Black hair article after he or she edited on the aforementioned IP range, this caused an intermediate edit (a block) to me reverting using the rollback tool. So what I had to do to revert in this case was click on the version of the article that exists immediately before those edits, which is this one, then click the edit option for that version and save that version. Some long-term Wikipedia editors still don't know about reverting that way. Here is the revert. However, that IP range/Samer154 is likely to revert my edit and/or add more of the same material. Therefore, he or she will likely need to be reported as a sockpuppet, per the #Sockpuppet of محبةالكتب discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain this all to me, Flyer22. I didn't understand about the rollback tool and some (file mover?) are still ambiguous to me. The motivations about changes on this topic but, in the end, the only thing that matters is what kind of shape the article is in. Thanks for looking into this. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Certainly was no problem explaining the reverting matter or commenting on the politics, Liz. You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with Marissa Cooper - The OC: Class ProjectEdit

Hi Flyer22. Thanks so much for continuing to edit the Wikipedia page we are working on for Marissa Cooper. I'm here to ask you a question regarding citations and references. When following the guidelines, my additions appear in red text. I believe that you corrected the issue we encountered in the "Character's Exit" section. Now, we are facing this issue under references. Do you have any suggestions for us? Thank you for helping us - we really appreciate the time and effort you're putting into this page. JLieberman31 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I was in the process of replying on the talk page. Look there for more replies from me. And it was actually me who messed up the reference your team added to the Character's exit section; I then tweaked it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Going back to reference formatting, yes this attempt was a little wrong, but was mostly correct; it simply had stray parts of reference templates included. You are correct that I fixed that, though it took me a few edits to fix all of the reference formatting in that section because I hadn't initially noticed completely what was wrong the first time I attempted the fix.[8][9][10][11] And here is the tweak I was referring to. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok... Sex positionsEdit

Thanks for correcting me, but I'm wondering about sources. The sources I can see in the article only mention penetrative relations. Regarding the pic and edit summary, I think the pic makes it non-neutral, as it represents a comparatively small group in the lead (in effect elevating them to a position not attained in sourcing or practise of the act). (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking this to show your previous discussion post to my talk page (which that link shows that I reverted with a response). I also amended this heading by adding "Sex positions" to it so that it is clear what this section is about. In the future, consider taking such matters to the article talk pages. I personally prefer that article discussions that should clearly be had on the article talk pages take place there. Do I want that done in this case now? No, because there is not much to resolve regarding these disputes between the two of us. So addressing your points:
Regarding the Doggy style article, oral sex can obviously be penetrative (and is sometimes considered sexual intercourse in WP:Reliable sources, especially if fellatio is the type of oral sex being discussed). As for sourcing, I'll take care of that at a later date, but think of how dominance and submission may employ a doggy style position without sexual penetration taking place. Or how frottage may involve the position. The Doggy style article is very poor, as are many sex anatomy and sexual topic articles at this site. I am but one person tackling some of these articles when I am in the mood to do so and have good time to do so. Some of these articles, such as Snowballing (sexual practice) and Felching, I have no interest in editing.
As for the picture of the male couple at the Missionary position article, I suppose you mean WP:Undue weight (especially the "giving equal validity" part of it), which is why the heterosexual aspect of the missionary position is mentioned first in the lead. It's difficult to find WP:Reliable sources that do not only describe that sex position as a heterosexual act or only attribute it to heterosexuality in some way. But sources describing it as an act used by gay and lesbian couples, such as this one currently in the lead, or by couples of any sex/gender combination, do exist. Before I edited that article, there was no mention that the missionary position is used by gay and lesbian pairings; see this past discussion about anal sex and the missionary position. To me, adding that picture to the lead was adding neutrality without violating WP:Undue weight; that is why I responded to you the way I did here, here and here. After all, many people (mostly heterosexual people) have no idea that anal sex can be performed in the missionary position (Googling the topic shows that), or that, yes, some gay men perform anal sex in that position. Then again, too many people think that all gay men have anal sex; a common misconception. People are that uncreative on topics regarding sexual activity that they cannot even imagine something as simple as anal sex in the missionary position. I'm used to people removing that male couple image due to obvious bias, such as here even when it was placed lower in a section specifically about anal sex; so to see you remove it from the lead was more of the same in my eyes. Furthermore, men who have sex with men (MSM), which additionally includes those who don't identify as gay or bisexual, are not a small group; I'm not even sure that, given the MSM and down-low factors (see the what the CDC states in the HIV/AIDS section of the Wikipedia down-low article), we can accurately state that men who have sex with men are a "comparatively small group" when compared to men who only have sex with women. However, perhaps with regard to the missionary position, they are a "comparatively small group" because it is likely that heterosexual couples practice that position significantly more than male couples. Either way, I felt, and still feel, that the image of the two men is more relevant to the lead than where you placed it; it's barely relevant to the section you placed it in, and before I combined it with the tribadism image moments ago, it couldn't fit in the section that discusses anal sex. But I don't care very much about opposing you on its position in the lead; that's why I moved on instead of reverting you again and/or taking this matter to the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. You seem to be an expert on Wikipedia regarding these topics (without the POV problems of many editors there), so if you think that there are plenty of reliable sourcing saying that then I'll leave it (though if it's okay with you I'll change it to say "some regard...", as it seems far from universally accepted.
I appreciate how the pic would be informative to unaware readers. However, I think the sentence in the lead (first paragraph too) does it enough without raising concerns over undue weight. (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
What part of the text do you suggest "some regard"? What wording are you proposing? I generally stay away from such wording (unless I can't) per WP:Weasel words. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
True, though without sourcing it's sometimes inevitable. Let me know what you think of that change and others (not an injunction to discuss here without reverting me). (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Also note my edit to the baseball metaphor article. Perhaps you have access to the source that either validates or disputes my edit (or you don't but agree/disagree with me that the points there mismatch). (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your change, sexual penetration that may not be regarded as sexual intercourse (such as the use of anal beads between sex partners) may also take place in the doggy style position. That's another reason why I included "or other sexual activities." I meant it when I stated that a variety of sexual activities are practiced in that position (the same applies to the missionary position). And the doggy style position is also called the rear-entry position, as the article states (something I added earlier this month); this position is not limited to being on all fours; see this, this, this (click the "Standing, Rear Entry" option at the side) and this layman source for examples. I haven't added those to the article because they are poor sources for an encyclopedia on this topic, and, like I stated, I will add scholarly sources to that article at a later date. So that is why I partially reverted you, but with tweaks (including having fixed the WP:Weasel wording).
As for this edit to the Baseball metaphors for sex article, no, I have not accessed those sources yet.
As for POV problems, even I occasionally get accused of it with regard to sex topics; I've been accused of heterosexism and of having a gay agenda. Such accusations seem to come with the territory. The former comes from the fact that I often keep the WP:Undue weight aspect of WP:Neutral in mind. The latter comes from simply being WP:Neutral or giving more weight to a same-sex matter because sources give more weight to that matter. And on that note, I have to ask: Are you someone I have interacted with before at this site? Your style of editing, not to mention having followed me to the Baseball metaphors for sex article, somewhat reminds me of a Wikipedia editor I'm familiar with. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay I'm fine with that then. I edit pretty infrequently, usually in short bursts. I've seen you around (hence I know you you're pretty NPOV) but we've never had any direct interaction. (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh and I didn't follow you to that article to check your edits. I noticed it in your contributions and decided I'd like to read the article. (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. And I've seen you elsewhere as well (on the same IP range, but with different IPs) at a non-sexual topic (well, mostly non-sexual).
Take care. We are likely to cross paths again on this site. You know how people say "small world" in cases where they meet a person they already know in an unlikely setting or somewhere despite the odds of having done so seeming miniscule because the world is (supposedly) big? That's what Wikipedia can feel like. In the case of crossing paths with you again, however, it may be because we have somewhat similar editing interests (not just sexual topics). Flyer22 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm always surprised how often I see the same people considering there are over 4 million articles on this site. (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

your reversion of edit using merriam webster as lead in Circumcision articleEdit

Circumcision is a cultural phenomenon which is also sometimes a medical procedure. Therefore your substituting a medical source over the lead USA dictionary plain english definition may be misguided .--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tumadoireacht. No, my revert of you at that article is not misguided. As WP:MEDRS has been explained to you various times at the Circumcision article, I would simply be repeating myself to reiterate why such edits are not appropriate. Some other medical procedures are cultural phenomenons as well, but we use medical sourcing first and foremost for them. WP:MEDRS is very clear about when using non-medical sources is acceptable, such as when relaying cultural aspects that don't require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The reasons you have outlined are those for which a plain english initial description is preferable. That a small cabal of other editors agrees with you, and impedes article development, is not really relevant and your feeling the need to mention it further diminishes your argument. You duck the fact neatly that Circumcision is PRIMARILY a cultural phenomenon and secondarily sometimes a medical proceedure i. Many circumcisons of both men and women are performed by religious or tribal personnel. The forced circumcisions of adults in Europe and in Africa, which we have so far found ourselves unable to mention are often performed by persons with no training whatsoever. So the "medical" argument to oppose plain english description of the cutting off of the skin at the head of the infant or adult human male penis is a curious phenomenon in itself and worthy of re-examination by its faithful and by others.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 08:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Tumadoireacht, this type of thing was extensively explained to you in the Reversion of edits to the "Adverse" section mentioning deaths and injury to children in NYC, Africa and low rate of complications in a large cohort in Israel discussion. You disagree with those arguments that are against yours on this matter, and my support of them. Noted. But I have nothing more to state to you about it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


i dont know to talk to you but i had guests over that were on the computer, so i am deeply sorry for any problems they caused — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry for the table thing. I didn't think it would actually post. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:50C0:F200:F2B4:79FF:FE17:4E3F (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Moon Festival editEdit

Hello Flyer22,

I edited the page on Moon Festivals and removed the alternate name Mooncake Festival. The page has reverted because "it did not appear constructive." Sincere apologies; there is no offence meant. This is the first time (and probably the only time) that I tried editing anything on Wikipedia as this is the only entry my organisation feels strongly about.

We still maintain that the term is incorrect. Is there a way to just remove the term? This is becoming some sort of a cycle: some people started using Mooncake Festival, and they started thinking it was correct. And then it was put on Wikipedia, and then more and more people think it is correct. The closest analogy that I could think of is the American holiday of Thanksgiving where the traditional food is turkey. Just as it will never be and should never be called the turkey festival (which will connote that the turkey is being celebrated), a festival that celebrates the Moon and the Mid-Autumn harvest should not be called after a cake.

The entry affects all the users who want to find out about the Mid-Autumn Moon Festival. More and more people (students, stores, corporations, media) are using Mooncake Festival - still doesn't make the term correct.

Thank you and I hope you understand the dilemma :-)

Bahaytsinoy (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Meah Ang See, Director, Bahay Tsinoy, museum of Chinese in Philippine life

Hello, Bahaytsinoy. These are the edits you are referring to, made on September 5th of this year to the Mid-Autumn Festival article. I don't have that article on my WP:Watchlist, so, after reverting you, I'm not sure why I kept visiting that article to revert others. It seems that rather than having it on my WP:Watchlist for a brief time, I kept coming across it on WP:STiki. Anyway, I reverted you because, as the aforementioned edit shows, you removed a WP:Reliable source without providing a valid reason for having done so and added text that is not WP:TONE-compliant. The text "to join in the fun!", in your own words, is not encyclopedic because it's opinionated to assert that the matter in question is fun, which violates WP:Neutrality, and the same (with regard to being non-encyclopedic) applies to adding an exclamation mark; if those things were a part of a quote (put in quotation marks) and coming from a WP:Reliable source placed against it, then they would be an appropriate addition. The edit in question doesn't show you having removed "Mooncake Festival." I don't care if you remove "Mooncake Festival," as long as you do it without invalidly removing a WP:Reliable source/adding text that is not WP:TONE-compliant/leaving the remaining text with a grammatical error due to the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Wael HallaqEdit

Dear Flyer22,

Apologies if I have been the cause for any confusion with regard to recent changes to the Wael Hallaq article. I am not an expert Wikipedia editor, having only authored and edited this one article. I will now detail and explain my changes here, so that we might resolve the issue.

1) the identification "non-Muslim Arab" in the opening sentence, though true, has the effect of stereotyping Wael Hallaq and his academic contributions. Although the fact that he is a non-Muslim and an Arab may be of interest to some readers, stating the fact at the outset gives it undue precedence; this wrong emphasis is a disservice to the living subject of the article and to the reader, and, as I have said, comes off as a an attempt to stereotype. Imagine, for example, if the article on Reza Aslan opened with "Reza Aslan is a non-Christian Persian," or the article on Muhammad Ali opened with "Muhammad Ali is a non-Christian African."

2) For the above reason, I chose to remove "non-Muslim Arab" (which, along with its citation, had been added by another editor), and to insert the term "non-Muslim" into the third sentence of the second paragraph. In this way, the fact may be known to those who, for whatever reason, deem it important, but not in such an essentializing and stereotyping manner. As for "Arab," so much should be evident through the combination of his name and birthplace; it need not be stated at the outset as a defining characteristic--the effect, again, is stereotyping.

3) As for my choice of the word "prominent" to replace "non-Muslim Arab," this is not POV requiring citation. The facts related in the article are eloquent testimony to Wael Hallaq's prominence in Islamic Studies: three decades in the academic field, two highly-sought-after and influential professorships, nine authored volumes, and some sixty other publications are evidence enough of prominence in an academic field. Prominence is not proven by citing a text which links the subject to the word "prominent;" rather, it is evidenced by the subject's many and influential accomplishments and publications. Scholars and students in the field of Islamic Legal Studies--my own area of study, authorship, and teaching--know the name Wael Hallaq very well.

I hope I have explained myself adequately. Please let me know if you have any other causes or concerns.

Best, RaHHaal (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RaHHaal. We, as Wikipedia editors, are not supposed to judge what is "prominent" for ourselves. Doing so ourselves is considered significantly more subjective than if a WP:Reliable source asserts it. Take Michael Jordan, for example. Many people, very like the vast majority of people, consider him the greatest/most prominent basketball player of all time. But we are not supposed to assert that ourselves (meaning based on our own opinion), or state "Michael Jordan is a prominent basketball player." without supporting it with a WP:Reliable source. In his Wikipedia article, we get across the fact that he is considered the greatest/most prominent basketball player of all time by relaying: His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." We do this because, per WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia requires a citation for such wording, including your wording of "prominent." Such wording is also often considered non-WP:Neutral if not done right ("right" meaning the inclusion of a WP:Reliable source, making sure that the assertion is not WP:Undue weight, and possibly that it has WP:In-text attribution).
I see that you reverted me, as though I am simply supposed to accept your explanations and that's that, the matter is resolved. I will not revert again because I am not that interested in this matter, and I know that relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editors such as yourself are prone to WP:Edit war. But, despite your Wikipedia editing being very infrequent, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Perhaps one of these days, you are going to come across a Wikipedia editor who is not so willing to let you get your way...and you won't know how to deal with it, and will likely get blocked for whatever reason (likely WP:Edit warring), because you are not familiar with the way things are supposed to work here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


I have reported Anarchistdy to the edit warring noticeboard, if you'd like to comment. GSK 09:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I knew before you left a message for me on his talk page and here about this. Have commented. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy birthdayEdit

I think you need the good wishes here too, not just at home. Hope you don't mind. I added you to this list.[12] I know you don't like it when your birthday comes around, but try to cheer up. Maybe this message makes up for this[13] and the lack of help you're getting from that article's watchers? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The message helped a bit, and of course the otherwise nice birthday. When yours arrives in a few days, don't expect a Wikipedia message from me about it. *Grumbles, as always, that our birthdays are only four days apart...while our other siblings get breathing space on the birthday front* Also, thanks to DrNegative for helping out. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Anytime, and happy belated. DrNegative (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rice University Residential Colleges PageEdit

Good day!

I can understand why my recent edit might not seem constructive, but it is actually true and correct information. The naming of the new wing was a matter brought before the Lovett College Central Committee, referenced in the article, and the proposal to name it "Stinky Leebron" was passed by a majority vote of the eligible elected officers.

If you're interested I can go into more details, but suffice it to say: I would greatly appreciate working with you to include this piece of information in the article. I think there might be a better place to put it, but what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to work out any of that with me. I suppose that I will have to WP:Assume good faith with you on this matter, unless you can provide a source from that school confirming what you've relayed to me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Thanks for your help in providing evidence regarding Anarchistdy. GSK 00:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, and you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Undoing Syrian Emergency Task Force VandalismEdit

Thank you for recently undoing the vandalism to Syrian Emergency Task Force. The same vandalism recently reoccurred and I have undone it. It appears the organization is in the process of folding and re-branding itself (its website has just gone offline and its phone is disconnected) and, I suspect, an attempt is being made to scrub its history as part of a fresh start. I don't know it's necessary to request page protection yet, however, I'll keep watching it and very much appreciate your attentiveness and assistance. BlueSalix (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

15:47, 6 October 2013‎ Flyer22 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,478 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by identified as test/vandalism using STiki) (undo)Edit

thanks for cleaning that up.

I left my browser open and another friend walked over to make a revision without my knowledge

btw chirs is a dumbass.....

keep up the good work.....

Josh (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You Deleted West Hills High School InformationEdit

I'm actually a student at this high school, and as a member of ASB, I know that my mascot's names are Wolfie and Wolfette. Wolfie is the male wolf while Wolfette is the female wolf. I request that I reedit the page to have the correct information. Snowshredder140 (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Snowshredder140, 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) 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Mammary intercourseEdit

Just to clarify, I'm well aware that women can (and often do) achieve orgasm through cunnilingus; but the partner performing the cunnilingus doesn't normally orgasm themselves as a direct result of performing the cunnilingus! -- Taohinton (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when I made this comment (and the followup after it), I considered that's what you meant by your edit summary statement and that you'd likely clarify on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Brad PittEdit

Sorry that I haven't responded to you I don't use that e-mail anymore but I'm so confused as to what the problem is with the Brad Pitt article, I barely edit anymore. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Any current problem with that article is not with the sources that a certain user doesn't like; see the discussions there about it. All was resolved on that front, and the aforementioned certain user was or is still pressing what he perceives as an issue. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the article has been improved, the discussion has ground to a halt and the whole thing has blown over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jeffrey EpsteinEdit

How is the information regarding someone being a registered sex offender not considered proper information? Epsecially if the person is paying off victims to not speak about the crime. The man is a registered sex offender and the information should stay as long as he is registered as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read BLP. Epstein was all over the news with his conviction. It's how I even noticed his article. Adding this information to his article isn't a BLP violation. Lastly, this is old ground. If you'd like to discuss it, please do so, but bring it up on the article's talk page. Edit warring over it will only get you blocked. Rklawton (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
IP, someone having been convicted of a crime usually does not go in the first sentence of the lead; besides that, since it is contentious, it should be sourced in the lead, per Wikipedia:Lead#Citations and WP:BLP, if it is to be placed there (though still not in the first sentence). That is why I have reverted you here and here. That's also why I reverted Rklawton. Well, the first time I reverted you, IP, it looks like I thought you were committing WP:Vandalism. I don't much care about this lead matter, however, so I won't revert again or debate the matter at the article's talk page. Additionally, that article is not on my WP:Watchlist, and will never be on it.
Rklawton, reminding me of the possibility of being blocked for WP:Edit warring is not necessary, as I am far from a newbie. Personally, I would consider blocking me in the case of these two latest reverts most unjustified. I know that you are quick and/or harsh with the block-trigger, from, for example, what I saw in this case regarding the Veganism article. I am the one who queried Alison (via email) about that block, which I consider inappropriate because it was/still is an indefinite block. But, again, the block-trigger is nowhere close to being needed in this case regarding me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The general idea is to discuss things on the talk page rather than just revert. You weren't doing that - and that's problematic. Now that you are using the talk page, I don't see a problem. We can discuss the matter there, work toward consensus, and so on. Rklawton (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
What I did was not problematic in the least. As for discussing the Jeffrey Epstein lead matter any further, I've made my stance clear above -- not interested. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Three reverts without discussion is problematic. Rklawton (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The first revert was made a month ago (though not far off in that month), and I clearly thought that I was reverting vandalism or a WP:BLP violation of some sort (though, if the latter, I used the wrong revert option or tool). The latter two I reverted because I consider them WP:BLP violations, which is supported by Wikipedia:Lead#Citations and WP:BLP and other people's views that are documented on that article's talk page. There, you stated that you disagree with those views (while also accusing one of the editors there of being a WP:Single purpose account that exists at Wikipedia to whitewash that aspect of the article). You are free to disagree with those views, obviously. But it is because of these views that are opposite yours that I don't consider my actions in this case problematic. If you would like to continue to debate whether or not my actions were problematic, then report them at a relevant noticeboard. Either way, you will be doing it somewhere other than on my talk page; this is because once I ask you to stop posting on it, at least regarding this matter, you should defer to the Wikipedia:User pages guideline and do so. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Telugu languageEdit

ˈtɛlʊɡuː is not right. it means టెలుగూ. "తెలుగు" is the proper usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saughmraat (talkcontribs) 11:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Saughmraat. Though I saw and read your post earlier, I'm just now replying because I was sleepy at the time of your post (though not too sleepy to sporadically revert vandalism) and became a little busy on Wikipedia this morning. I reverted you here and here because, like I stated in that second revert, it is WP:Verifiability that Wikipedia adheres to instead of WP:Original research. Read those policies. You were adding your personal commentary as a reference on top of a WP:Reliable source. Read what Wikipedia considers a reliable source as well. If you find a WP:Reliable source to support your text, then it is acceptable to add it back in the way that you did before. In the meantime, I think that it is acceptable for you to add it as a note (as long as it clear that it is a note); see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references. Because you are relatively new to editing Wikipedia, despite your Wikipedia account being registered since 2008, I will add a Welcome template to your talk page; this will point you to the different types of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Freezing Vibrations reversionEdit

I don't understand why you undid my edit to List_of_Freezing_episodes, and gave me a warning for vandalism on a previously unused talk page. I added episode 3's English name as soon as it was released when Ep. 2's subbed version streamed. I also added a summary for episode 2. yes i added a note at the end for FonFon Alseif to feel free to replace my temporary summary when he gets around to editing it in a few days. if the note at the end shouldn't be there, then quit being lazy and just quickly revising it, and actually edit the page and selectively delete the part that was unnecessary. When someone adds info to multiple areas, and you undo the whole thing just because one little part wasnt quite "up to snuff" which also deletes a lot of perfectly good information, could also be considered vandalism.

Now im stuck with the 1st thing on my talk page being a post about me being a vandal, and that makes me sad and is insulting.

WA-Zergslayer (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WA-Zergslayer. When I reverted you, I should have instead reverted you with a WP:Assume good faith edit summary. I didn't revert "a lot of perfectly good information" and, per WP:Vandalism, my revert of your edit is not vandalism in any way. If you consider it such, you are obviously free to do so. The message I left on your talk page doesn't call you a vandal; among other things, it says that your edit "did not appear constructive." You are also free to remove that message. And while your edit wasn't completely unconstructive, your "SOME1 PLZ PUT A BETER SUMMARY WHEN YOU GET THE CHANCE!!" text needed to be reverted. If you feel the need to leave a note like that, then use the hidden note feature; see Help:Hidden text. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I also apologize for making you feel the way you described. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please help...Edit

Hi, Kindly approve these Portal support pages

Reviewed/Approved, Selvasivagurunathan m. The first one still needs work, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What a Great Help! Thank you very much for the support! - Regards Selvasivagurunathan m (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you willing to nominate Whitney Houston for GA?Edit

Hi Flyer22, I saw you are one of the most recent editors to make substantive contributions to the Whitney Houston article. It seems like it could be an easy GA pass. Given it's one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia, I'm hoping to persuade you to nominate it. I'd be happy to review it there, but it wouldn't be right for me to nominate it given I haven't edited it at all. What do you think? Maybe we can even get it up to FA and have it featured on the main page. Best, Lemurbaby (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lemurbaby. By "substantive contributions," are you referring to my edit count with regard to that article? I ask because, other than that edit count, I haven't made what I would call substantive edits to that article. I've made a few additions to it, but I have mostly tweaked the additions of others, reverted vandalism or other unconstructive edits there. That's why the Contributions link isn't as accurate as it initially seems. I'm not sure that the Whitney Houston article is up to WP:GA status, and, given how the GA review process can be hard work, stressing and/or long, I'm not sure that I want to be the main one fixing things up. I've been that person before, but it's usually been when I was ready to do that. The GA process isn't supposed to be for article cleanup, though cleanup does happen during it. I'd rather see what Bookkeeperoftheoccult and Tenebrae have to state about your suggestion first, which is why I've alerted them via WP:Echo by linking their usernames in this section. I will also email Bookkeeperoftheoccult, since he or she hasn't been actively editing Wikipedia these days. As for you not being able to nominate the article; no, I don't think that's appropriate or allowed for you to nominate it if you are going to be reviewing it. Otherwise, it would be fine for you to nominate it. The WP:FA process is the only process the requires the person to be a main editor or to have consultation with the main editor(s) of the article before going through with the nomination. The Whitney Houston article certainly wouldn't fair well skipping the GA process and going right to the FA process. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not nearly active enough anymore to go through a nomination process and I haven't contributed significantly to Whitney Houston either, only minor additions and the occasional vandal revert. Glad to be thought of though, thank you! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. I figured that you were too inactive these days to be involved in a GA or FA process. So I was rather looking for your opinion on the state of the Houston article, and whether it should go through a GA process at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If enough editors were working on it, I'm sure it could go through GAN and pass, I'm just not sure how many people who have actively contributed would want to be involved at this time. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

regarding editing of an article LIBIDOEdit

hello sir, i edited the article LIBIDO with some new information two three days ago with my account named as ed beerman... sir, the purpose of my editing was primarily to come out of my anxiousness. Under the point PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING LIBIDO, a very important factor was the time gap between two ejaculations..generally if a male is on a short term abstinence from any sexual act( that involves ejaculation), he feels a higher sexual desire..but wikipedia missed this important factor.. sir, my question is that can you please analyse and tell why was it not there in that article...i have really been anxious..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman (talkcontribs) 10:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ed beerman. I'm female. And matters were already explained to you here at Jamesx12345's talk page. As for why what you wanted in the Libido article was not already in the article: The vast majority of Wikipedia articles are never finished; there is always something more to add to them and/or something more to add about that subject (which may result in one or more creations of a WP:Spinout article). What you added should also be removed if it is based only on a primary source; I already directed you to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). That is the guideline you are supposed to follow with regard to sourcing health information at Wikipedia. Read it and see, among other things, what is meant by "primary source" and read WP:Primary source as well, if you don't already know what is meant by that term.
Also know that if you edit the way that you did before, with all that confrontation, WP:Edit warring and WP:I didn't hear that behavior, you will be blocked again. You need to take more time and listen to what experienced editors at this site are telling you with regard to editing Wikipedia. Otherwise, you will not last long here as an editor (that is, if you plan to continue editing here). Flyer22 (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

yes ma'm, i have come to know about all you said :) but ma'm my question here is different.. All i request you is to please either check,analyse or tell me with your experience that what can be the reasons that the Point i mad was not mentioned in the physical facotors affecting libido.. Or please direct me to some administrator who is expert of these mdical and health pages..the only reason i am disturbing you is that i am really anxious about this and wanna do my further research being a medical student..hope you spare some time to analyse..many thanks ..ed beerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman (talkcontribs) 15:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Something mentioned in cunnilingus discussionEdit

"however, stronger odors (whether a person likes them or not) emanate from the vulva than they do from the male genitals; most often (and this is going by WP:Reliable sources) male genitals have no noticeable odor."

Which sources are you talking about here please? Or is there another wikipedia page because I cannot find any reference in the cunnilingus page itself:

"Women may consider personal hygiene before practicing oral sex important, as poor hygiene can lead to bad odors, accumulation of sweat and micro-residue (such as lint, urine or menstrual blood), which the giving partner may find unpleasant. Some women remove or trim pubic hair, which may enhance their oral sex experience."

... nor on vagina, or vulvovaginal health. I have found these references on this matter but I would be interested to read the other sources you speak of above. This is not on topic to that discussion so I asked here instead. Thank you in advance. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For others reading this section of my talk page, the IP is referring to this discussion (in this case, my 17:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC) post). Hello, IP. Who are you with regard to Wikipedia editing? I suspect that you are an editor I've talked with before. And, yes, your question is "on topic to that discussion," so I'm not sure why you decided to post about this on my talk page. Perhaps you felt that you'd be butting in? If so, there is no "butting in" on Wikipedia article talk pages. If you have sources that you feel can help that article, you should address them on that article's talk page. As for your question, I obviously was not referring to sources in that article; that's clear with regard to what I was responding to. The wording "going by WP:Reliable sources" in this case means sources that mention or discuss that aspect, sources that anyone can locate on their own. In this case, I don't know the specific names of those sources. So I'd need to relocate them; I was making the statement based on my experience of having read such sources.
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) 14:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that you have read such sources somewhere on wikipedia, but can't remember where? Do you remember part of the title, or if it was on PubMed ( If you do happen to recall any more in time please leave details. I guess I will just check back here every once in a while in case you have remembered. I can look on more wikipedia pages too. It is for something I am writing, but maybe there can be benefit for wikipedia too if I can add information to the relevant articles. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)v — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
No, I have not read such sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place I go to for sexuality information. I have read such sources at some point (or points) during my years studying sex topics. Again, I don't remember the specific titles. I may look into the matter, however (such as on Google Books and elsewhere); for example, the passage from the Cunnilingus article you cited is supposed to be sourced (reliably sourced). And again, remember to sign your username; a bot signed your second reply above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues templateEdit

Hello there I came here after noticing your edits at Football Manager 2014. You might know that earlier was written in an.advertisement manner. I cleaned the article up by reorganizing it and rewriting the promotional text to a neutral point of view. Therefore I think the issues template in the template should be removed as the issues mentioned in the article have been solved. Can you please tell me whether there is a process for getting it removed or if a user can remove it himself if the issues have been solved? Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember making this edit/revert to that article, and thought you were referring to a real football matter. I make a lot of reverts a day. Yes, that article looks better and it appears fine to remove the advertisement tag. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Should I remove it myself or is there a process involved in removing it? Do I need to contact an administrator to review the article and remove the template? KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no process involved in removing that tag, other than addressing the reason(s) for the tag having been placed there, fixing the perceived problems, and/or discussing the matter with one or more editors; you've done that. You can remove the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for helping. Your help was really valuable. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Kootenai WarEdit

Thanks for catching my omission of the word "not." I believe when it's referred to as a "peaceful war," that they may have formally declared war but not actually engaged in combat. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You're welcome, Uyvsdi. But as can be seen from that article's edit history, this IP caught the mistake and I simply reverted myself after reading that aspect of the source. Also made sure to revert my "did not appear constructive" message to the IP. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse meEdit

hello excuse me you said my edits are not constructice?!? i noticed you removed my edit from the page why? Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Will Never Say Never! (talkcontribs) 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I Will Never Say Never!. For why this edit, though not WP:Vandalism, was not constructive, see WP:TONE and especially WP:Neutral and WP:Verifiability.
And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The grammatical errors were also a factor in my reverting you. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you fix it? Monica I Will Never Say Never! (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've visited Monica's talkpage and will try and help her out. This is her first edit-attempt. Take it easy, see you around. — (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
So, she never logged back in, from what I can tell. No more contributions under that username so far, and no response to my WP:WALLOFTEXT on her talkpage (which might be an *alternative* explanation for why she did not reply to my offer of assistance... sigh... must learn control... errrrggghhh... so hard to resist wall-of-text verbosity..........). Anyhoo, do you know if we can track her down, so I -- or maybe somebody less verbose from WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RETENTION or whatever who is willing to adopt her temporarily -- can ping her and she if she'd like the ten-minute-tutorial-on-how-to-source-justin-bieber-sentences? Thanks. (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Duchamp (clothing)Edit

Hi There. Could I ask why you removed text from my company page ? This is a true reflection of the brand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. I reverted you here and again here because, like I stated, in the WP:Edit summary for that second revert, your edits to that article do not comply with WP:TONE, WP:Neutral and WP:Verifiability. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a different category of beginning user... Monica above was here for her Very First Edit Ever... but these Duchamp folks have had a corporate page since 2007 (created by a legitimate wikipedian for legitimate notability reasons). The original wikipedian went on to other things, and the corporate folks have been too busy running their business to read wikipedia's five *bazillion* policy pages. :-)   I think this example here, on your talkpage, is the first time they've ever figured out how to use a talkpage... or maybe that there even were talkpages... in the last six years, some seemingly-WP:COI anon edits have been made every few months, which were then quickly reverted by some savvy wikipedian... without any talkpage messages whatsoever! Sigh. Anyways, it looks like this long-running series of WP:BITE is also finally getting handled elsewhere... one of the editors who helped them fix the page up by removing WP:PEACOCK back in 2010 has turned up again, and is helping get the page into shape so as to survive the AfD process.
   So, first of all, thanks for reaching out to these folks, you seem to be the exception to the WP:NINJA reverts that came before you. Second of all, when you run across folks that seem to be potentially-constructive-yet-unfortunately-less-than-clueful-about-wikipolitics, might I suggest you send them over to WP:RETENTION or maybe to WP:TEAHOUSE? Or you can just tell them to ping my talkpage, if they want somebody to walk them through the basics quickly. Some folks can grok WP:V and WP:N the first time around, but many of them are *already* wikipedians... and getting over those first big brain-exploding hurdles sometimes requires a helpful boost from somebody who already knows the policies. Anyhoo, as always, keep up the good work, may your wikistress ever be monotonically decreasing, and thanks for improving wikipedia. See you around. (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Noting here for the archive this (now archived) report about the Duchamp (clothing) article at WP:Requests for page protection. I've been meaning to link that here. IP, I see that you attempted to help, as seen here, here and at Talk:Duchamp (clothing). You should definitely make sure not to provide diff-links in a Wikipedia article in the future; I didn't think that you were using them as actual sources, but rather as diff-links (which you explained on Racconish's talk page). I appreciate you taking this matter on, and the link to WP:NINJA. I'd seen that page before, but I'm not sure I ever saw that ninja image and its caption; the caption "The edit ninja viewing his watchlist. Don't expect him to say anything." is hilarious. Yep, a lot of us Wikipedia editors (registered and non-registered), including me, have reverted and not stated a thing (I still do that at times, but, when I do, it is almost always for vandals or others who have made unconstructive edits; sometimes there is no need to explain, and other times we don't always want to debate a revert). Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello flyer (you can call me 74 ... don't worry, I own this class-A block, nobody else edits from here :-)     Yeah, I was using the diffs as 'sources' in case Racconish wanted to replace them inline with better ones in wholesale-immediate fashion, but they prefer to organically build the article, which is fine by me -- they're doing a bang-up solid job, the page has four keeps and no deletes over at AfD.[14] 'My' stuff that was in fact mostly just unsourced stuff pulled from prolly-WP:COI-but-not-necessarily-non-factual edit-history of the article was moved over to the talkpage, and digging up sources was pretty easy for about half of it.
   My help has been of limited use, though, because getting in contact with the anons has proved very difficult -- specifically, the ones that seem to have (even if we WP:AGF ... that can only stretch so far) WP:COI difficulties, and probably RTFM difficulties. You were the first person since 2008 to even template-spam them, and it was probably the first time they had ever figured out there was a talkpage. That first contact is crucial, for folks that are busy running their business (duchamp sells a duffel bag for USD$900 ... but their main business is high-fashion dress clothes which probably are priced like two-story houses), as opposed to diligently reading the five bazillion WP:PG stuff. Try and give them a hard shove to WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RETENTION or some such place, where they can immediately get the 60-second intro on why their edits have always been ninja-reverted so far. Five years of reverts, in fact.
   As for obvious vandalism, silent but deadly is the correct approach... but when is is not gibberish or destructive, just somebody that seems to have no clue about policies, and thinks wikipedia is their personal blog, or their corporate blog, for the sake of WP:RETENTION, methinks best to try and get them to somebody who can walk them through the minefield. If you want, you can always just send them to my talkpage, although I might not be a quick on the draw as the Tea-House, sometimes the direct touch helps. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Lust" murderEdit

I understand your concerns, but if you read sources on serial killers you'll see that "lust", despite being the usual nomenclature, is a misleading term. Rape is not motivated by (normal) lust, and if you read the Causes of sexual assault article that I linked to, specifically the Groth typology you'll see that the so-called "lust" murders are the actions of the type of rapist described by Groth as the "Sadistic rapist", whereas the serial killers who are not "lust" murderers are described as "Power rapists". In rewording the article, I was attempting to draw a distinction between the two, and to avoid perpetuating the harmful myth that rape is the inevitable product of normal sexual desire. I admit my wording is a bit clumsy, and including information on the Groth typology in the article itself would probably help. Asarelah (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Asarelah, you mean the Causes of sexual violence article. I'm familiar with scholarly views on the topic of serial killers, and am interested in the topic; that's the reason I have edited the Serial killer article and watched over it for as long as I have (though I have never been motivated to make it into a WP:Good article or to get it in at least significantly better shape than it is currently in, rather only parts of it). My problem with your edit is what I stated on your talk page: "If the source states 'lust,' that's what we should use." That's why I added "lust" back in place of your "sexual perversion" wording. Sources sometimes differ on matters regarding the serial killer topic, as well as rape, similar to how sources differ on other matters as well. When reliable sources give different aspects, we should report those aspects (the ones that deserve mention) with WP:Due weight, per WP:Verifiability. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we must necessarily always stick to the precise wording of the source. After all, don't we paraphrase things on Wikipedia all the time? To describe an individual as committing rape out of "lust" is misleading to a layperson and furthers rape myths. Surely we can reach some compromise rather than rigidly sticking to the original wording? Sorry it took a while to get back to you, I've been busy. Asarelah (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Asarelah, I integrated the new section you created about this (your "17:07" post) into this one.
As for paraphrasing, paraphrasing is for using one's own words to convey what the source is relaying. Adding "sexual perversion" in place of "lust" is not paraphrasing. As for the topic of "lust" with regard to rape, it's like I stated above: "Sources sometimes differ on matters regarding the serial killer topic, as well as rape, similar to how sources differ on other matters as well." Many reliable sources state that rape may be motivated by lust (though there is the prevailing notion that "rape is not about sex; it's about power"); and, indeed, lust being a (or the) motivating factor has often been considered with regard to campus rape or date rape (for example, a man taking advantage of a woman who is highly in to the point that she is incapacitated). You are proposing to report one side of the matter, and I don't agree with that. And I don't agree with attributing something to a source that is not supported by that source. You can easily add a different source to support your wording. And again, adding a different source does not mean that the other wording should not be included. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I see that you made a different edit. As can be seen, I haven't contested it. The source might even mention lust murder; I need to check it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Lesbian articleEdit

Please watch those 3RRs. Take it to dispute resolution. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, Jim1138. And as you can see, I beat you to pointing out that matter. Thanks for the note here and at that editor's talk page. That editor is not new to Wikipedia, of that I am certain (especially having caught so many people as problematic returning Wikipedia editors), but I can worry about that later. Seeing the WP:Edit war currently going on at Titanic (1997 film), another article that I watch, I didn't think I'd have to be involved in an edit war at this time because I stayed out of that one. But things obviously don't always go as we expect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"How to lose your virginity"Edit

Hi. I don't suppose you could take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/How to Lose Your Virginity (film)? It's queued up in the list of AFC submissions, and I honestly can't tell if it's notable or not. Since I believe this is your subject area of expertise, I thought you might be able to give a better opinion on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Having Googled it (regular Google and Google Books; didn't bother with Google Scholar yet), it doesn't appear to have gotten a lot of coverage in WP:Reliable third-party sources, but perhaps there is enough coverage to justify there being a Wikipedia article about it. Despite sometimes saying how familiar I am with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia:Notability (books) guideline. We should both read it to get a better feel for what are acceptable book articles. It might be worth querying about this book matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books; that project is sufficiently active. Judging by this interview with the author of the book in question, the book appears to have come out in 2010. It may get coverage in scholarly sources as the years go on. Either way, the possible Wikipedia article on it needs a bit of tweaking; I'm speaking grammar-wise. But trading out poor or poorer sources for better sources, or adding better sources, are also options. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer. I don't suppose you'd like to take the driving seat in the review and put that all down in words for Beboplouie (talk · contribs) who created it, could you? Articles for Creation needs a bit of care and attention from other editors, as we're getting swamped with a backlog of over 1,000 reviews. It's a bit of a thankless task, but one I find rewarding as you're helping out new users. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Oops, it's not a book...obviously; sorry about that. I got confused after Googling the matter. But the same sentiment is behind my reply. Either you didn't notice my mistake or you were being too nice by not mentioning it. Yes, I'll add the review there, replacing "book" with "documentary," etc. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
<chuckle> Um. Uh. Ritchie333, looking at your section-title, then when you say this is Flyer22's area of expertise... are you referring to movies, or, uh ... perhaps I should just shut it? (Ducks for cover.) (Exits stage right.) (Warning: the surgeon general has determined that the preceding comment contains no humorous content whatsoever, and should be reverted on sight, and the person who posted the comment needs to be trout'd.) As you were, carry on, nothing to see here. (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: The project was turned into an article by a different editor. I made a two tweaks to the article today, and pointed the author of the article to this discussion on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Titanic (again)Edit

Hi Flyer22 - just to say thank you for your tactful prompt, and I guess the result is that between the two of us we've improved what was there. (The sentence "Rose endures arduous routes to free Jack." really did not cheer my editor's heart!) Alfietucker (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Alfietucker. I know that my "endures arduous routes" text, which you removed, was not well-loved. I wouldn't mind Tenebrae teaching me what was wrong with it. I rather liked the alternative that we came up with together, as seen here, here and here. But, as you know by now, Ring Cinema removed it. Going through the Titanic plot summary back-and-forths and/or edit wars that we are currently going through gives me a case of déjà vu. All this fuss over the plot section is largely silly, especially when you think about significantly more important matters to tend to on Wikipedia (or in the world in general). But at least Ring Cinema and I are not at each other's throats this time (like we were years ago). I realize that I'm largely different than I was back then, so that factors into this and helps. And we have Doniago's helpful eye for prose as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
[Blushes] I honestly didn't know that sentence was written by you, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. But glad you've taken it in good spirit. Part of me is sorry Ring Cinema has removed the "obstacles" clause, but I can see why he's done so and his mentioning the rising water neatly implies/addresses the issue. Alfietucker (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Wait, I'm being helpful? :p DonIago (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, Alfietucker, written by me when trying to convey, in as few words as possible, the difficulties that Rose went through before finally freeing Jack; see here and here. It's also acknowledged in this section on that article's talk page. I often have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, sometimes even when I'm not sure why I'm wrong. Other times, I'm so certain that I'm right that debate is a waste of time in my eyes. As for Ring Cinema's text that replaced ours, it's a bit awkward to me. But Ring Cinema or someone else will take care of that.
And, yes, Doniago, you're being helpful. You know that. There have been minor disagreements with a few of your cuts or some of your rewording, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you've been helpful, such as here. So thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I find this notion that I'm being helpful deeply disturbing. :p I have to say though,I think I agree with Ring about "arduous routes". It's a dramatic part of the film sure, but not really essential to the plot. That said as long as we're being judicious about the word count I'm not inclined to make another pass at it barring any flare-ups. DonIago (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
My thing about "arduous routes" or (what Alfietucker came up with after my aforementioned/above linked prompt) "braving several obstacles" is that, like I stated in that prompt, the plot section was unnecessarily omitting the difficulties that Jack and Rose went through when the ship was sinking (other than having been chased by Cal, and what they faced when the ship rose into the air and afterward). There is no need to present their ordeal as simple or mostly simple just for the sake of brevity. The plot section loses nothing by such additions, as long as the plot section's length is not out of control, but it does gain something (context) by such additions. Not to mention that, like I stated on the talk page, editors will add things to the plot section that they feel are missing...but will often do so in too many words. Best to address it in few words before they get to it. And with what appears to be Ring Cinema's permission (below), I readded Alfietucker's "braving several obstacles" text, while also addressing the "mother has boarded a lifeboat" aspect and Ring Cinema's wording, as seen in this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Like I said, I'm not currently inclined to take another pass at it myself as long as it's staying under 700 words. If it isn't (and I notice) I might try to shorten it again, but I'll keep your thoughts in mind if and when that happens. DonIago (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Though, as you know, I find the strict enforcement of WP:FILMPLOT unnecessary (especially for a film as long as Cameron's Titanic, while also understanding that you and Tenebrae feel that its length is not a complex factor in concisely relaying the plot), I appreciate you taking my feelings into consideration with regard to plot details. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If you find my try too far gone, please change it. I was taking a stab at it, thinking there might be another way to organize it. No problem, Flyer, you are the expert on Titanic in my mind. (But "arduous routes"? xD) --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Ring Cinema. Thanks. (And, hey, don't laugh at me, LOL. Or perhaps you're simply laughing with me.) Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


It says that you changed my edit of LHOOQ because it didn't add anything productive. My edit to the page was a reversion of an inaccurate and possibly vandalizing edit. The edit before mine had to do with what the letters "LHOOQ" sound like when read out in French. All sources say it is supposed to read "Elle a chaud au cul", which translates to "She has a hot ass". That is the factual, literal translation of how it was intended to be interpreted, as backed by all of the sources of the page. The edit changed it to "elle est jolie" which sounds nothing like "èl ache o o qu" and does not agree with any of the sources given on the page. I understand a bot may have detected bad words or something, but I was reverting that edit to the previous, accurate information. (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, IP. This is the revert; your edit looked like vandalism to me, and I didn't think to check any of the sources. I see that type of vandalism often on Wikipedia. It would have helped if you'd provided a WP:Edit summary. I apologize for my mistake with regard to your edit. As the diff-link shows, you added "Her ass is hot" instead of "She has a hot ass," though. The latter is more accurate, since "Her ass is hot" could easily be interpreted as "She is hot" (which is what I reverted to). What part of the sources supports "She is really horny"? Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

We good?Edit

Just wanted to make sure you saw this and knew nothing you wrote bothered me. --NeilN talk to me 15:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Neil, I'd already seen that reply. And, yes, we good. I did think that I may be distracting a bit from your report when I typed that up, though (that it could have the opposite effect of what you intended); if I contributed to the decline of a block on that editor, I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing (but I lean more toward it being a bad thing). Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

oh howz darez you revert sumbudddy!!11!!Edit

Just wanted to drop in and say thanks... I was making some edits to quantitative easing, and checked the history to see what had happened recently. What to my wondering eyes should appear, but Flyer22 and the stiki-wiki reindeer! :-) Appreciate it. Also, note that the anon you reverted was definitely intending to delete the entire history-subsection of the article -- their edit-comment was "section blank". It seems unlikely that was a beginning-editor mistake, since it is the only edit from that IP, knew to use an edit-comment, and surgically excised just that one exact section, according to the contribs button. Do you have checkuser, to see if there are other IPs or usernames the same entity may be editing from? Thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you mean this revert. You're welcome. Thanks for the entertaining heading and comment you have left on my talk page. No, I'm not a WP:CheckUser; either way, the WP:CheckUser tools are not supposed to be used without sufficient reason. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, the IP's WP:Edit summary "section blanking" was not added by the IP; it is one of the special tags that alert editors to vandalism or other unconstructive edits. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Heh heh. Well, I've never seen it before today, but I just saw my second one in many years, and immediately came over here to report that there *was* something weird going on, because the exact same edit-comment had appeared from a completely different IP which did not even traceroute to the same *country* as last time... what kind of horrid conspiracy is this? :-) Agents of SPECTRE, this is Number One; we shall go forth and blank whole sections of wikipedia, leaving the same banally inscrutable, yet unmistakably evil calling-card, until the phrase Section Blanking is feared throughout the world! Whew; thanks for clearing that up. Prolly the wording should be revised to say something like "section blanking -- this comment added by SectionWatcherBot" or the equivalent, else editors like moi who've never heard of such a thing will start to get a wee bit paranoid. (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Byrraju Ramalinga RajuEdit

As referred to by you, It is not my personal opinion that the term disgraced to be used in the initial reference to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju. Numerous articles and newspapers including Press Trust of India, Associated Press referred to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju as disgraced. Please do not see this as name calling but rather a truth of matter. As Dwpaul said, a simple search would reveal several thousand sources. Neil2000 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion when it is unreferenced material added by you in the way that you added it. Furthermore, despite however dictionaries, encyclopedias or different cultures define disgraced, for any author who uses that term to describe him, it is their personal opinion because not everyone would describe him that way. The way you added it violates WP:IMPARTIAL, and I don't consider the WP:BURDEN to have been on me to add sources to support that text. It would be best if you regulated your objection on this matter to the discussion about it at the WP:BLP noticeboard, the article talk page or your talk page instead of mine. I'm not too focused on this matter, and there is not a lot more that I will be stating about it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked to learn that a self-admitted accounting fraudster who ripped off millions of investors and employees alike would be called anything other than a disgraced. More so by your assertion that not everyone agrees to that characterization. No wonder that considering anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information.Neil2000 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I care not how shocked you are or what you think about me or Wikipedia. I told you, "It would be best if you regulated your objection on this matter to the discussion about it at the WP:BLP noticeboard, the article talk page or your talk page instead of mine. I'm not too focused on this matter, and there is not a lot more that I will be stating about it." That does not mean that it is then best for you to comment on my talk page about this topic again. Keep your objections elsewhere; I don't want to read them, and I was very close to reverting this latest comment of yours. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and "not everyone would describe him that way" does not automatically translate to "not everyone agrees to that characterization." Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
See WP:PEACOCK. While Wikipedia does not maintain a banned word list, it clearly has a policy of avoiding words that would by their implication either tend to promote or condemn "the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." While the policy expressed at the link above talks about promotion, the same philosophy applies in the use of words that denigrate a subject but do not impart specific information about them or their actions. The word disgraced has more to do with how an individual is viewed by society and very little do with facts or history. As I mentioned at WP:BLPN (but you conveniently left out of your quote of my comments), the article stands very well without the use of "colorful" words such as disgraced. Any reasonable person can infer that the subject of the article misbehaved in a reprehensible fashion; if they consider them therefore disgraced, then that is their judgment; we do not need to force it on them. Also, as I suggested, the interpretation of that word may be different in different societies -- hence another reason to avoid it. Dwpaul (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Also see WP:LABEL, actually found in the same guideline article as WP:PEACOCK and possibly even more relevant to the way in which you propose to use disgraced to "color" the reader's judgment of the subject without imparting useful information Dwpaul (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

congratulations you are the winner of three randomized questionsEdit

Hello flyer, may I present to you this triad of queries.

  1. I would like to argue about false-positives with you, and whether 98% is sufficient. Do you have time for that discussion? Prolly guaranteed to be a bit rambling, unfortunately or fortunately. :-)
  2. Assertion, it is simply flat-out misuse of colloquial english, to speak of a "tabloid" or equivalently of "tabloid journal[ism]" which always is a negative connotation, and claim this is the same as the neutral "tabloid-papersize" or even "tabloid-[paper]sized journal". There is such as thing (always negative) as the phenomenon of tabloid journalism, fka yellow journalism... and it is the most typical usage-pattern nowadays, so unless one specifically says "size" then it is assumed to be the negative connotation. Note that saying "tabloid-format" or even "tabloid-layout" is insufficient, because even though those might unambiguously mean papersize to somebody familiar with the journalism business, or with papersize-standards-jargon I suppose, it is easily misinterpreted to mean tabloid-aka-bad-slash-sensationalist-journalism. By contrast, saying that publication $foo is printed on tabloid-papersize sheets, which are usually bi-folded and rolled before securing with a rubber-band, is not subject to any possible misinterpretations, and thus completely neutral (and anything else is prolly *not* completely neutral and therefore at least partially POV).
proposal concerning channeling destructive vandalism, into more useful... or at least non-destructive... pursuits, by turning it into an online videogame of sorts
  1. Your userpage has an allegedly-'inappropriate' (what a stupid word... effectively means WP:IDONTLIKEIT) list of vandals that were successfully attempting to be humorous, rather than necessarily (or simply) destructive. "Several vampire-advocacy lobbyists have testified[5][6] that the portrayal of their species was stereotypical[7][8] and even libelous[8], but the producers of the series responded[9] that such was not the proper hermeneutic interpretation of Buffy, saying it is solely[9] intended as an allegorical drama mirroring modern politics, with the vampires specifically representing[10][11] the ecologically-conscious Green Party." This crystallized something in my brain which has been there for some time; probably it helped that there is an editor User:Herostratus who comments sometimes. They are ironically named after the historic Herostratus, who vandalized one of the seven wonders of the world, so their name would live forever. The ploy worked, obviously! Clearly, we do not want to reward vandals of that sort... if they nuke florida and take out wikimedia's server farm, not to mention epcot center, kennedy space center, and perhaps our very own Flyer22 personally, that would definitely make them infamous forever. Not Good.

Still... most of the wiki-vandals are schoolkids, trying to spray-paint their name on the water-tower. Some of them want to get away with it... and if we were to publicize the times and dates and geolocations of their vandalisms, sooner or later they would not get away with it, because a local teacher, parent, or cop would catch them in the act. Others are more like Herostratus-the-historical-vandal, not doing it to get away with it, but doing it for fame. Maybe we can feed that desire, and channel the destructive vandalism, into semi-constructive vandalism... satisfy the desire for fame... and perhaps, with luck, convert some of the former semi-constructive vandals into actually-constructive editors, at some point.

    In a nutshell: why don't we invent the Non-Destructive Humorous Vandal Barnstar? Once a year, the winner of the most NDHVB awards that year will be given the chance to rewrite the blurb of their choice on the wikipedia mainpage (suggest we pick 1st April as the award-day), without being reverted, no holds barred, they can say *anything* they want short of BLP libel and copyvio. (Technically speaking, we might even be able to swing copyvio, as long as we respond within 24 hours to the DMCA takedown notice.) Of course, we only award NDHVB for something which *added* a paragraph, or image, or similar, to wikipedia, without removing anything. If you draw a mustache on the *main* picture at the mona lisa article, you were destructive... but if you add a *second* picture, with the caption 'recently biospectrosopy analysis revealed a previously-invisible portion of the famous painting which was overpainted in the 1700s by museum officials' then you were adding without deleting anything. Any destructive actions you make will *subtract* from your count of NDHVB awards for that year... but at the end of every year, your subtractions are cancelled out. When something ironic, humorous, interesting, or otherwise potentially worthy of an NDHVB award is added to some wikipedia article, rather than immediately reverting it on sight, it would instead be given a special ((ndhvb top)) ... ((ndhvb bottom)) template-wrapper.

    Regular users, and even regular editors, would not need to see such things -- by default, the wrapper-tags would make the ndhvb candidate invisible. Editors that *did* opt in to the ability to see ndhvb content, would see the content with some kind of squiggly red outline, or something... and a button at the bottom, which can be clicked to award the author with an ndhvb on their talkpage. Of course, default-hidden would *not* apply to the annual winner of ndhvb; their mainpage article would be visible to all, and most likely not marked with red squiggles either (though probably a sentence at the end saying 'april fools!' would be mandated by arbcom). Finally, note that although the editors who participated in awarding and subtracting ndhvb stars would have to opt-in, the *vandals* would not opt-in... we just judge their 'work' as to whether it deserves an hdhvb star, or instead deserves a negative-ndhvb-star, and put our decision on their talkpage. Next time they visit wikipedia, they have 'new messages'... and find out they are involved in a contest, with a tantalizing prize. We have a leaderboard with the current high scores, a daily high score winner, a map of all the recent positive and negative ndhvb counts, a list of articles currently containing ndhvb candidates sorted by highest current individual score to zero-but-trying-hard score (sub-zero counts of destructive vandalism-examples are *never* displayed at all). WP:MMORPG.

    Anyhoo, I'm not actually suggesting this is a good idea. It might be a terrible idea, with horrible unintended consequences. We don't want to glorify vandalism, and end up with a bunch of aspiring vandals. On the other hand, we already have tons of vandals, from what I can tell. So maybe this idea is not so crazy, especially if we manage to bring the more-creative vandals onto our side... after all, if they edit from their school IP, trying to win ndhvb for the year, and some other kid is destructively vandalizing, and getting their hard-earned ndhvb awards subtracted away.... Anyways, hope you find this interesting. Mull it over, and let me know if you find any holes, please, or have suggestions (to include of course fur-get-dabout-it).

Danke (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

p.s. ((later update)) There is in fact a long tradition, which stretches back before recorded edit-history even, of this sort of non-destructive-humorous-vandalism collection. It was sorta-ended by sorta-consensus circa 2007, due to worries that the practice sorta-encouraged vandalism. May I present, the most inspired[citation needed] policy shortcut of all time:       WP:-)       One highlight, from a discussion about whether one particular not-very-appetizing-looking image-file of an orange-colored fruit may, or may not, have been posted in violation of WP:COI by competitors..... "I am not about to accuse you of being the person who posted the offending picture or of being involved in the apple industry, but my antenna is up." Alrighty-then. Carry on. — (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting comments, and a lot to reply to. I don't have any significant thoughts on those matters at this point, and maybe I won't in the future. I also, a few minutes ago, just noticed your latest reply in the #Duchamp (clothing) section; I originally missed that due to the post by DendroNaja immediately before this section; DendroNaja posted twice in that section, seen here and here, and that caused me to miss your post because I didn't see you in the "Difference between revisions" aspect that happens when clicking on a diff-link. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No problemo. I'll stick on some collapse-top collapse-bottom tags, so the ndhvb stuff does not take up too much screen real-estate. Thanks for reading, and see you around. (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: The Angelina Jolie section that I reference in this section was deleted per WP:BLP concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

your disagreements about the third gender topicsEdit

Hi, you have summarily undone the changes that I have made in good faith, in the third gender article. This is against the "rights to undo" that you have been asigned. I am willing to discuss the changes that I have made and provide citations and delete where there is a controversy/ lack of citation.(Masculinity (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC))

You know by now why I have reverted you; it is clear from the complaints from others on your talk page about your edits to gender and/or sexuality articles why I have reverted you. It is clear from the mess you created at the Human male sexuality article, which is commented on from this point down, why I have reverted you. Your edits to gender and/or sexuality topics are almost always unsourced and/or WP:Original research, heavily biased or misleading. Yes, even when sourced, they are usually WP:Synthesis. You should be topic-banned from editing such articles, which I may propose in the future. No, it is not "against the 'rights to undo'" to have reverted you. Flyer22 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Mariah Carey D.O.B.Edit it says 1970. D to the ina, R to the ae'My Talk Page 15:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Miss. Dina Rae, I don't know how you think that Google search is more WP:Reliable than the sources you removed and I reverted you on. Either way, WP:Consensus is for keeping the version I reverted to; see this talk page discussion for what I mean. I am not interested in debating this matter. Take it to the article talk page if you want to debate it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Flyer, oddly enough I was coming here to ask a similar question, about sources which differ over the birthyear of a musician. I will go ahead and make the page in question look like the Mariah Carey page, since that seems a workable compromise. If you have time to peek, and verify my judgment call is kosher in this case, see here please. Talk:K._Michelle#Age_dispute Thanks. (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Edits to A30 road.Edit

Hi - why did you revert my edit to 'A30 road', calling it unconstructive, which was the addition of the name of the exit at the junction with the A395 called 'Kennards House'? This is the proper name of the exit and is named as such on the signposts. I live locally and use this exit regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean this edit. I see that I'm not the first one to revert you on that, nor the first one you've come to about this matter. If I was wrong to revert you, my mistake; feel free to add it back in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinions in Medical ArticlesEdit

Hmm...based on lengthy discussions on the talk page for circumcision, I was told that we "do not use any Commentary articles as sources for biomedical information" in response to my suggestion that we use one. So which is the case? --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because what you removed wasn't a "Commentary" article. Moshe please if you're going to be making biomedical edits you have to understand and read the sourcing. I will explain this further at Talk page. Zad68 12:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Great BridgeEdit

Response to reverting The battle of great bridge By thel33teditor's team.

Hey mister why did u revert my post on the battle of great bridge i found it to just long drawn and so i just decided to make it shorter... cause the truth is everyone died... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thel33teditor (talkcontribs) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a Mr., and this edit by you is clearly destructive (whether you meant well or not).
And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues with harassmentEdit

Hi Flyer, I have just left a message for the editor who has been harassing you to stop doing it. I suggest that you keep as far a distance as you can as well, don't edit their User Talk page and avoid any other unnecessary interaction. Zad68 03:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the message, Zad. Thank you. As I've stated, I have repeatedly ignored her. However, she continues to seek attention from me. The only reason I very recently gave into what she sought is because, as noted on her talk page, I wanted to let her know that I am aware of her WP:HOUNDING and suggest that she stop doing it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark MistressEdit

Dark Mistress is almost certainly banned user John254. Thought you'd want to know that! OSTheRobot (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

OCD ?Edit

What's with that guy? Did you see Harm OCD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

He's not as familiar with some Wikipedia policies and guidelines as the rest of us. One aspect of that is WP:Reliable sources; for example, here. And as you know, he's not familiar with WP:MEDRS. Glad that you reverted that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Just now looked at the Harm OCD article; glad that you handled that as well; that soon-to-be deleted article is obviously covering what is already covered by the Intrusive thoughts article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of intrusive thoughts, I wrote that when I was practically a brand new editor, and there was seriously only one decent source available. I've been meaning for months/years to go back and fix/update it, now that are tons of sources. Too much to do, too little time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to help you with that article, Sandy, if you want. Not right now, but I will have free time to help every now and then. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have journal access? I just archived the talk page, leaving one section with accurate criticism-- that is, it was originally written based on one book only, as that was all there was then. First step is to find a good secondary review, and hope it is freely available, since I don't have access to journals any more. Second step is to ... find the time ... which I don't have now either! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Like you, I used to have journal access. I was planning on returning to that because I'm going to be extensively working on the Vagina article. So I'll likely have it again some time before the year is over to help with the Intrusive thoughts article; if don't, I'll let you know. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm up to my eyeballs now in DSM5 updates, but maybe someday we'll get to it. There are more and more freely available sources these days, so it should be doable. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer CodyEdit

Hi Flyer, I left a note on User talk: about removing the persondata and proper way to discuss changing something. I also undid User talk:Radiohist change of birthyear to 1969 and birth place of Greece. Radiohist used a whitepages service to find a Cody in Henrietta, but I don't see any source stating she lives there. There is not any RS on it, but IMDB does say 1975. I left Radiohist a note too. Not sure what is going on here. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your message on Radiohist's talk page (I previously neglected taking his talk page off my WP:Watchlist, but I will now.) . And I was about to leave this note in the article's edit history before you commented here on my talk page about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Radiohist finally cited the edits. Got rather upset about my reverts as well, asking me to cite my reverts. Big waste of time. Jim1138 (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP Soap Operas in the SignpostEdit

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Soap Operas for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You would provide a lot of great insight into the WikiProject, Flyer22, and I hope you consider responding to the Signpost interview questions before this gets written up at the end of the week. It's great exposure for the Project and, so far, only one Editor has participated in commenting on the state of soap operas on WP. I write this as a fan of soaps, even though I haven't participated in the Project, I appreciate the work you've done. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even give it a look until now. I'm barely interested in the topic of soap operas anymore, on or off Wikipedia. I can't promise that I'll participate in that signpost, but thanks, Liz (for the encouragement and appreciation). Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Coolidge effect articleEdit

I edited and restored the para I deleted. Hopefully, the para is a bit more clear now. Also, added a couple of references. Memills (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the re-addition. That's better than the removal. Had you planned on re-adding the text with alterations? Or did you do so as a result of my edit summary commentary? Flyer22 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I had planned to edit it later. But, your comment spurned me on. Shoulda just edited it -- rather than removed, then edited and added back. Memills (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du mondeEdit

Has there ever been an SPI on User:L'Origine du monde? It's interesting that, because of my previous interest in that user, my huge watchlist, currently at 8,640, contains the types of articles edited by that user, and I did notice that IP's first edit appear on my watchlist before leaving my computer. I even paused to think that there was something oddly familiar about it. Now I'm back, and find that you have contacted that IP. All very interesting. If User:L'Origine du monde starts socking, we may find much more activity on these types of articles, because a fetish/compulsion can be hard to resist, and I truly believe that User:L'Origine du monde has such a disorder. I also suspect they are male, but I notice that some seem to think they are female. Why? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is highly likely that IP is L'Origine du monde. I am doubting myself a bit more on that matter, however, because of the IP's reaction; I feel a bit bad about having accused the IP. However, I felt that it needed to be done. In what way could I have gone about the matter better, after asking the IP if he or she is L'Origine du monde?
I also always thought that L'Origine du monde is male, and was as puzzled as you are that some editors think L'Origine du monde is female. But now I'm not as sure that L'Origine du monde is male. Maybe it's the vulva image that L'Origine du monde fought to have on his or her user page, and/or currently the way that L'Origine du monde's signature is formatted (the color and hearts), that has some people thinking that he or she is female? I at first wondered if L'Origine du monde had disclosed his or her sex/gender to anyone on a Wikipedia talk page, but it doesn't appear that that's the case. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't know if there has been a WP:Sockpuppet investigation (SPI) on L'Origine du monde; as you know, he or she mostly edited as IPs and I don't think that a SPI was opened on any of those IPs. Like I mentioned on the talk page of the IP in question, the WP:CheckUser tool is usually irrelevant with regard to public matters concerning IPs anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

About dead linksEdit

I knew a bit about the rule, but if there is no archive what's the point of having a dead link if a content is not verifiable any longer? If its better, I will substitute the dead link with an existing one, but then I would need to change the whole link, (publisher, date, its access, etc.)--Mishae (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mishae, I simply wanted to know if you were aware of WP:Dead link. It goes over what is the point of keeping a dead link that does not yet have a replacement. However, like I stated on your talk page, "For the case you tackled, since all of the links except the link do not have archived versions at Internet Archive, I consider it one of the exceptions to not removing dead links." So I obviously don't think you acted wrongly. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Now it explains, thank you. I periodically update Fauna Europaea articles (or articles that use that site as the main reference), and its the only site that I can simply update. Some other dead links I try to repair, and in some cases I do quite good at it as you have seen with the Spider monkey. P.S.: I will add others later.--Mishae (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Kind act of RandomnessEdit

Hello Flyer22, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 12:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Eduemoni. Flyer22 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

One linkEdit

You removed *one* (not many) duplicate links I didn't see at that small section. Was that such a big deal to have to send me a second note? Just remove the one duplicate link, which you did, without having to rub it in with another note. "Thought you were done at a few, but then you kept going." Yes, after I found others, although some were duplicates I didn't see placed earlier in the article. There is nothing wrong with "then kept going" in a long article with many nouns and terms that I thought were unlinked and important to link. Nobody's perfect, and if I unknowingly made a duplicate error, just silently remove it without a snarky comment, and keep going to another page to look for duplicate links or errors. Katydidit (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Katydidit. Like I noted on your talk page, I removed more than one duplicate link you added, whether you saw that they were duplicates or not. So as for "*one* (not many) duplicate links [you] didn't see at that small section," you must be referring to this revert. Furthermore, WP:OVERLINKING is about more than just duplicate links. And the "thought you were done" WP:Edit summary comment came initially; it was not "another note." The second note that I sent you, meaning on your talk page, was to clarify to you where the external female anatomy terms in question are first linked and was to inform you that we generally should not link within quotes (I saw that you had linked within a quote as well). You feel that the "thought you were done" comment is snarky. Okay, I understand that. But I feel that you, having been editing Wikipedia under your Katydidit account since 2006, should already know about these guidelines. It's not about whether or not you are perfect (and, hey, I don't always agree with the "link it only once" approach either, especially for long articles); it's simply about being more experienced with regard to your Wikipedia editing. Going by the fact that your user page (not your talk page) is currently a red link, and the fact that you were overlinking, I was under the impression that you are new to editing Wikipedia. And in some ways, you are. Seeing your talk page, there are core Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you seemingly didn't know about until recently...and likely more that you are unfamiliar with. Perhaps you should take some time to become better acquainted with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? I think that you should take it in stride, instead of with annoyance and/or offense, when someone is trying to help you follow those policies and guidelines. I also apologize for offending you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You reverted one link the second time which was fine by me since I overlooked the previous link on it, and that was why I replied to you on it when you commented on it. There are so many Wiki guidelines, I can't remember them all, but I know not to make duplicate links. I don't understand what you meant by my user page is a 'red link'. It's blank, no red links or anything on it. I'm not new to editing. Too many Wiki policies to keep up with or remember, so I blame Wiki for not making it simpler to understand for a casual editor with hundreds of rules. I'm sorry I made those duplicate links that upset you so much. It's not really that big a deal, in the large scheme of making accurate Wiki articles. Just a tiny technical thing that can be overdone, but it isn't fatal to having a good article, everything else considered. Katydidit (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Your username (not your talk page) is a WP:Red link, though it can be considered a blank. A red link user page generally signals to other editors that you are new or otherwise inexperienced to editing Wikipedia. See what was discussed here, starting at 14:56 and ending at 19:10, about a similar red link matter with regard to a user page.
You didn't upset me; I was simply a bit irritated. Thanks for explaining your side of things. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The redlink for Katy's userpage is, in this case, a decidedly different signal: an editor of the encyclopedia who is *purposely* not spending any time on making their userpage, or for that matter, reading the five bazillion guidelines, when the five pillars are supposed to be enough. See also, long-term editors who edit without pseudonyms for philosophical reasons. See also, WP:WikiDragon -- not sure whether Katy is such a one, and I'm certainly not, but I have met at least one real live WikiDragon. (And lived to tell the tale!) Moral of the story, never assume that what happens to be true 98% of the time, is true *this* time around the mulberry bush. Better to seek a strategy that generally works in the 2% of rare cases, but is simultaneously workable-enough in the 98% of other cases; optimize for optimally handling the false positive, in other words. HTH.
    p.s. Katy, if you want to have a bluelink, just click over to your own talkpage, click the 'user page' tab at the top, click edit ("this is not the userpage you are looking for"), click savepage, and your pseudonym will henceforth be a bluelink. (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
On a side: Since I started a discussion about WP:OVERLINKING on your talk page, there was no need for you to start a discussion on my talk page about it. In my opinion, it is generally best to keep a Wikipedia talk page discussion on one talk page. When I comment on an editor's talk page, unless issuing a message with regard to vandalism or other unconstructive edit via a vandalism tool, I usually check back to see if that editor has replied and/or I briefly put that editor's talk page on my WP:Watchlist so that I will know if that editor replied. The Human sexuality article, which we are discussing, is also on my WP:Watchlist. I was not there reverting you because I generally "look for duplicate links or errors." Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, I see that I informed you of the WP:OVERLINKING guideline two years ago. Have you not been abiding by it since then? Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course I have. This page we were discussing had more than the average number of terms, as I mentioned before. Katydidit (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We need a photo in the fellatio articleEdit

A drawing is a depiction of an act, not the real actual act, but a photo shows the reality, and as an educational encyclopedia I'd think we better show the reality. Many other articles have photos. Cogiati (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not need a real-life image of the act. I fail to see how your image is an improvement and is not wholly redundant. I replied at the article's talk page in the same vein. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Rick Edwards and his sense of smellEdit

I couldn't access the dailymail site so scanning google search page 1 gave me poor. The actual articles say none. I wonder if he can still smell ammonia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Anna Frodesiak, I'd looked for a replacement for that source on Internet Archive before deciding to revert Edwardfog. Before you made this edit and beat me to reverting Edwardfog, I was about to revert him with the "How is changing 'no sense of smell' to 'very good sense of smell' a syntax adjustment?" edit summary that I eventually used with this edit. I see that you've added additional sources for "no." Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Splendid. :) I guess that wraps it up. I'm sure someone will eventually remove the extra refs. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please contribute to Child's right to genital integrity/autonomy movementEdit

Hi Flyer,

I noticed your contrib to genital modification and mutilation. I am surprised that you challenged my minor edit when there is so much more work that needs to be done on the page.

Anyway, I always appreciate the challenge of criticism, if it is constructive. Would you like to contribute to a new page: Child's right to genital integrity/autonomy movement?

DavidHGrateful (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP category IPEdit

If it doesn't stop, report it to WP:ANI, or let me know and I'll do it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to; reporting the IP is certainly what I meant by "final warning." I remember your suggestion at the WP:BLP noticeboard to take this matter to WP:ANI if the IP continued. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: The IP has continued on a different IP range, as IP; the IP also somewhat reminds me of Atotalstranger's "race"/ethnicity/nationality editing. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft CarrierEdit

Sir, the INS Vikramaditya Aircraft carrier is already commissioned into the Indian Navy and is not long a "Future" Aircraft carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Flyer22, Thanks for the heads up concerning the edits I made on the Refractory period (sex) article on [09:59, November 16, 2013]. I am aware of Wikipedia's Policy on Overlinking and Underlinking, the reason I added the links to oxytocin and prolactin was to aid in the understanding of the article, as WP:UNDERLINK states:

An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding of the article. In general, links should be created to:
  • relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
  • articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background".
  • articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary could be used.
  • proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers.

While I was reading the article, I did notice that the words oxytocin and prolactin were linked in the beginning of the article, but they were not linked later on (and it was later on in the article that I needed to click on those terms to better understand the article). So, while I understand your point on WP:OVERLINK, I think linking things more than once is justified under WP:UNDERLINK because linking the words oxytocin and prolactin (even if they're linked more than once) aids in the understanding of the article, because oxytocin and prolactin are technical terms. It's a lot easier to click on a link for oxytocin and prolactin whenever a question arises rather than going back to the top of the page to find the original link. I think it was ok to add in these links because they were helpful. I think helping the readers is probably more important than following some of these rules word for word. If Wikipedia isn't helpful, then people won't use it, and if people won't use Wikipedia, then all our editing becomes rather pointless. Does that make sense? Wikipedia talks a little bit about this on their Policies and Guidelines article. Also, Wikipedia's Ignoring all Rules – A Beginner's Guide even says that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I'm still sort of new to editing, so I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or something, I just know that it was difficult for me to get motivated to edit stuff until I saw articles that encouraged breaking rules when its done in the right spirit and for the right reasons. (P.S. I added this message to your talk page is because I don't know if wikipedia notifies users to comments made on a former posting.) Crice88 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Crice88. WP:OVERLINKING and WP:UNDERLINKING are guidelines, not policies. And I do not see how the words oxytocin and prolactin should be first linked where you linked them. It is standard practice to link terms at first occurrence; in fact, we have editors who program their editing tools to make such corrections (among other corrections) when they edit Wikipedia articles. And I also do not see how it is an improvement to have the same terms linked again not far away from each other; the terms you linked are already present and linked in the same small section and are one paragraph away from their duplicates. There has to be a very valid reason to employ WP:Ignore all rules, which is why it is rarely used or is often rejected by other editors when an editor tries to use it. Otherwise, WP:Ignore all rules could be used by an editor to ignore any policy or guideline all the time, with the excuse that the policy or guideline is preventing him or her from improving Wikipedia. Needless to state, there is no WP:Ignore all rules reason to forgo WP:OVERLINKING in this case. Whether part of your commentary to me above can be considered lecturing or not, make sure that you have a very good reason for such commentary with regard to a very experienced Wikipedia editor who is trying to ensure that you follow a Wikipedia policy or guideline. When you are informed of a Wikipedia policy or guideline that you should be following, simply follow it unless there is a very good reason not to do so. In the vast majority of cases, there is not a very good reason not to do so.
On a side note: One way you can notify an editor that you have replied to them is by linking their username, if that WP:Echo aspect is turned on with regard to their Wikipedia account. However, like I stated in the #One link section above, "On a side: Since I started a discussion about WP:OVERLINKING on your talk page, there was no need for you to start a discussion on my talk page about it. In my opinion, it is generally best to keep a Wikipedia talk page discussion on one talk page. When I comment on an editor's talk page, unless issuing a message with regard to vandalism or other unconstructive edit via a vandalism tool, I usually check back to see if that editor has replied and/or I briefly put that editor's talk page on my WP:Watchlist so that I will know if that editor replied." Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22, Thank you for explaining how the talk page notifications works. As for the linking of text, to reiterate, I needed to click on a link that wasn't there in order to better understand the article. I added the links so that in the future other readers wouldn't be faced with the same problem. Therefore, I still believe that I was in the right because I made the edits in question in order to improve Wikipedia for other users. That being said, I don't care enough about the article in question to further debate whether the linking was appropriate or not. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on what is considered best practices here. I nevertheless still appreciate you sharing your opinions and alerting me that you thought it best to revert part of my edits. I've had things reverted before, but usually people don't take the time to post a message on my talk page. I appreciated your courtesy. Have a good weekend. Crice88 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Crice88, again, the links were there; they were one paragraph away. It is very unlikely that readers are going to skip to the paragraph you linked the terms at before reading the paragraph that immediately precedes it. So, though I understand why you did what you did and that you were acting in WP:Good faith, I cannot see how your approach is supported by the WP:OVERLINKING or WP:UNDERLINKING guideline or by WP:Ignore all rules. So, yes, I agree to disagree with you on this matter. Any WP:Overlinking that is obviously unneeded is WP:Overlinking that I will remove...if I care enough to remove it. Thanks for taking the time to express your side on this matter; it's an interesting take that I will no doubt think about at certain points in the future. You have a good weekend as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi you revoked a change I made to this page I removed a link that was not referenced, that I would consider a very strong thing to say without evidence, that a film about abuse, rape, drugs, prostitution etc was biographical - there is no mention of this on the film wiki page no on imdb etc. can you explain further or revoke your decision? thanks Annax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missannafjmorris (talkcontribs) 23:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Missannafjmorris. Look closely at this and this link. You are mistaking me for the IP address who reverted you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
sorry I dont understand. It had a link to your page :S Should I delete the line again? I did put a bit in talk about it before I deleted the line. :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missannafjmorris (talkcontribs) 23:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) policy, you should delete the line again.
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 twice for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

FA Nomination on Avatar (2009 film)Edit

Hello, Flyer22. The article Avatar (2009 film), in which you edited the most, has been nominated to be a featured article. If you would like to become co-nominators with the nominator to work together to fix issues, or discuss what needs to be done, please join in the conversation that is happening now. Thank You! Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not approve, as is clear by this and this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Transgender inequalityEdit

This article recently passed through Articles for creation and while I think it's a legitimate topic, it seems to be in a very sorry state. I could just go in and hack out all unreferenced content, but that would be akin to a bull in a china shop or saying to John "I think this cite from the Daily Mail might resolve the dispute". Could you take a look and suggest improvements? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That article immediately appears to me to be a class project. I'm not a fan of the class project/WP:Education program approaches; these classes usually create messes (which is typical WP:Newbie behavior, but is made several or many times worse when it's a class of newbies), and I'm currently concerned about a few biological sex and/or gender articles they've taken on, such as the Intersex article; see this section at WP:MED. One thing that immediately stands out as wrong to me about the Transgender inequality article is the use of the wording "transgenders"; that "word" is offensive to many, perhaps most, transgender people. I might help with that article at some point, but no promises. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Is that why I see trans* here on Wikipedia? Just curious. --NeilN talk to me 20:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
NeilN, I'm not sure; it is likely that editors use that to indicate that the transgender spectrum is broad (for example, using "transsexual" in specific cases); the Transgender article covers that broadness.
I've also recently seen student editors at the Gender variance and Childhood gender nonconformity articles. I'm waiting until it's safe to assume that this wave of editing (the editing by this class/these particular classes) is over before I clean up some or all of these articles. I've learned that cleaning up an article while a class is still working on it can be repetitive; this means that once you clean something up, similar or the same messes are made soon afterward by that class. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
All in all, I'm wondering if I could have just save a lot of work by sending this to AfD as a POV fork. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A WP:POV fork of what, Ritchie? Oh, and speaking of the Rape by gender article, a newly-registered editor just made this post there; odd "coincidence," given my allusion to that article above...which points to the WP:MED discussion where I stated that one of the recent people who edited that article, judging by the username and content added, seems to be a WP:Activist. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


As the most active person on that page (and Ive encountered you before if memory serves), ive posted to the talk page under "Edit suggestion regarding Treatment (not NPOV)" and "Broader scope" which would need attention. Appreciate your input .

As for the the latter, Ive mentioned on other talk pages about expansion here which I can do in about a month

ps- If you wouldnt mind, could comment on the last 2 sections at Talk:War rape(Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)).

Replied at the Pedophilia article talk page. As for the War rape article, I am simply going to link to the aforementioned reply there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA ThanksEdit

 This user has contributed to Man of Steel (film) good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Man of Steel (film), which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Intimate part revertEdit

Oh ok. I misread it. I thought it was saying the vagina was visible which would have been consistent with the common misuse of the term to mean vulva. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I see, Robert Brockway. Thanks for explaining that matter. So that your name is cleared, I noted in the edit history that you misread the information.
Yes, it irks me as well when people use the term vagina broadly to mean the vulva; just shows how much prominence the vagina has over other parts of the female genital anatomy and how people are less interested in those other parts, which has been addressed by scholars. Far more people are familiar with the term vagina than the term vulva. The misuse of the term vagina to refer to the vulva is so prominent that we mention it in the lead of the Vagina article and it has been debated on the Vagina article talk page; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 3#Vagina vs. vulva and Talk:Vagina/Archive 4#My recent clarification: Vagina vs. vulva again. Even now on the Vagina article talk page, you can see people using the term vagina to mean "vulva" and being corrected by other editors. Flyer22 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Flyer22, in the article on Nucular you reverted an IP contribution to the effect that the form is a “common alternative pronunciation”. While it is certainly true that “nucular” is widely regarded as a “mispronunciation” (the earlier, and restored, version), both views are in fact possible. As early as 2002 Jeff Nunberg, while emphatically calling the form a mispronunciation, indicated that it seemed to be used intentionally by certain people in certain registers ( I therefore propose a different version, which I have added to the article. Hope you don’t disagree. Bessel Dekker (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bessel Dekker. You are speaking of this revert, and this addition you made. I will leave that definition matter to others to debate. I'm not sure how common the nucular version is (I'll Google it later), or if it should be noted as "common" (though it does have a Wikipedia article), but your version seems like a decent compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
TPS comment: Couldn't it be common and a mispronunciation?) Rivertorch (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Rivertorch. I just saw your comment in this section. Yes, you are correct, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Linguistically, the more common a pronunciation becomes, the less of a miuspronunciation it is. Bessel Dekker (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!Edit

The Gold STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 25,000 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!) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Daguerreotype - caption to picture Boulevard du TempleEdit

If you click on the picture, it will enlarge to fill the screen. Daguerre took this picture out of his window and the traffic was moving during the long exposure, and didn't register on the daguerreotype plate. The only figures that can be seen are a bootblack/ shoeshine boy polishing the shoes of a gentleman wearing a tail coat.

I put the caption in and called the shoe shiner a "bootblack" or was it a "shoe shine boy" (?) Then it seemed others came and changed it, and it became "two men, one servicing the other" which was regarded as having unfortunate connotations, and changed.

Now it is: the two men at lower left ((one apparently having his boots polished by the other) remained still long enough to be distinctly visible

What's wrong with bootblack? That was the term in Victorian England, and this is Paris of the 1850s. Don't seem like any accident to me who was polishing whose boots. RPSM (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RPSM. What exactly are you stating? Why have you brought this to my talk page? I can't see where I have edited that article or the Boulevard du Temple article (which has a relatively short edit history). Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
No it is not relevant here. I was just trying to clear my thoughts about my saying "bootblack" and others talking about a gentleman in a tail coat and the man on his knees polishing his boots as if they were equals and just happened to be in these roles by happenstance. RPSM (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2013
Try not to clear your thoughts on other people's talk pages, unless welcomed to do so. And you likely know about my reply here by now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, all your justified criticisms noted.RPSM (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (supposed 'edit war').Edit

You really ought to try reading what people post sometime. I didn't change the meaning of the policy, I just made it clearer. It shouldn't be controversial - although I see that you are no stranger to controversy. So in that case, just assume good faith for once. OK? Harfarhs (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I just knew that you were going to bring this mess to my talk page, and with a failure to adhere to WP:Civil, like a typical editor who has been registered with this site for several years and yet behaves like a WP:Newbie because that editor is generally inexperienced with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You really ought to try reading what people state sometimes before bringing such a ridiculous attitude to someone's talk page. I did not state that you changed the meaning of the policy here or here; in other words, I didn't state it at all. I objected to your change because you made a significant enough change to the first sentence of a policy, one that is widely cited on Wikipedia, and that policy page clearly states that changes to it should reflect WP:Consensus. There is no supposed WP:Edit warring; you were WP:Edit warring. Got it? I also suspect that our definitions of "controversy" are different; I don't throw that word around willy-nilly. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You were the one who was uncivil first ("..this silly WP:Edit warring.."). I completely disagree that the edit is in your words "significant enough"; and I have noted for future reference your failure to engage with the real issues and your inclination to pointlessly scatter "WP:" links over what you post. Harfarhs (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Stating "this silly WP:Edit warring" is not a WP:Civil violation in the least; the edit warring was silly. And as can be seen on that policy's talk page, there was/is a need to discuss this matter before such changes are made to that policy. This is a real issue, and I have not failed to engage in that real issue. The fact that you feel that pointing to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or pointing out what Wikipedia policies and guidelines are, is pointless is more of your disregard for the way that things are supposed to work at this site. As for future reference, you would do well to stay away from me in the future; I had better not have any hint that you are engaging in WP:Hounding with regard to me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Harfarhs. Neither of us should be acting like this, with the incivility/snideness, especially this time of year (the holidays). I apologize for offending you; it's a good idea that, on that policy's talk page with other editors, you try to work out the issue that you have with the first line of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Monster HighEdit

Um, hi... This is my first time trying to use a talk page, so pardon my awkwardness... I took a peek at your deleting of my Monster High edit. I have seen all the webisodes, read all the character bios, watched all the movies but one, and read all the books in the series by Lisi Harrison. I know all that information was correct. I am using combined knowledge of books and web site. If you want me to change it back, I will, but I will leave it alone for now. Thanks for your understanding! I don't have an account, but you can call me Beebef! Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Continued Edits to the Young Greens of England and Wales PageEdit

You have, I think three times now, edited out the hyperlink on the page to the twitter page of Paul Cohen (also known as me). As far as I can tell, this isn't a style issue surrounding linking names to personal websites (a good number of the other committee members on the page are linked to their social media accounts) so why are you continually removing that one hyperlink? I hope to hear a response soon and resolve this issue with you.-- (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. I reverted you twice, here and here. I did so because we generally should not have external links in the article like that (as opposed to, for example, being in a WP:Infobox or in an External links section); see WP:External links. I now see that other entries in that article are formatted like that; those should be removed as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Satoshi NakamotoEdit

Hi! You reverted 3 edits on Satoshi Nakamoto. Can I ask why? As you'd said in the edit summary, they were good faith edits. And in line with the consensus on the talk page. (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, IP. I saw your comment here on my talk page hours ago, but I'm just now replying because I was too sleepy to reply at that time (but not too sleepy to revert at least one unconstructive edit). This is the edit you are referring to. I reverted you because, though I assumed you were acting in good faith, you undid a redirect to an article without a WP:Edit summary explaining why and it seemed to me to be without WP:Consensus. I obviously was not aware that there is WP:Consensus to leave that page as an article. Feel free to revert me on this matter.
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) 16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I see here that you did explain; I did not see that in WP:STiki. My apologies. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
All that stated, the WP:Consensus at Talk:Satoshi Nakamoto looks quite iffy. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
13 Keeps vs 5 redirects. There was some discussion about sockpuppetry, but it all mostly comes from a couple of guys who didn't provide anything to back it up. Seemed clear enough to me. At minimum, it wasn't enough to turn it into a redirect. So I'm okay to revert it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:Consensus is not only about votes; it is about the weight of the arguments. As for the sockpuppetry, given more than one accusation, there is very likely something to that. I'm not giving you the go ahead to restore that article; you are free to do what you want on that matter without my blessing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, consensus and the weight of an argument are not the same thing. Perhaps Wikipedia has a different definition for words like "consensus". Who judges the weight of these arguments, and how would they do it? How would I ensure that the article is not reverted the day I make an edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Click on the WP:Consensus link I provided above in this section and read that page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your participation requiredEdit

Your participation as a (former) soap opera editor is required here. Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL at "former"; it fits even though I still edit soap opera topics occasionally (usually the articles that I significantly expanded). I'll comment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. I just thought you left the soap world on Wiki in some way. Must've been mistaken. My mistake! livelikemusic my talk page! 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I did "in some way," like you stated; I've made it clear that I generally don't edit soap opera articles anymore, so "former" is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your participation as a soap opera editor is required here. Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 02:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Amber HeardEdit

In that case, Category:LGBT actors isn't a container category as it is professed to be.--ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ukexpat, I'm not sure what you mean, but, per WP:BLPCAT (a policy), I suggest you cease and desist from, and revert yourself on, categorizing living people by a specific sexual orientation unless they have identified by that sexual orientation. In fact, I will revert you on all of that. It should be clear to you, if you read the discussions I pointed you to, why I reverted you here and here. You can start reading here and read further down, as well as archived discussions at WP:LGBT, for the ways we use the LGBT category. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
My point is, and I am not trying to be difficult here, that the templates at Category:LGBT actors say it is supposed to be a parent/container category only ie it and should only contain subcategories and not be used for article categorization. It may be that this was the original intention that has been superseded by discussion elsewhere. I will raise it on the cat talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware...Edit

...that it was already covered in WP:IRS.--v/r - TP 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this matter with regard to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page. No worries. We'll see if anyone objects to it being on that policy page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


  100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

 This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Something needs to be done...Edit

...about user's edits James A. Bayard, Jr. I see that you have reverted them already here. Pburka and I have been reverting them for the past day or so. Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fairness doctrineEdit

I was looking up the Fairness Doctrine and noticed a bot had tried to remove an orphan ref tag, but it inadvertently erased the first part of the ref tag, making the contents of said tag appear on the main page instead of the reference link. I completed the sentence as previous good edits had it, and fixed the ref tag. Im not a regular contributor, so feel free to change it as you see fit, but what you reverted to looks sloppy with exposed formatting code. Did you even see the article view of what you reverted to? ( (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC))

My mistake, obviously, and fixed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Cool! This was my first WP edit in a while (no longer have access to old account) but I'm glad to see the system working as desgned, I have free time on my hands so I might start contributing more. Thanks! ( (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC))
Okay. Also, it was this IP who messed things up; not the bot. The bot saved the reference. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


In regards to this edit, whether we're doing indents the way Wikipedia would like us to (i.e., WP:INDENT, which I was already well aware of) or whether we're doing them the way most people actually do them (one more than the last until someone decides to {{od}}), AnonMoos's post should be indented at least one, since he's replying to JRhorstman. Or have I missed something? RobinHood70 talk 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I usually indent like most people do on Wikipedia as well, though I have started to deviate from that because of this discussion (in that discussion, you can see that, like you, I also point out the way that most people indent on Wikipedia). As for AnonMoos's post, whatever WP:INDENT states. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it can create issues either way. The documented way, it's easy to miss who's posting what; the common way, it's easy to misunderstand what someone's replying to, exactly. I suppose we could always do the Twitter thing that seems to be showing up everywhere else now as well and preface everything with "@So-and-so:" It's not exactly pretty, though. :-/ RobinHood70 talk 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
RobinHood70 -- after Chaheel Riens' multi-level comment, I wasn't sure how to indicate that my message was directly in reply to JRhorstman's (that may be a question with no good answer), so I just deindented. However, your edit made my comment appear to be in reply to Chaheel Riens', which is definitely wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I knew you were a long-term editor who was well aware of how to indent, but figured maybe you'd just forgotten to, so I "fixed" it, even if I used the less-standard standard. :P I certainly have no quibbles if you did it deliberately. RobinHood70 talk 00:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I have learned that one of my edits had been reverted by you. May I ask why? It was a minor edit. I just added a description for the IPA symbol in the article.G4sponge (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't attempt to communicate in edit summariesEdit

As you did here. It's probably in a guideline somewhere, but even better than that, it's common courtesy. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Nathan Johnson, WP:Dummy edit is the only "guideline" for this matter. I suggest you read it and its talk page discussion about the appropriate use of dummy edits; what I did there was perfectly acceptable. It's often common courtesy to use them. Yeah, I highlighted your mistake. If you would edit more carefully, no one would have to.
I'm also sure that, after this, you should know that you are not welcome at my talk page. It would be best if you stop acting like an administrator, especially with regard to telling people what they can and cannot do at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
WTF? You sure hold a grudge don't you? In case it's not clear, I don't know who you are. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, you missed Wikipedia:EDITSUMMARY: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no respect for editors like you, ones who would commit WP:Vandalism to prove a point, as noted here, and ones who predictably violate WP:Consensus while acting like their opinion is more important than everyone else's, as you did here with this edit, this edit and this edit to the WP:Dummy edit page. And if you want to state that there is no consensus for retaining that, it is clearly a longstanding feature that more than enough editors agree should be retained. I highly doubt that you will achieve WP:Consensus to remove it. Start a WP:RfC and try. Not to mention you have a penchant for WP:Edit warring and templating the regulars with an edit warring notice, as recently as in this case, when you are also edit warring. And you are clearly showing yourself to be holding a grudge right now. A temper tantrum, to be more precise. So, yes, I hold grudges against editors like you. And once again, your editing was sloppy -- there is more than just that part of the WP:Dummy edit page that addresses that using that feature for brief communication is allowed.
Also, I did not miss what WP:Edit summary states; you missed that there is agreement on the WP:Dummy edit talk page about what ways to use the WP:Dummy edit feature. You also missed that if you don't stay off my talk page, I will take this matter right to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2013 (
I've never committed vandalism. Don't accuse me of vandalism or you will be blocked. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you most certainly shown above. And for third time, stay off my talk page or... Well, you know the deal. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism is NOT edit warring. Retract your comment or I will ask you to be blocked until you demonstrate that you understand what is and what is not vandalism. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. What is wrong with your reading comprehension? How is it not clear above what I meant about your vandalism? The link I provided in the "after this" and "as noted here" comments above clearly show what I mean about vandalism. And now I'm taking this to WP:ANI because you are just... Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
While there, please retract your accusations of vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved third-party, might I suggest that the best course of action might be to discontinue this converation, or take it to dispute resolution?Nevermind, I suppose, in light of the last part of Flyer's comment, but I wish you both could have chilled out rather than continuing to push each other. Godspeed. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

He acts wholly inappropriate too often and he won't stay off my talk page. So I don't see why I shouldn't take this to WP:ANI right now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I think I'll opt to unwatch this page at this point. DonIago (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Either take it to ANI or quit saying you will. Your accusations of vandalism still haven't been retracted, nor have you shown a diff. WP:NOTVAND. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't bluff. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Note: Matter taken here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nathan Johnson refusing to stay off my talk page, edit warring over a longstanding practice, inappropriately templating a regular, and demanding a retraction. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013Edit

  Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Adonis Stevenson, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. The editor was attempting to adopt a more neutral POV in the article, and the edit was properly sourced. Gagnon88 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for using the Twinkle template, I know you are an experienced editor. Gagnon88 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Gagnon88, how would one know that this (which you reverted) is an attempt at WP:NPOV? The IP removed a batch of material without a WP:Edit summary, which Wikipedia tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism." Thus, I reverted. I don't see how I was in the wrong here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to say you were wrong to revert it, I just wanted to explain why I reverted your reversion after inspecting the edit more closely. Good day to you! Gagnon88 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay then, Gagnon88. Be more careful about templating Wikipedia editors, especially very experienced Wikipedia editors, in the future. Wikipedia tagged that material as "possible BLP issue or vandalism," and so I reverted it as test/vandalism since I did not see an obvious improvement and cannot read the IP's mind. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

S(w)ing and Dance with Frank SinatraEdit

For your kind attention: [15][16]. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the IP's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your helpful edits on DSM-5Edit

Hello Flyer22; Your edits on the DSM-5 edit page indicated you might have the actual manual available. On the Schizophrenia Talk page, there is a list of DSM-5 transition edits identified for upgrade from DMS-4 residual edits still on the old version of the Page being currently displayed. This is one of the few FA psychology pages and can use a little help or comment. Things have been slowed down in making the DSM-5 transition edits there since not all the editors at that wikipage actually have the DSM-5 in hand. Could you glance at this? BillMoyers (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, BillMoyers. I had the DSM-5 for a bit; no longer have it. Looking at the recent edit history of the Schizophrenia article, I see that you have been reverted by multiple editors. And after this latest edit you made there, this, this, this and this edit followed. You are dealing with very experienced Wikipedia editors at that article, and a very experienced medical editor/doctor in Jmh649 (Doc James); I suggest you take all their concerns with regard to your edits into consideration and continue trying to work with them on this matter. Something else that may help you on it is this discussion (now archived) that was had at WP:MED earlier this year about the DSM-5, and how much WP:Weight to give the DSM and ICD-10 (especially with regard to naming articles). Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I also briefly had the DSM5. Have ordered my own copy. Should be here in a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

mathematical impossibility: Sexual desire articleEdit

By mathematical impossibility I just meant that in hetero relationships both sexes have exactly the same number of partners. This is simple math [[17]] Bhny (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Then it is "simple math" that many researchers disagree with; I already replied to you here. That is the best place for your reply, not my talk page.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Sexual desire 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) 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!Edit

  Thank you for your edit on Talk:Sexism. I appreciate that you're looking out for me and that you took the time to give your view on the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, this. Well, as you can see, I loathe WP:Advocacy and it irritates me to no end when editors confuse what WP:Neutral means. You're welcome. And thank you for being a good Wikipedia editor. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm not seeing how it's non-constructive? The brand was bought out of liquidation and is now on sale at Sports Direct - NOT the home of superior casual menswear! -- (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarence DarrowEdit

I apologize. My mistake. Obviously I was confused and blamed the wrong IP party. 7&6=thirteen () 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no need to apologize, nor to post here about this matter; that's why I left you the message that I did. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your quick revert and edit comment: WP:Neutral point of view pageEdit

Referring to your quick revert and edit comment here. I have no objections to your revert, even though I thought it was relatively uncontroversial, as it merely reflected Jimbo's, and I thought, consensus view. I DO object though to your rather snarky edit summary. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would try to be more polite. If you leave comments like this, you will just create unnecessary friction. A relatively neutral comment like, "please discuss on the talk page first" would have been much better. LK (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo, see the WP:JIMBOSAID essay. As for snarky, no, it was not. Not in my opinion. However, whether snarky or not, I'm tired of editors going to policy or guidelines pages, or even essay pages, to try to make it suit their view with regard to a recent revert or debate they have been in. This obviously led you there. Like I stated, take it to the talk page if you want to discuss this policy page matter. The policy talk page. Not my talk page. And I see that you have. Also, it's not often that I use the word please on Wikipedia.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": WP:Neutral point of view page" 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) 06:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Content referencing and re-wordingEdit

Hi Flyer22, to explain, I have sent the following to MrX and I feel that I should explain to you also. I do not mean to cause any offense and if I have done so please accept my apology as it would have been totally unintentional. I apologize again as I did not understand the revert and I hope I now explain the reason why I am trying to add to the paragraph in question.

Focusing on MrX and Josh3580 notes, I feel what I am trying to say is not tangential since there is a statement that refers to Buddhism in this article and also refers to an “integral part of Buddhist monastic life”. It is thus within the context of the text to provide the balanced view of the Buddhist monastic code that must be followed by Monks and Nuns and laity including in Japan. This code is what is referenced from the Pali Canonical texts and prescribes the monastic life. This code is not my opinion, it is what Buddhist must follow to be called a Buddhist especially for those that live a monastic life. This code includes refraining from sexual intercourse and is relevant to any form of intercourse including sexual behavior between members of the same sex such as may be the case in homosexuality.

The generalized terms in the paragraph I am trying to add to, especially “integral part of ” and “This same-sex love culture” denotes that this is the normal, when in fact it is the reverse and such practices are not advocated. Such statements may mislead the reader if not balanced. To balance the text I provided the following source –

Wallace, Alan B. (2002), ‘The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West’, Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, Charles Prebish & Martin Baumann (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Page 37, paragraph 2, lines 1 to 9 state:

‘Over the course of daily life, lay Theravada Buddhists may occasionally take the eight precepts for a period ranging from one day to a week, during which time they may stay in a temple and devote themselves to religious practices, including meditation and chanting. The eight precepts include the more common five lay precepts of refraining from (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) false speech, (4) sexual misconduct, and (5) the use of intoxicants, in addition to the three precepts of refraining from (6) eating after midday, (7) enjoying worldly amusements, and (8) indulging in luxurious sleeping arrangements and sexual intercourse.’

Here, it is seen that when staying in a temple, similar to but less strict than observing monastic life, one must refrain from sexual intercourse. This is a strict code for Buddhists and is referenced from the Canonical texts.

I have been told that this citation is not reputed so I have found the following text that references the five and eight precepts directly from the Tipitaka (Canonical texts). The Tipitaka is the direct teaching from the Buddha that Buddhist Monks, Nuns and laity are required to adhere to be Buddhist.

The source is,

[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.

This article can be accessed using the web version located at -

Please note the following page, paragraph and line numbers refer to the pdf document version that can be found using Google scholar.

From this source, Page 26, paragraph 2, line 6 states that the “pañcasila”, also known as the five precepts includes the training rule, ‘(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;’

Page 26, Paragraph 3, states that this is one of the five precepts that forms a minimal ethical code that binds Buddhist laity. Here the term “sexual misconduct” means sexual relationships or conduct not within or before marriage.

On page 36, paragraph 5, lines 1 to 4 it states, ‘Beyond the five precepts Buddhism offers a higher code of moral discipline for the laity consisting of eight precepts (atthasila). This code of eight precepts is not entirely different in content from the fivefold code, but includes the five precepts with one significant revision. The revision comes in the third precept, where abstaining from sexual misconduct is changed to abstaining from incelibacy.’

This means that an un-ordained Buddhist who does not live in a monastery and lives an ordinary life, like you and me, and who observes the eight precepts must practice celibacy.

To reach this level an ordinary Buddhist must abide or live in what is known as the Three Refuges. To first enter into abiding by the three refuges, Page 2, Paragraph 1, lines 5 to 9 says that,

‘If one has sincerely become convinced of the truth of the Buddha's teaching, and wishes to follow the teaching, it is preferable, when possible, to conform to the prescribed way of going for refuge that has come down in the Buddhist tradition. This way is to receive the three refuges from a Bhikkhu’. A Bhikkhu is ‘a Buddhist monk who has taken full ordination and remains in good standing in the monastic Order.’

It is clear that to take the precept of celibacy, meaning to abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, one must first take the refuges from a Buddhist Monk that leads a monastic life in the monastic order. It is clear that for a Buddhist Monk or Nun to live a monastic life the Monk or Nun must also follow the precept of celibacy, otherwise the Monk or Nun would have broken this precept or code of conduct and would be required to disrobe and enter normal life.

It is clear from the referenced texts that what is integral to the Buddhist monastic life with any link to sexual relations is celibacy. This contradicts what is written in the paragraph that I am trying to balance. This also brings into question the documented evidence, paintings and literature that is stated in this paragraph.

Please review the following proposed addition to this paragraph,

“However, it may be argued that such documented evidence would have given rise to such paintings and literature. Further, it may be argued as to the authenticity of such literature that sought to document Buddhist and Samurai traditions. This assertion is supported by the Buddhist practice that advocates refraining from sexual misconduct in ordinary life and advocates a strict code of celibacy in monastic life.[1]”

[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.

If you like I can enter this as a separate paragraph that follows on. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this as I would not want to mislead the reader in anyway. I feel the article handles well what may be seen by some as sensitive, and I respect its content. This is why I want to give the reader as much information as possible so any question of misinformation does not arise. As recommended I will also begin look to start a new section on the article's Talk Page. However, I wanted to contact you directly before doing so. Sorry if I have written a lot on this, however, I wanted to explain what happened. I thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Tdmdb (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Good healthEdit

It is not a sign of good health when you join an online virtual community and you use phrases such as "my enemy", "i dislike him/her", etc. Please remember that we are all unpaid volunteers and we are bound to get disagreements. Don't make a minor content dispute personal please. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 20:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Pass a Method, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I will give you a chance to point to the exact wording you are referring to with regard to "my enemy" and "i dislike him/her." And you had better not be implying that I am my brother. Either way, you have some nerve to come to this talk page, where your highly inappropriate editing will only be further highlighted (my talk page watchers), and ask me to remember to not make things personal when you make things personal in almost every dispute you are in, including more than one dispute with me. I will not take it easy on you; you ran out of chances in that regard, and with regard to me applying WP:Assume good faith in anything you do on Wikipedia, long ago because of your highly problematic editing. What I pointed out here is not minor. Most of the content disputes you put yourself in are not minor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
And as I suspected, you must be talking the #User: John section above. You chose this late to comment on the very not-minor things expressed in that discussion, and to take it out of context as well, even though you've already read it because you watch my talk page? It's not shocking, your choice of timing, given that I'd just pointed out very recent inappropriate behavior on your part (noted above). But, sigh, it's always deflect, deflect with you. The least you could have done was wait a day so that your passive-aggressive, retaliatory post was less obvious that it's passive-aggressive and retaliatory. You should know by now that your games don't work on me; nor do they work on others familiar with your modus operandi. Sigh. Don't comment on this talk page unless you have a very good reason to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dec. 17 2013Edit

I appreciate the heads up/confirmation. I've been watching pass a method for a while, and his/her edits are extremely biased towards very specific pov, depending on the article. EzPz (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

how dare youEdit

hello Flyer22, funny you should say the comments are not constructive as i, Lewis Leopold Gardner am the brother of the greatest superstar that has ever graced the face of this earth! so therefore i think that i would know a little better than you! so please leave my further additions to my brother alex's page alone!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisgardner93 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You are, huh? Does not like seem like it with this edit of yours that I reverted. You think of your mother (assuming you two have the same mother) as a violator? Sheesh. Whatever your personal dealings, do not WP:Vandalize and do not think you own any article here. A lot of us at this site wish that we owned one or more Wikipedia articles, but, alas WP:Own sets us straight on that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...Edit

  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FWiW Bzuk. Never met you until now, but it feels good to receive that message from at least someone on Wikipedia. But then again, I already received a similar message from one Wikipedian (Rivertorch) via email. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


After reading your revert comment and viewing the original link and comparing with my link, it appears I misunderstood the original page. I thought it linked to the verb, and not adjective. Sincere apologies on my part. Thanks for catching my mistake. 5chris100 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Have you read the text of these laws passed in Russia? Their real text, not Interpretations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pat BrownEdit

I've marked it as such on the talk page and explained why she is not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awhitenoisemaker (talkcontribs) 22:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Check completed, no sleepers apparent. NativeForeigner Talk 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like I stated here, thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


I read the whole article and didn't find anything that concerns about how to edit the box office gross of a film. So I highly doubt your statement that Betty Logan was acting as per WP:FILM. In that case if you are incorrect then my statement was completely correct that she was overstepping her limits. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, WP:FILM is not an article; it is a WP:WikiProject. And when I stated, "Nope, Betty's simply acting in accordance with the way we do things in film articles, per WP:FILM. Take it to the article talk page.", I meant WP:FILM's guidelines and discussions about such matters as the infobox. If you look on the right-hand side of your computer screen at the top of WP:FLIM, you will see guidelines that WP:FILM goes by. For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, which points to Template:Infobox film. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Are you trying to insult me? Your chutzpah is outrageous you popery follower. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
KahnJohn27, I'm not sure what you are talking about in your latest post on my talk page, but do stay off my talk page if you are going to be spewing such nonsense (actual insults, unlike my post to you above). Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, first you insult me as treating me like someone who doesn't know anything, like an amateur. You got what you gave. Also only the last two words of my comment were insults and if you can't understand then Chutzpah is a Hebrew word for insolence or shameless audacity which you showed by insulting me. After that you say not to comment at your talk page. Is that how you treat others? Just because you don't like them you ignore them. Let me tell ignoring each other only increases the hate and anger, it does not actually help you to cool down and forgive others. Only by a sincere dialogue you can understand others and have a sincere feeling of forgiveness toward them. I dob't know why users act in such an immaturish way that they stop talking with each other and fight with others becquse they think they're correct. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You consider my initial statement in this section an insult; I don't. I consider what you stated to Betty to be an insult, telling her to stay in her place because of your trivial little disagreement at the Gone with the Wind (film) article. Your response there told me everything I needed to know about your experience (or lack thereof) with editing this site. You clearly are unfamiliar with the way certain things work at this site, such as WP:FILM and its guidelines (yes, you are the one who failed to see the guidelines in the upper right-hand corner), WP:CIVIL, WP:No personal attacks and WP:TALK (for example, coming back to comment on my talk page and further throw out insults after I told you to stay off of it if you are going to be spewing nonsense/personal attacks on it; I know what chutzpah means, and if I didn't, I could Google it). You clearly can't take it when someone points out your mistakes and/or inexperience with certain matters, so you consider it an insult and go on the type of spiel you are now displaying on my talk page. And I don't care. I tell editors like you (and editors like you are usually of the male variety), who behave in the wholly inappropriate way you are now behaving, to stay off my talk page. I have no patience for that type of behavior, the actual immature behavior, shown here in this discussion. And I certainly have more important things to attend to on and off Wikipedia. If you continue to post on my talk page after I have told you to stay off of it, administrative intervention will see to it that you stay off of it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you should learn to be behave yourself first. I'm 19 and a half years old and I think I am mature enough unlike what you say. Your statement that " people like you are mostly male variety" is purely discriminatory and targeted as an insult towards male users. You are the one now who has made a WP:Personal attack. I can see now that your revert at Gone with the wind was biased because of me being a male. In case you want to complain about me to falsely convict me please remember that I will also complain about you and make your discrimination on basis of gender a prominent point against you. Wikipedia is a place where everyone is treated equally. Also in actual I did not know earlier that you were a female. If I had known then I would have not insulted you. I apologize sincerely. I too have overstepped my limits by improperly behaving with a woman but it was a mistake. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionaly even in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film I didn't find anything that relates to adding notes for the box office gross of a film. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't need to learn to behave myself. I don't care that you are 19 and a half years old (two years younger than my brother who also edits Wikipedia). I don't care if you think the wording "editors like you are usually of the male variety" is purely discriminatory. It's not; it's a fact on Wikipedia, which is mostly run by male editors (very aggressive and/or hostile ones at that). I don't care that you think I am "the one now who has made a WP:Personal attack." I don't care about your bizarre claim that I reverted you at the Gone with the Wind (film) article because you are male (as if I analyzed your username and decided "Yep, this editor is male; I must revert."). I don't care that you think I would be complaining about you to "falsely convict [you]." I don't care that you will "also complain about [me]" and ridiculously "make [my supposed] discrimination on basis of gender a prominent point against [me]." I don't need you to tell me that "Wikipedia is a place where everyone is treated equally."; but if you truly believe that, which you clearly do, you are sorely mistaken. I don't care what you would have done if you had initially known that I am female. And I don't care for your apology. What I care about with regard to you is that you get off of my talk page and stay off of it, unless you are simply reading it. While you were here crying foul at my talk page, with absurd claims of insults, injustice and the like, you could have been working out your Gone with the Wind (film) dispute with Betty. This is your last warning: You better not comment even one more time here on my talk page. When an editor tells you to stay off of their talk page under the circumstances that I have, you are supposed to do that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I was always taught by my Rabbi to always give due respect to my elders and women and always treat women as a sister or mother. Here I have not only improperly behaved with a female but also an elder. Because of being an elder and a female you are like an elder sister and I spoke such bitter words towards you and insulted your religion by calling you a "popery follower". You yourself say that you have a younger brother here on Wikipedia. I realize that I've insulted and hurt my own elder. I request you to treat me too as a younger brother and forgive me for my transgressions as an elder sister would forgive his younger brother. I sincerely apologize to you and ask you to please not block me from your page. I promise to you I will not post any nonsensical comments and only post comments that concern an important issue. I hope you will accept my apology. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Post whatever you like to my talk page, as long as you follow the WP:TALK guidelines. WP:ANI...they didn't do anything to explicitly stop a certain editor from posting to my talk anyway. As for my siblings, I have two brothers and two sisters; I'm the oldest (as stated on my user page). I can't think of you as one of my siblings. And I'm not religious. But I can be nicer to you. Being nice was my aim in my initial post above; it wasn't meant as an insult, and I'm sorry that you took it that way. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 13".