User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 22

Active discussions

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Keep up the good work! Jim1138 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style/ImagesEdit

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I don't get what your discussion is talking about. --Steverci (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Steverci, regarding this, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you; I was simply pointing you to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members" because how the guideline should be applied is being discussed and reevaluated there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


--Tommster1 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Tommster1 : ------------------

 *** Hello Flyer22Reborn. Tommster1 here. This is my first time engaging in a "reverted" edit discussion process.       Please pardon any procedural, stylistic or terminology deviations-from-norm. I am quite open to learning and playing along with sensible customs, etc.        Before I get to the edit content matters, a bit of human-context preliminary might be constructive.    As we know, e-text communication between people easily gets tonally bad very fast, which readily ruins everything else, even when both parties have no such intention or predisposition. I hope to avoid this ever-hovering trap by cutting as much slack as possible and giving maximum benefit-of-the-doubt in interpreting the words, tone and tacits encountered in this discussion process. I trust you will do likewise.      Also, I would prefer to do edit this discussion via email, but I do not have your address, nor know how to get it.     Also, I am not clear if we are proceeding here just as two 'status equal' Wiki supporters and users and contributors, or if there is some official Wiki organizational power-hierarchy position involved from your end. Please clarify such for me.  Thanx. 
    I believe the edit cancellation is substantively mistaken. In the email and link I got announcing the "undone" included these words:   
    "...has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment...".         I must say that I find the descriptor "not appear constructive" plainly false as applied to the edits I made, all of which added relevant story-factual and plot-contextual information, along with improving on the misleading word choices and omissions of the current (reverted) version. I will itemize on these shortly.        
   Regarding the "...experiment" part, which FYI tonally impacted me as unwarrantedly dismissive, condescending and insulting; the fact is I took substantial time and great care in the edits I wrote; They were quite substantive; and I take public intellectual and cultural things quite seriously and value them highly. there was nothing experimental, frivolous or light about them.       
      The edits under discussion, which You (I take it, despite the evasive "has been..." phrasing) undid is on the Oryx and Crake page.  
 I have just finished reading the book for the 2nd time, and had it in front of me for reference, along with booknotes,  as I wrote my edits.     I don't know how to get my edits which you cancelled back, in order to quote them exactly here, (How do I do such?), so I will just discuss their substance.      
      The first edit-item issue is straightforward, it seems to me.  Crake repeatedly specifies and refers to the fact that it's only the Grandmasters, the proven best experts of the Extinctathon game, that he's interested in. So describing them in my edit as "expert" rather than as merely "proficient" is more correct and informative.        
  Second edit:    The name of the pill, which you leave unstated, is "BlyssPluss". This is obviously an informative and suggestive name. It's main (open to public) purpose and marketing appeal in the story was for drastically improved sex, which is why my description of it as a "Viagra-like super pill" was both correct and aptly descriptive and correctly suggestive. Merely describing it as "a prophylactic agent" is vague,ambiguous and highly misleading by omission and mis-suggestion. Specifically, the phrase "a prophylactic agent" is vague and ambiguous cuz it doesn't specify What it prevents or causes: pregnancy from one intercourse, or permanent sterility, or something else?  It is misleading because it stands alone, which falsely suggests it is the main or only important feature of the pill for the story.  It's (secret) permanent-sterility rendering function (not mere "prophylactic") is mentioned only once and plays no further role in the story. In fact, it's super-Viagra aspects, along with its secret killer-virus carrying function, are both Much more important and prominent in the story.        The fact that in the story it's sterility and virus-carrying features were both secret from the public, and the latter it's Most important feature for the story, justifies the parenthetical "(deceptive)" indication in the edit.     So again, this edit comprised a constructive, informative improvement. 
   If you somehow disagree with any of this, we can bog down to the level of specific page refs, etc, for proof. But I believe these claims are obvious to any impartial reader recently familiar with the story. 
   Therefore I will reinstate my edits pending itemized substantive response.  I amiably welcome any further discussion on this story of common interest.  :-) 

Tommster1 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1

Could you please refrain from changing my edits they are all factually correct Brownkidneys (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What edits are those, exactly? You do not appear to have performed any edits on Wikipedia using this account prior to your having vandalized this Talk page. General Ization Talk 21:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Going by this and this, it's clear that Brownkidneys meant the edits to the Derek Martin article. Brownkidneys is now indefinitely blocked anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding RfCEdit

I have a request for the RfC section of Campus sexual assault. Rather than three sections, one for "Don't use in-text attribution", one for "Use in-text attribution", and one for "Provide additional information", I propose we remove the "Don't use..." subsection. Not only is this confusing by requiring the commentators to comment twice, one possibly resulting in a double-negative, but also supporting "Provide additional information" and opposing "Don't use..." can be contradictory. I am not opposed to not using in-text attribution, I am only in favor of using it. Since I would be happy with alternatives to in-text attribution (as mentioned) I am not opposed to the negative, if that makes sense, Can we please change this to a standard, single-question format "Should we use in-text attribution for this statement...?" or something along those lines. Then the comments are clear: support, opposed, or other. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the current format is fine. Editors commonly vote more than once in RfCs, including in this other recent RfC. The current format for the aforementioned RfC at the Campus sexual assault article addresses all the points, and it has one section for proposals and one section for further (general) commentary; it will make it easier for the closer to assess than having one or more jumbled sections; I state that after having taken the time to watch a lot of RfCs. Can you just let the RfC play out instead of debate this as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, I would have granted your wish to remove "Don't use in-text attribution," but Kaldari already voted there. I would remove "Use in-text attribution," but leaving the "Don't" heading without the "Use" heading seems biased to me, like I'm presenting "Don't" as the main or sole option, even though people can obviously add "oppose" there and there are the other sections. So, at this, point, it's best to just let editors vote once or twice if they want. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I maybe should have added a "Use or don't use in-text attribution" heading instead of the individual "Don't" and "Use" ones; this way, editors can simply state "Use" or "Don't use." I could still do that, if Kaldari doesn't mind changing her "Support" vote to "Don't use." But still...some would argue that the separate sections are cleaner. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not my intention to start another debate. I didn't think it was a contentious request. The current formatting is very unusual in my opinion. Generally it's either yay or nay, not yay to the pro, nay to the con. At least in the US, ballots are also framed in the affirmative, i.e "Should we do this?" not "Should we not do this?". Plus my position has never been opposed to -not- using in-text attribution (see how tricky the double-negative is?) I intended to inform Kaldari that we may change format, but got pulled away earlier. If we can't reach them to re-comment, I see no reason we can't consider that opposed. Scoundr3l (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It is my opinion the RfC !voting space was indeed very poorly organised. Having to support and oppose several points in the same RfC is indeed very impractical, which is why I only !voted once. I won't attribute any blame; what's done is done; but let this be a lesson for future RfC syntax and structure. We want to make the process as simple as possible, not convolute discussions into the absurd. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN (FoCuS), there was no obligation to vote more than once, just like there is no obligation to vote more than once in a RfC made up of Support and Oppose headings, which is a common RfC setup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Extra note about this is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

hey youEdit

you are a jackass for taking my edit back. Howard Stern created the features of iowa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he did, but I appreciate the jackass compliment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
LMAO! Sorry Flyer if I step off the reservation a bit. I know WP:NOTSOCIAL

Wlmg (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I could use a handEdit

I think I might need a character witness. RGloucester started a thread complaining about Dicklyon and myself over at AE. It was promptly hijacked by SMcCandlish with a long screed of accusations, half-truths and non-truths. I could use someone to put in a word for me. None of the admins will answer any of my questions or requests for specifics. If you're not comfortable with this, I get it. If you go over there and say you agree with what SmC has to say, I get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, since I have a good history with you and a decent history with SMcCandlish (though SMcCandlish and I have exchanged heated words with each other before), that is putting me in a difficult situation. I'd rather hang on to my good or decent Wikipedia relationships. But I'll assess the matter and try to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably best if you don't get involved, then. Like I said, I get it. I don't want to put you in between two people with whom you get along. I just wish I could get the admins to talk to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That particular threesome has given me fits at times as well, and this is quite a typical pattern. Don't let them WP:BAIT you into blowing up at them, try to stay focused on content. SMc sometimes settles down, given time. Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Good words, those. Clarification requested, though, @Montanabw:, are you including me in the threesome or talking about someone else? I'm collecting constructive criticism on my conduct. (I must ask you not to initiate discussion of the issue from which I am banned, though.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No, you were on the wrong side of the other three, they tend to run in a pack, though I don't know if they actually coordinate or just have overlapping interests. I'll WP:AGF that they just have overlapping interests, but see WP:TAGTEAM. That said, you are where you are now because you bit on the bait and dug in on a no-win situation. Which sucks for you and I wish I'd seen this post sooner. My only advice is that I've decided long ago to choose my battles, not go into the big ones (and all MOS-related topics are big ones) without backup and allies (but we can't WP:CANVASS -- which really means "learn how to alert people without breaking the rules" -- meh). Avoid the dreaded topic totally and on other things, develop a sense of when to walk away and how far... on some things I just bide my time until conditions are right for change, but on other things (and the MOS is often one of them), I know I probably will never win and so I just sigh and drop the stick (but still keep the topic on my watchlist). I've dug in and fought where it was not just a matter of style but also of functionality across wiki (infoboxes, navboxes), but even there the victories are incomplete. My motto is "You Can't Always Get What You Want - but if you try sometimes you just might get what you need." ;-) Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I'd definitely agree with most of what you're saying about picking battles, but from my perspective I was already doing that. I guess the admins think I wasn't doing it enough (and I hate to guess).
As for canvassing, I specifically asked whether I was allowed to call witnesses at the general AN noticeboard. I got shut down with no answer one way or another, so I hazarded a guess. I hate to guess. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Supercouples listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Supercouples. Since you had some involvement with the List of Supercouples redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A new season is upon usEdit

Hello F. I hope that you are well and that your 2016 is off to a good start. The third season of Black Sails is two days away and I hope that you are looking forward to it as much as I am. Do you think they will ever show us the meeting between Long John Silver and his parrot - a real groaner of a joke I know but I couldn't resist. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC note ANIEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard regarding your note on Campus Sexual Assault RfC. The discussion is about the topic Incidents. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Campus_sexual_assault_RfC Scoundr3l (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


I already left a message in the talk section. Im waiting for your explanation on why it doesnt make sense. Melissa fire brasileirinhas681 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


Flyer, may I have your facebook ID address to communicate for? Sharif uddin (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sharif uddin, no. I'd have to trust the Wikipedia editor a lot before I revealed my real-life identity to that editor. There are very few I trust with such information. And given the sensitive topics I edit and the stalkers I have (a number of which are sick individuals), it is vital that I am only known as "Flyer," "Flyer22" or "Flyer22 Reborn" on Wikipedia. Any Facebook identity I provide to a Wikipedia editor I do not trust as much as that would not be my true Facebook identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian EnvironmentEdit

howdy. i created the article above today, and thought it might interest you... Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation on a proposalEdit

You're invited to discuss a proposal on here regarding film production section issues. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Heads up on an edit I made to the Fellatio article.Edit

I tried to introduce "both" into the bits concerning it being pleasurable for participants. Using "participants" is a great way to keep it gender/sexual identity neutral, but adding both caps that off by being clearly role-neutral.

I also de-gendered the part about it potentially leading to orgasm. If you read that part with two anatomically male participants in mind, it became meaningless. If you read it as someone who has a penis and does not identify as male it became offensive.

Let me know if you think I did a reasonable job. If I screwed it up real bad, I'd appreciate hearing that as well.

Thanks a bunch,

Jasphetamine (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are an editor I and others had suspicions about: User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#My inappropriate !vote. Whatever your background with Wikipedia, I won't dwell on that anymore. The edit you made to the Fellatio article is fine (mostly), but the "and may lead to orgasm and ejaculation of semen for males" was simply stating fact. Notice that it stated "may," not "will." It was not excluding trans men or genderqueer (non-binary) people. Furthermore, if a genderqueer person has a penis, ejaculation is still an aspect of the penis; that will not go away because of how that person identifies. In the case that the "for males" part may offend a trans woman who has not undergone genital reconstructive surgery, the wording was not a WP:Offensive material violation. None of the wording you changed was a WP:Offensive material violation. The "for males" part was there because rarely does fellatio lead to orgasm for the person performing fellatio. People usually need physical sexual stimulation of the penis or clitoris to orgasm. So I will go ahead and change the "may lead to orgasm" part to "may lead to orgasm for the receptive partner." Also keep in mind that while I do keep transgender people and non-binary people in mind for some edits I make here at Wikipedia, and I was clear about this at Talk:Fellatio, I am also clear (was clear in that discussion) that Wikipedia should go by what the sources state with WP:Due weight. The vast majority of people do not identify as genderqueer or non-binary. On a side note: "both participants" instead of "participants" might offend those who insist that we shouldn't indicate sexual activity as necessarily being a two-partner thing; yes, I've encountered those type of editors as well (the ones who emphasize the possibility of threesomes or other forms of group sex). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Heads up" about fellatio... rofl! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to respectfully strike from the record my seeking your counsel. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Jasphetamine, I don't know why you felt the need to strike through, but, in the future, it would be better for you take such a matter to the article talk page than to an editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Edits/Dummy accusationsEdit

Hello there sir or madam. Please do not reference my page to other accounts or make blatantly false accusations. I started this account over a year ago after abuse of a specific authors page was left unchecked. I rarely comment or make occasional changes on wikipedia. Someone blanked the man's page close to a month ago citing a similar policy with no protests. If this is not the case then the other has been left alone due to lack of interest or your favoritism to one page over the other. But both must be equal in that respect if policy has changed. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobes38 (talkcontribs) 22:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jobes38 (talk · contribs), so if I report you as a sock of Stuke2 (talk · contribs) in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation, and a WP:CheckUser is ran on both of your accounts, the report will come back negative for you two being the same person? Your edit histories show otherwise. Stuke2, you want to comment here at my talk page about this too? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), it seems that you've stumbled on an old inactive account of mine. I am not even sure the name is registered anymore, but I think I know a colleague who is using it as a practical joke to counter my work. I am not sure if it can be deleted permanently or not or password changed. Just ignore them at this time, their pulling your leg. I know exactly who to contact in this case. Hopefully there were no frivolous interruptions. Also, I did note later today that the "Man's" article had their group pic deleted and a discussion seems to be ongoing on their talk page. I went ahead and placed it back up until a decision can be made for all pages as it seems like the standard practice after reading the discussion pages brought to my attention by PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) on the matter. Let me know if thats the case or if it indeed needs to be taken down anyway, (seems like it was for almost a month). Again thanks for the notice my friend!! Take care :) Stuke2 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Stuke2, the Jobes38 is not inactive anymore, as you know, and I cannot buy your excuse since you've attributed that account to being "a colleague who is using it as a practical joke to counter [your] work." I will report this matter in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation if someone does not beat me to it first, or if a WP:CheckUser watching my talk page doesn't go ahead and run the check. But on the slim chance that you are telling the truth, see WP:Compromised. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jobes38. clpo13(talk) 01:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats unfortunate you feel that way. But you do what you think is necessary. Beyond changing the password and leaving such account theres nothing else that I can do. Unless deletion is possible. It seems that others have used such an account to play games on similar articles which was started in response to an edit war on an article of Michael Reagan (by a user that was banned). Thats all I can say. Farewell.Stuke2 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for noticing the Undue Weight in the Wikipedia article about Yisroel Belsky. I hope you succeed in fixing it. Defender583 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A proxy with disruptive editsEdit

Hi Flyer. (talk · contribs) deleted multiple-sourced content from Gutian people by using "false edit summaries" to fool editors. The contents of sources obviously CONTRADICT with the edit summary of the ip. It is clear that the ip is not here to contribute. Can you warn him/her? (I do not know whether you are an admin or not) Regards... (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

As it seems you know, I've repeatedly made it clear to that editor (on his talk page) that I do not trust him. You should gather evidence of his disruptive edits and report him at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I have reported him on WP:AIV. Thank you, Flyer. (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Documenting BlueUndigoiFucker stalkerEdit

Made this section to document this latest stalker of mine here at my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest account (that I know of) was BlueUndigo10Fucker (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueUndigo12FuckerFlye (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, look at all those accounts. clpo13(talk) 20:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The stalking is strong in that one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
BlueUndigoiFucker1Flyer22 (talk · contribs). Sure this section may be giving him the attention he craves, but he'll be stopped every time anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueUndigoi7FuckerFlyer22 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
BlueUndigoiFucker20 (talk · contribs). I also considered that one of my other stalkers has probably found this funny and has impersonated BlueUndigoi at some point. I've had a stalker impersonate another before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 Reborn - In case you are not aware of his original identity, this is the guy [1].

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

How to set "preferences" for "signature"?Edit

Hi, there: You suggested that I change my signature so that it is linked to my "talk page". But I have no idea how to do it. Could you tell how I can set it on my "preferences" page? Thank you. --Roland (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Hey there @Roland Longbow:! A step-by-step is:
  1. Click on [Preferences], it's at the top of all Wiki pages while you are logged in.
  2. Once in your "Preferences", scroll down to the "Signatures" section.
  3. Copy-and-paste the following text into the text box in the "Signatures" section; Roland and make sure that the "Treat the above as Wikimarkup" is not clicked/on (no tick in box)
  4. Save the change
  5. Come back here and say; {{u|Drcrazy102}}, you are a friggin' genius, here's my bank account details in gratitude: [insert bank account details including pin, mother's maiden name, first pet, etc.]
If that somehow fails to work, then you have larger problems to cope with and should just ask at WP:Village pump (technical). They'll probably have some back-door-esque access to your settings and could change it for you. Anyway; Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems it works now. --Roland (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Dang, I was hoping for them deets.   No worries then, just remember to sign talkpage posts and comments, but not article edits. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Will HortonEdit

Given your extensive work throughout Wikipedia, and throughout articles related to soap operas, I figured you'd want to be pointed out to a problem happening at Will's page, and its talk page. One user has made mass-changes to the Will article that both myself and Jester66 (talk · contribs) have reverted back to its original edits; the user has insisted on edit-warring these issues, and has ignored their talk page discussion to continue these edits. I've made a report for their violation of the three-revert rule but, I don't know if anything will be done about it. Figured you'd be a nice match for this discussion and problem. livelikemusic talk! 15:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.Edit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding a previous discussion about this same topic in recent times and your input and discussion would be appreciated. Please remember to focus on content, not contributors. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:African Americans".The discussion is about the topic Talk:African Americans. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Yeah, yeah, don't template the regulars and all that.  Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Crazy, the current big dispute regarding this is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not notifying that many editors; that is way above my "pay"-grade. I'll ask some of the other Volunteers about this then. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A Question about Ravi (rapper)'s pageEdit

Hello, I was wondering why the section of his early life was removed? Alicia leo86 (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Alicia leo86. I briefly explained after reverting this IP: WP:BLP concerns. Read that policy for what I mean. Having unsourced career information gets more leeway than unsourced early life and personal life information. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thank you @Flyer22 Reborn:. I wasn't quite sure. Alicia leo86 (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The power & control dynamic in child abuseEdit

I did power and control in abusive relationships covering the power and control dynamic in various abusive contexts but can see nothing relevant to this in child abuse, child sexual abuse or child grooming. This seems like a major oversight.--Penbat (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied. And I know that I have to fix up the Child grooming article, since apparently no one else is going to do it. I need to add sources to that article before someone else starts cutting relevant material there. And I'm currently involved in an RfC at the Child abuse article: Talk:Child abuse#RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse?. WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Lexa (The 100)) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Lexa (The 100), Flyer22 Reborn!

Wikipedia editor Garagepunk66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I enjoyed your article about Lexa (the 100). You obviously put a lot of time into it. You may wish to adds some sources in the season two section. However, otherwise it looks very good.

To reply, leave a comment on Garagepunk66's talk page.

Learn more about page curation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, thanks for reviewing the article; I'm glad you enjoyed reading it and that you appreciate the work I put into it. I wrote it partly because I like the character and partly because it's been a long time since I created a Wikipedia article and I wanted to see how that felt again (to be the old Flyer22 but improved when it comes to knowledge of article writing on Wikipedia and its rules). I reverted the tags you added, because, like I stated, the article's format is in line with MOS:TV. And, per MOS:PLOT, plot sections usually do not need inline citations. For a recent discussion about whether or not to use inline citations for plot sections, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 178#Plot and secondary sources. Some editors would, but I'm usually not such an editor. I did note, however, when adding that plot section that it needs work and that I copied it from List of The 100 episodes. I don't care how much of that section is cut; what is there now is a little much for a recurring character. So maybe Popcornduff would be willing to cut the plot section? If so, feel free to cut away Popcornduff (if you don't mind being spoiled on the show).
On a side note: Garagepunk66, I signed your above post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm flattered to be asked! :) But unfortunately as I know nothing about this show, I don't think I'm in a position to assess what's worth keeping and what's worth cutting. Definitely looks way too long though. Popcornduff (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, c'omn, Popcornduff, as seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 178#Plot and secondary sources, you managed with not remembering much about the Metal Gear Solid plot. I believe in you. You can do it. But, seriously, thanks for considering it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The MGS plot summary, overlong as it was, served as enough of a reminder for me refamilarise myself with the story... but in this case I'd be totally in the dark. Sorry! Popcornduff (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
One suggestion: you could make each paragraph about each episode a subsection, using the episode titles as subheaders. That would help fight the "wall of text" appearance and make it more readable. Having worked as a technical writer and interface designer, I can tell you from experience that there's tons of evidence that breaking up long sections into paragraphs with clear headings makes readers much happier, and much more likely to actually read your page. Popcornduff (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding not cutting the plot section, that's okay. You should give the show a try, though. It might at first seem like another teen show, but it quickly turns into so much more than that. Reviewers are right that it's an underrated show. Furthermore, Clarke Griffin (the main character) is now 18 or 19, and so are the other teenagers. So it's more of an adult show. I'm glad I binge-wacthed it sometime last year. Like David Griffin of ScreenRant stated, "With all the talk of comic book franchises lately, perhaps The 100’s lack of superheroes is somehow detracting from what has become one of the more entertaining shows currently running on television. So, why haven’t you given this show a try?" He's also right that "the first couple of episodes of the series are its weakest."
As for headers in the section, you mean pseudo-headings (WP:BADHEAD)? If you mean actual headings, that would be a lot of headings for that relatively small section, and I generally dislike headings for a little bit of content. That many headings in a plot section also puts the section more at risk with getting tagged with Template:Plot. I could easily break up what's there into shorter paragraphs, though. In two cases there, I stuck two episode summaries together to save room. I could also use Template:TOC limit if we really want to add a lot of subheadings to that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I broke up the two aforementioned paragraphs. I'm expecting people to edit that plot section significantly since that's the main thing our readers pay attention to, or rather edit, when they visit our articles on fictional topics. With them filling in stuff, I was planning to cut the excess fat that way. But I might go to cutting it before that point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I cut a lot with this edit, and tweaked matters, after actually reading all of that. What I left in is mostly needed for context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I meant real headings (H3s in this case I guess?). IMO here they're totally justified because you have quite a large amount of text per episode, and it makes the page much more digestible. But this isn't a page I'm invested in so feel free to ignore that suggestion ;) Popcornduff (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
What's there now are decent-sized paragraphs (on my laptop screen, which I admit is a bit wide), with maybe the exception of the "Long Into an Abyss" paragraph. Some are smaller than others. To me, a section is not needed for each of those paragraphs. The two subheadings for the seasons seem like enough. I think most readers, if they want to read the plot section, can get through the season 2 section without feeling like it's "too long; didn't read." And, of course, the season 3 section is just one small paragraph. I'll see what more I can cut, but I think I cut just about all I can validly cut from that section, significantly-wise anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to self (spoiler-ish for others who click on the following links): So much controversy surrounds this character now, as indicated by this, this and this, and numerous other edits made to the article since I created it. I will eventually add information to the article on that; hopefully, sooner than later. But at the moment, my fingers are sore. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That third edit is a WP:BLP violation, and should probably be WP:Revision deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock adviceEdit

Just out of curiosity, since you've dealt with many socks, what additional advice could you offer in regards to SPIs and tracking down sockpuppetry? I am not new to this, but want to gain some more experience. Thanks, GABHello! 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Other than what is stated at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Sockpuppet watch, there's not much more. Like I noted there, I keep some details to myself. I also haven't been pursuing socks as much these days; it's usually not so much a pursue matter anyway. It's rather I notice them, and then decide if I want to expose them. If they have been a good editor for a couple of years (or more), for example, attempting to expose them can be an uphill battle, since they will have likely accumulated acquaintances or friends on Wikipedia who respect them and will view implying or otherwise indicating that they are a sock as a lack of good faith, or even as bullying. In the most recent case seen above on my talk page (#Reverting Edits/Dummy accusations), that editor was socking to game the system; so I exposed him, with a brutal tactic: Naming him as a sock in the edit history for everyone to see. As predicted, he came to me, and further exposed himself. You can also look at WP:Signs of sock puppetry for more information as well, if you haven't looked at that yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


I've made the changes to the Object sexuality article (changing "fetish" to "orientation" and removing the link to paraphilias as a related topic) because OS is not a fetish, which would be something purely sexual that is used purely for sexual stimulation. Objectum-sexuals feel genuine romantic and sexual attraction to objects that they treat as partners and care for as far more than just a sex toy. There are even those who are strictly romantically attracted to objects, and so it would be absurd to call it a fetish. Beyond that, connecting it to paraphilias suggests that it is one, and thus that it is disordered, which is not the case. The following sources back up my decision to change it to "orientation" and why I think it's insulting to continue to insist on it being called a fetish.

[1][2][3] (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You (and others, or you under different IPs) keep getting reverted at that article because calling object sexuality a sexual orientation is very WP:Fringe; surely you saw the rationales when you were being reverted. Object sexuality is indeed a sexual fetish, and a paraphilia. The sources you cited above are also poor. Review WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS. In the future, you should take matters like these to the article talk page, not to one or more users' talk page, especially when more than one editor has reverted the disputed content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, not all sexual fetishes and paraphilias are classified as mental disorders; read the aforementioned articles and check their medical sources (if you can) for what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)



Hi, I disagree that I added more plot detail than necessary, most of the changes are for subjects in sentences not being specific enough. I made new changes to the original version with pared down detail but also delete some duplicated descriptors. --Will74205 (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Some rice for you!Edit

  I am glad food Jadenvideotube (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


I do not believe that "Actress Elena Satine has campaigned for the role of Mary Jane in The Amazing Spider-Man before the producers choose Gwen Stacy instead of MJ" is relevant to this article as it seems that the character was never in any official media related to the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kanye WestEdit

Thanks for your edits. I have restored the David Bowie line which was removed by another editor. It seems quite significant to me that he paid such high tribute to Bowie as an inspiration for his musical and genre-defying experimentation. Rodericksilly (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Kanye is a publicity hound. I doubt his interest was particularly sincere. Montanabw(talk) 09:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your support on this page, Flyer22. Just to let you know, I've moved the line you restored to a more appropriate place so that it follows on from "West's musical career has been defined by frequent stylistic shifts, and has seen him develop and explore a variety of different musical approaches and genres throughout his work". It seems pretty clear that is where the Bowie influence on West specifically is, as both artists' careers share that in common. Best wishes. Rodericksilly (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Rodericksilly, I saw, but I felt that the text fits better where I placed it because it was beside his other influences, and GentleCollapse16 somehow felt that the Bowie aspect was being prioritized, including in this case. For whatever reason, it seems that GentleCollapse16 doesn't want Bowie mentioned as an inspiration or influence at all, despite West stating that Bowie is one of his "most important inspirations." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
From what West said, it appears that Bowie is a more general influence on his approach to music than a specific influence on a particular album or track, in contrast to, for example, RZA's sampling influence mentioned in the same section. So if we're going to mention Bowie, it seemed more appropriate to me to follow the line "West's musical career has been defined by frequent stylistic shifts, and has seen him develop and explore a variety of different musical approaches and genres throughout his work". I've also added "among West's stated influences", so hopefully people won't misinterpret as before that anyone is saying Bowie is "THE INFLUENCE", which was never my intention. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, my objection was to Bowie being so prominently namedropped at the beginning of a discussion of Kanye's musical style without any specifics regarding Bowie's actual influence on his work—why not also mention Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, Stanley Kubrick or any other artists Kanye routinely invokes? The fact remains that Kanye has named many artists as profound influences (A Tribe Called Quest, Puff Daddy, Pete Rock etc) which also aren't cited here, and dropping Bowie seemed like a lame attempt to pull a "look, this rapper was influenced by a revered white rock star! " when it wasn't particularly relevant. The inclusion in the Legacy section that Rodericksilly mentioned sounds good to me, but I still think it's just gratuitous (and condescending) to mention Bowie in the musical style section regarding the simple fact of West's creative restlessness. Apart from West's recent tweet, there's not much of a specific or especially noteworthy connection between the two. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
"and dropping Bowie seemed like a lame attempt to pull a "look, this rapper was influenced by a revered white rock star! " "What a strange assumption to make that race has anything to do with it whatsoever? Blimey! Rodericksilly (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
As if black artists haven't consistently been patronized and condescended to via validating comparisons with more "tasteful" white artists...? (and I love Bowie too, don't get me wrong). And as if rap and black music hasn't always had to fight to be considered as artful and singular as more revered white musics? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, WTF has color got to do with it? I think I know what your issue is now and you're choosing to interpret it how you like to because it's suits your "issues". Color has fuck all to do with it and YOU'VE brought that into the conversation. It's a shame, because you've now shown you can't be regarded as an unbiased editor. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is your issue? That I'm bothered by your apparent need to immediately validate and contextualize West's work with reference to a more "respectable" white artist who otherwise has no explicit, oft-discussed, or noteworthy tie to his work? And your "Color has fuck all to do with it and YOU'VE brought that into the conversation"—hahaha oh dear, I'm sorry to break it to you pal, but race and a dimension of racial bias is intrinsic to every aesthetic perception and value judgement you, as a human who lives in society, make, and it's normally just ignorant, self-satisfied white people who can afford pretend it doesn't affect their actions—you may simply like David Bowie, but there's a reason, for example, that you're so keen and excited to include him but not other artists like James Brown, A Tribe Called Quest, etc. who West has called great inspirations but who don't fit your OWN conservative preferences for what counts as a significant influence on West's work. The simple fact of West's stylistic changes isn't something that's only shared by Bowie, and your emphasis of that only reinforces your ignorance to all his other influences.
The fact is, West's work, and our discussion of his work, should be able to stand alone from any of your preferred comparisons unless there's an explicit reason to call upon them (i.e. RZA's sampling style was a direct influence on West's, etc). Race is already a dimension of cultural interpretation, and you're certainly not a special exception to the case. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen sources for the other artists, I HAVE seen a source for David Bowie. That's why I added it and for no other reason. I honestly couldn't give a shit what color David Bowie was, what color Kanye West is, what color James Brown was, what color Marvin Gaye was .... the list goes on. But YOU OBVIOUSLY DO CARE. If the color of music artists is an issue for you, that's your choice, but please don't judge everyone else by your standards because some of us are just interested in music. Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You really don't get it, do you—I don't give a FUCK about an artist's skin color, but I'm also acutely aware of the way white artists are repeatedly used by apparently "objective" sources like yourself as a kind of measuring stick for what's "normal" or "brilliant" while other artists are left by the wayside. Your "I haven't seen sources for the other artists" isn't at all an excuse. You're still engaging in the disproportionate privileging of a white rock artist over others who evidently don't strike as being as significant to seek out. If you're not going to objectively include all of West's influences, your engaging in POV editing and that has no place here.
More than anything, I find it incredibly hard to believe you could genuinely love and understand all the music you just listed without paying attention to how they all play with issues of race. Bowie was famous in the 1970s for flirting with black music styles while perverting them with his alienating white detachment, and explicitly calling attention to those racial dynamics—look up how he defined his "plastic soul" sound, you might be surprised by how much Bowie "brought race into it". West's entire career has been concerned with how race and perception affect ones status in a society. And the list goes on. There's no such thing as "just music" except in your own oblivious head. Objectivity is about giving everyone a voice. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, color is quite clearly a big issue for you. That's fine but don't make assumptions about other people because your accusations really are the definition of the POV you're ironically attributing to me. And what precisely is stopping you from adding mentions of all these other important and non-white influences on West's career to even out the color imbalance you perceive? Rodericksilly (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Quiet simply, the fact that Bowie doesn't have any business in that section in the first place. What assumptions? I'm concerned with the unnecessary inclusion of an artist in a section that doesn't warrant his inclusion, and I'm extending that concern with the caveat that this inclusion also reinforces a biased mainstream aesthetic narrative that privileges certain artists over others. Your ignorance or obliviousness is not an excuse for your complicity in that, period. Stop with the condescending "color is quite clearly a big issue for you" garbage—color, like gender, sexual preference, physical appearance, and other tenants of discrimination should be of concern to anyone who is conscious of the society they live in. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The only person who brought anything condescending into this conversation in the first place was you when you brought up color in the first place, which nobody else was talking about. Why don't you make a positive contribution to the West article by adding some artists who influenced his career to counter the "biased mainstream aesthetic narrative" you perceive (you know some big words, don't you??? I prefer plain English myself). I would have no objection to that, regardless of what color they may be. As for "garbage", I haven't heard so much garbage from a Wikipedia editor in a very, very long time, frankly. You can hardly claim to be unbiased in your approach to this editing process from what you've said so far, your words have been loaded with bias and an apparent agenda. Rodericksilly (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

GentleCollapse16 and Rodericksilly, I moved the Bowie content to the end of the first paragraph of the Early career and influences section. Can you both be fine with that? I obviously feel that Bowie should be mentioned in that section since it notes people who inspired West, and West specifically called Bowie one of his "most important inspirations." Whether or not he was being sincere is not for us to decide. I don't see that it needs to come first in that section, ahead of his other inspirations, so I agree with GentleCollapse16 on that part. And I don't think it belongs in the Impact and legacy section; so I disagree that it should be re-added there. No matter what, WP:Edit warring on this needs to stop. The next step is a WP:RfC if we can't compromise on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Flyer22. If you feel the passage is better suited there, I can fully see your reasoning and I'm quite happy to go along with that. Thanks again. Rodericksilly (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Re: the removal of:

Jon Caramanica of The New York Times said that West has been "the rare artist respected as both a pop musician and experimenter, renowned as much for his creative endeavors as for his tabloid exploits" and asserted that "he has remade hip-hop’s sonic palette three, maybe four times. His musical legacy is peerless."[1]

from the Legacy section; it seems to me it's saying more balanced version of what the Caramanica quote I replaced it with was:

Jon Caramanic of The New York Times said that West has been "a frequent lightning rod for controversy, a bombastic figure who can count rankling two presidents among his achievements, along with being a reliably dyspeptic presence at award shows (when he attends them)."[2]

In both cases Caramanica notes West's controversial persona outside music, but my replacement balances that with his musical reputation, which also seems to be the focus of a lot of the following sources—the dialectic between West's two poles, the musical acclaim and the controversial persona. I just thought it was more balanced and to topic than the original. Do you have any particular reason for disagreeing? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
GentleCollapse16, I reverted you on that change because that paragraph is big enough as it is (what you added is a little longer), the paragraph gushes about West enough, what you added seems redundant to what is already in the section, and the first Caramanic quote specifically comments on his controversial persona, which is a big part of his legacy. I don't think "his tabloid exploits" clearly relays "controversial persona." That the Caramanic quote is the only quote in the section to directly note that West is controversial and clearly tie that to his impact is why I've reverted you on the inclusion of it twice. I've reverted you on the position of the AllMusic piece twice as well because I think it is the best quote to begin the section with. I wouldn't hugely object if you added the other Caramanic quote in the quote box in place of the quote that's already in the quote box, or as an addition to that quote, but I don't think it's needed; I think it's overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Caramanica, Jon. "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Kanye West." New York Times. 10 April 2015.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference NewYorkTimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

February 2016Edit

  Hello, I'm 2602:306:3357:BA0:383E:3FA3:2868:37E5. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Frequency has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 2602:306:3357:BA0:383E:3FA3:2868:37E5 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, my mistake. I read it as you committing vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"Good faith edit"Edit

I will never understand why people call stuff like that "good faith". Bishonen | talk 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, there was a time when I would have been quick to revert that as vandalism. These days, I am more likely to assume that maybe the editor heard it somewhere, including by the subject himself, was joking because they honestly don't know how Wikipedia is supposed to work, or something else. I glanced at the edit quickly and wanted it gone, and I did not want to analyze it any further than that. I usually revert vandalism or other disruptive edits as vandalism or disruption; other times I might not. And I'm stating that as someone who despises how much the WP:Good faith guideline is used without reason. Goodness knows it's my enemy in sockpuppet cases where I know what I'm talking about and sometimes have to put up with the "assume good faith" people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Compare Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF, a little thing of my own. Bishonen | talk 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

(talk page stalker)Bish, I love that essay! Montanabw(talk) 07:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello, you have undone my edit on the page naming it vandalistic and/or futile, yet I believe this operation was only based on personal opinion. The edit was not vandalistic and it was not futile.

It was made because the rendering of the Māori name was not precise, since it refered to any kind of National Party [[2]], and this is not that article. The name in English is "New Zealand National Party" which is translated into Māori as "Rōpū Nāhinara o Aotearoa", because it is not a National Party, but the National Party of New Zealand, as you may easily check also on the Māori version of the same page: [[3]]. I will remake the edit now, hoping my explanation was clear.

Lastly, I do not need to experiment on the sandbox, as you kindly suggested in your message, all I need on this site is a precise encyclopedia.

- Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Big AngEdit

How is updating the site to show she has passed not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I initially reverted you because I thought you were messing up a URL. I've partially reverted you because of WP:TVLEAD. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

About the edit you undid in Wikipedia:Manual of style/Words to watchEdit

I noticed you undid some edits on the following page without explicit reasoning, so now I'll tell you why I made a few changes to that page. One, value-laden just redirects to loaded language. Two, {{Peacock inline}} redirects to {{Peacock term}}. And three, {{Loaded term}} is a brand-new addition to the wiki (admittedly one I submitted to Articles for creation; although apparently {{Loaded}}, thanks to a backlog, is still pending submission). HeatIsCool (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

HeatIsCool, regarding this, I'd already re-added "Peacock term" in place of "Peacock inline." As for value-laden redirecting to loaded language, there is no reason to bypass the redirect; see WP:NOTBROKEN. I don't care much that you bypassed the redirect, though. And lastly, I do not see why your "loaded term" template needs to be there. Exactly why is that template needed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinks are not sourcesEdit

…per WP:VERIFY, etc. Per the policies, it is never sufficient for non-common-knowledge information to only be sourced via Wikilink.

Though this is rampant at WP, including via presentation of images that contain intellectual content (such as fully labeled anatomical images), it is not acceptable here, or anywhere.

Even more critically, the source that this draws from does not cite sources, and is this: { }.

Part of the point is to make clear that sourcing images from websites not affiliated with any reputable institution is not a good practice. AT LEAST, the material needs to be checked, and the source against which it is checked needs to be provided. Please do no support non-encyclopedic practices, in this case, even if they are rampant, and we could get by not doing so. Images are content. When content crosses the line from being an illustrative image, to communicating content, its content must also be verifiable. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, nowhere did I state that wikilinks are sources. I am not a newbie, after all. I did, however, make it clear at the article's talk page that this tagging by you is nonsensical. Since you apparently want a WP:RfC on the matter, so be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Please support me on not removing the article tags. I do not know who CFCF is, but if the tags come off, you are on your own in improving the article (note all the books fixed today). I will not work with people who elevate prettification over substance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The images that were made to reappear (Egyptian fertility god and a piece of German artwork) are (i) not discussed in the text, and (ii) are only identifiable on a "just trust us" basis, or via Wikilink. Regardless of what the basis is for the identification, I would ask these two images be returned to ANGLEBRACKET!-- images --> status until they are discussed and their relationship and importance made clear via source. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • More broadly, in the sourcing of content in figures and their legends. I understand I am in the minority in this. You again will determine if we swim with the current, or we can go with my proposed improvement (even if not in the mainstream). By having tags, I invite others more knowledgable and with greater time, to make clear that the images belong, and what they mean. Without a tag, the images are, as I argue above and at the article, WP:OR, especially in the selfie-case, but also in the case where ethe editor chose a third-rate web-page, cited above, as his illustrated anatomical content. If we must disagree on this, so be it, I will not fight you (because as you say, it is votes that count, whether in Republican primaries, or to maintain common non-scholarly practices at WP). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

List of SupercouplesEdit

I've gone through the primetime list and added quotes and updated references to the ones that are staying. I moved the borderline or weakly supported cases to the talk page. Of these, only the "I Didn't Do It" was contested with some decent reason. Could you check if I might have missed any? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, I'm fine with the cleanup you've been doing at that article. I will still be there to revert problematic edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

please help translate this message into the local language
  The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and puberty articlesEdit

Hello, Flyer22. Thank you very much, you are very kind. You're right, I'm editing in Spanish wiki.

I have not much time and there is much work to do, but I'll watch what you say. Which sections of the articles you mention have not reviewed yet?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, you're welcome. Thanks for being one of this site's more promising editors. As for what I noted on your talk page about Puberty and Precocious puberty articles, they need thorough work; it's not a matter of what part of them hasn't been reviewed yet. You might also be interested in assisting Barbara (WVS) and I at the Vaginoplasty article. As you can see from this (followup edit here and here), we are currently working out two different matters there. And, yes, there is no need for you to rush in helping with any article. There is obviously no obligation for you to work on these articles. I simply felt that you might be interested in the Puberty and Precocious puberty articles since you are working on the Delayed puberty article.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section by adding "and puberty articles" so that it is clearer as to what the section is about and is easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

STiki misuseEdit

Hi. Just to let you know, you made an erroneous reversion at God Hates Us All with STiki, which I have reverted. Please be careful. "George Jizzguzzler" was clearly vandalism. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 15:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, as seen here and here, a vandal IP had messed up the article minutes before a constructive IP fixed the matter. I focused on the wrong IP. Sorry about that. I am careful with STiki, but I am going to make the occasional mistake with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. I've never done that before, so I guess I couldn't feel where you were coming from. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 02:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sexism editsEdit

I dont know who you think you are, maybe a paragon of the protection of human sexuality or something, but the fact remains that sexism means discrimination based on somebody's sex. It doesn't matter if you think that women are discriminated against more than men are, because sexism, as a word, refers to all discrimination based on sex. So you can scurry back to your precious mods or admins and demand that I be blocked from editing, whatever you want. But in the end, just know that you are perpetrating a lie on the community by refusing to admit the actual definition of a word. For your benefit, I have included the definition from Merriam-Webster: "Distinction and especially unjust distinction based on gender and made against one person or group in favor of another". As I am sure you know, sexism was created as a parallel of racism, whose definition follows as well: "racial prejudice or discrimination", which only furthers my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necron681 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Necron681. Lovely day, isn't it? Regarding this, the fact remains that sexism affects girls and women far more than it affects boys and men, and the literature is clear about that. This has been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page, as seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women? and at Talk:Sexism/Archive 13. The fact remains that you should not be WP:Edit warring over this content. If you have a case, make it at the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who it may or may not affect more, only what it is. You trying to put your own spin on it is unacceptable when these articles are supposed to be impartial statements of facts. And if you want to talk about victims of sexism, how about we talk about how women win the majority of child custody cases, men are expected to be tough and are bullied relentlessly when they are not, male suicides far outnumber female suicides, men are expected to be physical laborers in dangerous fields but are not expected to be paid more for said dangerous labor, and males are injured 1.5 times more than women on the job as well. Your "literature" is cherry-picked, just like I have done above. Points are real easy to make when you exclude the opposing side's argument. Now if you want to have a mature argument that takes a look at both sides' reasonable arguments, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necron681 (talkcontribs) 00:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, Necron681. It's not "my literature." That sexism affects females to a much greater degree than males is prevalent in the literature on sexism, as I'm sure you know. This is a WP:Due weight matter; read the WP:Due weight policy for what I mean. Even though, being female, I have experienced much sexism in my life, far more than my brothers have ever experienced, I am basing my comments on this matter on what the literature relays. There is no cherry-picking in this case, since the "sexism is primarily directed at girls and women" aspect is prevalent in the literature. It's why the Sexism article has so much more to state about women than about men. The lead is meant to summarize this aspect, per WP:Lead. Again, you should discuss your issues with the lead relaying that "sexism affects girls and women the most" on the article's talk page, where other editors can readily weigh in on the dispute. It's currently being discussed there (again) now. I have nothing more to state you in this section on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, I am not disputing the fact that women are often subject to sexism. I am attempting to show the definition of sexism, which the people who keep editing the page refuse to accept. Sexism is not discrimination against women. Sexism is discrimination based on sex, regardless of the sex of the victim. However, the reason that sexism against men is less prevalent in literature is because men who complain about such issues are ridiculed and told to "man up" or "be a man" and stop complaining about their grievances, no matter how justified. I am quite irritated that people refuse to look at both sides of an argument and realize that it does go both ways. Know that in no way am I trying to ignore or cover up the effects of sexism on women. I am just trying to make it clear that it also affects men and is represented less due to social taboos on men complaining about such issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necron681 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Last comment: When sexism is defined, it is usually defined as affecting women more; this is not just the case of dictionary sources either, as is clearly seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personally disparaging remarks and accusations toward other editors, Necron681. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that edit summaries are not for taunting other editors or making similar personal remarks, as in this change to the article Sexism. See WP:ESDONTS at Wikipedia:Civility. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, that was a warning. And I stand by it. If you feel I acted inappropriately, you can report it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Good faith edits againEdit

That wasn't a good faith edit, it was a fake quote repeatedly inserted in the article. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

And, at about the moment you replied here on my talk page about it, I was on my way to note that the edit was vandalism in the edit history with a WP:Dummy edit. I commonly (but not always) double back to look at reverts I've made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I was taken aback when I checked the source. People ascribe all sorts of stuff to sources, but an actual quote? Expanding a quote which was properly there, yet. Unusual. Maybe I should have blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC).
I would have blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I keep thinking maybe they have some explanation, some kind of innocent mistake, even though I doubt it. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Adding access-date parameter to book citationsEdit

Please note that adding the access-date or accessdate parameter to citations using the {{cite book}} template, for example in this revision and this revision to the article Child abuse, adds unnecessary clutter to the citation window. Template:Cite book states that this parameter is Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites.

Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, like various other editors, I use accessdates for book sources...just like I add URLs or quotes for book sources; it's my style, and I do not intend on changing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Hi Flyer22 Reborn and Coconutporkpie. I agree with the Flyer on this one. If a cite book template contains a URL I absolutely include an accessdate too. The cite book template example above provided by a Diff does include a URL so for sure I would include an accessdate too. I used to include accessdates for all book cites but I have backed down. For one thing, if you include an accessdate and the cite does not already include a URL, then there will be a big red error code in the references section stating "reference error: accessdate= requires url= (see: help)". Books are not subject to WP:Link rot, but URLs to books are, and so books with URLs need accessdates too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look atEdit

Cantino Planisphere. I have some sympathy for the editor but they somehow don't seem to understand what their edits are saying. Doug Weller talk 05:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, sorry that I am just now getting back to you on this. I got distracted by the section immediately above this one and the #Sexism edits section before that, and I've been busy with work (real-life work), and Wikipedia when I can. How do you need me to help with that article or the editor in question? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Presuming you see the same problems I do, I thought someone else trying to explain the issues to this evidently good faith editor might help. thanks Doug Weller talk 20:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I see that it's the same editor I talked to at Talk:Pansexuality. I didn't know that until a few moments ago. So that's how you showed up to the Pansexuality article to make that revert. That editor has ceased reverting you for now and appears reasonable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

For some reason I am sending you a kitten to thank you for kindly monitoring (but not deleting or getting angry about) our work on the fake orgasm page. We appreciate it!

Phoebemarplehorvat (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Transexual kittensEdit

I learned a lot from your commentary here:

Thanks for taking the time to dictate such extensive philosophy.

Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 20:45, 5-03-2016 UTC 20:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not my doing, but you're at AN3Edit

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Malformed complain re Hebephilia I cleaned it up a bit. Boomerang, anyone? Meters (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Kristet Utseende change.Edit

I changed transvestite to tranny since the Swedish word is transa in the song title which is a deregatory slang for transvestite in the same way as tranny is in English while the proper Swedish term is transvestit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Elaine Edwards pageEdit

Mr. Flyer22 Reborn,

You recently changed an edit I did to Elaine Edwards page. I am a personal friend of Mrs. Edwards. I was showing her what your website said about her. She saw that you had that she was Catholic. She replied she is not Catholic, but a Christian. I asked her if she would like me to change it. Can you please change it back? Jadame7 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Jadame7, per the WP:Verifiability policy, I should not. Neither should you. Your word is not a WP:Reliable source. We need a WP:Reliable source confirming that matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!Edit

The Gold STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! 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 Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


What you consider to be "unnecessary spoiling" is not considered to be spoiling by many editors. As explained by {{u|Masem]] at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and "spoilers" are plot elements that support encyclopaedic coverage. By all means, draft a change to WP:SPOILER, as you claim to be doing,[4][5] but don't preempt the outcome of the proposal by removing what you consider to be spoilers from articles, as you did at List of The 100 characters. At best it's inappropriate, as WP:SPOILER has had wide support for a long time. --AussieLegend () 18:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, what I consider to be unnecessary spoiling is, in fact, considered unnecessary spoiling by many editors. This is seen with cases like this one at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service, and by multiple complaints at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, and various complaints by our readers across Wikipedia. And yet nothing is being about editors placing spoilers any and everywhere and using the WP:SPOILER guideline for justification. First of all, it is a guideline, not a policy. And there are indeed cases where we should not spoil, such as spoiling the twist ending in the lead of the The Sixth Sense article. If you were to add that spoiler to that lead, do you think most editors would support that it stay there if I started a WP:RfC on it? I don't. WP:Spoiler does not support spoiling any and everywhere without good cause, and yet it is used that way. I told you, "And let's not forget that I left in this spoiler, for reasons explained. But the other one? No, I do not see it as necessary on a page that is meant to give a brief character description; that character has her own Wikipedia article, and I am against unnecessarily spoiling in the lead of her article or with a heading. I included the spoilers where readers should expect them or possibly expect them, and that's the way it should be."
In the future, keep a dispute you have with me in one place. I do not like discussing the same thing in two or more places. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
On a side note: Even though I think it's best not to include huge spoilers unless necessary, I do understand the point that readers should expect spoilers in a plot section or in an article about characters where the sections are mostly plot. I've addressed the matter at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. And I apologize if I came off as aggressive. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


  You're the first person to have ever thanked me for an edit on Wikipedia! Thank YOU! Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016Edit

Been doing a bit too much of the alphabetical ordering, thanks for the tip. Should try to follow conventions more frequently, as I just found this and had never came upon it before. Also need to work on being more meticulous. Sorry if when I modify these notes on your page it keeps showing up as a new message. Thanks again. -Cynulliad, 10 March 2016, 20:00 (UTC)


Hello, there's currently a discussion here and I need your opinion on it. This is related to that discussion you had on Titanic a few months ago. Thanks. -- Wrath X (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrath X, sorry for the late reply, but I don't see what I can state that will help that matter. This is clear by the Titanic discussion. BMK has his style, and, well...we both know where the issue goes from there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response at least. -- Wrath X (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me posting here:Edit

But, tell me- all things being equal, does this appear to be a natural question for an eighteen day old-account with five mainspace edits...? Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I'm not sure what to think about that case. But then again, these days, I'm not as concerned with WP:Socks and other returning editors. The socks who know I will recognize them immediately or soon enough usually know better than to interact with me or edit the articles I edit. As for the ones willing to risk it, I will usually make them regret it...sooner or later; they might not even see it coming. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. We had a curious- but brief- conversation on their TP, which seems to be the end of the affair for the time being. But: peepers peeled :) Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

hope this is right placeEdit

no prob your reversion my edit, but the point is that most technical articles including the shor algorythm, are written at way to high a level with way to much jargon article needs to be fixed; my edit was a not to gentle reminder that the academics who wrote the article have no clue as to what "general encylocpedia" means — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


This wasn't experimenting!

Use of amphetamines have dopaminergic effects (known fact), and also, prolonged use can cause cell death and consequently decrease in dopaminergic activity (known fact again).

In Parkinson's disease there's a decline in dopaminergic cells, which accounts for hyposmia. Drpsyfi (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Hyperosmia Drpsyfi (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


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

sending momemntarily EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy editing in general (and in particular).Edit

As to UK-US spelling, typographic conventions (single quotes for reported speech but double quotes for dialogue) short paragraphs but long sentences (hopefully with appropriate punctuation) I can hold my hands up (but not interlace my fingers and turn around). Instead I reserve the right to bring the court's attention to my deprived background: for the first decade of my working life I worked 'in the print' in Quaint Old London Town back in the days when kerning was something that happened near a light box using a scalpel to cut lithographic film but was still occasionally accomplished with a mallet and chisel. (Yes, really: some of the larger decorative typefaces were wooden.) Given that kind of training it doesn't help when, as I just discovered, my spell checkers. all of them, are set up to conform to UK norms.

Now I'm aware I'll be sure to go with the flow re. the typographic conventions (Honest guv'nor!) but I can't pretend to actually like roaming the vast rolling steppes (prairies) of undifferentiated text searching for conclusions among the vast piles of supporting facts, hopefully by following a breadcrumb trail that signposts something interesting is about to jump off the page and if not bite me, at least engage my interest. No matter how immaculate the source, no matter how many in-line citations, no matter the provenance, in the land where the paragraph is rare, the comma is seldom seen and subordinate clause is an endangered species, all seemingly hunted to near-extinction by periods. (Or full stops as I would say, since when my eye hits a line of them in quick succession it's like driving down rail road tracks: even if you don't come to a juddering halt you really, really want to... and no, I don't do that, where I live the British Transport Police take a very dim very of trespassers. If they saw a driving down the they would probably send helicopters.)

If the problem is a matter of house style, fine. I will stand aside, see how it should be done. If that sounds a little juvenile I apologise but consider this: I have spent the better part of three decades wearing a succession of ill-fitting suits of clothes during working hours so yet another stylistic straitjacket is a turn-off: basically this Wikipedia business is a pass-time for me, albeit one in better cause and with a higher purpose than contributing to any given bulletin board and I suspect I'm not alone.

Bottom line polishing someone else's prose (and particularly to the point of policing another chap's punctuation) is not my thing... and I'm assuming it's not a huge issue since if it was a quotation bot would have messaged me in the same way the kindly Bracket Bot occasionally reminds me I forgot to close parentheses. If it's a matter of personal preference, or a cultural affinity with reading matter that's basically a grocery list I will have, regretfully, to take the well-meaning heads-up under advisement.

While I could blame my quaint national heritage but in this area I'm disinclined to do so, having invested (for which read wasted) far too many years trying to persuade committees sitting in various government departments and QUANGOs (QUasi Autonomous Government Organisations and yes, they are every bit as dire as they sound) that mere mortals can be communicated with in plain English. There the problem was a plethora of legal advisers so focussed on safeguarding the institutions from challenges they lost sight of the basic need to say things that were forthright, truthful and worthwhile. Oddly when that happened there was general amazement and rounds of self congratulation by the most die-hard obscurantists. In that light I'm confident even the most abstruse technical subjects can be explained comprehensibly... but rarely by anyone involved in the trench-fighting that created the agreed draft.

If the basic text is literally incomprehensible or very nearly so (impossibly dense, mind-bendingly abstruse, or written up in such obscure in such arcane terms the average person has little idea what they just read unless they take notes then read all the supporting material) I'd say that's at least an indication that text needs work... which takes me back to the business about the chisel: if an article needs a little gentle prising apart to let a little daylight in, I think I can manage that, but not grinding... and most particularly not polishing.

~~Ebookomane~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebookomane (talkcontribs) 11:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Accolades Table on The Force Awakens discussionEdit

I have seen your previous involvement in article Star Wars: The Force Awakens. There is a discussion being held regarding to link Accolades section to List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens and re-write the section in prose at main article. But one user has a objection and he is reverting constantly with his own reasons, which you can see on article's talk page here. So far only three editors are in discussion please join and write your consensus on this. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 18:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler discussionEdit

Hi Flyer, just to let you know I got your "Spoiler" ping earlier this evening. Unfortunately I had my hands full with a very troublesome (and now indeffed) sock and I was against the clock because the sock got his ANI report in before mine and I'd done quite a bit of reverting so it was obviously imperative I corrected the record, so I didn't get a chance to comment at your RFC. Looking at it I see it's quite an extensive discussion and unfortunately I am about to go to bed! However, my next task on Wikipedia (unless my sock has reappeared) will be to read through it and post my comments, although I've got to be honest with you once discussions get that long they tend to default to "no consensus" regardless of what anyone says. Anyway, I'm just dropping you a note since I've been active since you pinged me and I don't want you to think I'm ignoring the ping. Take care. Betty Logan (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty Logan. I understand about being busy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Huffington Post as RSEdit

Hi Flyer, I saw an edit of yours where you stated Huff Post is a reliable source. Over at this discussion, an editor is claiming that it is NOT a RS. I thought perhaps you could offer some insight on this, if you have the time. Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Rockypedia, what discussion is that where you saw me state that? Or did I state it in an edit summary? Whether or not The Huffington Post is a WP:Reliable source depends. For example, in another case, I recently noted that The Huffington Post is not reliable for that context. See WP:Context matters. That stated, because the community has been repeatedly divided on whether or not The Huffington Post is a WP:Reliable source, as seen if you search this and this archive, I usually avoid it. I recently used it for the Lexa (The 100) article, but that's a fictional character article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I realize it depends. What's your opinion on whether or not it's a reliable source here? The discussion I linked above centers on whether the color orange is worn by anyone on St. Patrick's Day. Rockypedia (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I will weigh in on the discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Starcrossed article Cloud/Aerith deletion by TheJaffEdit

User:TheJaff continues to delete Cloud/Aerith from the Starcrossed article. Please report his behavior. I have undid his edits and sent him multiple messages asking him to stop and he ignored and deleted my messages to his talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

IP, yes, I'd seen TheJaff's latest deletion soon after he did it. I do not see what is left to tell him on this matter; he has been thoroughly warned. But I will see about taking care of this matter later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!Edit

  Hope that you are angry with me, to get closer to you sending some cheeseburger to share and enjoy. May the true God (if exists, which I believe in) bless you. Sharif uddin (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) ...surely you mean, "not angry"...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Sharif uddin, I'm not hungry. And I'm a vegetarian. I already explained what my issues with your editing are. Yes, your editing can make me angry, and people don't like me when I'm angry, but I'm more frustrated by the way you edit than anything else. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a specific venue where I can seek help?Edit

Hello Flyer22 Reborn. There are some wiki articles related to LGBT topics that I feel need improvement and/or attention. Do you know of any specific venue or noticeboard for LGBT-related articles where I can post to make other editors aware of the articles that need attention?

Also, the article Sexual Preference (book) is using using prominent NARTH members, Neil and Briar Whitehead, as sources for a critique of a study. Both have been known to misrepresent studies to support their claims[1] so I am doubtful if they can be considered reliable sources. Is it acceptable to use them or NARTH members in general as sources on Wikipedia? If yes, could you kindly check out the 'Sexual Preferences' article to see if they are being used in the acceptable way? —Human10.0 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Human10.0, as I'm almost entirely responsible for the content of that article, it would have been a courtesy to bring any concerns you have with it directly to me. I suggest that you discuss this issue further at the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if you felt I was being discourteous FreeKnowledgeCreator. I just wanted to confirm if using NARTH members in general in LGBT contexts is acceptable or not before raising any issues. Not really sure what you want to discuss on the talk page. If you are responsible for the addition of the Whitehead's opinion, that means you think it is acceptable to include, unless you were unaware of their reputations and their affiliation with NARTH. —Human10.0 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, I would like to know what exactly the basis of your concern with the content sourced to the Whiteheads is. Do you believe they are misrepresenting the study? What evidence do you have of that? I can understand why you would be concerned if the Whiteheads were expressing fringe views, but as a look through the reception section of the article should confirm, they aren't. What the Whiteheads have said about the study is similar to what other commentators - such as Reiss, Fisher, and especially Zucker and Bradley - have said about it. So why single the Whiteheads out for criticism? These are the sort of issues I would have hoped you would be prepared to discuss, and the talk page of Sexual Preference (book) is the ideal place for that discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The Sexual Preferences article isn't high on my priority list at the moment but don't worry, I will look into it in due time. Given the Whiteheads' affiliation with an organisation that aims to prove that homosexuality is caused almost entirely by social and/or environmental factors rather than actually objectively looking at what causes differences in sexual orientation and given their reputation of misrepresenting studies (and even using discredited sources) to support their claims, I do not see why it is hard to grasp my concerns relating to them being used as if they are sources as reliable as any other. Whether what they've said is corroborated by other authors and whether those other authors themselves are reliable will need to be checked. I will voice any objections I may have on the article's talk page. —Human10.0 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, it is a very bad idea to make unsupported, potentially defamatory assertions about living people. That rule applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. I would strongly advise you not to repeat the claim that the Whiteheads have a "reputation of misrepresenting studies" if you cannot provide any evidence of that, which you have not so far. I also feel obliged to tell you that if you hope to score points in some discussion over article content, unproven and probably unprovable assertions like that are mostly unlikely to help you. Your response avoids answering the question I put to you: as other authors, including respected authors such as Zucker and Bradley, have said things about the Bell study very similar to what the Whiteheads have said, why would you suggest that the Whiteheads may be guilty of misrepresenting it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator: The first source I gave says "NARTH authors again mislead readers." The use of "again" should be a big clue that the NARTH authors in question (the Whiteheads) have a history and 'reputation' of misleading and misrepresentation. Here is another example of Mr. Whitehead being criticized for misrepresenting a study and here a secondary source criticizes him for using the discredited Paul Cameron.[2] While I have entertained your request for evidence, I get the feeling that you are still going to claim that this isn't evidence and instead of using your ability of deduction, you are going to expect me to spoon-feed you a source that uses the words "reputation of misrepresentation" so I think I'm just wasting my time here. Frankly speaking, your response above just seems like an unsuccessful attempt at intimidation tactics. I see no use in dragging this conversation further. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, you are using blogs to cast doubt on someone's reputation. That's not considered acceptable here, per WP:BLP. The only thing these blog posts show is that the Whiteheads have been criticized and had accusations made against them on the internet. Many people get criticized and have accusations made against them on the internet, as you probably know. None of this determines what does and does not count as a reliable source on Wikipedia, since obviously the internet makes it very easy for anyone to make any kind of accusation against anyone. You can question whether anything written by the Whiteheads qualifies as a reliable source, but you are going about it absolutely the wrong way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, sorry for the late reply. Since my work is no longer mainly computer-related, I'm therefore too busy these days to do anything on Wikipedia, except revert matters that need reverting and explaining why I reverted. That is, unless I'm off work on a certain day. As for a specific venue for LGBT-related articles, aren't you aware of WP:LGBT? As for the NARTH stuff, you can take that matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful response Flyer22 Reborn. I was aware of WP:LGBT's existence but I did not know if it had a place for posting requests and questions. Upon closer inspection, it appears WP:LGBT's talk page is the appropriate venue I was looking for. Thank you for helping me find it. Regarding the NARTH stuff, since you are an experienced Wikipedian with thorough knowledge of policies and past consensuses, I was hoping you could let me know if there had been any decisions in the past regarding whether NARTH members can be used as sources or not for LGBT-related content. I guess when I find the time, I will take up the matter with the Reliable sources noticeboard you have linked to. Thanks again.
I know you are quite busy but I hope you didn't mind guiding me about this stuff. I've gotten a hand of editing and rules but I'm still in the process of learning about Wikipedia's venues for aiding editors. I appreciate the help. Regards —Human10.0 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Human10.0, I'm not aware of any ban on NARTH, but you can see from this and this archive link that NARTH was discussed at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and the WP:BLP noticeboard before.
Coming to my talk page about such matters is fine; no worries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the links and your willingness to help Flyer22 Reborn. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Throckmorton W (September 6, 2009). "NARTH authors again mislead readers: More on brain plasticity and sexual orientation". Patheos. Retrieved 25 March 2016. Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  2. ^ "Paul Cameron Bio and Fact Sheet". Retrieved 27 March 2016.


Doesn't really seem to be an "or" sentence. The second half is dealing specifically with perp rates, so they are not opposing or mutually exclusive propositions. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, regarding this (followup edit here), my point is that some of the sources essentially state that "the rates are similar for the number of girls and boys in heterosexual relationships who report experiencing IPV" and other sources essentially state that "girls in heterosexual relationships are more likely than their male counterparts to report perpetrating IPV." Because sources differ on that, I don't see it as a "but" thing.
On a side note: When you have concerns about an edit I made to an article, feel free to discus the matter at the article talk page; I prefer that since the article talk page is usually the more appropriate place, will therefore have documentation of the dispute or other concern, and usually has more eyes than an editor's talk page (well, depending on how high-traffic the article is and the number of watchers the editor has). The watchers at the article talk page are more relevant to the matter than the watchers of an editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI closeEdit

Hi. I've closed the above thread as outlined here, and slightly clarified here. Please have regard for the no-fault restriction imposed by this close, which is also logged at WP:EDR.

I appreciate that this may not be the outcome you would have preferred. Am happy to discuss if required, preferably on my talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

While others are certainly correct that a more permanent ban is needed for this editor, especially since this editor will be at disruption again after the latest topic ban expires, and I didn't see consensus for a two-way interaction ban, your close is fine. I think that editor should know that this means do not "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." And given what I stated about this editor mentioning me, that's a very good thing. I am only mentioning the editor now to clarify this. After this post, I will do what I can not to mention this editor anywhere on Wikipedia...for three months. The two-way ban shouldn't be much of a problem, since the editor is banned from gender and sexuality topics for three months and received a stern warning from you about following me. If I see the stalking pattern again, and it's to the point where I cannot even revert a problematic edit, or mention the problematic edit on the talk page, because of the two-way ban, then that will be a problem. Same goes for us coincidentally being at the same article, if it's a coincidence at all.
Nice close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Susie Greene (The Walking Dead)Edit

I wanted to create this re-direct (all the other Greene's have one) but, it appears IPs can't create pages so... would you mind helping me out, old buddy, old pal? Please and thanks. Here's all you need: #REDIRECT List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters#Susie Greene. Thanks, sweetheart! All the best!Cebr19795:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

User Cebr1979 has declared war on WP (see the last paragraph) after having been banned from editing the encyclopedia. Please do not support him in his efforts to evade the block. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Koala Tea Of Mercy, as you can see from the interaction I had with Cebr1979 here at my talk page, and from the #Funny.... section below, it is very unlikely that I would assist Cebr1979. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Check Your Emails!Edit

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.

User:5 albert square or whatever has something he wants to say to you about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Look, Flyer! You're so safe! User:Oshwah's around! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I see you've made a friend just like I have, Flyer22 Reborn.... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Have protected the page for a while, as we all have better things to do. Flyer22 Reborn, please let me know if you'd like it lifted ahead of time. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Euryalus. Like I told another administrator (via email), Cebr1979 clearly loses it when I ignore him. The Todd Manning and Lexa (The 100) articles could also use semi-protection from Cebr1979 and his IPs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I regret everything. Now he thinks I'm his buddy. clpo13(talk) 06:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
When you made this edit, I understood why you did, even though the IP (Cebr1979) went overboard with removal of "that" (which is clear by grammar experts who debate whether to use "that" when it's actually not needed). In other words, I saw merit in a lot of the edits, but I reverted the IP because any validation of his grammar edits drives him to think that his grammar skills are top notch...when they are not (as made clear by the WP:ANI thread that helped seal his fate), and because he will continue to think he is a net positive for Wikipedia...when he is not. As you know, I reverted a few of his edits after you restored them and replied to him via an edit summary. But attention is what he wants from me, and I am loath to give it to him unless reverting him without comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Childish. (not you, obviously, but Cebr) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


Maybe chill on DV for a sec. I'm going to put on my patient hat and see what happens. I don't want there to be any tension based on past issues. Please continue to monitor, and if things go south we'll do what we do. There's no shortage of rope in the world, and there is certainly a shortage of motivated new editors. I'm no slouch on reverting, so no worries there. Worth a shot right? TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, a WP:Topic ban is a WP:Topic ban, and, as you know, I have absolutely no patience for... Well, I would state more, but you already know how I feel, and there is a WP:Interaction ban for me to respect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, she's intentionally not interacted with you. If she does the same thing with someone else, then it's more rope. If they don't then it's evidence that the IBan was effective. Seems like a win win. TimothyJosephWood 01:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Also I don't understand the relevance of the Euryalus link. Was there a related SPI? TimothyJosephWood 01:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I cannot state much on this matter without violating the interaction ban, and so I'd rather this discussion wrap up. But I will state the following: When an editor is topic-banned, I expect that editor to adhere to the topic ban. In such cases, I am usually not open to the topic ban being ignored, especially if I played a part in seeing that the topic ban was put in place. If I seek a topic ban, it is for a very good reason. In this case, Euryalus stated, in part, "That editor mainly edits in gender and sexuality-related articles. Please stay away from these articles for the duration of the topic ban. Please also stay away from this editor on any other articles, for the duration of the interaction ban." While I wouldn't state that I edit a lot of gender topics, it does not take a genius to understand what a gender topic or gender-related topic is. Domestic violence clearly falls in both categories. And if an editor somehow doubts that domestic violence is a gender topic or gender-related topic, Euryalus also added in "broadly construed." Despite the commentary currently noted on the Euryalus talk page, nowhere is it implied that editing gender topics is okay as long as the edit concerns something that is not directly about gender.
As for my "23:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)" post above, I linked to the Euryalus talk page above because I commented there about the topic ban. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, as I was. I thought here was an IBan, not a TBan. That is a bit different. TimothyJosephWood 10:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)FWIW, the behavior of the other editor was pretty clearly NOTHERE. Raising silly fringe notions and tendentious argument is clearly not helping anything. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


Feel free to comment on the proposed merge that I made on this article. You seem to be very active on most LGBT related topics, don't worry, I won't accuse you of following me to that article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Most LGBT-related topics? Not at all. Mainly the major ones, and I'm not very active on most of them. As for following, it's the logical conclusion that you followed me here. It is not the logical conclusion that I followed you to the Cissexism article. But don't worry; I'm used to people following me after getting out of a heated discussion (in this case, this one) with me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I usually take it as a compliment if an editor follows me to another article, as long as they aren't a dick about it. At least I know that I got their attention. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
In my case, when it comes to editors I just got through arguing with, following me is usually to annoy or harass me, and a number of my talk page watchers can attest to that. If I have no patience for such a matter, I cite WP:Hounding and do something about it. In the case of you having followed me, you had something to state on the relevant policy page about my sockpuppet-catching tactics (that I absolutely stand by, given my excellent history of being right); so I don't mind much at this time, despite your attempted mud-slinging. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It's all about relevance. It someone has something relevant to say, then I couldn't care about WP:Hounding. Besides, I've found myself reverting an editor on one article, and supporting their edits on the next, life is too short for caring too much about stuff happening online. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I will attest to Flyer22 getting harassed. I didn't agree with Flyer about the preserve vs burden thing, but if you are starting to follow her around Spacecowboy, that is a very, very bad idea. You would do better to disengage. Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not about to make someone else's talk page into my personal battlefield, so I will make this as succinct as possible. I commented on a sock-puppet talk page, regarding a sock-puppet related interaction that Flyer and I had in the past. I don't see that as an issue. I invited Flyer to comment on a talk page for a LGBT related article, due to me encountering Flyer in the past on similar articles. Again, not as issue. This was a peace offering, seeing as it's a nice Friday evening, and grudges should never be carried over the weekend. No need to disengage from anything, but thanks for caring. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it is just best that you disengage on this page and take Jytdog's excellent advice. Montanabw(talk) 02:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's best that you don't concern yourself with my edits and move along. I see nothing rude, disruptive or invasive in my comments, so I don't welcome your intrusion into this matter. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker MusalyarEdit

Hi, good morning please revert to 717042592 Thanks WikiRescuer (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiRescuer, I already made that revert and you thanked me for it via WP:Echo. Is your post here meant to thank me again? I sense a language barrier between us. Either way, that editor will likely revert me again, and it's likely that I don't have the passion to see to it that the inappropriate changes stop. Also, that article needs works as a whole. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's block these users from editing the page (User:Nashar.Elaf and User:Vasikhali) check history - WikiRescuer (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?Edit

Ages of consent in Europe#Denmark - I think recent edits here may violate the pedophilia policy. I think you would know better than I. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Jacona, I see that you mean this material that another editor reverted. It wasn't a WP:Pedophilia violation, but it obviously wasn't good content either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your taking a look. Jacona (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Danny DeVitoEdit

I left an edit on Danny DeVito and I had found that it was constructive, in showing that he still has some relevancy. You had removed it earlier, and I was wondering if you could replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdpfluke3 (talkcontribs) 03:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Rdpfluke3 (talk · contribs), no, material was inappropriate; see WP:BLP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with what I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdpfluke3 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Religious views of the Beatles?Edit

I saw your message about an edit I made on that page and I can honestly say that I don't remember ever making any edits to it, so I guess I have no problems with any changes you made there! (it's been a long time, I don't remember how to sign, I'm sorry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just checked out my edit history and realized that I'm not actually signed in! I'm supposed to be the user Chevellefan11, so that would explain why I don't remember those edits, I never made them! I must have picked up another IP address or something? No matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I see you reverted a rather extensive and informative addition to the "Druze" article, but you didn't say why. I presume it's because the editor didn't cite any sources, and not because the added matter was dubious or incorrect. (I have no idea how reliable the new matter really was, so if my presumption is wrong, kindly correct me.) You've been on Wikipedia long enough not to need education from me, but I'd still like to suggest that, in a case like this, it's better to add a "Citation needed" tag, than to delete unsourced information. If unsourced matter is dubious or incorrect (or otherwise inappropriate), then I agree that it should be deleted; but uncontroversial matter doesn't necessarily have to be attributed to a source, even though it's better practice to cite sources for everything. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think part of the problem might have been that the material added was perhaps so nongrammatical that it wasn't entirely clear what it was saying, maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Ha-ha! I've seen worse on Wikipedia, but fair enough. Still, wouldn't it have been more Wikipedian to clean up the spelling and grammar, and add a "Citation needed" tag? Or even just to add a "copy-edit|section" tag, or something similar? It's no big deal, of course, but the editor was clearly working in good faith (which Flyer22_Reborn acknowledged), and it seems like some encouragement might have been in order. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. But I am reminded of an English language article in an Indian anthropological journal (really, an academic journal) apparently written by a more or less native English language speaker in India on Dorje Shugden I read once recently, where I honestly could not be sure what the hell it was saying. Part of the problem with clean-up like that is the moderate OR question of thinking you know what they were saying, and then, maybe, finding out you were wrong. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've encountered the same problem, especially in articles translated from other languages. There's only so much one can do without a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the topic. That's partly why I'm not telling anybody what to do here, just making some suggestions. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jdcrutch. As seen by a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, I completely understand what you mean about preserving content. In the aforementioned case, though, I was WP:Patrolling with limited time (meaning I was busy and was just then utilizing some free time before leaving Wikipedia again), and I couldn't easily identify what was being added from a quick Google search. In addition to that, the editor appeared to be adding original research and the content used poor grammar. I felt that it was better to revert the addition and leave the editor with a note about our sourcing standards, which I obviously did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the cordial reply. I can't say you did wrong in this case. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


A RfC on an article in which you've been involved in has been opened here. This notice has been provided to the five most recent participants on the article Talk page as an WP:APPNOTE. LavaBaron (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work! Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Indeed, I appreciated the ping in so far as it was instructive if not surprising (and ultimately very sad) to see that the shamed desysopped individual can't just move on, reliving how he would have done it differently. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


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

Degree CelsiusEdit

" Unit of thermodynamic temperature (kelvin) The definition of the unit of thermodynamic temperature was given in substance by the 10th CGPM (1954, Resolution 3; CR, 79) which selected the triple point of water as the fundamental fixed point and assigned to it the temperature 273.16 K, so defining the unit. The 13th CGPM (1967/68, Resolution 3; CR, 104 and Metrologia, 1968, 4, 43) adopted the name kelvin, symbol K, instead of “degree Kelvin,” symbol °K, and defined the unit of thermodynamic temperature as follows (1967/68, Resolution 4; CR, 104 and Metrologia, 1968, 4, 43): The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. ... Because of the manner in which temperature scales used to be defined, it remains common practice to express a thermodynamic temperature, symbol T, in terms of its difference from the reference temperature T0 = 273.15 K, the ice point. This difference is called the Celsius temperature, symbol t, which is defined by the quantity equation: t = T − T0. The unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, symbol °C, which is by definition equal in magnitude to the kelvin. A difference or interval of temperature may be expressed in kelvins or in degrees Celsius (13th CGPM, 1967/68, Resolution 3, mentioned above), the numerical value of the temperature difference being the same. However, the numerical value of a Celsius temperature expressed in degrees Celsius is related to the numerical value of the thermodynamic temperature expressed in kelvins by the relation t/°C = T/K − 273.15. The kelvin and the degree Celsius are also units of the International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90) adopted by the CIPM in 1989 in its Recommendation 5 (CI-1989; PV, 57, 115 and Metrologia, 1990, 27, 13)." [1]

Note, Celsius is not a temperature scale although the degree Celsius is used in the thermometers. ("Thermometrists generally refer to temperatures below 0 °C in kelvin, and those above in degrees Celsius"[2])

The Celsius article in its part "Common temperatures" talks about scales in Kelvin and Celsius. These are not different scales! Just the value of a quantity measured on the same temperature scale is presented with different unit of measure.

Please use Celsius temperature and degree Celsius and try to not state that the Celsius is a temperature scale. For more information for Thermodynamic and practical temperature scales.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community SurveyEdit

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


concerning which PoV am I pushing by expanding on sources which already were in there, by adding relevant citations from them into the text of the article? you're deluded — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You know which. And if you don't know which, you shouldn't be editing that article. Furthermore, do not look to WP:Primary sources for material on human intelligence. Look to WP:Secondary sources, preferably review articles. And do sign your username when you post to my talk page or any other talk page on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
the source was in there before and was good enough to be used for the claim "no difference in average intelligence" - but literally the next line in the text about men dominating the field of top scorers in almost all categories is "bad", right? If you think so then YOU are biased you PoVPoS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This shows what you added, in front of a 1995 source. Catch up on the literature. Or you are ignoring what it states in its entirety? The literature on sex differences in intelligence is not as black and white as you are making it out to be.
For a taste of what I mean, this 2011 The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence source, from Cambridge University Press, page 254, states, "Although some researchers report a small advantage for males on tests that were standardized to show no sex differences (Nyborg, 2005), most studies do not (Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad & Garcia, 2000; Spinath, Spinath, & Plomin, 2008). In a recent review of this question, Dykiert, Gale, and Deary (2008) found that reported sex differences on intelligence tests can be explained by the use of samples that are not representative of females and males, in general, and thus reflect errors in the methods used to study this question. This conclusion was confirmed by Hunt and Madhyastha (2008), who provided a model of the subject-selection problem that occurred in studies that report sex differences in intelligence. Researchers vary in the extent to which they stress either similarities or differences. In a comprehensive review of the sex differences literature, Hyde (2005) concluded that males and females are more similar than different. By contrast, Irwing and Lynn (2005) focused their discourse on differences. The reality is far more nuanced, with some tests and measurements showing consistent findings that favor one sex over the other and many others that show little or no differences."
So perhaps the content you think was being hidden was excluded because it is not representative of the literature and is inaccurate and WP:Undue weight. So, no, I'm not biased on this matter. I'm simply sticking to the what the literature states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
again: the source you question now was in there before. No one had a problem with it being used. As long as only the politically correct part was quoted. Now that I quote what the source actually says, you suddenly have a problem with it. Because you are biased.
And then you give ONE source which even says of itself it's trying to make sure there's no sex difference in the tests. Completely unbiased, right? If we make the tests in a way it evens out any sex differences there might be there then there can't be sex differences to show nananana ...
You're an ideologue and you can't even see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
since you seem to think "newer is better":
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2004) mentioned on
It matters not that the source I question was in there before. And I do not pay much attention to that article. I watch that article, just like I watch a lot of other articles. For some, I heavily edit; for others, I keep junk and bias out. What matters is that you biased the text without presenting the full picture. It was POV-pushing at its best. And I will eventually fix that text. It makes not a bit of sense to have that article relay information that is contrary to what the literature generally states, that is contrary to what the Sex differences in intelligence article relays. It's not a matter of being politically correct; it's a matter of reflecting the literature accurately. And the one source I gave above (which is a source you've clearly misread) showcases a page analyzing the literature; it cites review articles, which are ideal. The sources you cited above are not ideal; they are poor. It's not about newer being better. Do read WP:Primary sources. Do read what a review article is. Do see WP:MEDRS, and especially its WP:MEDDATE section. It's not a matter of newer being better. It's a matter of quality. Like the quality source I provided above states, "The reality is far more nuanced, with some tests and measurements showing consistent findings that favor one sex over the other and many others that show little or no differences." Accept it, and do move on, to another site, with your male superiority complex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:DFTT, Flyer. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I do for some cases. Looking at the Psychology Today source, I would hope that the IP is not Memills (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


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

Jim1138 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are one in a million, Flyer!Edit

  The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Caitlyn Jenner (estimated annual readership: 8,469,460) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Citing celebrity magazinesEdit

Thanks for the RS/N link. I think we're in agreement on this: as I understand it, People and the like, and, to a lesser extent, true tabloids like the Daily Mail, are quasi-reliable sources: perfectly fine for most purposes but unacceptable for contentious claims, especially about living people. With the edit in question, the problems don't stop there: neither of the two references support the proposition that Ms. Heard was arrested. Instead, they say she was "allegedly arrested" per reporting by TMZ, and E! went so far as to add that it "cannot confirm the report." Cheers. Rebbing 05:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Rebbing. When it comes to the content that Caladonia added, and me linking to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?, I linked to that discussion because, a few years ago, there was a lot of drama regarding the use of celebrity magazines as sources for BLPs. The full backstory can be found at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 14#Continuing disruption by User:John on biography articles. Multiple discussions took place, culminating in the aforementioned RfC, which mostly focused on People magazine. In all of the discussions, editors generally agreed that sources like People and Us Weekly are usually fine to use for BLPs, sometimes even for contentious material in BLPs, and that these sources are not least not in the same vein as the Daily Mail and similar. What counts as contentious was also debated. On a side note: What counts as contentious has also been debated times over at the WP:BLP talk page; see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading.
Anyway, because of how the RfC was closed, I worried that editors would take the close to mean that People should never be used for contentious material, even though the close goes on to note a case-by-case basis aspect. It seems that's the viewpoint you took away from the close as well. This is what the closer (I, JethroBT) stated of my concern: "Hi Flyer, thanks for your feedback. If it's helpful, I agree with NeilN's suggestions here that would have been useful to clarify in my close-- I'm sorry that this causing more trouble. In my defense, I tried to stick to the language used by many editors in that RfC, and they variously stated that 'contentious' material should not be sourced to People (or at least, not alone). To speak to your example, I would say that unless there are discrepancies between it and other reliable sources, something like a celebrity's birthday or their family members could be reasonably sourced to People. I agree that sometimes editors will call something contentious, but there should be a demonstrable reason why that is so (which it may well be in specific cases). Calling it a 'gossip magazine' or saying that birth dates are simply iffy in People alone just aren't going to cut it, for instance. John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement."
Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Huh! Thank you for the interesting backstory. I hate to be agreeable, but I think we're still on the same page: By "contentious," I mean truly and articulably debatable or problematic, not merely subject to some doubt. And it seems only logical that when a contentious claim is backed up by a rock-solid source, there's no problem with also citing Us Magazine. Do I have it straight now?
For whatever it's worth, I don't think I've challenged these sorts of sources before; I know I've used them plenty of times for things like marriages. Also, I'm not a RS hardliner: in a perfect encyclopedia, every claim would be supported by a reliable source, but a credible source is good enough for most things, especially when so many articles are virtually unsourced.
Also, I realize I was mistaken to call these magazines "tabloids," as they're obviously not the same thing. Rebbing 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean about "truly and articulably debatable or problematic." I would want better sourcing than Us Weekly for domestic violence issues (like the aforementioned Heard matter). Even if People were used, I might think it's better to go with a reputable newspaper source, or to at least cite People beside it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner has been nominated for Did You KnowEdit

 Hello, Flyer22 Reborn. Caitlyn Jenner, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oryx and CrakeEdit

Tommster1 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1 -------------

Hello Flyer22... . I here write again cuz I'm not sure I did it correctly earlier. Also I have some more things to add.

This is what I already wrote you:

          *** Hello Flyer22Reborn. Tommster1 here. This is my first time engaging in a "reverted" edit discussion process.       Please pardon any procedural, style or terminology deviations-from-norm. I am quite open to learning and playing along with sensible customs, etc.        Before I get to the edit content matters, a bit of human-context preliminary might be constructive.    As we know, e-text communication between people easily gets tonally bad very fast, which readily ruins everything else, even when both parties have no such intention or predisposition. I hope to avoid this ever-hovering trap by cutting as much slack as possible and giving maximum benefit-of-the-doubt in interpreting the words, tone and tacits encountered in this discussion process. I trust you will do likewise.    Also, I would prefer to do edit this discussion via email, but I do not have your address, nor know how to get it. Also, I am not clear if we are proceeding here just as two 'status equal' Wiki supporters and users and contributors, or if there is some official Wiki organizational power-hierarchy position involved from your end. Please clarify such for me.  Thanx. 
    I believe the edit cancellation is substantively mistaken. In the email and link I got announcing the "undone" included these words:   
    "...has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment...".         I must say that I find the descriptor "not appear constructive" plainly false as applied to the edits I made, all of which added relevant story-factual and plot-contextual information, along with improving on the misleading word choices and omissions of the current (reverted) version. I will itemize on these shortly.        
   Regarding the "...experiment" part, which FYI impacted me as unwarrantedly dismissive, condescending and insulting; the fact is I took substantial time and great care in the edits I wrote; They were quite substantive; and I take public intellectual and cultural things quite seriously and value them highly.        
      The edits under discussion, which You (I take it, despite the responsibility evading "has been..." phrasing) undid is on the Oryx and Crake page.  

I have just finished reading the book for the 2nd time, and had it in front of me for reference as I wrote my edits. I don't know how to get my edits which you cancelled back to quote them exactly here, (How do I do such?), so I will just discuss their substance.

      The first edit-item issue is straightforward, it seems to me.  Crake repeatedly specifies and refers to the fact that it's only the Grandmasters, the proven best experts of the Extinctathon game, that he's interested in. So describing them in my edit as "expert" rather than as merely "proficient" is more correct and informative.        
  Second edit:    The name of the pill, which you leave unstated, is "BlyssPluss". This is obviously an informative and suggestive name. It's main (open to public) purpose and marketing appeal in the story was for drastically improved sex, which is why my description of it as a "Viagra-like super pill" was both correct and aptly descriptive and correctly suggestive. Merely describing it as "a prophylactic agent" is vague,ambiguous and highly misleading by omission and mis-suggestion. Specifically, the phrase "a prophylactic agent" is vague and ambiguous cuz it doesn't specify What it prevents or causes: pregnancy from one intercourse, or permanent sterility, or something else?  It is misleading because it stands alone, which falsely suggests it is the main or only important feature of the pill for the story.  It's (secret) permanent-sterility rendering function (not mere "prophylactic") is mentioned only once and plays no further role in the story. In fact, it's super-Viagra aspects, along with its secret killer-virus carrying function, are both Much more important and prominent in the story.        The fact that in the story the pill's sterility and  features were both secret from the public, and the virus-carrying it's Most important feature for the story, and that the whole point of the kill-off-by-pill-virus was to prepare the way for the Crakers to be the subsequent 'better' version of humanity on earth, justifies the parenthetical "(deceptive)" indication in the edit regarding Crakers as floor models.     So again, as here specifically detailed, these edits comprise a constructive, informative improvement. 
   If you still somehow disagree with any of this, please indicate how so.  We can bog down to the level of specific page refs, etc, for proofs if you require. But I believe these claims are obvious to any impartial reader currently familiar with the story. 
   Therefore I will reinstate my edits pending itemized substantive response, comprising refutation on these points.   I amiably welcome any further discussion on this story of common interest.  :-) 

Tommster1 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1

---Tommster1 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1

this is new addendum to the above:

    I was stunned and dismayed to discover after writing the above that you had categorized my edits as "test/vandalism" !!??  Huh???  Where are you possibly coming from on this??  A stunningly  ungenerous, distorted, unmerited and false take.
I really don't get it.  It was a good faith, highly considered and well intentioned edit. What possible basis for such categorization is there? If there is any, please let's hear it now. I've seen not one substantive point or content-specific response made re the edits themselves nor on my above explanation and defense of them. the only thing I can think of that could possibly trigger such a response, in someone so predisposed, is the use of the word "Viagra" in the pill description.  Is that a problem for you in some way?   If these reversions and this false-and-offensive characterization are not mere expressions of base pseudo-proprietary territorial animal feelings regarding the page, I would welcome some friendly and intellectually substantive detailed response to the edits, rather than unjustified peremptory overrides and mischaracterizations.     Thank You.  Tommster1

Tommster1 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Tommster1

Tommster1, sorry for reverting your edit as test/vandalism. It was a mistake, which can happen with WP:STiki. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi, just to let you know you have a new message on talk page of that page. Cheers! Q. C. D. L. (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC implementationEdit

It looks like you accidentally implemented an old draft of SMcCandlish's proposal at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. I changed it to the most up do date one. Do I need to edit my closing rationale to make it more clear which version was selected? Am I missing something? Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, regarding this, this and this, sorry for my mishap. I had looked over the Sixth proposal (synthesizing all of the above) section before implementing the text, but I clearly came away with the older text. Yes, as the discussion shows, I prefer SMcCandlish's latter text. Thanks for implementing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Halp: I broke something in my sandboxEdit

Was simply trying to clean up the references in Username:Eaterjolly/sandbox/Macrophilia and boom the third reference is invisible. It's still taking up the same spot and the anchor link I created for it works, but for some reason it's blank and doesn't show any of the reference info. "xD

I would greatly appreciate if you could fix it for me, or at the very least point out what I did that caused the error. I moved several other references to the bottom of the source and they still work fine. Pwetty Pwease with a cherry on top XDEaterjolly (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eaterjolly: The problem was you'd misspelled "Wierdly" as "Wierldly." Note the error message shown in place of that footnote: "The named reference Wierldly was invoked but never defined" along with the error shown at the bottom of the reflist: "A list-defined reference named 'Wierdly' is not used in the content." In other words, you're using a reference named Wierldly that doesn't exist and you have a reference named Wierdly that you're not using. I went ahead and fixed it. I also removed the quote marks you'd put in the values for that citation—template parameters rarely if ever should be quoted.
A tip: instead of invoking references with <ref name=Name />, you can use {{r|Name}}. It's especially useful for sequential footnotes or footnotes with non-word names, as you can use {{r|Jones (2001)|Smith (2015)}} instead of the cumbersome <ref name="Jones (2001)" /><ref name="Smith (2015)" />.
Cheers! Rebbing 04:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rebbing: For some reason the error message won't render in my browser. (ref 3 = just blank) I, however, greatly appreciate you catching the mistake! --Eaterjolly (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eaterjolly: Welcome! Also, I'd forgotten that reference errors aren't visible by default. If you'd like them to show up—I find it most useful—follow the instruction at H:SHOWCITEERROR. Rebbing 15:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My talk pageEdit

I'm sorry, but you are not welcome to post on my talk page, unless required to by wikipedia rules. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, and when have I made it a habit to visit your talk page? Like I just stated, "I would prefer not to visit your talk page. Indeed, my visiting that talk page has been a rare occasion. I prefer not to visit the talk pages of those I have a tempestuous history with. But Wikipedia requires that I notify you of an WP:ANI report I've started on you, regardless of already having pinged you in this section." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, consider the source. He did the same to me, only I hadn't filed on sense wasting bandwidth on him. Montanabw(talk) 08:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: If this editor causes much more disruption, it might be best to go ahead and do what you initially felt should be done. Yes, he will return and return, but temporary debilitation can work wonders. Besides, you have enough evidence now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi Flyer. Hope you are well.

By coincidence, after working on Neo-American Church (a cheerful article!) I was led to another Neo American Church and thus to create the artice George Feigley. Apparently this guy was a bush-league Charles Manson type except instead of killing strangers he preyed on his own flock's kids. That was a hard article to research (having to read shit like this and so on). Then when checking his vital dates I come to his tribute page which is bare except that one woman has left one memento: "A light in the window. a kiss at the door."

I can't express why that shook me up, but it did. It's nothing as simple as "Lady, puh-leeze", it's more like... can't deny the web of emotions that binds us together, the horrible and the sweet, and the monsterous Feigley and that poor (and probably old, now) deluded woman -- and me, as I'm human too -- intertwined in some web of humanity that just feels inexpressibly sad. I don't like being a human, today. I'll get over it, but not today.

Oh right, Wikipedia. I really came here because you're the only person who might understand why I'm shaken, but... we're supposed to be communicating about Wikipedia. Um, let's see... well, that article was previously deleted twice (but once as an attack page, once as cut-and-paste copyvio, and the person's dead now too), so probably technically someone ought to review it to make sure it's OK now, and since nothing scares you maybe you'd be willing to. Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, I'll get back to you on this. Right now, I'm about to get to work and am just checking my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
From what I see, you did okay with the article. I'm not sure about the quoting style; it's not a style I often see in our articles anymore. As for the subject matter and disturbing views on it... Yes, I understand. Cases like those make people question humanity. There's so much wrong in the world, which is why the news can make people depressed or lose hope in mankind ("humankind" for the politically correct). I don't even watch television as much as I used to (I usually catch up on my shows on the Internet), so I'm often late to the latest news (even though the news is on the Internet too), like the two recent Orlando tragedies: Christina Grimmie and 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
All true, and thanks for the extra set of eyes! Herostratus (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As a side...Edit

I think you meant "block log", not "blog log", in your user page. I think. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Penwhale, fixed here and here; text is now consistent with previous mention of "block log." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Caitlyn JennerEdit

 On 24 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caitlyn Jenner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 1976 Summer Olympics decathlon champion Caitlyn Jenner (pictured) was once a Playgirl magazine cover model? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caitlyn Jenner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Caitlyn Jenner), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The "just a guideline" messagingEdit

I was responding to you giving that "just a guideline you can ignore" kind of view in two different threads at WT:MOSIMAGES, and thinking of a similar statement on a different page (I forget where, and it's not like I keep a log of this stuff). By "lately" I meant in the last few days. I was not thinking as far back as the Cebr issue. I don't mean to imply that you're generally campaigning long-term against MoS consensus, just that very lately you seemed to be doing so. I should have just taken the concern to user talk instead of airing it on the guideline talk page; mea culpa. It is a concern to me because the "it's just a guideline" messaging is harmful to consensus and stability, and it's simply wrong. WP:PAG makes it clear that guidelines are not optional; rather, guidelines are about best practices and policies are about system-functional necessities. It's like the difference between complying with what your boss tells you to do at work and complying with federal law. Your boss can't put you in prison, but bad results will still happen if you ignore your employer. Maybe not the best analogy, but whatever.

The point is, "guideline" is not another word for "essay". And even some essays are effectively not optional (e.g. WP:BRD most of the time, and WP:AADD, which admins reviewing consensus discussions take very seriously). Basically what it comes down to is that consensus is consensus, wherever it forms, and it doesn't matter what the the banner template at the top of the page is. A "this is just a guideline" stance, when advanced as an exhortation to ignore what you don't like even when WP:IAR does not legitimately apply, is basically an exercise in WP:LAWYER / WP:GAME / WP:BUREAUCRACY attempts at loophole exploitation. The #1 MoS-related problem on WP is people gaming the "guideline" thing to claim exception (without legit IAR grounds) from something they don't like, then bludgeoning other editors with something else in it that they insist on as if the guideline were a policy (we see this all the time at RM with various naming convention guidelines, too). It's legitimate to point out that MoS or any other guideline is just a guideline, in the sense of a somewhat flexible consensus on what the best practices are for the WP context, when (and pretty much only when) someone is trying to WP:GAME in the other direction, treating a blockheaded interpretation of a guideline item as something like a legal policy requirement, in defiance of WP:COMMONSENSE.

To return to the context at hand, when the community determines in a very widely advertised RfC that "ethnic galleries" have proven to be hornet-nests of disruptive strife, and a challenge to that RfC results in a WP:SNOWBALL in favor of the RfC, this is not a good opportunity to play the "MoS is just a guideline" card, which strongly implies "ignore the guideline, ignore the RfC, and ignore the RfC's affirmation; if you want to use an ethnic gallery, just do it!" That's seriously not a productive message to send, intentionally or not. If I'm just totally misinterpreting everything you're saying, then I apologize; I'm not a mind reader, and can only go by what I see posted.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: I collapse-boxed that entire digression over at WT:MOSIMAGES, with the comment that it's off-topic and that maybe I was just overreacting.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, and I reiterate that I have not given any "just a guideline you can ignore" kind of view. I told you: Never do I state that our guidelines or policies should just be ignored; I state that our guidelines are not mandatory and those who treat them like they are mandatory cause a lot of problems. I state that we can and should ignore a policy or guideline if the reason is valid. And I state that exactly because of what the WP:Buro and WP:Ignore all rules policies relay. There is nothing flawed about that understanding. You stated, "IAR is not some magic wand to wave a guidelines you don't like." Well, if you take a look at the history of my contributions, I've stated the same thing a number of times. Earlier this year, I stated, "Those who refuse to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and cite WP:Ignore all rules as though it allows them to do any and everything they want at this site are WP:Disruptive and should be called out on it. They are also lazy to boot, since they don't take the time to learn the rules. Thank goodness the world has rules, including laws and all that. Otherwise... Well, you know." In 2014, I stated, "I take it like this: I follow Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, unless there is a valid WP:Ignore all rules reason not to do so. I point out those policies and/or guidelines to editors who are unfamiliar with them or may need a reminder on them (or simply in case a WP:Newbie comes across the discussion). If people cannot take the time to read and follow those policies and/or guidelines, they should not be editing Wikipedia. Call that WP:Wikilawyering if you must; I do not. I do not care not if those people come back, since they are one of the main problems with Wikipedia."
So in what way is that not clear that I usually follow and endorse the rules? When I note that something is a guideline in response to someone calling a guideline a policy, it is because it is an important distinction. We do not need editors acting like our guidelines are mandatory and have no leeway. You brought up the mandatory aspect as though policies are not about that. Our policies are indeed seen as mandatory (usually anyway), while our guidelines are seen as less so. There are a number of our guidelines that have optional aspects. For example, sometimes I'm there at the WP:Lead talk page discussing matters, and editors make it very clear that we do not have to do everything the WP:Lead guideline states (such as the standard four-paragraph lead). At the WP:MOS talk page, there have been numerous points made that a lot of the language is meant to guide, not demand. WP:MOS at times uses words like "in general" or "may," just like a number of our other guidelines. WP:Words to watch states at the very top, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." WP:MEDMOS is not something we have to strictly follow. Neither is what we see at MOS:FILM. WP:PAG cites WP:Buro, and WP:Buro is how I edit. So I don't agree with the viewpoint that our guidelines are never optional unless we have a legitimate "WP:Ignore all rules" concern. They have optional language at some parts, and they are not viewed as seriously as are policies are. So if someone calls a guideline a policy, which is what happened in the case you decided to challenge me on, I'm going to note that it's not a policy and that guidelines have more leeway. As for WP:BRD, that has been debated times over (I was there), including the debate over whether or not to elevate that essay to a guideline. And "optional" was eventually added to the top of it. It's still there now. WP:BRD has guideline power, but it's still seen as an essay. Same goes for WP:AADD. I understand your concern about the gallery matter, but I was not stating or implying that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES should be ignored. I do, however, think that there may be room for a case-by-case basis as far as that guideline goes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So you two are still battling it out pretending to be smart... At least you're both consistent. I'll give you that.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And you're still obsessed with me. Can't say I blame you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Human male sexualityEdit

I don't mean to be rude, just curious. I added two other orientations to human male sexuality (heterosexuality and bisexuality) in order to expand the article since it only encompasses homosexuality, which is only one male orientation. Wouldn't the article benefit from having a broad range of human male sexualities? Otherwise it appears as if the article is only focusing on homosexuality in men, and that topic is already covered in an article catering only to homosexuality. You thought I was content forking, but I'm fairly certain heterosexuality and bisexuality are valid orientations in men, therefore should be included in an article covering all male sexualities. Please explain just in case I have made a mistake. Vchero (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Vchero, yes, that article needs expansion, but not in the way you expanded it. Also, I wonder why your edit to that article was WP:Revision deleted. Anyway, that the article is poor and oddly focuses on male homosexuality has been made clear at Talk:Human male sexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This is just a driveby Flyer. The CDC does not use the term bisexual anymore for men at least . I know this anecdotally by own research on AIDS infection rates. The new term is, "men who have sex with men" abbreviated MSM. No idea how useful this is, but it does differentiate a male bisexual from a female. Wlmg (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Wlmg (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought the same thing about the revert! Also, male bisexuality is still prevalent and many males identify as bisexual, not solely "men who have sex with men" (which would be homosexual). Bisexuality is the physical attraction to 2 genders, namely male and female, but is also loosely applied to pansexuality (the physical attraction to people regardless of gender). It is fine, however, thank you anyways. Vchero (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl Arutt COIEdit

Hi old friend. I just got off the phone with her sister and she was screaming at me and says Cheryl thinks I'm stalking her. I did the best I could to polish the article breaking it into sections etc. However, Cheryl herself wrote the bulk of the article herself. She is a COI editor, and I'm likely a little bit myself. I would ask you to take a look at it. Inho all the primary sources have to be chopped. The article is imbalanced overcited in some areas and sorely lacking sources in others. Is there anyway we can whittle it back to a stub by losing the weak cites, the trivial unsourced claims, and quite frankly self-indulgent puffery that I whittled away some from her article. She really is barely notable when you don't count the primary sources which are all redundant anyways I know you edit fast so that's why I'm asking you. Cheryl Arutt --Wlmg (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wlmg, sorry for the late reply. I meant to respond two days ago. I'm not sure what I think about that article, other than the fact that it should abide by WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:COI. I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days. And when I do, I'd still rather not spend my time here. For example, I've been off from work this last week and will be off the next week as well, and I'm still not taking the time to improve the articles I can significantly improve. Instead, I've been checking in on Wikipedia every other day or two days and then trying to leave it as soon as possible. There are a lot of other things I'd rather be doing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyways Flyer an admin I've had a longstanding relationship with is working on it. She can edit so fast that literally in the time it would take you and I to create a cite , she can create a whole article to support where the cite would be. Glad to see you work Flyer. Wikipedia isn't worth dying for :-( --Wlmg (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi there,

I'll add a comment for you in a moment on the veganism talk page. It'd be great if you could reply please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi again,

I added some further comments / questions in the talk page as part of the on going discussion to the points raised. This was a couple of weeks or so ago. I've just gone to check if there is a response. The entire conversation has disappeared. Could you help out with that please? I'm a bit of out my depth there.

Any help is appreciated of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, IP. Talk page threads are routinely archived. You can find the archives at the top of the talk page, but don't continue the discussion in the archive. To continue a previous discussion, you can simply link to the archive in a new section on the talk page and add on to what you wanted wanted to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


I did these changes: Like most sex workshops people taking the course have to agree to a non-disclosure clause. Quodoushka regards children and infants as sexual beings in the sence that they have sexual energy. No one teaching Quodoushka would ever agree that having sex with a child or infant is ok.

How exactly are they not constructive? The things that are writen before my changes are formulated in a way to make Chuluaqui-Quodoushka look like a secret sanctuary for phedofiles. Explain please. Senjinone1 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Senjinone1, I was going to recheck on that matter. I went ahead and removed all of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that looks alot better. Senjinone1 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ephebophilia picture need revisitedEdit

If you recall Flyer, the pic was a shard of Greek pottery depicting the catomite -pederast relationship that was really quite unsatisfactory and implied a bit of original research and imagination. I never gave up on finding a picture and believe I am very close to a solution or maybe not. I found a picture of Charlie Chaplin with his paramour theoretically this picture will enter the public domain next year. I went to my first wiknic yesterday and met some of the most intelligent nonjudgmental group of people I have ever met in Manhattan. One gentleman specializes in photos, the Sonny Bono Law, the works. I believe I can slip it into the wikicommons next year, and the article will look beautiful. A Wikipedia article without a picture is like a rose without its petals. --Wlmg (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wlmg, just like the Pedophilia and Hebephilia articles don't need lead images, I don't think that the Ephebophilia article needs one either. I also don't see that any image would be an appropriate lead image for these articles, or if we placed the image lower to represent the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


I know you're experienced with sock puppet stuff, so I could do with your advice... There's an obvious sockpuppet arguing with me on the Radiohead talk page. But it's not too serious, just some naive IP user. What's the proper way to handle it? Give them a warning? Popcornduff (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoops - disregard this. This obviously isn't a sockpuppet case (or at least I don't think so). I just can't read properly! Popcornduff (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to Charlotte135 about the topic ban and interaction banEdit

Charlotte135, regarding the topic ban and interaction ban and this, I'm sure you know that I'd rather you simply avoid me. To avoid me, avoiding articles I heavily edit or have heavily edited is essential. One could argue that you should not limit yourself from editing these articles, but, given your topic bans and our history, one could also argue that you should. In the topic ban/interaction ban discussion, Liz seemed to suggest that it is easy enough for us to avoid each other. But from what I keep seeing, it is not. Going by the two times you have been topic-banned, you dabbled in other topics while biding your time. Once the topic ban expired the first time, you were back to a previous dispute you had with me before and then took to editing a number of articles I've heavily edited and lightly edited. And now since the expiration of this topic ban, you are back at one of the articles I heavily edit. In contrast to what Liz stated in the the topic ban/interaction ban discussion, one can be an adult and be clear that help is needed when it comes to interacting with another adult, much like the case of a restraining order. So I went to WP:ANI twice for such help. And, to me, it seems that twice still will not be enough. My opinions on you editing certain topics and interacting with me will never change. And if I continue to see that I need help when it comes to those matters, I will seek it. But if it's a matter on an article talk page, I will try to be less annoyed about it and focus more on the present than on the past. When it comes to interacting with you, other than what I've recently stated about you and above in this section, I have nothing more to state. I had not even been thinking about you until I recently saw you at the Child abuse article and that you had left a message for me on your talk page. If you want to respond to me about any of this, I suggest you use your talk page. I do not welcome you here at mine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me be explicitly clear: If I continue to sense that you are WP:Hounding (stalking) me, whether it's to articles I heavily edit or ones I've lightly edited but clearly have an interest in, such as this one you've suddenly taken an interest in, you will find yourself back at WP:ANI. And I am certain that you will receive more than just a three-month ban this time around. I will be quiet about gathering evidence, but make no mistake about it...the evidence will be gathered and eventually reported. This wash and repeat cycle will come to an end. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Other documentation: Charlotte135's response is here. It's the same distorted repeat as usual. Also notice the part of Euryalus's response, which was conveniently deleted. It states, "The topic ban was a blunt instrument designed to bring a halt to your hounding of another editor. The interaction ban was a no-fault way to reduce what had become a disruptive issue across a number of pages. Like most interaction bans it didn't work very well, but there's only so many tools in the toolkit." But because it notes the hounding the community saw, it was deleted. Considering that Charlotte135 has messed with others' comments in similar ways on that talk page before, I do not see the deletion as an accident, just like I do not see Charlotte135's sudden interest in just about every topic I'm interested in as a coincidence. Keep in mind that this editor was called a WP:Single-purpose account by a number of editors. Since then, the editor has been making superficial edits to a variety of articles, often overlapping my interests. Sigh. I will see how this goes. But I already know how it will go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Flyer, save your diffs in one place so that we can see the pattern. That will help. I sometimes have even created a subpage in the past, though they don't like you to keep it on-wiki for more than a short time. But it is tough to hunt them all down later. Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Last response to Charlotte135 in this section: Regarding this, no, bringing up your stalking, POV-editing and topic bans is very relevant to the above. Your stalking, POV-editing and topic bans specifically relate to me. My block log, which you repeatedly get wrong (as made clear at the very top of my talk page) and repeatedly try to use as a weapon against me, is irrelevant to the above and my interaction with you. There have been many problematic editors here with a clean block log; your clean block log does not make you any less problematic, and it will not be clean for long at the rate you are going. You can claim all you want that you have not been stalking me, and that you edit many topics that I do not, but the evidence was clear when you were topic-banned for stalking me and the evidence is still clear. You even continued to stalk me during the topic ban, and I noted this on Euryalus's talk page. For example, the "23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)" post, the "12:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)" post, and the "07:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)" post I made there. Your Kanye West appearance was no coincidence, so let's not pretend. I've given you fair warnings about your POV-editing and stalking. You never heed them, and so WP:ANI handled the matter for me twice. This is your last warning: Continue your POV-editing and stalking, and it will quite likely be the last time I ever have to warn you about it. And that's the bottom line. If you really want to ignore me, then if I revert you, you should move on. I am not interested in debating a thing with you since your point of view is so often skewed and you often cannot just follow what the sources state. I am not interested in working with you, and you cannot force me to be interested. Any further replies you make on your talk page to me about any of this will be ignored by me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


@Flyer22 Reborn: I just thought putting the word informally would be better, I talked with clean copy on his/her talk page and he/she said it was ok to put that word, and the medical definition is made clear but I came across various people who for some reason interpreted the sentence In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims as a possible medical definition, it is the reason why I wanted to add something in there to make it more clear. Could I instead restructure the sentence from saying, In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims to saying In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used informally to refer to any person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims would that be ok sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plmokg22345 (talkcontribs)

@Flyer22 Reborn: since you have not responded I will take that as it is ok to change the wording from In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used in a broad manner to encompass a person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims to saying In law enforcement circles, the term pedophile is sometimes used informally to refer to any person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims, as I think that applies better since Pedophilia is not a legal term and the definition of pedophile is the attraction to prepubescent children and when law enforcement use it as a term for anyone who commits a sexual act against a underage victim they are using it unofficially so informally applies better than broad manner, also as I said above I talked with clean copy the first guy who reverted me and he even said including the word informally would be fine, I would have liked it if I could have got your opinion on it first before I did it but I will take your silence as a answer. (Plmokg22345 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

Plmokg22345 (talk · contribs), I do not buy your excuse for changing the wording. The change was not needed in the least. I was quiet because I am highly concerned about you editing the Pedophilia article, age of consent articles and the like, and you know why. Whenever it is necessary for me to interfere, only then will I interact with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: as I said I think informally makes it clearer and it dose not matter whether you buy it or not sir, that is why I did it, do not know why you are getting a attitude about it there is no need to get mad. Also as for the age of consent in Texas it is 17 not 18, Texas age of consent is 17( sec 43.25 sexual performance by child refers to being able to have sex involving some kind of visual representation I am in law and I know consent laws and provided the sources to prove it. I also had a discussion about the changes with Fabrickator on my talk page and also with music101 on his/hers if you question my changes on texas age of consent then I suggest you consult with a criminal defense attorney you can either do that over the phone or on a legal based website for example avvo or legalmatch here is a avvo link and you can go from there ask a question about the consent laws in that state, the texas sec was wrong and I just corrected it I also take huge offense at what I think you are insinuating sir (Plmokg22345 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC))

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs) flyer is a girl oh I did not know that sorry (Plmokg22345 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC))
I'm not sure that 'girl' is a great improvement, but at least your in the right ball park... Muffled Pocketed 09:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs) sorry again woman (Plmokg22345 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC))

Plmokg22345 (talk · contribs), were you this IP? You've reminded me of that IP since you've shown up.

And since you will no doubt want to discuss this and my reverts of your edits elsewhere, I stand by the first revert regarding the Jailbait article. All you did was make the example more complicated than it needs to be. As for the Ephebophilia article, I don't see the need for the "commonly used by the general public informally" wording, but if, for that line, we are to go with those sources that you took from the Pedophilia article, we should drop Mark Foley source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And keep in mind that if you state you are not the above IP, it will further impact my view of your editing here. If you don't want to answer the IP question, then don't; it is better than being dishonest about the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: sigh I am not that ip if you can view my ip you would see that. also your right on the jailbait page it was just a example but I thought that since age of consent is between 16-18 in the united states depending on the state, that it would benefit by stating that there but your right since it was a example it was unneeded. and I took the sources from the pedophile page because I thought it could benefit that page plus there are other sources on that page that are from the pedophile page so I thought that it would not be a big deal reusing refs if it is sorry but I thought including that word would be beneficial to the page but if you do not want it in there fine I am not going to argue with you with that one nice talking to you(Plmokg22345 (talk))

Plmokg22345 (talk · contribs), given your and the IP's interests and that you edit alike, I do very much question that you were not that IP. Also, IPs can change. I won't press the matter, but your reply has impacted my view of your editing, like I stated it would. As for the aforementioned articles, I don't much mind the change you made to the Ephebophilia article. If you want to add back "informally," feel free...without the Mark Foley source. The "Mayo Clinic Proceedings" source should be used with care, though, per past concerns about that source (Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Number of pedophiles among child molesters). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Hello miss flyer I do not see the likeness but I will say you should not make accusation, people could end up doing the same to you and people doing such things either in general or in retaliation when someone makes accusations about you is not right, regardless like I said I am not that ip whether you believe me or not I really do not care. Anyway like I said above you were right on the jailbait change it was unneeded. As for the change on the Ephebophilia article I am letting that go and will not be restoring it pleasure talking with you ma'am(Plmokg22345 (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

Plmokg22345 (talk · contribs), I asked if you were that IP. You said you weren't/aren't. I stated that "given your and the IP's interests and that you edit alike, I do very much question that you were not that IP." I stand by that. I was also clear that I won't press the matter. If one wants to ask me if I was a certain IP, or am another editor, they are free to do so. Asking is different than accusing. And we do not have to believe the responses we are given. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: the way you said (And keep in mind that if you state you are not the above IP, it will further impact my view of your editing here. If you don't want to answer the IP question, then don't; it is better than being dishonest) made it sound like you were accusing to me and the way you also just said ( I do very much question that you were not that ip) made it sound to me like you are as well. If you were asking or I thought you were asking that would be different but at least to me it came off as accusing anyway like I said above I am not that ip whether you believe me or not I really do not care anyway I think it is best to let this subject die goodbye ma'am(Plmokg22345 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

Plmokg22345 (talk · contribs), I stated that because it was fact that your answer would further impact my view of your editing here, and because I do very much question that you were not that IP. And that is due to what I believe after interacting with the IP and then you, and after examining your edits and then the IP's edits. Like I stated, we do not have to believe the responses we are given. If you want this to die, then I suggest you move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Sigh I am not repeating myself again all I will say is that after my interaction with you it has affected my view of you and I do not care how you view my editing. apparently we are not going to get along which is very unfortunate was hoping we could get along. I will not be commenting again goodbye miss(Plmokg22345 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

Plmokg22345 (talk · contribs), given what I stated above, I am glad that you will not be repeating yourself on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note to self: Have interacted with the above before the Plmokg22345 account was created. Crosschecked User:FDR/User:RJR3333. Similar focus. Different editing style as far as communication (including grammar) goes, but many editors have changed their communication styles before, including to present themselves as newbies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

three-factor model equationEdit

Hey Flyer, I changed the equation of the Fama-French three-factor model according to the official publication from Eugene Fama and I referred to it. What was wrong with the equation? The current equation doesn't exist in his works and there is no referral to it. I hope to get an answer soon! Thank you. EDIT: Ridiculous to ignore it, we all try to help.

Kremianer (talk · contribs), when I reverted you via WP:STiki, all I saw was your addition of "Explanation is missing for the equation!" at the top of the page; that was an inappropriate addition. I did not see the sourced content you added. Math and math-related topics are easy for me, but I don't have such articles on my WP:Watchlist. I was simply WP:Patrolling when I came across your edit. As for ignoring you, I am very busy and figured that you had re-made the edit or would remake it. If you are right about something, be WP:Bold and re-add the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I added the equation and referred to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kremianer (talkcontribs) 14:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My ApologyEdit

I am sorry and apologize for my disruptive and uncivil behavior and editing on WP:Child Protection page relating to pedophiles editing Wikipedia. I wasn't thinking clearly then. To be clear, I do not support or advocate pedophilia or view adult-child sexual relationships as healthy and safe on-or-off Wikipedia. I think that pedophiles should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Please forgive me. Thanx. Frogger48 (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2016Edit

Also pinging Figureskatingfan. Hi guys, here's another one of yours at TFA. I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ha, that's so cool. Adding my thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Todd Manning, saying "Todd's article, like the character himself, is controversial and causes lots of arguments"! I am happy to announce Der 100. Psalm, German and English (going to sing it in Bruges and Wiesbaden, - so happy)! - I have a FAC open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
An Origenal Barnstar for being rebourne! Danke, Ron ald. Dimensional Control (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted RfC?Edit

Per RfC closure: Formal requests for closure can be posted by any participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment.

I think is it completely valid to close an RfC started three years ago with no discussion for two years, Sue Garner also gave valid reason against the merge, there is no consensus. Do you believe there will be further discussion? Valoem talk contrib 05:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Valoem, I reverted you here (followup edit here) and here, per what I stated in those edit summaries. I also left a note on the article talk page, which is where you should have replied to me. That discussion was not an RfC, not an official one anyway. As seen in that discussion, I did suggest an RfC but never got around to it. I was very busy at the time and it takes a lot of time to gather many sources and make a case around them. And even if that discussion had been an RfC, I do not think that you are a neutral party when it comes to closing that discussion...given your discussions with me and others at Talk:Gray rape about the existence of the Gray rape article and the fact that you seem to always insist that topics that do not need their own Wikipedia articles should have their own Wikipedia articles. This is exemplified in the Celibacy cases, as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels; you repeatedly exhausted the community with that matter. While I did not oppose an Involuntary celibacy article, I did think you were quite unreasonable in opposing the sensible merge suggestions. And now we are without an Involuntary celibacy topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at your recent contributions, I see that you brought up involuntary celibacy yet again, this time at User talk:Jimbo Wales. You are persistent; I'll give you that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk)
I am right that's why, people tend to dislike certain subjects my goal here is to fight any bias, I need to confirm that there is support at least at the highest level. These are all acceptable stand alone articles and certainly pass our GNG principles. Valoem talk contrib 22:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Except for creating an Involuntary celibacy article (devoid of WP:Original research, that is), I can't agree that you are right. You are looking at these matters as though editors are stating "no" to a split solely because of agendas. While I saw agendas on both sides when it comes to the involuntary celibacy topic, there were valid reasons not to split. You need to consider WP:Content forking, WP:Spinout and WP:No split more. Like Alanscottwalker recently stated in the discussion you started on Jimbo's talk page, "Well, I still do not get why it needs its own article - part of what we do is organize information, every different phrase does not need its own article, as if there is something new under the sun." You speak of bias, but your editing has been characterized as WP:Activism editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
How could you say this, I think you may want to revisit WP:Content forking, WP:Spinout and WP:No split, the prior discussion all said there was no appropriate merge target, incel is certainly not celibacy, it is also certainly not sexual frustration as one can be sexually frustrated, but also sexually active. This is a very specific condition if you look at this in my sandbox, you will see that there is no WP:OR all content is cited and also point to a specific topic. As for your WP:Activism claim, what do you think it is I am trying to push? In fact the only activism is from those favoring delete, lets take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination), Hafspajen wrote "I can add one more thing: men who think they have a right to sex need to wake up and realize women are people too and get to decide for themselves", TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom wrote "merge into men's rights movement. not an actual thing, but a common claimed grievance", The One True Incel wrote "Not being able to get yourself a sexual partner is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Stop acting like it is", then Tarc (now banned for off wiki canvassing) canvassed this discussion. So you are right there is WP:Activism, from those favoring deletion because from what I gathered this topic clashes with some fundamental principles of feminism and they don't like that here. Valoem talk contrib 07:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh I forgot to mention two more things, I received offwiki harassment on Facebook informing me to "drop the subject", and here an IP fabricated evidence that I had canvassed two editor I never dealt with before. ArbCom confirmed that this was false and that I was fine with no further action needed. Too bad by then the article had been deleted. Tell me, when I claim there is political agenda, am I wrong? Valoem talk contrib 08:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Btw, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels I was the one who nominated that for deletion. Valoem talkcontrib 08:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels shows all of the previous AfD discussions about involuntary celibacy, and that editors were beyond tired of discussing it. "Incel" is obviously connected to the involuntary celibacy topic. To many editors, it is the same topic with a different name. Previous consensus had been for merging or deleting. We see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) and in the deletion reviews listed at the top...that there was consensus to merge, and that, going by later AfDs, there was consensus to delete; many people (me included) felt that there were appropriate merge targets. So I'm not going to debate you on those merge targets since, like I stated above, "you were quite unreasonable in opposing the sensible merge suggestions" and I've read your arguments on that before. This talk page is not going to become one of your long, drawn-out "Involuntary celibacy should have its own article" debates. As for WP:Activism, I stated that "your editing has been characterized as WP:Activism editing." As for my opinion on that matter, I think it is clear that you were using Wikipedia for your beliefs about involuntary celibacy; you were only focused on that matter, so much so that I pegged you as a WP:Single purpose account. And now you are focused on it again. Having a passion is one thing; knowing when to move on is another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming you reviewed my editing history, you can see I am the furtherest thing from an SPA, having created 215 articles in a wide range of fields compared to your 13. I've also been here since 2006, that's over a decade. I've overturned over 30 articles at DRV due to misapplication of GNG (90% overturn or allow recreation rate). So you are right, based on my expertise, this passes GNG and I passionately fight against bias as such. This is also the first DRV I failed to overturn. I am a bit confused about what you mean by "beliefs about involuntary celibacy", I believe this article is clearly notable and have provided multiple sources showing so. Please apologize I consider this bad faith. Valoem talk contrib 05:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Valoem, your involuntary celibacy campaign (yes, I see it as a campaign) is a part of your past, and, going by your recent contributions, your future as well. That campaign has caused me to view involuntary celibacy as your main passion when it comes to your Wikipedia editing. Seeing your edits on that, and the Gray rape article (and its talk page), and how you use Wikipedia to try and give more attention to topics that do not need their own Wikipedia articles (topics that I'm certain you have strong beliefs about), I will not apologize for my opinion that your editing commonly falls under WP:Activism. Only one who has strong beliefs about involuntary celibacy would be doing what you have been doing in recent years regarding that topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Message from DudmiEdit

This is Dudmi. Test/Vandalism no way. Look, I dont know anything about this editing thing. Im not someone fooling around on this site. The info posted about Joey LaMotta being dead is incorrect and upsetting to us. Please contact me to resolve this. Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudmi (talkcontribs)

Peer Review for Chad Harris-CraneEdit

Hello. I really admire and respect the work you have done to make Todd Manning an FAC. I am hoping to improve an article about a different soap opera character (Chad Harris-Crane) to FAC sometime in the future. I was wondering if you could provide some feedback or suggestions to the peer review for the article (located here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Chad_Harris-Crane/archive1), since you are experienced working with articles related to soap operas and fictional characters.

I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this or would not like to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Aoba47, sure, I'll weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry again for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Aoba47, no need to apologize. I enjoyed reading the article. You did a great job on it. I would wish you luck on nominating the article for WP:FA status, but you won't need it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A questionEdit

Greetings, not sure if you can help but I've seen you editing/commenting on these topics before - do you have an idea what the appropriate colour for Texas should be on File:Ages of Consent - United States.svg? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'll look into the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, is this being discussed at any of the article talk pages? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. There was a complaint on the file talk page about Texas not being assigned, hence the query. I believe I've seen discussions on this issue elsewhere but I don't follow AOC discussions all that closely - perhaps on Age of consent in the United States? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, looking at our Wikipedia article for the age of consent in Texas (the sources there) and at sources (both scholarly and media) elsewhere on the Internet, the Texas age of consent matter isn't as clear-cut as many other states. For example, this 2015 source from The Washington Post states, "As best I can tell, 30 states set the general age of consent at sixteen; 8 set it at seventeen; and 12 set it at eighteen (though it’s possible that the last there are actually 7 at seventeen and 13 at eighteen, because of an odd twist with Texas law). The age-16 states tend to be smaller, so a little less than half the population lives in those 30 states. Over 60 percent of the population lives in the states that set the age of consent at 16 or 17, regardless of how one counts Texas."
So I'm not quite sure what I feel is the best color to represent Texas. And this is likely a matter that should have a well-advertised WP:RfC, with sources pointing to the complexity of the Texas issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that Talk:Ages of consent in the United States#Texas exists, indicating that the issue has been raised. In my personal opinion, the topic is just trouble - aside from the obvious (contentious topic with a lot of mileage variance) my impression is that the term "age of consent" implies a lack of nuance that the actual laws (never mind case law) don't bear out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me edit right? All my edits keep getting reverted, no matter how much it helps, or seems to help. :(Edit

How do I make Wikipedia articles more compliant to WP:EDITORIAL, WP:REALTIME and WP:WHATPLACE without messing up the words and grammar? You could've taken the time to fix the individual errors yourself, but you, being a lazy contributor, just flat out revert it. I know there are more important things than editing on Wikipedia, but I feel that WP:W2W is an important guideline to be taken seriously. Perhaps WP:IAR is the issue. I'm not sure. Why can't Wikipedians these days just take their time to edit some of the errors without reverting the whole thing? Why would a revert of an entire revision be better than fixing some of the broken minority of the edit? I might give a barnstar to an editor who helps fix the faulty bits instead of reverting the whole thing.

If I saw that one's contribution had some faulty things, I would at least be a diligent contributor and just fix the problem areas instead of reverting all of his edit. What if you made a edit you thought would improve the article and had that revision reverted by someone else? You would be especially upset if you felt the edit you made was to get rid of terms that may introduce bias or to make the article read more like an encyclopedia rather than a script for a vlog, Howcast, BuzzFeed, AllTime, Vox or WellCast video. --Turkeybutt (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkeybutt, huh? When did I revert you? Did you simply copy and paste the above text from elsewhere and apply it here too? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want a tutor, see WP:Adopt-a-user. I don't have the time to tutor an editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good pointEdit

I added "highly" addictive to the nicotine page. WP:WEASEL needs to be updated because it is to vague. Right now, any editor can add weasel words even when the source does not support the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, yeah, I'll continue to discuss this matter at the guideline talk page. These days, it's often that I'm not on Wikipedia for one to three days; this is because I'm busy with a lot of things off Wikipedia. So don't think much of it if I don't reply for a couple or a few days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I started a draft for editors to update the guideline in order for Wikipedia articles to comply with original research and V policies. There are some comments I made in my original post that can be incorporated into the draft. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi there,

Thanks for that referral to the consensus wording re the lead sentence. I knew in my mind what I was trying to achieve (average sentence length of 12 - 14 words). Correspondingly though I wasn't entirely happy with the wording I had at that moment. I'll leave it as per your suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May I have your opinion?Edit

I know we had a minor dispute in the past, but this is a topic that I'm sure you are more knowledgeable about that me. On the [Safe Schools Coalition Australia] article, I removed 'same sex attracted' from the lede and replaced it with 'homosexual' mainly because on the article 'same sex attracted' linked to 'homosexual' - this was reverted, with statements that these two terms were not the same, and 'homosexual' was a derogatory term. I thought that it was a scientific term, but I decided to attempt to compromise. I replaced 'same sex attracted' with 'gay' as it was the preferred term for GLAAD and (in my eyes) has exactly the same meaning. This was also reverted.

Could you give me an opinion on this? I don't need any support on the article/talk page, but I was curious on your opinion. My intention was to remove a neologism/euphemism and replace it with a really common and non-offensive term. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, like SMcCandlish stated in a recent move discussion, "Homosexuality is not at all a pejorative, it's a neutral descriptor (though not always accurate; whether sources distinguish clearly between homosexuality and bisexuality is worth looking into). The word homosexual applied as a label ('she is a homosexual') has a (not exclusively) pejorative use, but these are not the same thing."
This has been discussed a number of times at WP:LGBT and even once at WP:Med.
To read discussions that took place about this at WP:LGBT, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49#Homosexual vs Gay in articles.
To read the long discussion that took place about this at WP:Med, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.". Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
"Same sex attracted" is very awkward (and needs hyphenation). WP isn't run by GLAAD, but I don't see any reason we can't go along with the "gay" its own style guide prefers, when that's well-sourced. There are frequent problems, though. For one, it's an anachronism or otherwise culturally incorrect in many cases. A lot of people (whole big lot) are to some degree homo-erotic but hetero-romantic, or otherwise in some sense "bisexual" – but may not identify that way (I am, and i don't). I know people who self-identify as lesbians, and are homo-romantic and are even activistic in the lesbian community, but happily bi-erotic / pan-sexual. And so on. If the sources tell us that someone had a homosexual affair (or whatever) we should go with that, not apply the label "gay" to them, which might not be their self-ID at all. For historical subjects, I'm skeptical that we should use the term at all for anyone who lived before it had that meaning, or at least not much earlier than, say, Oscar Wilde. And it doesn't make sense in cultural context where it is/was simply not seen as a "sexual identity" thing, e.g. the older warrior/younger warrior homoerotic relationship in the ancient Greek military between males who also had wives, and so on. There's a wide WP:NOR minefield to avoid. :-/  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
In this particular article context, if there is a legal term of art or a phrase widely accepted within the community to which it refers, those are the choices I'd narrow it down to. Generally, it's best to start with trying to avoid pissing off people and where that is impossible, to use the least offensive phrasing that is reasonable. In the US, that would, probably be "LGBTQ" or some similar variant, but here we have Australia. And also the sources used. But at any rate, the issue clearly has been well-thrashed out elsewhere and if not long-settled, at least not something that can be resolved on a user talk page. Montanabw(talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, when I actually have time to consider working on the article in question, I will base my edits/comments on what I have learned from the above. I'm sure there is an acceptable balance between accuracy, communication and not pissing people off, that can be found. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane - featured article candidateEdit

I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination, especially since you have helped me with its peer review. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wash whites separatelyEdit

FYI, was previously User:Exploding Toenails, as per this and this. Muffled Pocketed 12:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I went through the procedure to change my username, but this is still the same account and the only account I use. Sorry for any confusion. Wash whites separately (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Just informing you Flyer22, I suspected this too: I just told Wash whites separately that their edits align very closely with Reverse polish (talk · contribs). They edit similar topics (I noticed this from Zhu (musician), where I had a dispute with Reverse polish the other month), consistently cite WP:OVERLINK in edit histories etc. WWS edited on this account/their old username before they changed it from 2011 to 2012, then stopped; Reverse polish edited from 2012 to 2016 then stopped editing on June 17 this year; then WWS resumed on their current account an hour later on June 17. It took me less than 30 seconds to find that out and I'm surprised nobody else has found it out. I don't quite know if this violates WP:Sockpuppetry considering (as far as I know) they haven't used the accounts abusively, just saying I would find it a huge coincidence and an undeclared connection that might violate a rule I'm not aware of if they were not connected. Ss112 13:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ss112: cf. [6]. Muffled Pocketed 13:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: So are you saying I'm correct? Obviously I don't know for sure, just that I thought a user not declaring that they have edited under another username is a potential conflict of interest. I didn't say they violated sockpuppetry rules, just that there is overlap and a very coincidental ending of activity on one account only to resume on another. Ss112 13:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ss112: Well: WP:DBQ applies, of course; but I would question its transparency. Athough not exactly a WP:CLEANSTART, the requirements not [to] use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic, and you should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny might be seen to apply. Muffled Pocketed 14:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Yup, I made that account because I forgot I had this one, and then I resumed using this one when I realized it still worked. I told Flyer22 on my talk page that "this is my only account" and then clarified it on her talk page that "this is the only account I use". I never used the accounts at the same time, so I didn't think it would violate any rules. I don't intend to use Reverse polish ever again, but am I supposed to tell the admins anyway that it's me? —Wash whites separately (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ss112, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is obviously correct that WP:Clean start should be kept in mind. An editor looking for a clean start should use the new account as a true clean start. That editor should not edit the same topics he or she edited before, especially topics that he or she had disputes in. Wash whites separately, this is the first time you commented on my talk page about this after the question I posted on your talk page. You acted clueless when I questioned you. Changing usernames is obviously allowed. So is changing accounts, under certain circumstances, but WP:Clean start is a policy. It should be followed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm aware that you don't seem to consider this case a WP:Clean start case. I'm simply pointing out what the WP:Clean start policy states. I advise editors to read that policy in full, including what it states about creating a new account to avoid scrutiny. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Plans for expansion, advice wantedEdit

Hello, I have been gathering research about domestic violence (or intimate partner violence) in same-sex relationships, and I saw that you worked heavily on the page about domestic violence in lesbian relationships. I am trying to decide whether I should expand upon the same sex relationships section within the general domestic violence article, or if I should create a new page about same sex domestic violence, or if I should take the page about domestic violence in lesbian relationships and expand it to include other same sex couples as well as trans individuals. Any advice would be very much appreciated, please feel free to post on my talk page your thoughts. Kmwebber (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

P.S. I have since read your opinion on the matter in several places, including the domestic violence talk page and the domestic violence in lesbian relationships talk page, and I feel that based on your previous opinions that the best course of action would be to make an article about domestic violence in same-sex relationships. If this is not what you believe the best course of action is, I am very open to your advice. Thank you again. Kmwebber (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber
Talk about this in the right place - Talk:Domestic violence#Plans for expansion.2C advice wanted. It looks to me like a no brainer to have a separate male gay article.--Penbat (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Kmwebber and Penbat, like I stated at Talk:Domestic violence in lesbian relationships, I think it's best to have a Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article instead of an individual lesbian domestic violence article and an individual gay male domestic violence article. Also, I've learned from titling matters regarding the Gay sexual practices article (see Talk:Gay sexual practices#Title and WP:Content forking) that there can be objections to an article titled "Gay male" when the couples included might not identify as gay, etc. There was a similar argument made at Talk:Domestic violence in lesbian relationships regarding the term lesbian, but, as I explained there, the term lesbian is commonly used broadly in the literature. It's certainly broader than "gay male." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Domestic violence article is very big already. So, per WP:SIZE issues, significantly expanding it with a subtopic would not be ideal. Once a "Domestic violence in same-sex relationships" article is created, we can link to it in the Same-sex relationships section of the Domestic violence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello F. I hope that you are well. I just noticed this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Inappropriate editing.2C advocacy.2C and control of philo articles.2C by Flyer22 Reborn and thought I would let you know about it as the OP hasn't. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion that MarnetteD is referring to has since been moved to WP:ANI (which happens to be on my watchlist at the moment). Considering the discussion is specically about you, one can only guess why the user who started it didn't fulfil their obligation to notify you themselves. DarkKnight2149 00:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Update: The discussion was just closed by the admins. DarkKnight2149 01:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, all of you I replied anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Good catchEdit

Didn't look hard enough apparently. Didn't see it linked in the section. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I did echo-thank you for an improvement, before seeing that you'd reverted an extensive edit by someone else. I though that extensive edit was mostly pretty good. I'll post the diff on the talkpage and see what others think. ... where I've found a thread already started by the editor involved. Tony (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Arabidopsis luciferinEdit

Hi, I would like to re-include the change I made to the Arabidopsis page. I was clarifying that luciferin is not a gene, but a small-molecule substrate of the enzyme luciferase (which is indeed a gene), as stated on the Wiki page for luciferin. My change made these pages self-consistent.

Danielstn (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It was vandalism mateEdit

Signed Victoria derbyshire even though im from Lancashire coincidence right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrased quotesEdit

I paraphrased the big quotes. I feel that version should stay. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri, some of this is problematic and I already explained why. That talk page is where you should discuss the matter. Right now, I will wait and see if some WP:Med members weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't seen your comment on the talk page when I made the edit above. I agree waiting for mediation is a good idea. The quotes were from very long articles and I don't think they're too long and violate copyright but let's see expert opinion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Proxima Centauri, the length of the quotes was not my only issue with your additions. For example, I made it clear that we should not be telling readers what they should do. Not directly anyway. A Wikipedia medical article shouldn't, for example, state, "If you feel a lump in your left breast, you should see a doctor because it might be cancer-related." An expert is not needed to see that some of your edits needed and still need tweaking. I contacted WP:Med because not only am I a regular part of that project, it is the main project to contact for a matter like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure WP:Med can improve the article better than I can. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Two years ago ...
child protection
... you were recipient
no. 982 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 22".