User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 14

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Hi! You seemed to be the only neutral party to this discussion. If you get a chance, could you please revisit my (overly wordy) response and see if I've now met the threshold? Thanks! --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Chaswmsday, sorry to let you down, considering that I usually try to be helpful when a Wikipedian asks me for help with regard to a Wikipedia matter (I know what it's like to need that outside opinion or some other kind of additional help, especially when dealing with an editor or editors who are misinterpreting a guideline or policy or just don't care that they are), but I don't have anything more to add to the "Is exceptional treatment of alternative names within WP:USRD allowed?" discussion. At least not at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Teenage Pregnancy - Media Portrayal
Hi Flyer22. I suspect you're right, but can you point me to the relevant TV and film policy that states "the fiction serves as the source for plot material". I'll probably argue that while that's fine for articles about TV episodes and films, for other topics we should have secondary sources relating the media material to the article topic. I have to ask why you didn't revert the deletion of this material if you felt that it was appropriate? Anyhow, as it was large chunk of work, its deletion probably should be discussed on the talk page. Would you like to start the discussion? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in addition to that link, you are referring to this, this and this link. WikiProjects don't have policies, but with regard to practice or official guidelines... For WP:TV, there is WP:TVPLOT and we had a big discussion about such sourcing at WP:SOAPS in 2011 (WP:TV editors took part in that discussion); you can find that discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5. For WP:FILM, there is WP:FILMPLOT, though, in part it states, "in film articles" (which can support your argument that such a "the fiction sources itself" approach is only appropriate in the article about that particular fiction). And, nah, I'm not interested in starting a discussion about the removal of the Media section in the Teenage pregnancy article; anyone else is free to do so, of course.


 * As for reverting, I didn't revert Kww because I didn't care much to revert (didn't care much that the content was removed), and because I'm pretty worn out by Wikipedia these days and avoid (or try to avoid) WP:Edit wars or any of the other possible drama that comes with this site when I feel that I can. The times that I don't avoid such matters...it's because I feel that I have to get involved with them. Because I work in contentious topics, it's not very easy to avoid them, however. Like I've stated before, I'm not the same Flyer22 (one of the many editors who generally liked Wikipedia). If I were her, didn't have the extra personal issues I have these days, it wouldn't be taking me so long to substantially fix up Wikipedia articles that I know need fixing up. I'm generally lazy around this site now, unless reverting vandalism and/or other unconstructive edits. Flyer22 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was original research. It took a series of events sourced only to primary material and made conclusions and generalizations about the treatment of teenage pregnancy in media based on them. That's original research. A statement about the plot of the Gilmore Girls isn't original research, but "Other fiction, particularly in a long-running television series..." is.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The WP:Original research policy states: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.


 * Its reference for that line states: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.


 * So, no, because sources exist for a lot of that material (including stating that those matters are examples of [so and so]), I can't agree with you that the material you removed was WP:Original research. Or rather not that all of it was. Like I stated, most of it (the significant majority of it) was/is not WP:Original research, but simply a reiteration of the plot and stating that the plot is an example of [so and so]; looking at the Wikipedia articles for those works show that they are examples of what that text stated. I would agree that what you removed in this regard is WP:Synthesis, which is an aspect of WP:Original research, but the text wasn't synthesizing sources. The text was certainly WP:Editorializing, however.


 * Also, if either of you want to discuss this matter further, I suggest you copy and paste this section to the article's talk page, considering that I don't care much about it (that the aforementioned material is in or out of the article). Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks ; sorry to hear that you're in the slough of WP despond. I'll link to this discussion on Talk:Teenage pregnancy. Best FiachraByrne (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My edit
The reason why I deleted what I did from the "Wilton High School" page is that it makes no sense to have a heading called Athletics and then just have it contain two entries, both about lacrosse. It was superfluous information and reeked of someone trying to promote something to which they are personally attached (lacrosse).

Please restore my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.214.171 (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What?? Involuntary celibacy article
I think I came upon the article in the middle of your setting up the AfD; it appeared to be broken, and I couldn't figure out how to get it listed or a talk place established. htom (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OtterSmith (htom), regarding this, I didn't set up the WP:AfD for that (currently) problematic article. Check its edit history. And I was more so taken aback by your "Help, please, this AfD is goofed up." message on the article page than by your speedy deletion tag. If you meant to place that message within the speedy deletion tag, that would have been a bit better, however. Otherwise, we don't leave such messages on the article page.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Involuntary celibacy article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the speedy; I added a tag, "{ {Db-u1} }Help, please, this AfD is goofed up." expecting some admin to fix the AfD. Instead, the speedy was added, and I gave up. Sorry about the poor section title. Hope you have a great new year! htom (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Mergers
Hi Flyer22, and a happy new year! I've moved the conversation here, as I won't have time for the next few weeks to monitor and/or update the MOS, and with what appears to be consensus, hopefully we can consider the matter closed and future discussions can occur in separate threads. I hope that you're well and enjoying this new year with some lovely time off! (Or work, whichever you'd prefer!) With respect to mergers, I am both in and out. I am a strong believer in mergers where the content is duplicating the parent article, but for unique anatomical structures, such as veins and arteries, care has to be taken in performing the merge to ensure that all the information is preserved. That said, my next major project will be to try and integrate the separate articles on bony anatomy with their parents (eg Root of spine of scapula -> Spine of scapula). It all depends on consensus. That said, on my wiki-Christmas wishlist, I would really love a cleanup listing of the WP:ANATOMY articles so I can actually see where mergers have been proposed rather than haphazardly happening upon them. At any rate, I feel the process of actively proposing mergers by different users, even if I don't agree, is quite useful, because it keeps the project active and communicating. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed text
Hello Flyer22 -- Appreciate your comments. Just fyi, I removed the part of your comment that may (or may not) revealed someone's identity. :-) Memills (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Memills, with regard to this, I don't consider it WP:Outing since you linked to it and since I think this identity matter has been discussed with regard to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. I call on Binksternet, who has been thoroughly involved in that case to relay if what I did is a form WP:Outing. Or maybe one of my talk page watchers have something to state on this matter, whether it needs to be WP:Oversighted? Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to me to a matter of simple courtesy to err on the side of discretion, especially when it is requested. To my knowledge, this issue has not been discussed at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Memills (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. But why link that way, given the connection that is likely to be drawn if you don't intend for the connection to be drawn? As for Men's rights movement/Article probation, I wasn't talking about it having been discussed there. I was talking about the identity matter having been noted and/or discussed on Wikipedia before and that it is related to the Men's rights movement/Article probation, though I can't pinpoint where at the moment (whether what used to be your user page, on your talk page or somewhere else on Wikipedia). Since JamesBWatson has been involved in this matter as well, I also ping him to comment on this WP:Outing topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And for further clarification: I wasn't aware of the name before today, but I did think that the name was already out there on Wikipedia (judging by comments on your talk page about classes and such) and did not know that mentioning it could be WP:Outing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, when in doubt, better to error on the side of discretion re WP:Outing.  Since you seem to be unwilling to do so, I will request that this be WP:Oversighted.  As an alternative, if you wish, just delete this section,  and I will consider the matter closed. Thanks. Memills (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I am not unwilling to do so. I simply prefer to know if I am actually committing a WP:Outing violation by noting that an article that a Wikipedia editor has linked to is written by that Wikipedia editor. For example, when an editor sources or tries to source content in a Wikipedia article using a piece that he or she is the author of, such a matter is often noted on Wikipedia. I'm trying to see the difference with this case involving you, besides the fact that you were not trying to use your article as a source in the Wikipedia article. For example, is it more so a matter as to whether the real name is used? That is why I have pinged two editors, and have queried my talk page watchers, to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "No, I am not unwilling to do so." Double negative there, which means you are willing to delete this section?  Er, right?   But, you haven't done so yet.
 * You write that you have a general question about WP:OUTING. Fine.  You can error on the side of discretion by deleting this section as I have requested.  Then, you can take your general question to other WP editors / WP pages without further violating my privacy.   Memills (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A double negative? Hmm. Anyway, you stated, "As an alternative, if you wish, just delete this section, and I will consider the matter closed. Thanks." I've clearly declined the alternative.


 * You violated your privacy by linking to an article that can quite easily identify you as the author (to anyone who pays good attention to detail). You started this section on my talk page, referring to the post that you removed, which can quite easily be traced by just looking at my or your contributions. But because I decided to link to that removed post that is still viewable in the edit history, you decided to propose that I remove this section from my talk page. I choose to let it be WP:Oversighted. I generally prefer to keep evidence of my talk page interactions...on my talk page (plain as day or archived). Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be possible for anyone "who pays good attention" to deduce your identity via your username, the information on your user page, and some web searches. If someone did deduce it, that doesn't mean that you violated your own privacy. Personally, if I deduced it, I would have the courtesy not reveal your identity on a WP Talk page.
 * However, explicitly identifying someone's real name on the talk page of an article, as you did, is something else: "I just realized that the author of that Psychology Today source is you, if going by the similarity of your Wikipedia username and that author's name." That was both irrelevant to the article Talk page discussion, and, it is WP:OUTTING.
 * At this point, we wait to hear from the Oversight folks. Memills (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, you violated your own privacy. Unless you think that people are generally too stupid to make such a connection, you shouldn't be providing such a link if you don't want someone to note that connection. Like I stated, such connections are made all the time involving WP:Conflict of interest matters and I don't see this case involving you as too different than that. WP:Outing begins by stating "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." As noted, you posted the link. And I didn't identify you to harass you; I did so because it was relevant, in my opinion, to note that the very article you were citing is written by you (not that you of course were not already aware that you'd written it). It also is not good form for an editor to cite a source that he or she is the author of, in support of his or her argument, and to make it seem as though that source is written by someone else; before you state that you were not doing that, that it wasn't your intention, it was (taking all of our interaction on this matter into account) to me. As for "the Oversight folks," I clearly welcome them. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Me too.
 * WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are quite different.
 * "I didn't identify you" ...you made a point of it.
 * "I did so because it was relevant." My identity was not relevant to the Nature vs. Nurture Talk page discussion. Memills (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are quite different; I never stated or implied that they are not. I don't think you heard of WP:Outing before I mentioned it today, though. As for the rest, I've already clarified my stance on those matters; no need to repeat. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Of course WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are quite different; I never stated or implied that they are not."
 * Yes you did:
 * "...connections [to identity] are made all the time involving WP:Conflict of interest matters and I don't see this case involving you as too different than that."
 * And:
 * "I don't think you heard of WP:Outing before I mentioned it today, though."
 * Who cares if I have or haven't? It is presumptuous to assume either way, and, moreover, it is irrelevant. Memills (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not state or imply that WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are the same thing; as shown, I basically stated that your action of having linked that article in the way that you did is not much different than a WP:COI matter. That is not the same thing as stating or implying that it is one; nor is it conflating WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest. It is comparing what you did to a WP:COI matter. WP:Conflict of interest matters are generally exempt from being considered WP:Outing. As for you clearly not having been aware of WP:Outing, it's relevant because I feel that you have misapplied it in this discussion; if you were more familiar with that policy, you likely would not misapply it. As for "presumptuous," if it's not obvious to you by now, I'm extremely perceptive (which has been a great benefit on Wikipedia). Either way, I don't see why this discussion is still going on. We disagree on this matter; now we should be waiting to see if anyone else weighs in on it and/or if WP:Oversight is used with regard to it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares if I have or haven't? It is presumptuous to assume either way, and, moreover, it is irrelevant. Memills (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not state or imply that WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are the same thing; as shown, I basically stated that your action of having linked that article in the way that you did is not much different than a WP:COI matter. That is not the same thing as stating or implying that it is one; nor is it conflating WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest. It is comparing what you did to a WP:COI matter. WP:Conflict of interest matters are generally exempt from being considered WP:Outing. As for you clearly not having been aware of WP:Outing, it's relevant because I feel that you have misapplied it in this discussion; if you were more familiar with that policy, you likely would not misapply it. As for "presumptuous," if it's not obvious to you by now, I'm extremely perceptive (which has been a great benefit on Wikipedia). Either way, I don't see why this discussion is still going on. We disagree on this matter; now we should be waiting to see if anyone else weighs in on it and/or if WP:Oversight is used with regard to it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Above, Flyer22 wrote "Since JamesBWatson has been involved in this matter as well, I also ping him to comment on this WP:Outing topic", so here I am. I don't offhand remember when I was involved, and I'm not even sure what "matter" I was involved in. (Nature v nurture? Outing policy? The identity of this particular editor?) Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I will throw in some of my thoughts about the outing issue. I shall start with my own opinions, and then consider what the outing policy says.
 * 1) At one time, I held the following very simple view of such cases as this: if an editor chooses to provide evidence on Wiki which indicates their own identity (such as using a username related to their real name, and making edits which are directly related to publically available online content connected to their real name) then they have voluntarily made that information available to other Wikipedia editors, and it is absurd to object if others subsequently refer to the information. I found from experience that the outing policy is very often interpreted as forbidding mentioning of real life identites which the user has effectively announced in such a way, but I thought that this was an absurd way of applying the policy.
 * 2) Over the course of time, however, I have come to realise that things are not always as simple as that. For example, many of us, when we first create a Wikipedia account, do not fully realise what we are letting ourselves in for. I, for example, created my account to do a few trivial adjustments (my first ever edit with this account was removing a mistaken apostrophe). In fact, I have got far more deeply involved in Wikipedia than I originally imagined I ever might, including occasionally making administrative decisions which have prompted fairly vicious responses from disgruntled editors. I have also heard of cases of quite appalling off-wiki harassment. If I had used my real name, or something closely related to it as a username, instead of the pseudonym that I use, it is very likely that I would have come to regret it. I have therefore come to be more sympathetic to editors who, despite having provided information which gives clues as to their real-life identity, do not wish to have that identity publicised.
 * 3) How about the link given in the edit which is accused of being outing? How relevant is it that the link may have been connected to an editor? In one way, not very. It seems to me to have said, in effect, "this is a brief summary of an idea which I regard as relevant in this discussion, and here is a link to a fuller account of the idea." Seen from that point of view, it could be thought that the identity of the author of the linked material is irrelevant. However, another way of looking at it is that linking to an off-wiki source without declaring a personal involvement with the source is likely to be seen (rightly or wrongly) as attempting to give one's opinion more authority, by appearing to show independent support for it. Doing so was, therefore, in my opinion, unwise. However, I do not have the remotest doubt that thousands of editors do just that, or much worse than that, without anyone suspecting it, because they have hidden their identity behind an opaque pseudonym. It is possible to take the view that anyone who chooses to do that has forfeited their right to hide their identity, but the outing policy quite clearly does not support that view in the case of a fully pseudonymous editor, and is it reasonable to give a lower standard of protection to anyone who has taken fewer pains to hide who they really are?
 * 4) My conclusions from all this are as follows. Despite the change of opinion over the course of time, which I mentioned above, there are still a few situations where I personally think that the outing policy is interpreted as providing protection to editors in circumstances where they should not be protected, and their actions have been such as to have forfeited any right to confidentiality. However, that applies to situations of serious misconduct, ad this is really not one of them. I think that it was an error of judgement to link to one's own material in this situation, and I also think that it is always at best questionable to link to one's own material without declaring an interest. For those reasons, my sympathy for the editor involved is more limited than it would otherwise be, and I would advise the editor in question not to link to his own material again, unless he is willing to acknowledge his authorship. Nevertheless, the error was a minor one, which did little if any harm to the project, and I don't personally think it was serious enough to justify an exception to the duty of confidentiality which we normally observe.
 * 5) So far, that has been my personal view. Putting that aside, and turnignto the outing policy, I see the issue as perfectly clear-cut and unambiguous. "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." We are here dealing with personal information which the editor has not voluntarily posted. (Posting information from which another editor is able to infer one's identity is not the same thing as voluntarily posting one's identity.) While my personal opinion would lead me to regard this as a borderline case, in which reverting the edit was probably for the best, policy leads no room for doubt whatever. I have therefore revision-deleted the controversial content, and I shall request oversight.
 * 6) One final comment, which is not very relevant to this case, but it is perhaps relevant to my expressing some of the views I have expressed. There is one article on Wikipedia where I have edited both the article and its talk page, for which I am the author of relevant content published elsewhere. That content has received a significant amount of attention, and there are hundreds of links to it from various web sources. It would have been relevant to have linked to it in some talk-page discussions. I have never done so, and do not expect ever to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in, JamesBWatson. I'd coincidentally just woken up (intend to go back to sleep for a bit soon) minutes before you posted here. Hours before you commented, via email I consulted with a Wikipedia administrator who does not see this matter as a WP:Outing matter, but believes that it would have been best if I had not made the author connection on Wikipedia. That administrator watches my talk page, but I'm not sure if he's willing to add on to your comment on my talk page. You and I see the first line of WP:Outing differently, as shown above. I can't see this matter as WP:Outing since I was not intending to harass and since the editor did (from my view) voluntarily post a link to his personal information (meaning his name, his credentials, etc.); so, it seems, I have the view that you used to have on the WP:Outing topic. I don't even consider the information personal in this case since it concerns an article where his real name, credentials. etc. are available to his readers, are available to anyone who comes across that Psychology Today source online; that's public information that he posted to on Wikipedia. I don't think there is anything that can make me view this as a WP:Outing matter, but I'll take care not to repeat this behavior in the future (not unless a clear-cut WP:COI case). As for "JamesBWatson has been involved in this matter as well"; I had just mentioned Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. What I was referring to is your involvement in weighing in on Memills's feminism/masculism editing; see this section and the following section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares if it's outing or not? There is no reason to make a big deal about someone linking to an article while discussing issues at a talk page, even if that article may have been written by the editor. There was no appeal to authority or other abuse of logic—it was just "there is some further info here". It was undoubtedly unwise to post a link and then request that the genie be put back in the bottle, but we are not talking about corruption, or any kind of dubious COI, so why not forget about it? We don't seize on a mistake and pursue it, and the outcome of the discussion should not hinge on whether an editor unwisely posted a link. I think the redaction by JamesBWatson was very helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Oversight committee has made its decision. Flyer22's edit in question has been removed. Flyer22 commented above that "I don't think there is anything that can make me view this as a WP:Outing matter." I hope you reconsider that given their decision. Memills (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Memills, I won't be agreeing that I violated WP:Outing. Not only do I not believe that I did so, but the same goes for Wikipedia editors I have been in email correspondence with about this (including the aforementioned administrator). They have not commented here on my talk page on this matter as to not add fuel to the supposed fire; I wish that at least one of them would, however. And the request for WP:Oversight having been granted does not mean that I violated WP:Outing. So I suggest you stop pressing the issue and carry on as usual. I have considered the "Oversight committee['s]" decision; you should consider what I, as well as JamesBWatson, have stated about you posting a link in the way that you did. If you do so again, do not be surprised if an editor notes it on Wikipedia and/or that they feel you violated your own "privacy" by doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "WP:Oversight having been granted does not mean that I violated WP:Outing."
 * What else could it mean?
 * Anyway... carry on. Memills (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You apparently are not familiar with the fact that WP:Oversight is often granted when a person requests it because they feel that personal information about them is on Wikipedia and they want it removed. Such matters usually involve cases where a person posted personal information about themselves, or a link that leads to such information, and now want it removed; such matters have nothing to do with WP:Outing (unless of course the person feels that that the information could be used to out them).


 * And do you want the last word or something? Do I have to ban you from my talk page to get you to stop replying to me about this? Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The last word is yours. :-) Memills (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Shutter Island
Hello! Happy New Year, and hope you're doing well. :) As you can see, I am commenting on the Shutter Island situation. However, in the future, I would recommend keeping the main discussion on the film article's talk page and posting a brief notification at WT:FILM. Otherwise, the discussion gets effectively split. (I commented on the film article's talk page, but others have commented at WT:FILM, making it unclear for additional parties to weigh in.) I've also shared sources that we can use to best define the critical consensus. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you as well, Erik. And, LOL, great minds think alike (okay, okay, we sometimes disagree on film matters, but we agree often enough); I was preparing to make this comment before you even posted to my talk page today. I feel the same way about centralizing a discussion. Thanks for your help on this matter, and for the Happy New Year good wishes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverts: Pedophilia article
I wouldnt revert you without discussing, as I do respect you as an editor in this contentious area we both work in♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I stated here about you likely reverting... I stated that, SqueakBox, because I know that you are passionate about this topic (and child sexual abuse) and that often, instead of first taking a matter to the talk page, you will revert when you believe that you are right. I've certainly been known to do the same. So my not reverting you was a matter of deciding what the best course of action would be in this case. We have worked fine together in these fields for years, and I wouldn't want anything to sour that. Thank you for your statement about respecting me enough not to revert me (or perhaps you mean that if you had reverted me, you would have discussed it afterward?). If you had reverted me, though, I wouldn't think that you respected me any less. Reverts simply come with the territory on Wikipedia. Also thanks for the cookie.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Pedophilia article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki 'violations'
"We don't add such notes to articles; it's pretty much a WP:Editorializing violation ..."

I've been using Wiki for as long as you have, probably longer, and registered as a user a year or two ago, but seldom bother to log in. I have read much on many topics, and find a lot of mundane, obscure, and especially redundant material, often within the same article, and regardless of claimed 'policy', find 'violations' on a regular basis, but also find it regularly really only matters depending on whose 'turf' is being threatened. So called policies are in the eye of the editor/beholder/watcher. I've even pointed out to at least one watchdog that ALL of Wiki is 'trivia', in the broadest sense. I understand the watchers protect their pages religiously, that 'power users', devoting so much time to the project, likely have little else in their lives to make them feel powerful. This is NOT a judgement call, sorry.

Why didn't you take up modeling? Why wouldn't any beautiful woman? Yes, you have to resist endless sexual advances, but the actual work isn't ditch digging! (I laugh aloud when I hear actresses/models complain about how tough it is to work in cold weather/water -- like a sewer worker has it easy EVERY day in a freezing sewer!). Use the talents/looks God gave you, and develop new ones for yourself in your spare time, or for your old age. You say 5'3" is too small? Not every model is a 'runway' stick figure. About half of all the 'hot actresses' are under 5'5", so I'm sure it had more to do with self-esteem issues, as we all have to deal with, but some much more realistically than others. Or, perhaps, you're living a fantasy?

Yeah, the edit I made was somewhat 'editorial', but pointed out the FACT a suspension of belief was required to fully enjoy the show (never mind the dialogue/repartee which everybody loved was completely unbelievable). The article reader might find my 'trivia' relevant without having to 'click' on the links to the two actresses and discover/compute their age difference. Perhaps I should have used different construction or phrasing? But that would still have attracted you. Yeah, I watched the show, saw maybe a dozen or 20 episodes over the years. Reruns likely, as I seem to remember there was something else on at the same time that I favored more. But unless they're fans, the readers here probably have not, more so as time passes. Someone using Wiki to do (here comes a dreaded phase) 'original research' would get a better picture of the facts. I know, I know -- I've violated all kinds of Wiki policies and guidelines here with this verbiage. And that this entry will be deleted QUICK! But you say you don't answer email and I have a serious question for you: Can you honestly say NONE of your articles regarding 'sexual' issues contain NO 'original research'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.247.57 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, IP. You got so worked up over this revert? Or was it that I reverted you twice?


 * As for modeling (I see you read my user page), like I stated, "I turned it down to focus on my own interests." This means that I was not interested in modeling. I assure you that I am not living some fantasy by noting that people wanted me to model, but I didn't want to model and felt that my height would realistically get in the way of it anyway. Yes, I know that there are different types of models and I know that there are many attractive female celebrities that are my height or close to it. But how many 5'3" models have you heard of? Fame isn't everything, but if I was going to model, I would have wanted to reach as high as I could (as they say, "reach for the stars"). So, yes, I suppose I was insecure about my height with regard to modeling. But in the end, modeling just was not, and is still not, my passion career-wise or in any way; the closest I got to it being such is editing and defending aspects of the Supermodel article.


 * As for "[my] articles regarding 'sexual' issues," I edit various sexual articles and only focus most of my attention on a few of them. Like I've stated on my talk page before, the vast majority of the sexual articles need significant fixing up (yes, a lot of them contain WP:Original research), but I am just one person; there are not enough editors around here who take the time to fix up these articles in the way that I do (meaning extensive sourcing, good formatting and making sure that these articles comply with various Wikipedia policies and guidelines). In fact, I can't think of any other editor who does that. Other editors who edit such articles help out with them here and there, but mostly watch the articles and take care of the maintenance side of them.


 * As for "this entry will be deleted QUICK!," I usually don't delete personal attacks or posts that can be perceived as personal attacks from my talk page; see, for examples, User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12 (and the section immediately after it) and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12 (all by the same IP). Such comments intrigue, if not entertain me. Rarely do they anger me. Some of my talk pages watches will think that I should not have dignified your comment with a reply. But, hey, they aren't me. And replying to such a post doesn't necessarily make it more or less dignified. Oh, and regarding email, I do respond under certain circumstances; like my talk page currently states, "Keep in mind, however, that, concerning Wikipedia, I only regularly email with a select few (and I do mean a very small group of people from this site). So for others, if you email me, make sure that it is about something that makes my user talk page less than ideal to use for that message. Otherwise, I may very well ignore you, especially since replying back will provide you with my email address (one of them anyway)." Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what
Keep on reverting vandalism while I take out the minor stuffs. Happy editing.  Soham  16:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Soham, about this edit that I thanked you for via WP:Echo, thanks again. And happy editing to you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did'n't want to divulge information as to the edit, I received the echo and knew why I was being thanked.  Soham  16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I did it so that this section is clear as to what it is about, which also serves as a reminder for me. Your edit was reverted, but I'll leave that matter to you to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind being reverted, but this kind of editing will only lead to excessive unnecessary admin work. I going to notify the user about his behaviour along with warring nature.  Soham  17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That user also has a WP:Pending changes problem, if this case is any indication. It aggravates me to see editors accepting changes that they should not be accepting. This type of bad monitoring is why I'm not a fan of WP:Pending changes; too much mess still gets through that system. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With regard to pending changes, he or she said it was a mistake and that he or she was about to revert. Hopefully that's the case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion that was not a mistake, but AGF.  Soham  06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)   01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got... message!
Dear Flyer22, i am the one that made some -heavy- editing in the "National Youth Organisation (Greece)" at 20:16, 9 January 2014‎ (94.66.14.189), that you reverted. I removed some dead links (most references don't exist anymore), but mostly rephrased the text removing some strong characterizations about the organization been "fascist" (but still keeping some "hints", as it's not clear that it surely was not) - please keep in mind that the regime that created that organization -at the time WW2 was starting- fought AGAINST Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, plus many members of that organization were Communists (actually, there are still some of those -very- old folks that are currently elected in parliament with left-wing/Communist parties, the same parties that were members while members of that organization!). To be honest i don't know how thinks work in wikipedia (that's my first "contribution" - i don't even know if this place is appropriate for my message!) - i understand that you are an old member and (hoping that it's not an issue of "ideology" - i think that you just try to protect the article from vandalization) i would appreciate if you could help me with my editing (e.g., in the article's title exists the word "Organisation" - i think it must be "Organization"). Thanks. P.S. I am Greek - sorry for my English! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.14.189 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IP, you removed sourced material without explanation (without an edit summary), and that's why I reverted you. With regard to sourcing, Wikipedia editors should adhere to WP:Verifiability. What WP:Reliable sources do you have to support your claims and counter the article's sourcing? Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a great explanation! So let me explain myself: Reference "100+1 Years of Greece" (in Greek:"100+1 χρονια Ελλαδα") -that is used 3 times in the article, one as a reference to the phrase "It differed from its Nazi and Fascist Italian counterparts in that it never managed to turn its members into blind followers of the regime"- is a Greek book without an author (seriously!), not in circulation, and not found in any public library - actually it's one of those "books" published just for ideological propaganda. The publisher, named Maniateas (in Greek:"Μανιατεας") is currently... missing because of financial scandals! I include a link (https://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=733045) to the internationally well known anarchist site "indymedia" where -from 2007 to 2012- extreme left-wing people, among them some former employees of him, describe his business as a fraud (in Greek, but you may manage to machine translate it - in the title of that page, after some Greek phrase you will read the English phrase "take the money and run..."). Reference "THE "NATIONAL YOUTH ORGANISATION" OF THE REGIME OF THE 4TH OF AUGUST 1936 (in Greek)" was a web page from a school project, not existing from 2008, that was just two paragraphs of text, again without an author - i include a link to the archived page (http://web.archive.org/web/20081017030223/http://www.istoria-neolaias.gr/stinKoinonia/stinKoinonia_eon.html). References "Archives of the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation", "Proud march on our schools (in Greek), "The 4th of August and the Youth of an Era (in Greek)", all used just for the text "Some of the activities that EON members were involved in included military training, athletics events, imposing parades and marches, reforestation,[5] trips and community service.[6][7]" - i kept the text but removed the references because the first does not exist, the second is a page about a Greek student complaining for having to march with his school, and the third is also a semi-nationalist blog with opinion articles that does not even have the specific page. Reference "EON magazine" is... a page from a Greek action site (24soldgr), that does not even work anymore! Reference "Photograph of the official emblem and motto" (used twice) is a photograph from an external site - i think you are right, it was my mistake to remove it. Please advise (should i rewrite the article, including the last reference, with an explanation in the edit summary?)... and sorry to bother you in that way- thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.14.189 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Spambot post
Hi thanks for reverting the spam posting at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantic_City_boardwalk&diff=next&oldid=590410359. However I noticed that you labelled this as good faith. That is not something that I would have called it. We have a dozen or so spambots that post the same style of advertisement on different pages, from many different IP numbers. They target pages with the word "board" or "forum" in the title. If you come across some repetitious spam, I will block these with out warning, as they are robotic editors without human readers behind them, they will not read any warning. Also it can be worth checking for the the links from the spam on other Wiki-pages to see if they managed to avoid getting reverted before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Crying Game
I thought you weren't here to play games? Now who's playing the Crying Game? LOL Thanks for clarifying that sodomy can also mean bestiality. No need to get all upset.Cluelesswonder (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With regard my (sort of) interaction with you thus far, seen here, here, here, here and here, and with the message I left you about edit warring, I would be fully justified in "crying" by reporting such behavior (your behavior). Look at your WP:Edit warring, including your WP:3RR violation, at the article in question (Sodomy law), over something so easily WP:Verifiable. Look at your adding a "clarification needed" tag for something you knew the text was referring to and could have clarified yourself. Yes, I'm not here at Wikipedia to play games. And if you honestly didn't know what sodomy typically refers to (including that bestiality is commonly a part of that definition), you do now. If you intend to continue editing at this site, become familiar with Policies and guidelines and cut out the WP:Battleground editing. Otherwise, editing here will be far from easy for you. Replies like this will sink you fast. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that I'm not the only one who suspects that you are not a new Wikipedia editor. What tipped me off that you are not? The vast majority of new Wikipedia editors don't know to sign their usernames (even with the editing box staring them in the face and telling them to sign it) and they usually don't talk about primary and secondary sources or know about the "citation needed" tag; the ones that do know about it, don't know how to use it right off the bat. Seems you have also admitted to not being new. Either way, the way that you edit Wikipedia is the typical inexperienced style of a WP:Newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Cluelesswonder 48 hours for personal attacks and sockpuppetry, I fully expect the admin who handles that SPI to resolution will block indef, I'm still learning the processes there.  18:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And indef now, which I've been instructed is the normal procedure. SPI case will be kept open to check for other socks.   19:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nature, nurture, various associated terms
Hi, Flyer22,

I see you have been busy on a variety of Wikipedia articles. As I see there is now another editor proposing renaming Nature versus nurture to Nature and nurture, a proposal I generally support, I thought I should check in with you to see what sources you suggest would help all of us reach an understanding of what is the mainstream view on that issue and what article title (among several terms already used as redirects or as wikilink terms) would best fit Wikipedia policy on the basis of reliable sources. I'm not in a rush on this, and I will wait while you deal with all the busyness you deal with to hear what you have to say. I wanted to say directly that I think your suggestion to always check WikiProject pages as well as article talk pages before taking on major article edits is a very good idea, and I'm glad you brought that up. I look forward to following that thoughtful suggestion throughout my future editing. See you on the wiki. I hope you are enjoying a good new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a first draft of a rationale for the article name changed you requested discussion about. Just today I noticed the detail that the first three references in the article, which have been there for at least three years, were searched up using the current title of the article, and yet found clear evidence that the original phrase used by Galton was "nature and nurture," as all the sources agree.


 * Rationale 1 The Wikipedia policy on article titles Use commonly recognizable names says, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." The three sources cited first in the article since at least as far back as February 2011 all quote Francis Galton for the phrase "nature and nurture," and more recent sources also credit Galton with originating the phrase in that form. Moreover, the Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that "nature and nurture" has been the predominant phrase in English ever since the topic has been discussed in English-language books. Of course the core Wikipedia content policy of Verifiability suggests that we should follow the sources in what terms we use as we write articles.


 * Rationale 2 Besides recognizability through using the most common name, the Wikipedia guideline on article titles suggests the title criteria of naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. The article title Nature and nurture allows convenient, neutral point of view wikilinking from the dozens of other articles that link to the main article (either through inline wikilinks built into article text or through see also references). It also allows for a more neutral point of view and readable lede paragraph and development of the article. Several of the thoughtful comments that came up from other editors in earlier discussion on this point mentioned that [Nature versus nurture] is an old-fashioned, minority point of view, not the mainstream view found in the sources today.


 * I'd be glad to hear what you think about this, based on your editing approach of emphasizing mainstream views, in light of the sources you have at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WeijiBaikeBianji, I stated almost all that I have to state on that matter when it comes to titling that article. I still feel that the article should be titled "Nature versus nurture," per WP:Common name. The alternative name, "Nature and nurture" should also be in the WP:Lead, per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So if "nature and nurture" is shown to be the common term, as all sources I have consulted suggest it is, then redirecting from the other term to an article titled with the common term is good to go, right? (This article has a bunch of redirects, and will continue to have a bunch of redirects, for sure.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I've already stated how I view the sourcing. And there is no WP:Consensus there at that talk page that I see for you to change the title of that article to "Nature and nurture." And even if there was, and you were to change that title again, the alternative title should be in the lead right beside the new title...per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Suggestions of any particular sources you recommend would be much appreciated. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

American Hustle
Hi, Flyer. I'm afraid I haven't seen American Hustle yet, so on the chance that you had, and given our and User:Doniago's good work on Titanic (1997 film), I thought you might want to take a crack at the 1,000-word-plus monstrosity over there! I almost laughed when I saw the word-count! : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, above you linked to a disambiguation page for the film, but I can see that you are referring to American Hustle (2013 film). And, yikes, that plot summary is definitely out of control. I haven't seen that film yet either, but, since I'm not planning on watching that film any time soon and I won't care much if I'm spoiled on it, I'm willing to take a shot at reducing that plot summary if Doniago is not. But like you know, it's tricky reducing the plot summary for a film that you haven't seen because you are more likely to cut something that should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Sorry to give the wrong link!


 * If it helps, changing passive voice to active voice and removing unnecessary "that"s can help whittle things down even when one hasn't seen it. 'Preciate you fighting the good fight! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Monsters in the Morning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Monsters in the Morning (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Levdr1 lp /  talk  12:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits: Herpes genitalis and Timothy L. Tyler articles
Would you please stop making wholesale reversions of legitimate edits under the pretense that the source does not exist? You recently edited Timothy L. Tyler claiming that there was no mention of his bisexuality. The source specifically says "Tyler, who had girlfriends before his incarceration, has become bisexual while in prison, in search of companionship." http://tbo.com/news/crime/mandatory-minimums-keep-many-nonviolent-people-behind-bars-20130817/ I will detail the other examples. Thanks for focusing on helpful contributions. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As shown here, here, here, here, here and here, I explained why I've reverted you. The wholesale reverts at the Herpes genitalis article were completely justified, per WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. But on the topic of wholesale revisions, this addition by you that Zad68 reverted is largely a wholesale revision on your part.


 * And with regard to the Timothy L. Tyler article, I was going by the second source, which was the first one used to support the statement before I rearranged the references by number order. Bisexuality (in this case, the bisexual behavior) is not necessarily the same thing as being bisexual (the sexual orientation; the deep-rooted sexual attraction). I made that very clear in this discussion I pointed you to. There are heterosexual people who have engaged in sexual activity with the same sex, but who are not bisexual. There are gay men and lesbian women who have engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex, but who are not bisexual. The sexual activity does not change the sexual orientation. And with regard to the article in question, what was the first source did not call Tyler bisexual; it states, "Tyler — who dated women before prison including his sister's best friend — also started having sex with other men in prison because he craved affection. This romance provides a mental escape from the four walls around him." So that source makes it out as though he sought, or still seeks, sex with men while in prison for companionship, not because he truly desires to be with men sexually. In the absence of a woman, it is common for a heterosexual man to take up a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a man while in prison, especially if sentenced to prison for several years, many years or for the rest of one's life. It is common for a heterosexual woman to take up a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a woman while in prison, especially if sentenced to prison for several years, many years or for the rest of one's life. Doing so is called situational sexual behavior (and sometimes by other terms, such as the more common term situational homosexuality), but the Wikipedia article on that subject is currently awful. All that stated, I restored the bisexual aspect to the article because the other source claims that Tyler says he is now bisexual; it states: "Tyler, who had girlfriends before his incarceration, said he has become bisexual while in prison, in search of companionship." Notice, however, that the wording for the bisexuality aspect is essentially the same as the wording for the other source on the bisexuality aspect, expect for the first source making the claim that Tyler says he is bisexual? That source may have taken liberty with the text in that case; in other words, Tyler may very well still identify as heterosexual. I'll clarify in that aforementioned WP:MED discussion that one of the sources does attribute the bisexual matter to the way that Tyler identifies.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Herpes genitalis and Timothy L. Tyler articles" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your screenplay
Wondering what it is about, how far have you got on it; if you need advice let me know although I'm not a professional writer. I wrote a screenplay entitled Fifteenth Reunion in 2009. It could probably be made by an indie shop or even a college or high school film group. I may go back and rework it one of these days. My current project is a coming of age fiction story about a teenaged boy who builds a spaceship, flies to Betelgeuse, meets sexy aliens, and learns about how to be a human. About 250 pages on its second draft. I'm honing, trying to focus it, get it shipshape.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that you took the invitation to continue this discussion at my talk page. And if someone gets on to us about a WP:Talk violation here, we can always take the discussion to email. Anyway, on to the discussion of screenplays and screenwriting: Tom, is your screenplay copyright-protected? By that, I mean is it registered with Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW)? If not, you should definitely copyright protect it. Not simply state that it's copyrighted because you wrote it. Also, for feedback on a screenplay, as well as sufficient exposure for it, a good website (perhaps the best website) to go to is TriggerStreet.com.


 * As for the screenplay that I'm currently working on... Rather than give a decent synopsis, I'll break it down like this: I had been working on one that heavily involves the many-worlds interpretation. The main character in that, a female, has the ability to travel from one reality/world to the next and is desperately trying to get home (to the world she belongs in). As that character states, "In this world, you are standing in front of me listening to me tell you this. In another, you are listening to a different version. In yet another, you are about to be in a car crash. In many, you don't exist at all. ... To know everything about my doppelgängers is to know everything about me. Every possibility. Every path to my world." She has a group that is somehow bound to her and she has promised to get them home as well. With each jump to a different world, which can also happen beyond her control, the group studies their doppelgängers for clues so that they may stop being subjected to different worlds. Studying the doppelgängers is important because the main character has what the group has come to refer to as "The Eye" -- the ability to see each possible outcome that can result from any person's actions. I stopped working on this story for now because it's mentally exhausting (with a twist ending; yes, I already know how I want to end it); it's a real mind-bender. Read the Many-worlds interpretation article, and you'll see what I mean.


 * The screenplay that I've been working on for a week or more so now also features a female as the main character. Not every story I've written has it to where the main character is female. Half of them don't. I figured that I might as well have such female characters, especially since there are not enough of them in Hollywood. In this story, it's an apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic world divided into "the clean" and "the infected." The clean are the normal people, like you and me. The infected are the people with the ability to multiply their natural strength or speed beyond what is normal, an ability made possible by a mysterious virus that came out of nowhere many generations ago. So they are essentially mutants, sort of like X-Men...but with more realistic power. The infected are essentially oppressed, treated like lower beings and slaughtered solely because they are not normal, and there is an active war going on between these groups of people. The infected are fighting for freedom while the clean are fighting for the eradication of every infected. Now when it comes to fighting for these causes, people have two choices; either join the war directly or join it through the tournaments. The tournaments are a way to represent one's respective side and fight for it in the hopes that enough wins will ensure that side is victorious. For the infected, this means liberation. For the clean, this means they will have the right to exterminate all of the infected once the tournaments are finally over. The main character (in her early 20s) is a part of the infected and runs a camp where she trains fighters for the tournaments. After a bout between two of her fighters early on in the script, a young man (age 19) shows up saying that he has a power that can bring liberation to the infected. Legend has it that once every two centuries, two people with the power to draw out another's spirit and manifest it as a weapon are born; this is called "the godly power." And this is what the young man claims to have. The story moves from there.


 * So that's it. I'm currently on page 25 of that script; page 24 when it's typeset. Will be further into it tonight and/or very early the following morning. Unlike my other script ideas, this is the one that I will be heavily pursuing filmmaking-wise...eventually. I got the concept of "the godly power" from the anime Guilty Crown (an anime that I watched a few months ago and enjoyed; trailer for it is here). The godly power is based on what, in that anime, is called "the king's power" or "The Power of the Kings"; the stories are very different, of course, though. No plagiarism for me. And while the king's power is about manifesting one's heart (called a "void") as a weapon, the godly power is about manifesting one's spirit (actually the mind) as a weapon. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool, Flyer22. I possibly registered my screenplay with WGAW but am not sure, still I am confident that if a respectable film company wants to produce it, they will take the smart route and pay me for it; if I fix it up further (I am not totally happy with the female characters in it, plus some scenes are too teenagerish) then I may register it like you say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * About your 2nd screenplay -- sounds cool. Have you thought out all the rules of the clean-infected world, how it works, why, backstories of how it got this way? Like, if a clean and infected person come into contact, why doesn't the clean person become infected? Reason being-- I think it is necessary to have some kind of structure, fairly clearly defined, for the characters to battle in, otherwise it becomes like Field of Dreams (a movie I did not like) in which the author, kind of like God, changes the rules midstream just so the characters can get something or solve some problem -- I'm talking about that ending scene in which the audiences miraculously drive out to a cornfield to watch baseball without much marketing or individual initiative. When there are rules, the characters can solve their problems, fight within the structure, and readers or audience can root for them, feel tension, enjoy it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your screenplay is somewhat like Hindu caste society, with infecteds like untouchables? Is this right? If so do they have a samsara-type religion of birth-death-rebirth? Also, about the tournament -- who sets it up, runs it, why does winning the tournament matter. Reminds me a bit of Game of Thrones although I only half-watched this movie; if yours will be similar, it may have a good following since younger people these days seem to be into this kind of stuff. If the clean-infected world is like a master-slave world, then how are the clean people also debased by the relation? In other stuff I've worked on, it's tough having a hero with too much godly-power -- too little and the character is weak, too much and it's overkill, like Greeks in their tragedies with Hercules as a hero had to make him vulnerable (ie human) otherwise the audience could not identify. Anyway, sounds like an interesting project; if you get it to the point where you appreciate frank criticism (I have two modes: tough critic will work something over and I say what is real, positive or negative, or supporter in which I am a flag waver) let me know and I'll try to help. My email is on my user page if needed but right now I'm pretty busy with my other stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One other thing. Have you thought about benefits for the audience? I think this is often overlooked -- basic motivations not just for the characters in the story, but how the story will satisfy the needs of the audience? I think it is important to understand how you will reach people this way. I'm kind of thinking that art (good art) tries to transform people, by understanding where they are now, then taking them to somewhere better -- a journey, an uplifting, an exploration, so the audience comes out stronger, smarter, more satisfied, more enlightened.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What you stated about copyrighting your screenplay -- the "a respectable film company" part -- is a good point. One of the screenwriting books that I have, I think Dave Trottier's The Screenwriter's Bible: A Complete Guide to Writing, Formatting, and Selling Your Script, makes a good point about paranoia with regard to producers/etc. stealing another person's script...and states that what such people are interested in is that person's writing ability more than the script. If they steal the script, and it's a great script, they are without that person's great writing ability that can make them more money; no valid producer, etc. wants that.


 * I'm still working on the clean-infected "rules." As to infection, no one knows why the virus infected certain people and not others. And because it's been two centuries since that virus broke out, the original ones who had it have died off; the ones who currently have it are born that way. I kind of liked Field of Dreams, by the way, though I was significantly young (a child, later a teenager) when I saw that movie. I need to watch it again, and see how I feel about it now. I'm not sure that I've watched it all the way through. I mostly just remember that catchphrase: "If you build it, he will come." And, hey, at least that film is critically-acclaimed.


 * I don't think that my screenplay is like Hindu caste society. As for who sets up the tournaments... Well, "the council"...which is made up of four clean and four infected members. The people (general society) put them in charge when the government and all other forms of law crumbled. The council is sort of mysterious. A white-haired elderly woman (who may or may not be part of the council) sets up the tournaments; she selects the best fighter from each group (with various clean and infected groups competing, respectively) after they battle before her. She's never physically there to watch them; the performances are broadcast to her via holographic imagery, and it's vice versa (via broadcast) when she names who has been selected. The tournaments are important because, like I stated, "The tournaments are a way to represent one's respective side and fight for it in the hopes that enough wins will ensure that side is victorious. For the infected, this means liberation. For the clean, this means they will have the right to exterminate all of the infected once the tournaments are finally over." The tournaments are an ongoing thing, have been going on for many years now (though not for two centuries). The hope is that once the tournaments are finally over and the scores are tallied, the war will finally be over: Either the infected will be liberated or they will be exterminated. One might ask: Can you really trust the system? And who is to state that the score has not been tampered with? This is why both sides keep diligent track of the scores. But then again, who is to state that the war will definitely be over, that the infected will simply roll over and let the clean kill all of their kind? All of this will be handled in the story. As for Game of Thrones, that's a television show. And I highly recommend that you watch every episode of it, get caught up on it before the fourth season premieres. It's a really good show, with excellent writing, superb acting and good-to-great special effects. It's listed on my user page as one of my favorite current shows.


 * As for the benefits for the audience, I have thought about that (always do with regard to writing a story) and I agree with you on it, except that I point out that not every good story will be uplifting. Still, when it comes to explanations, too much dialogue and/or backstory can hinder a story. The dialogue should generally move the story forward, and in as few words as possible. It's best to show, not tell. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My sense is you've done your homework and know much about writing screenplays, so I wish you success. Agree about too much backstory hindering a story -- I think we'll agree that working out the backstory can be important, so you know it is there, what happened, and perhaps you can refer to parts of it, tangentially, if needed, since it might give your story more realism and depth. I think I was thinking about The Hunger Games not Game of Thrones -- sorry -- that is your script reminds me somewhat of the HG, with the idea of a tournament.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did Teaching Co courses on diseases, illnesses etc, thing about viruses is like a miniature animal piggybacking on a host. Viruses want to spread themselves; usually they'll attack a human for a few days and there is a cycle, with different stages, the last one being some way to get the host to expel new germs (coughing, sneezing, itching) so the process can be repeated in a new victim/host. Viruses which overpower a host (kill the human) die too, so generally they don't want to do that, but rather live off the host for a while. Meanwhile, the host figures out (usually) how to get rid of the virus. So a virus which permanently infects humans, generation after generation, marking their status substantially -- like making the human permanently be identifiable as an "infected" -- maybe an explanation is needed. When a human becomes infected with a virus, usually (according to the Teaching Co course) there's redness, swelling, temperature -- how the body fights the infection. So if people are infected in your world, maybe the condition reverts to something chronic -- maybe more like acne or AIDS or herpes -- something that sticks around somehow, that is noticeable (so the "cleans" can identify the "infecteds"). If the cleans and infecteds intermix, like on the Council, what will keep the cleans from becoming infected? What is the ultimate source of their animosity towards each other? No doubt you've been thinking about these things. If they agree to a tournament, then the animosity is somewhat regulated by the rules (since they both agree to the tournament approach), so it is not a fever-pitch anger between the two groups but rather a controlled dislike? That is why I was thinking along the lines of a caste system.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my sci-fi book I've tried to think through much of this stuff but I doubt I've been as thorough as some major sci-fi writers; rather, I'm trying to keep it rather simple, for thematic clarity, not sure if it will work as I hope.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I made tweaks to my "20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)" comment a few seconds (though it's time stamped as a minute) before you posted. I thought about the tournaments with regard to The Hunger Games (film) as well, mostly because I've recently watched both The Hunger Games films for the first time (both late last year, not far apart from each other), those are the latest tournament-fight films (ones that reach a wide audience anyway) that have been released, and I'm involved in editing the Wikipedia articles for those films. I like both films. As for the virus, you mentioned AIDS. AIDS "infects humans, generation after generation, marking their status substantially -- like making the human permanently be identifiable as an 'infected.'" Main difference there is that the virus in my story can only be spread through birth. If that's illogical... Well, this is science-fiction, after all, LOL. As to how the infected are identified, a green birth mark identifies the vast majority of the infected; the others, such as the main character, have no birth mark that can identify them as such. Again, no one knows why it's like that. Or more precisely, I don't know why it's like that. No room to explain all of that either, unless I want to cut out some other things or extend the length of my screenplay. Studios these days err on the side of "the shorter the screenplay, the better." That stated, I'm aiming for the screenplay to be at least 120 pages long, which is normal length and which should equal 120 minutes of viewing time. As for the ultimate source of the animosity between the clean and the infected, that is fear/envy and hatred. People fear or even envy what they don't understand. Sometimes they simply hate what they don't understand. We have seen this throughout history, such as with slavery. And people don't like to be oppressed and will usually hate the ones who have oppressed them. All of that is the source of the animosity between the clean and the infected. All of that will be shown in the screenplay. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, good luck Flyer22!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Man of Steel (film)
Right. It was the change to the release date (the previous edit) that was unsourced. Rather than revert or remove altogether, I tagged to indicate the change needed to be supported by a citation.  Dwpaul  Talk   02:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And the unsourced change has now been reintroduced ...  Dwpaul  Talk   02:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And now a source has been added. All good.  Dwpaul   Talk   02:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Benny Morris
Please explain why the sourced addition is not construcitve. It is not vandalism to add text that has an RS It is extremely relevant to BM vies and statements.81.159.118.159 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Fixed and tweaked. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Breast article: Even though I agree with you
that in common English usage breasts refer to those of women, the lead of the article says "[b]oth men and women develop breasts from the same embryological tissues." So, we should look for sources that also comment on how the mammary region of males is erogenous too, or change the lead? The way it is now is rather prone to misconstruction and/or incomplete. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Srtª PiriLimPomPom. You are referring to this revert I made. I saw some validity in one aspect you changed, which is why I restored this (followed by a minor tweak). I stated here on NeilN's talk page that you were likely going to revert; nice to see that I was wrong about that. Like I told NeilN, one of my other reasons for reverting you is because "the source about orgasm from nipple stimulation only claims that some women can orgasm that way (the orgasms are still genital orgasms, regardless); it mentions that a few men have similar response with regard to how the brain reacts to breast stimulation, but it doesn't state that those men achieved an orgasm from such stimulation." Either way, this is best discussed on the article talk page, so that other editors, those in general, can weigh in on this topic.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Breast article:" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As for changing the lead, it should not be changed so that it excludes mention of males; males do have breasts, unless one characterizes a breast in the strict sense (mammary gland), and the article is not solely about female breasts. The point is that your change was odd because males are not usually regarded as having breasts, and your change was largely unsupported with regard to the sources in that section of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Before we transfer this discussion to the article's talk page, I want to say that I'm entirely ok about omitting the orgasm part because I don't have sources for that (only the knowledge that the connection with genitals is present in males too, and some anecdotal evidence - that doesn't count here, I know - that it is possible for a male to orgasm through it, and not at all rare to orgasm through strong mixed stimulation of nipples and anus), but I still find the section on their, uh, sexiness, a bit of a double standard. The design of the male chests around the nipple area can be aesthetically pleasing and a fetish too, some males of a mostly queer* audience are interested in heightening these aspects, and not only males appreciate women's breasts. Combined with this and the impression that section gave that only female nipples are erogenous, the impression that section gave me was that there was an unawareness of the fact that male bodies can be appreciated in an about equal manner (well, yeah, to the exception of an enormously different hormonal balance needed, healthy males can even breastfeed) and of the existence of homosexuality. If we can get sources for that (and I'm pretty sure it is nowhere near hard, no pun intended), I don't see many reasons to comment over it. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, this should be discussed at the Breast article talk page. Some aspects that you are arguing for are aspects that I have not seen covered in WP:Reliable sources (either not at all or not usually), such as "healthy males can even breastfeed"...as in a human male using his chest to feed another person milk. Are you not taking the mammary gland into account? Look at the Breastfeeding article, and you will see that it only focuses on females being able to breastfeed; the reason why is obvious to me. If you are referring to male lactation, see what this section of the Lactation article states and what the Male lactation article states. The place to work out this type of thing is the article talk page, where others may be able to assist you with WP:Reliable sources. While I have knowledge of and access to an abundance of anatomy and/or sexual scholarly works, the breast matter is not something I am focusing on at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing disruption by User:John on biography articles
Aloha. Did you ever file the RFC on John? I ask because John is now disrupting John Barrowman with the same, unilateral interpretations  of what is and what is not tabloid journalism and of course, he's refusing to discuss it. He's gone so far as to remove celebrity interviews of notable subjects while deleting content that is already sourced in the article. It's hard to tell if he is simply incompetent and/or disruptive, but he just removed a huge swath of sourced content simply because a vandal removed the source. I asked him to look at the last good version to compare it and he refused. He also edit warred and threatened to use his admin tools while falsely claiming there was a BLP issue. If you did not file the RFC, then I am ready to co-sign and file an AN report. If you did file the RFC, please provide a link. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only way you're going to get John to stop is by holding a community-wide RFC on what circumstances those sources (Mail, Mirror, Sun, etc) can be used. That was my experience. -- Neil N  talk to me  03:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this does seem to go beyond that, at least on Barrowman. First, he claimed there was a BLP violation.  There wasn't, and reliable sources already in the article supported the content, so I reverted his deletions and asked him to come to the talk page per BRD.  He didn't discuss, but went straight into edit warring, followed by a threat to block me on my talk page over a non-existent BLP violation.  Just to get him to the article talk page, I had to confront him on his user talk page, at which point he made a number of unsubstantiated claims.  When asked to explain further, he was either unable to do so or incapable of doing so.  Then, he began removing more content simply because a vandal had removed a citation.  I asked him to look at the last good GA version to see the sources and he refused.  How can someone like this be an admin? I don't think an RFC on the sources alone will either solve or address the problem.  John doesn't seem competent to edit Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue you face is that past Wikipedia discussions have held sources like the Mail and Mirror as unreliable so someone can rip them out without considering any of the nuances and other editors won't get too fussed. May not be what you want to hear, but that's how it is in my view. -- Neil N  talk to me  04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the Mail, I'm talking about admin John's bad behavior. However, if you want to discuss the Mail in this example, the fact of the matter is that it was a celebrity interview by Jenny Johnston who has received commendations for her interviews. There is no question whatsoever this is a reliable source, but that is not the primary issue.  John is making a series of bad edits, bad allegations, and bad actions all around.  The fact of the matter is The Daily Mail has won awards for its journalism.  There is absolutely no consensus on RS/N to remove sources like this.  I know this because I have followed those discussions about the DM (there and in other talk pages) since 2004, and I have been one of its leading critics.  This is a unilateral POV campaign being run by User:John based on absolutely no interpretation of any existing policy or guideline. He's either totally incompetent, purposefully disruptive, or a combination of the two. We've repeatedly seen, over and over again, how one editor will wage an obsessive campaign against a certain source, a style guideline, the use of grammar and or typography, or some other pet issue. And, we've seen how editors that do this get shot down time and time again because they are acting tendentiously.  That's what's happening here, but John is getting away with it because of his admin status.  There's no editor without admin rights that would be allowed to act like this. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "only warning" on your talk page was completely uncalled for. From past discussions, it should be clear to him the community does not agree with some of his views on BLP sources and he should take that into account when dealing with experienced editors. -- Neil N  talk to me  04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, the biggest issue is that after he was reverted, he should have taken to the talk page to discuss his concerns. At that point, I would have patiently explained and addressed his concerns for as long as it took until we were both satisfied.  But that's not what happened.  He edit warred, warned me, and then instead of engaging in discussion, made a "my way or the highway" comment on the talk page and failed to discuss the problems.  That's what upsets me. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * John can be quite frustrating with regard to his view of enforcing WP:BLP; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13 for just how much more frustrated I became. Or this matter at the Brad Pitt talk page; that was after the community had decided that People magazine is generally fine to use for biographical content with regard to living people, though I feel that JethroBT didn't close the discussion on that matter as accurately as it should have been closed.


 * Like I noted before, John does not seem to differentiate between tabloid (newspaper format) and tabloid journalism. Or that, like the lead of the Tabloid (newspaper format) article currently states, that format "is used in the United Kingdom by nearly all local newspapers."


 * My WP:ANI report on John is not the only WP:ANI report on his sourcing rationale; he acted ridiculously by giving you a "This is your only warning" threat, the same threat he gave me in a similar circumstance and was deservedly chastised for. I'm not sure what you can do to stop him on his sourcing grudges. He has a good chance of getting away with it if reported at WP:ANI again, due to those who agree with him and/or those who are biased with regard to his administrative status. There also is not much support at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard for use of the Daily Mail, but it clearly should not be removed in the case of exclusive interviews. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And, no, I never filed a WP:RfC/U on John. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Am I correct to assume that like NeilN, you prefer a community RFC over a user RFC? Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No preference on that matter. But I do think it's past time that a WP:RfC/U is started on him for these sourcing grudges of his. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have started working on an RfC in my user space over at User:Viriditas/draft. This is unfortunate, because I have traditionally found myself agreeing with John on many different topics.  The problem here, of course, is that we have an administrator bypassing our policies on BLP and our guidelines on RS, as well as the appropriate talk pages and noticeboards.  Further, John has threatened to use his tools to enforce his personal blacklist.  This is unacceptable behavior and it must be addressed by the community. We have discussion pages and consensus for a reason.  John cannot continue to act unilaterally on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Flyer, thanks for your feedback. If it's helpful, I agree with '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. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 07:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, JethroBT. Thanks for commenting. Your close of that discussion has yet to cause any problems. I've simply anticipated that it might. I often think ahead, and that type of thinking has aided me well, including on Wikipedia; so many times I've correctly predicted the outcome of something on Wikipedia, and was already ready for it because I planned ahead. Anyway, thanks again for the commentary/explanation. Flyer22 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Viriditas, John is absolutely in the wrong with regard to pulling Hello! as a source; I specifically brought up Hello! during the People magazine debate because John had been removing it and it's in the same camp as People magazine with regard to its acceptability for biographical content, with People magazine being more well known and slightly more trusted. I think that pulling Metro is wrong as well; again, "tabloid format" does not necessarily mean "tabloid journalism." Nothing but WP:Disruptive editing going on with these two aspects regarding John. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I guess what I'm having trouble understanding is why this guy is even allowed to edit.  If you or I put up a subpage saying such and such source is the worst source in the world like John has, and then we acted on our personal beliefs by targeting that source wherever it appeared, I can guarantee you, we would be indefinitely blocked for pointy POV pushing and disruption.  Yet this guy not only continues doing it after his bad behavior has been pointed out before on the noticeboards, but is an admin to boot?  This is crazy.  Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I left him what I think was a reasonable note on his talk page about the matter, and he just deleted it with edit comment "not needed"... so this is not a good situation. Looking for silver linings, I do note that he accepted the People Magazine RfC, I think. Right? So rather than an RfC/U and going that route, how about a RfC for Daily Mail and Hello and NY Daily News and so forth wrapped up into one RfC, the proposition being that, at least for uncontentious material where various markers exist such that the material is likely true and no contra-indication that it's not, it's OK to use XYZ as sources where we come up with a lengthy list to fill in XYZ. I think this is the way to go. I'd prefer to avoid RfC/U on otherwise productive editors over a single issue. Herostratus (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggested to NeilN that he make the WP:RfC about more than just People magazine; for example, I stated in this discussion (my "14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" post): "Though we will be focusing on People for this WP:RfC, something needs to be done with regard to the New York Daily News as well, considering that John has recently indicated on his talk page to Herostratus that he still considers that a tabloid. He likely feels that way because it uses tabloid (newspaper format). But like I noted at WP:ANI, 'As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not [necessarily] equal 'tabloid.' Many valid newspapers use that format.' NeilN also pointed this out to John with regard to that source."


 * As for the recent message you left for John, Herostratus... Yep, he doesn't care. Your commentary about having to start a new WP:RfC for each new source that he ridiculously objects to is a very good point; that should not have to be done at all. There absolutely is no valid reason that his "removing bad sources" sprees should include the New York Daily News any time he comes across it. That newspaper is written in tabloid format, but it is not a tabloid. It is a legitimate newspaper source used in many Wikipedia articles. If he is still removing that source based on his personal preference/skewed interpretation of WP:BLPSOURCES, then it is all the more reason that his sourcing insanity should stop. If I care enough to do so, I will revert him on the spot (and make a big fuss about it when he pursues the matter) if I catch him removing Hello!, the New York Daily News or Metro without valid cause, similar to what I did in this case (with a note) at the Ben Affleck article after the aforementioned People magazine debate was settled.


 * As for John being an otherwise productive editor, the jury is still out for me in that regard. I know that he also imposes his grammar preference on Wikipedia articles and is quick to edit war over it, as noted in the first section of User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13#User: John. So he can be disruptive in that area as well. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well how about something like this: User:Herostratus/Daily Mail et al RfC. This should be fairly quick-n-easy to run, I don't see it engendering a lot of discussion and would probably go similar to the People RfC. I believe that John did honor the People RfC so he's a good Wikipedian in that sense, so this would solve the immediate problem I think.

I'm not familiar with John as an editor. He seems smart and he's an admin and we need admins, so if he's at all active and effective in that role I'd hate to start a process that could end up with him leaving. I dunno about the grammar stuff but I guess it depends partly on if he's usually correct on the merits. I get that he's annoying in this particular bugaboo and maybe generally, but unless there's a general feeling that we'd be better off rid of him, I'd much rather not use an RfC/U when an RfC could suffice. This would be more effective, easier, and most importantly kinder. Hobbies are important to some people (me, for instance) and you don't want to imperil a person's hobby if you can avoid it.

So watta you all say? If you do want to run an RfC, edits or suggestions to the suggested text at User:Herostratus/Daily Mail et al RfC are solicited, or make a new one from scratch if that'd be better. Herostratus (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One problem is that you are loading the question when you say right at the beginning that it is a "fairly sketchy publication". That's not entirely true, and if you've performed any kind of deep research on any topic, you'll find the Daily Mail used quite often to support a number of reasonable works.  So it is prevalent in the literature, its writers have won numerous awards, and its interviewers are fairly respected.  That being said, our guideline on WP:RS already covers this.  Do we need an RFC on a particular source or set of sources because we've got an obsessive editor who has spent considerable time composing a jeremiad on a source and acting out his personal beliefs in a way that is incompatible with our best practices?  Seems like the solution is to block the editor, not give weight to their obsessive fantasies by taking it seriously. Call me crazy, but it does seem like John is being given far more leeway than a non-admin. I can list quite a number of indefinitely blocked editors who did the same thing John did.  Wikipedia tends to attract obsessive compulsive editors who get fixated on a certain thing and act out on that thing, not realizing they have gone over the edge. For some reason, John has been allowed to do this for quite some time now.  Isn't it time to put this to rest? Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends. If he's also doing other bad stuff or if it's reasonable to believe that he would turn to doing other bad stuff, such that he's a net negative, then maybe we should fire him and here's our chance. If there's reason to believe an RfC won't work, then maybe we should fire him and here's our chance. But the People RfC worked. Other than that, just being annoyed or wanting to get back at him, meh, not a good reason for escalating.


 * Besides which, an RfC/U is optional. He can ignore it and might. Then what? Hope he gets unhappy enough to leave, or go to ArbCom, which ArbCom might not take the case. So then what?


 * I get what you're saying about unfairness. I do get that you're the injured party here. Don't know what to say about that. I agree that being unfair (unfairly kind in this case) is potentially a problem, because fairness is good and people need to perceive we're fair. On the other hand, life is unfair somewhat. I don't see being a little unfair as a deal-killer here, especially since the unfairness is in being more lenient rather than being harsher.


 * I'm suggesting giving him far more leeway than a non-admin, not mainly because he's a admin, but mainly because in this case I see an easier way out. That he's been here since 2006 matters to my mind, and that he's an admin matters to my mind, not because it makes him special but because as a practical matter we need admins.


 * He is coming down on the protective side of BLPs -- way too far, but at least he's on the right side. He hasn't misused his admin tools AFAIK. So I'm inclined to go the RfC route. Your point about "sketchy" is spot on, I'll change that, and put the text and list up for general discussion before filing the RfC. I don't know if going the RfC and RfC/U route would be good, because the RfC/U might be be seen as moot if the RfC is going well. Without intending to, filing an RfC would interfere with you; can't help that, am still inclined to go that way at this time. Herostratus (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything protective about his edits. For example, John complained about a lack of sources in the article.  I explained to him that he should look at the last good version to clear up his concerns.  This is because the article has been repeatedly vandalized over the years.  In this instance, a vandal had previously removed a source in the article.  John refused to look at the GA version and removed the content because he couldn't be tasked with adding back the source the vandal had removed.  Instead he added a source to already sourced content in the article and refused to add the sourced content back.  I have now added it back.  This is not "protecting" a BLP, this is fucking shit up.  He edits unilaterally, he won't discuss the problem on the talk page, and he refuses to admit error or fix a problem he caused after being shown the problem.  Frankly, he shouldn't be allowed to edit, let alone have admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing misuse of WP:BLP and WP:RS by User:John

 * A Daily Mail source is used to support the claim that John Lydon "was named among the 100 Greatest Britons following a UK-wide vote". This source is supported by many others. John removes the easily verifiable and uncontroversial statement from John Lydon with the edit summary "no tabloids on BLPs please".  That's odd because the material is not likely to be challenged, is not contentious, and the sourcing is not tabloid journalism. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you all still going on about John? You need to file an RFC/U. I'm not going to do it myself, because the difference between my views and John's is less than the difference between yours and his, and I see where he's coming from (his removal of the paragraph in John Barrowman that cited The Sun and a YouTube video was spot on imho), but unless you go through the proper channels, I fear you'll all be here in a year's time moaning, as Henry II once put it, "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent admin?" I'm not trying to have a go or anything, just stating what you need to do to get this dispute resolved. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As can be seen above, Viriditas brought this latest "John can do anything he wants with regard to sourcing, and others just let him do it" matter to my talk page. I could not care less about John until I see him acting inappropriately to carry out his sourcing beliefs, which he does quite often. This is about more than John's views on sourcing; this is about his inappropriate conduct, conduct various others have called inappropriate or highly inappropriate, all just to carry out his views on sourcing. You know, like the previous and ridiculous war he raged against People magazine last year. When someone brings a matter to my talk page, I will either comment on it or I won't. I usually comment on it, and I chose to do so in this matter regarding John...for obvious reasons. I stay away from tabloid journalism-sourcing, and I abide by WP:BLP. John's definition of tabloid journalism-sourcing, and what are inappropriate sources for WP:BLPs, are somewhat out of step with the general Wikipedia community's views on that (as also shown at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard). And as such, so are the views of any person who agrees with him on those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me try and explain where John is coming from. Have a look at the discussion in Talk:Nic Potter, where a sentence cited to Mojo, widely considered to be a far more reliable source than the Daily Mail, was challenged and successfully removed for violating WP:BLP. To us, it's just a reliable source, but to people mentioned in the article, it's upsetting for them to see questionable content about a recently deceased friend that they did not write and have no control over. At the end of the day, when it comes down to brass tacks, I just feel sad that the two of you can't see eye to eye and get along. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   19:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have I ever called the Daily Mail a WP:Reliable source? I have not. Even in the section immediately above this one (my "04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)" post), I told Viriditas: "There also is not much support at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard for use of the Daily Mail, but it clearly should not be removed in the case of exclusive interviews." And regarding the Mojo magazine example, I don't see it as the same at all; if John were going around removing that source from any and every Wikipedia article, he'd be in the wrong on that as well.


 * As for getting along with John... The personality that John displays on Wikipedia is quite incompatible with mine (my "Wikipedia personality" and my "off-Wikipedia personality," which are generally the same). I might agree with him on things here and there, though I would not go out of my way to tell him that, but it is best that we stay clear of each other. I am well aware that one can work with someone that they don't get along with, or generally don't get along with, but I won't be seeking out a working relationship in such cases. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that the discussion has continued on your talk page. As for the Brad Pitt article: I already stated there that I'll be fixing issues that John's demands caused there. And if People magazine is the only sourcing for material regarding who Brad Pitt dated, etc. (which it certainly is not for most cases concerning him), then that's the way it is. Who Brad Pitt dated is well known; it is not contentious information in the least. And there is no requirement that WP:FA WP:BLPs cannot or should not use People magazine as a source. Some other things that were removed are not the least bit contentious either, but were well publicized. I've been slow to getting back around to the Brad Pitt matter, but I'll get there soon enough. Perhaps this weekend or next week. And if John still wants to subject that article to a WP:FA review, all because it uses People magazine as a source in ways he does not like, especially since it is a WP:FA article, then so be it. I've already correctly noted that the article will not be failed as WP:FA because it uses People, for any of its uses that John objected to there. I will, however, look for what you consider "better sources" before adding any of the material back. Flyer22 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Willing to help or suggest someone?
I undid an edit on Association of Women for Action and Research by. Given the subject matter, I feel awkward giving advice. Cheers Jim1138 (talk)
 * You handled it well. I'm not sure what to state to that person either, or who to suggest to give advice in our places. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Common sense article
Hi. I get what you mean with this edit. But basically it is "this ability ... is shared by". The confusion comes from the number of words in the "...". I can not see any easy way to shorten it though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster, if it's "this ability is shared by," which I thought might me what is meant, it seems that there should be a comma before the word which. Right now, the words "which is" seem to be especially connected to the word things. And, of course, in the case of things, the words "which are" should be used instead. It's not grammatically correct to state "things is"; it is grammatically correct to state "things are." Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, trying the comma idea. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Trinity Baptist College
Do you think we can get this page protected? Vandals have been wiping the page of a well-sourced and notable scandal for about two years now. Their edit summaries show a common motive, and they clearly aren't editing in good faith.74.106.243.248 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP. I'm not a WP:Administrator. Yes, that article qualifies for page protection; you can request such at WP:Requests for page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that it's been requested. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert the Man of Steel edit?
Why? Karim3343 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's incorrect, as shown by the Critical reception section in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

109
No, not me, though it's clearly someone who, like me, explains things in detail in his edit summaries. Maybe once every three or four months I'll forget to log in after clearing cache or something, but then I notice it after the first edit. Also not the other guy. Or given the exchange with 109 at my talk page, perhaps I'm Sybil! : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

IP friend on Young adult (psychology)
I see he was blocked before I logged on tonight :-). I was trying to think how we can emphasise that it's a section not to edit. Running through the various guidelines - Quotations does say Quotations must always be clearly indicated as being quotations, but doesn't really help for very short ones - neither does Manual_of_Style offer much more.

There are a variety of quote templates - I'm not certain I like any of them that much, anyway, I've taken the paragraph, and applied 3 types at User:Ronhjones/Sandbox2 - see what you think. I'm not fussed about which one would be better (not that keen on No.3), or if we just leave it as it is. If you think one of them would be a better solution, then go ahead and change it.

IP resolves as static, so unlikely to change :-), be watchful in a week's time!  Ron h jones  (Talk) 20:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ronhjones, I see that he or she was blocked, this time by Mark Arsten. I appreciate you trying to help dissuade the IP from making similar changes. As for blockquotes, I don't think the text is an exact quote. Therefore, it should not be placed in a WP:Blockquote. Also, per WP:Blockquote, blockquotes, are not to be used for very short quotes; there is a standard to go by: "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins." Using a blockquote in the lead like that is also messy to me. And then there's the fact that I don't think that the IP will stop attributing his or her text to what Erik Erikson stated. That is why I went straight to WP:Requests for page protection. I've been dreading someone telling me that this is a simple edit dispute and to try to work it out with the IP. If the IP were responsive in the way that he or she should be on this matter, working the matter out with the IP would not be a problem. So I was thankful that you blocked the IP for WP:Disruptive editing instead of declining my report at Administrator intervention against vandalism, and I'm thankful that Mark blocked the IP today.


 * Since the Erik Erikson line gets objections every now and then from different IPs, I've been thinking of rewording the first line of the lead so that it is initially a more general statement, and Erik Erikson's definition after that. What these IPs are not understanding on this topic is that the article is about defining young adults psychologically, not legally. Everyone knows that, for the vast majority of the developed world, people are categorized as adults once they reach age 18; the age of majority. But again, the Young adult (psychology) article, though addressing legal adulthood, is not about that (though, seeing the IP in question add material about age of majority to contrast it with the article's topic, it seems he or she eventually realized that). Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I wasn't that keen on the quote templates at that place, as I said. The only good thing is that this IP appears to be a static IP, so we should be able to apply progressively longer blocks if they continue with this mad change (typically up to 1 year max for an IP - in reasonable jumps - I tend to do 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year - but there's no fixed rule). Be vigilant :-)  Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Blond article: ????
hello, what's your problem with me ?? please don't vandalizing my edits just because you're admin i'm sure i don't vandalizing anything let my edits sorry i will not stop i Contributes here --شاول (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think that I'm stupid?! You are a prolific WP:Sockpuppet, like I noted at this talk page minutes ago. When it comes to that article and your edits to it, you can't manage to fool even a fool. How many times have I caught you socking at that article? I lost count. Stay off my talk page if you are going to insult my intelligence so atrociously. And stop wasting my time. I would rather be writing than reverting your messes. No, I am not WP:Vandalizing by reverting you. And, no, I'm not a WP:Administrator, no matter how many times I get mistaken for one.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Blond article:" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Drifting Cowboys edit
Flyer22, I am new to Wikipedia so please excuse me if I don't know all the protocols. Yesterday I edited the Drifting Cowboys page to add Bob McNett to the past members section. Today I see you removed it. I am a musician and have had the privilege of performing on stage with Bob McNett. Bob was a member of the Drifting Cowboys in the late 1940's when Hank Williams was based in Shreveport La. Bob who was the lead guitar player, relocated to Nashville with Hank in 1949. During that year they recorded " The Health and Happiness Shows " Bob is featured on the instrumental "Fingers on Fire". Soon after Bob left the group and returned to Pennsylvania. I would appreciate it if you could relist the name of Bob McNett to the pars members section of the Drifting Cowboys page. Thank you Foustysr Foustysr (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Foustysr. Welcome to Wikipedia. This is the revert I made. Like a lot of the ones listed there, he doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, but feel free to relist him; use  before adding his name. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I added Bob to the page. Bob is deceased, but I am friends with his daughter who is also a musician/singer. She was happy to hear I did this. Bob McNett is also referenced on the Hank Williams page. Thanks, Foustysr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foustysr (talk • contribs) 13:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, Foustysr. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Deity Complex
I submitted a request on the talk page for God Complex. What else do I need to do?

Jdogno5 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As you will soon know, I replied on your talk page. I will also reply at the God complex article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert, I was trying to understand what sources you were referring to.

Men are Gods, Women are Goddesses. That is always how it has been labeled. Jdogno5 (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As has been stated to you on the aforementioned talk page, gods can also be women. Think of how an actor can also be a woman; she does not have to be referred to as an actress. Keep this discussion on the article talk page instead of at mine. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic groups: Eskimo
Hi Flyer, I actually have been going to the original sources; not indiscriminately switching terms. In the article you mentioned Child sexuality, Rolf Kjellström studied two groups of people, the Tahagmyut of Leaf Bay in Ungava Peninsula and the Eastern Greenlandic Inuit people, the Tunumiit, of the Angmagasalik District, aka Angmagssalik in Greenland. The pdf of his dissertation can be downloaded here: www.gbv.de/dms/ub-kiel/21559682X.pdf. These are real ethnic groups with actual names and locations. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Actually the identities and locations of the ethnic groups are found in the description of his dissertation so I'll add that reference. Some terms are broad, such as Sioux, so I created Dakota people and Category:Dakota people to disambiguate those as well. I've been working on Indigenous American ethnic groups articles steadily for years. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Fully story of my interaction with Uyvsdi on this matter is found here; Uyvsdi split the discussion.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Eskimo" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I reiterated my point on my own talk page as well. For anyone bored enough to care, the information is backed up by citations, that I have furnished in Child sexuality. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Please don't bite the newbies
Hi Flyer22. If you're going to undo, please at least have the courtesy to leave a message on their talk page explaining why and welcoming them to the project. Thanks. —  Scott  •  talk  20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott Martin, I'll think about it. But I also think that I generally won't be doing that, taking the time to welcome them. I'm using WP:STiki mostly these days, not WP:Huggle as much anymore. And I don't consider this biting a newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's where you're mistaken, I'm afraid, because what you did is an almost guaranteed way to scare away a new user. Your failure to be kind and thoughtful to someone that clearly doesn't have even the slightest understanding of our rules or how this project works at all is Wikipedia's loss. Using some kind of script tool to warn people is a contributing factor to that, and you should rethink your reliance on it. —  Scott  •  talk  21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott Martin, while reverting a newbie without leaving a message might scare away that newbie, it is a common practice on Wikipedia. Some of us like stopping to welcome the newbies; some of us don't or are indifferent to it. My experience has been that such reverts generally do not drive the new editors away. I've read various things from previous Wikipedia editors, including very brief Wikipedia editors, about what drove them away from Wikipedia, and a single revert usually was not it. I usually take the time to help editors (newbies, oldies or those in between) when they come to my talk page for help or when I see that they are trying to re-add the material. And I of course often leave messages with WP:STiki when appropriate. You want me consider leaving a message with every revert I make to a newbie's edit, I presume even when I revert an IP; I stated that I will consider it. And I mean that. After all, it was just last year when an editor, Insulam Simia, wanted me to consider issuing warnings when I revert vandalism or other problematic edits, and I was not big on the notion of consistently doing that. Now look at me, reverting with warnings left and right. But keep in mind that a lot of us do not stop to see if an editor is new or how new the editor is (just because the editor is a red link does not mean he or she is new), or at least we don't consistently do that. And also keep in mind that some of us have different ways of doing things at this site, and that just because you disagree with those ways...it doesn't make them wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Do you use the pop-up which expands on links by hovering over them (without clicking)? If so, this reveals at a glance how many edits an editor has made, without having to do too much time-consuming investigation and following of links, etc. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never focused much on the edit aspect; just sometimes where it states "autoconfirmed," etc. Either way, I have nothing more to state on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott Martin, looking this over, I'm agreeing with Flyer, mostly for reasons of expediency. Reverting an unsourced addition of names without articles on a list of notable people at Fox Primary School article is highly sensible; my experience suggests there is a high likelihood that it could be non-notable friends. Consider that it takes much time and effort for us to continually patrol and police articles like these, and if we had to write a polite little note each time, we'd probably never have time to build the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC) And Flyer is one of the best patrollers we have so maybe there should be rule against biting the oldies?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't raise any issue with Flyer's revert.
 * If you "don't have the time" to interact with new users in a humane fashion, then you are the worst possible people to be working on our front line. Time and again, research has demonstrated that the very start of a new editor's experience of Wikipedia is a key factor in whether they choose to stay. Impersonal, mechanized "patrolling" is a recipe for the opposite of what we want to achieve - new user retention and long-term engagement. —  Scott  •  talk  13:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue you raised with Flyer's revert was that, in your view, Flyer and all established contributors should feel obligated after a revert to provide an explanatory note on a newbie's talk page explaining why their half-baked additions were reverted. I disagree that any of us should feel so obligated. Such note-writing takes time. There is no indication that I can see that the newbie's contribution was serious by any measure; it sure seems like the three names were added as a prank perhaps, like a student putting in their friends' names. I googled each newbie-added name with "Fox primary school" and found basically no hits; not only did the names not have any articles (customary practice) but no references. If a newbie demonstrates some signs of serious attempt to learn the ropes (almost all newbies), some expression of willingness to learn, then maybe a helpful note is warranted. Rather, I take issue with your comment here, that Flyer -- who does a great job on many articles here -- who should be complimented and respected for her contributions -- is somehow being rude or "impersonal" or "mechanized" when she is helping the encyclopedia by these rather (thankless) tasks of removing the gunk.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Scott Martin: Speaking of the impersonal and the mechanized, how about those impersonal, mechanized "welcome" messages to vandals? I suppose there's a study somewhere purporting to show that they help the project in some way. Our primary goal must always be to build and maintain a better encyclopedia, and we do that first and foremost by improving and defending our articles; recruitment and retention of new volunteers must always be a secondary goal, and deciding when to pursue that it is best left up to the discretion of experienced editors. I've spent a fair amount of time over the years welcoming and assisting new users who show potential, but I certainly haven't wasted my time writing a personalized explanation for every nonconstructive edit I've undone. If I had, I don't suppose I would have done anything else, and there'd be a lot of utter garbage in various articles that isn't there now. Edits such as the one Flyer reverted are a dime a dozen, and some of them do creep in despite the best efforts of human and bot. In Flyer, we're fortunate to have an editor who's highly adept both at building content and at patrolling recent changes, and second-guessing her on something this trivial seems petty and, to be frank, a little bizarre. Rivertorch (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Scott. No one (well, not many) doubts Flyer's editing credentials, but her style, whether intentional or not, helps create a "them and us" culture, where new users feel unwelcomed, talked down to and generally sneered at by self-appointed guardians of the faith, because precise knowledge of WP editing rules has not yet been acquired. It's interesting that in a recent reply to Flyer on an article's talk page, I had included the phrase (before deleting it) "please don't bite me". So, I guess that's two of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.254.89 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

List of American feminist literature
Hi, I've reverted your edit to List of American feminist literature because the edit you reverted wasn't vandalism. Though the addition was unsourced and probably likely to trigger various filters and whatnot, Cunt: A Declaration of Independence almost certainly belongs on that page. You may want to remove or amend the warning at User talk:172.248.138.187. Thanks and keep up the good work! – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, Arms & Hearts, good looking out. And thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Brad Pitt/Robin Givens
While it's an allegation (and I stated that it was), I feel like coverage from The Hollywood Reporter, ABC, VH1, AND The Huffington Post aught to be sufficient enough that it's relevant. I didn't say it was true. I'm not going to revert because I'm fairly new to BLP's, but I'm not getting your rationale for this one.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Corvoe. I explained on the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse discussion
Hi Flyer, I'm not able to jump into that discussion at the moment because it wouldn't be appropriate for me to review images in my current location. :) I should have time tomorrow to weigh in if needed. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ohnoitsjamie. I wasn't looking for you to weigh in on that discussion. I certainly don't mind if you do. It's this discussion I linked you to because the editor does not seem to understand Manual of Style/Images and WP:GRATUITOUS. Flyer22 (talk)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, K6ka. I very much appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the Transgender article talk page.
Hello Flyer22, I've started a new thread on the talk page for the Transgender article, hoping you might be able to comment over there. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw, Scott P.; I will comment later, as I'm busy with some things off-Wikipedia at this time and am trying to stay away from any heavy discussion/heavy editing at this time. Concerning Wikipedia, I'm mainly just reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC
If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the  debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at  Talk:Justin Bieber Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy
Please stop using the third person singular when the person you are talking about is actively involved in the discussion. It gives the impression that you are deliberately talking over them to be impolite. Taking that talkpage off my watchlist for now. Lesion ( talk ) 12:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Lesion, I was talking to you and LT910001, such as here. Therefore, there was no inappropriate use of "the third person singular." And, before that, I was already in the process of typing my "11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)" post...but got distracted and ended up posting minutes later. But in any case, it's clear that it's best that CFCF and I generally don't continue to interact with each other in that discussion. We generally don't interact well at all; that type of thing, not getting along well with everyone, happens as much on Wikipedia as it does in "the real world."


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You may have been talking to me, but the person who you were talking about was also actively commenting in the discussion and seems to have been ignored in the last few posts, rather than directly addressed. It creates an unpleasant tone for what is a group project talk page. You mentioned previous "history" with this user, and I am not sure what exactly was said in those incidents which may have influenced the nature of your future comments, but on this occasion, to an uninvolved reader, it appears that you are being unnecessarily aggressive. Agree the user in question has made some questionable actions, however I understand they are fairly new and these have been reverted. I would therefore encourage you not to resort to ignoring the user in question, as based upon my interaction anyway, they seem to be working in good faith and are reasonable (e.g. as shown today by posting a notification about removing an article from a project's scope). Lesion  ( talk ) 12:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * CFCF commented once during that time (the last few posts), and in a way that there was no need for me to address him directly. And our "history" together has been relatively short, but aggravating nevertheless. I don't think I was being unnecessarily aggressive by not responding to him directly during the last few replies, and CFCF doesn't even consider himself a fairly new editor (though I stated in that discussion how he is a fairly new editor in some ways), but I'll keep what you have stated on this matter in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, understood. Lesion  ( talk ) 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wp:anatomy error revert
Sorry, I hit the wrong button removing your comment. --WS (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouterstomp (WS), yes, I figured that and noted it in the edit history minutes ago.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "error revert" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, I am One of Many. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet: User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154
Why did you accuse me of being a Sockpuppet of User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154? You seemed surprisingly confident too..--يوسف حسين (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay, since your English is somewhat better than User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154's, perhaps you are not that editor. You can see that I even questioned it myself here. But the way you go about editing (for example, changing large chunks of material in sketchy ways and WP:Edit warring far past the WP:3RR violation), and two topics you focus on ("race"/ethnicity), are eerily similar to User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154's style (one difference being that you mostly focus on the Yemen and Najahid dynasty topics). Not to mention the foreign (non-English) username aspect.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am focusing on Yemen related articles and in no way similar to the users in questions. --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are not similar to that user (not users) in question, I would not have suggested that you are that you user; I would not have given examples as to how you are similar to that user. Either way, it is best that you continue on with what you were doing. Or maybe not "best," depending on what does or does not benefit Wikipedia. But commenting here on my talk page any further is of no help to you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I did not mean to disturb you. You accused me of something out of the blue and had to ask you. --يوسف حسين (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

About the "vow"
About for my vow I only said that I won't disrespectfully talk women. But if you do a wrong thing and still expect someone to be respectful to you then you need to wake up. Justice does not see who has which gender. Ours is a matriarchal society unless you Christians who believe man are better than woman. Even though we have matriarchal that does not make us believe women are better than men. No unlike you Christians we believe in true equality. Judaism is better than Christianity and I don't blame you for your biased mindset and biased actions. Even though you're non-religious you're still affected by that biased Christian mindset. You were born in it after all. What I said about you in the edit summaries, you know it is real and you're trying to enforce your views. Whatever I said about you and Betty Logan aptly suits you. If you have any guilt for your wrong actions and if you believe in justice please revert your edit yourself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hah knew it. Such a hypocrite you are. Calling yourself feminists and such. Ooh what happened to your vow? Listen to me carefully. You're no feminist you're just a pathetic discriminating person like other feminists who wanna take revenge by opressing men because they've opressed you for so long. I'll never allow this vendetta agenda. You dont't even know what the goal of real feminism is.This is a civilized society not law of the jungle. You know I think there's only one real feminist in the world. And that'sw me. I hardly doubt there is any real feminist left in this world except me. For once stop being so discriminatory and be a real human being for once. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop coming to my talk page with this ridiculousness, on par with the same ridiculousness you came to my talk page with the last time. With the exception of "the vow" part I mentioned, and Betty Logan, what you stated above has nothing to do with this, this, this and this. Why is it so difficult for you to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? Or even the good practices that are not a policy or guideline, such as WP:BRD? I'm not sure how you've lasted this long on this site without being blocked or indefinitely blocked (unless you were indefinitely blocked before and simply returned under a new username), but you are not the first and you won't be the last problematic Wikipedia editor to stay around here for so long.


 * And I most certainly am not a feminist; never have been one, never will be one. Never called myself one. So again, your diatribe is off-topic. And I'm not sure how I'd be a hypocrite in this case if I was a feminist. I'm also not sure why you have twice now chosen to come to me with regard to your problems with Betty, but I find that it makes me feel special. Yay. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Anyway you and Betty Logan should stop imposing your views. I really think it's in best interest of Wikipedia to block you both. I think you should stop being bullish start being more cooperative towards other editors. Wikipedia has people with different opinions. You should respect their views instead of imposing your own. I seriously suggest that you read WP:BRD and also read WP:AGF and WP:POINT. I hope you understand what I am saying and from now on you will show more cooperation and patience with other editors. Otherwise your time on Wikipedia will be very short. I hope you understand. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to others: What KahnJohn27 is stating he's sorry for is this statement, which shows his bigotry toward Jewish people, something I was just about to comment on and will do so in this next paragraph:


 * What do you not understand by "Stop coming to my talk page with this ridiculousness"? You should have indeed been indefinitely blocked by now, which you show with every post you make to my talk page. You are lucky that I am not yet compelled enough to see to it that you are indefinitely blocked. Your Jew comment above, for example? Not tolerated on Wikipedia. You can see here (read from that point downward) for a recent case where it's quite clear that Wikipedia has no patience for racism and/or any other kind of ethnicity hate. Your Jew comment is an insult to me not because I'm Jewish (I'm not), but because it's plain wrong. You are full of contradictions, presenting yourself as an honorable and decent man, when comments like the ones you made above show otherwise. If you "believe[d] in [the] spirit of Wikipedia," you'd be following its policies and guidelines far better than what you do now when it comes to them. Do not cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines to me as though I am the one who is in the wrong and needs the lesson on how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and especially do not do so when you don't follow them in the least.


 * Oh, and following me around to revert this because of what the IP stated in the "Kangaroo Court" section below? Just silly. Be aware of WP:Wikihounding as well, another policy you are sure to ignore. Flyer22 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And thanks, Betty, for this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Bigotry towards Jews? Well I am Jew myself so I don't know how I am a bigot towards Jews. I think I gotta ask my Rabbi if someone made me a bigot towards Jews that too when I myself am a Jew. Also I made this statement because I've been insulted many times by Christians because I am a Jew. I suggest you take back your foolish comment of "bigotry towards Jews". You are a bigot towards men. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A little before this latest post of yours, I read all of your post that contained the Jewish comment and saw that you were referring to yourself. So I struck through my comments about the Jewish matter above. WP:Edit conflicts followed. Either way, you need to disengage from me now. Stop coming to me every time you get into a dispute with Betty, and take the matter directly to Betty instead and/or the article talk page...like you are supposed to do. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And, no, not a bigot toward men. A bigot toward certain men? Yes indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bigot towards certain men". Gender discrimination. Again! Thanks for proving me right again. Also I didn't come to you because I had a problem with Betty. I came here because you have a problem with me. You are interfering in my constructive edits, you are making destructive edits against me in order to enforce your views. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness. The "certain men" part has to do with their personalities, not because of their sex. I have not proven your point in the least. Go away already. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow now we're having a real brother-sister fight aren't we. Thanks for telling me to go away. That's what you get for giving someone the position of your elder sister. Insults. If that's your wish my sister then I shall go. But please don't hate me for what I said. Trust me I actually have no intention of hurting your heart. Trust me I would never ever wanted to do such a thing to an elder of mine. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your explanation about coming to me is not at all convincing. In each case, it is Betty who opposed you first; I reverted you in each case not only because your edits were wrong, but because you were supposed to take the matter to the talk page instead of continually reverting. If I have a problem with you, then so does Betty. Yet you keep bringing your Gone with the Wind (film) article disputes to my talk page with odd and absurd ramblings, instead of taking the matter where you should; shows me that you don't want to work anything out. You just want to vent, complain about how unjust Wikipedians are to you, and then move on. And I'm the lucky one who gets to put up with all of that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And why are you consistently trying to get me to think you of as a brother? Not happening. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Huh of course why would you think of me as a brother. I guess I am a loser anyway. You still think I insulted you but what I said was the truth. Still anway why are you hating me over it? Ofcourse it's your choice and your right to accept me as your brother or not. But why insult me over it and why hate me over it? What I have done wrong that you gotta hate me and insult me? KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't hate you, but you should turn some of those questions around on yourself. There is no truth in your silliness, and it's obvious above what you have done wrong. Betty has taken the Gone with the Wind matter to the article talk page; so either go resolve that matter there, or drop it and leave me alone. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't either like "hanging out" on your page anyway. Goodbye. Oh and I just wanna say one last thing to you. And actually it's the only thing I wanna say to you after your repeated insults. I hate you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really getting in the spirit of the day, are we? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Hmm, seeing the current lead of the Feminism article, where it states "A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.", that "supports" part makes a whole lot of people feminists. I certainly believe in the rights and equality of women, and I know many men who do, but I've never considered myself a feminist (for various reasons) and, from what I gather, the vast majority of the men I know don't consider themselves one either. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I now see that there is a Reactions section that begins by explaining support vs. self-identification. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Kangaroo Court
I just don't see any evidence in that link that the term 'Kangaroo Court' is an Americanism. 123.3.230.81 (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 5hifty


 * The link, seen in this edit, shows differently to me. It clearly states, "[Slang of U.S. origin.]." Whether you see justification for the source stating that is irrelevant. Flyer22 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry about that I only saw the first part where it says that it is a slang of U.S. origin. However there are many online free dictionaries and we shouldn't term it as reliable source just because it is a dictionary. I only read the first part of the definition and thought that we can't just add it because a dictionary is citing it. Where is the proof that it is of U.S. origin? However the proof was there in the second para which I didn't notice earlier. I checked it up on other sites and it turned out to be true. I am really sorry that I unknowingly reverted a correct edit of yours. I should have read the definition carefully hehe. I hope you don't mind. It was just a simple mistake. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Get a life.
No idea what a "sock puppet" is or any of your other jargon because I have a life outside of editing Wikipedia articles. Don't bother enlightening me on that either. Don't care. However I do care about circulating accurate and complete information. Rather I simply noticed the page's inadequate and poorly organized introduction and revised it so that it provided a thorough overview of the content and contextualized it relative to Mr. Jackson's life. If you actually care about the topic of Mr. Jackson and disseminating accurate and thorough information about him then tell me what it is about my revision that you take issue with. Otherwise get lost. Go have a petty Wikipedia nerd argument with someone else. YOU are the one who took the edit personally - not me. Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.88.17 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You called the entire article unworthy. Not my edit. Nice try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.88.17 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to bet that I was 100% right on target with what I stated here, here and here. The WP:Sockpuppetry at that article has been going on for a long time now. And now that the article has been semi-protected for a lengthy time at my request, all the IP games at the article are over. As for the rest... Yes, you care so little that you took the time to come to my talk page to try to belittle my worth, what you call "a petty Wikipedia nerd argument," all because of an editing dispute. Yes, you don't care. And, yes, I supposedly took the edit personally...when, actually, I'm tired of all the mess at that article. No more IP editing mess there now, unless it's the article's talk page. Good day. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Protected. With all of my edits intact. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.88.17 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I mainly objected to that one edit of yours... Obviously, despite this initial revert I made. I'd realized that you made a more adequate lead, just not in one case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Shemale penis
Where can that image of a female with the penis go. It seems to be a clitoris, but does look like a penis. Could you tell me what the name of that thing which females could possibly have a penis like other shemales have?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * HappyLogolover2011, like I stated here, that image is not of a clitoris; it is of a human penis. I'm not sure how you think it looks like a clitoris, but a clitoris cannot reach that size through hormones or at all. Not even with phalloplasty, which is about constructing a more natural-looking penis. And a scrotum certainly does not develop to accompany the clitoris via hormones. I'm not sure what article your image would fit in.


 * On a side note, many transgender and intersex people consider the term shemale to be derogatory. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why not try Hermaphrodite or maybe Intersex articles. I'm not sure how females can actually get a penis, but I know they can get vagina and other female genital parts when they are born.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, just - no. I think the topic you're searching for is phalloplasty, but that image does not belong there. Or anywhere else, for that matter - A l is o n  ❤ 00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alison. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Phalloplasty is the surgery that reconstructs the penis. What I was mentioning about is that a trans women who have the penis, but without surgery (which you might find that they are born like that and don't have those stitches attached to the penis. Surgery will have stitches on it and bruises if altered by the doctors during surgery.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: For documentation of what the now-deleted image looked like (however long the URL link lasts), see And thanks to the link provider in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

please do not revert my edits without trying to build a consensus: Cisgender article
for reference, please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_revert_during_talk_page_discussions#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages 24.220.174.68 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't need to read that. Very experienced Wikipedia editor here. You are the one who shouldn't be reverting without first getting WP:Consensus for your change on this matter. For example, see the WP:STATUSQUO essay or even the WP:BRD essay. Either way, the Cisgender article is too political and messy for me to want to get heavily involved with; and by that, I'm speaking of the WP:Edit warring and drive-by asinine edits made there. So no thanks. I have enough contentious Wikipedia articles on my plate. With regard to the Cisgender article, I mainly only watch the fireworks, and don't feel bad about that in the least.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Cisgender article" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice: Personal talk pages
Flyer22 though I don't want to comment at your talk page I think only this time exception can be taken. You told me not to comment at your talk page but you still commented at my talk page. I removed that comment because it was provocative in nature and it wasn't hard to understand that it was intended as an insult to me. I do not want an insultive, bullish and disruptive editor like you commenting at my talk page ever. It was completely stupid to call a bullish person like you an "elder sister". Frankly you don't deserve to be called that. So I suggest you stay off my talk page from now on and don't ever comment at my talk page even if it might be important. I hope you understood that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * KahnJohn27, stop with the ridiculousness! I commented at your talk page because you lied; outright lied about me and Betty Logan! And I ought to revert you on that revert right now because of that lie. If you think that an editor is just going to sit back and let you lie about them without defending themselves, even if it is on your talk page, you should think again. You should also read all of WP:TALK. Every bit of it. Since you clearly do not understand that Wikipedia guideline either. I repeatedly told you to stay off my talk page the first time you came to my talk page about a Gone with the Wind (film) dispute. And did you? No! You kept harassing me. And you kept harassing me at my talk page this second time as well, going as far as to state that you hate me; and that second time was without me telling you not to post on my talk page. Telling you to "Stop coming to my talk page with this ridiculousness" and to go away is not the same as banishing you from my talk page. I can't banish you from it, apparently, because you can't seem to stop posting at it no matter what. Probably not even if you were sanctioned to do so at WP:ANI. I have had to repeatedly put up with your garbage, your annoying, senseless, odd, silly diatribes, all because you are apparently incapable of following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and see those who revert you as bullies, disruptive and uncooperative when they are reverting you so that you may follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And yet you could not take one post from me staying on your talk page?! Get your silliness out of here! The only thing "provocative" about the post that I left on your talk page is that I was pointing out your lies and informing Johnuniq of the truth. You are skating on thin ice, and you can't even see it. Have some self-awareness of your ridiculousness already.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Personal talk pages" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding lying about you and Betty Logan, I won't talk about you but I will say that I never lied about Betty Logan. When I said "links to the discussion" on my talk page I didn't mean the recent discussion about Gone With the Wind. No, actually I meant a discussion between me, Betty Logan and some other editors about using Boxoffice.com as a source for box office gross of movies and this discussion took place probably a year ago. Also it didn't take place on one page but many pages such as DRN, RSN etc . All those discussion are now in archives of those pages and that's why I didn't provide the links to those discussion instantly. During that discussion Betty Logan kept on making wrong claims that too without any proof. Finding those discussion from the archives will take much time however what I said about Betty Logan is true. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have never known Betty Logan to "hijack [a] discussion and blame [a person] as a view imposer and what not" or "many users [blaming her] for imposing [her] views and being unnecessarily ag[g]ressive." And I'll leave that at that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * She kept blaming me as a view imposer in that discussion when actually I was just saying that BOM has N/A for foreign box office gross in summary section of some movies however when you click on the foreign tab it shows foreign gross in the foreign countries. The site is contradicting itself however Boxoffice.com does not do so and seems like a reliable source. However she unneccessarily kept accussing me. Also she said Boxoffice is not reliable and kept making baseless excuses as to why BOM's foreign figures are N/A for some movies for some movies and that too without any proof or reasonable explanation. At the end she herself realized I was actually right about Boxoffice.com. If that's not being unneccessarily disruptive and hijacking the discussion then what is? KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable Source": Asexuality article
There's no such thing as "Reliable Source".Urvabara (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Urvabara, for the material you added, and which I reverted, seen here and here, exactly -- there is no WP:Reliable source. Not one that I've ever seen on that matter. But there is a such thing as a reliable source. And Wikipedia has a reliable sources guideline -- WP:Reliable sources -- and you should follow it.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Asexuality article" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's strange, because apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#cite_note-Relationships-17 http://www.asexuality.org/home/relationship.html is a "reliable" source (AVEN), but my references to AVEN wiki were not. Hmm? Urvabara (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this also doesn't seem very reliable a source, does it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#cite_note-Wellington-18 http://www.gayline.gen.nz/asexual.htm "Sorry, we can't show you that!" Urvabara (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Urvabara, not strange at all...if you understand Wikipedia guidelines. AVEN is a WP:Reliable source (a WP:Primary source), when it is the main site and not its Wiki portion that is being used as a source in the Asexuality Wikipedia article or anywhere else on Wikipedia about asexuality. Like I already told you, Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. Either read the WP:Reliable sources guideline and try to understand that, or stop commenting here about "strange" things that are not strange at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Flyer.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

POVFORK
As requested, I've created a talk page section. Please be sure to voice your objections to my edit there, as the talk page appears to be otherwise dead. -- slakr \ talk / 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Slakr, I'll invite editors from Manual of Style to weigh in on this. But right now, it's back to sleep for me. Flyer22 (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit?
Hi, you left a message on my talk page a while ago and reverted an edit to the City of Boroondara page here. Looks like STiki got it wrong this time ;) Coral Ross is the current mayor and all councillors have the title of 'Cr': http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your_council/councillors-wards/wards/gardiner Takerlamar (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that, Takerlamar. It's often on Wikipedia that editors WP:Vandalize names in cases such as these (the principal of a school, mayor of a town, etc.). I will revert that warning I left on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you formulate one yourself
About this revert: Please have a look at the concerns expressed here: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. As worded, the section implies that any statement in a RS that has not been contradicted, can be asserted in Wikipedia's voice as fact. Since this is not a good idea, and you don't like my wording, I suggest you reword it yourself. LK (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

He/She
Apologies for not remembering your gender Flyer. I've not been as active as i'd like since my job changed. Have a nice day ツ Jenova   20  (email) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, here at the Homosexuality talk page. I did wonder how you didn't know that I'm female, whether you never paid much attention to any pronouns that may have been used in that regard during our brief interactions (or when seeing my interactions with others) or whether you'd simply forgotten. Thanks for explaining, Jenova20, and no worries about that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I have a learning disorder (ironically i couldn't remember the correct word there, but it's Dyslexia) I sometimes struggle to learn things, while easily memorising others. It's a quirk. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 11:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. And again, no problem regarding the sex/gender matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Principles of paraphrasing: Gender identity disorder article
Part of paraphrasing is the use of words differing slightly from those in the source documents. Terms such as "usually," "typically," or even "in 85% of cases surveyed" (or whatever percentage it happens to be) can be substituted in Article paraphrase as "most" or "most often." This is the difference between paraphrasing OR/Synth. The latter is adding actual information not in sources, while the former is simply simplifying words. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, The Mysterious El Willstro. While I understand that you are trying to help, I don't need a lesson in the "principles of paraphrasing." I have no problem with using the terms you used if those terms are clearly supported by the sources; I use those terms on Wikipedia often enough, though I also keep the WP:Weasel words guideline in mind. But, yes, the wording "the vast majority," for example, would clearly be supported for a single study where it's the case that 85% of people in that study stated something compared to the leftover percent. However, if "most" is not supported with regard to this edit you made to the Gender identity disorder article, meaning that those studies did not show "most" to be case...but rather "all" or "some" to be the case...then it is a bad edit. Let's also keep in mind that "most" can be as simple as meaning "a small majority." 86% compared to 85% is "most," after all. Either way, your edit is best discussed at the Gender identity disorder article talk page if you want it implemented.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Gender identity disorder article" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can copy this discussion to that Talk Page. The most relevant source document is Zhou et al. (1995), and it speaks of an ongoing interaction between brain structure and sex hormones. So hormones matter too. The fact that brain structure isn't the only factor implies that not every male with a normally-female brain structure will be trans. However, the source does not specify in the abstract what percentage of cases bear out the typical pattern concerning brain structure and transgenderism. If someone could archive the full article for Wikipedia citations, and not just the abstract, that would be helpful. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, pinging Legitimus for full access to the works. As stated on his user page, "Have a copyrighted journal article you can't access but would like investigated? If it's medical or psychological, leave me a message on my talk and I will see what I can do." Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure I think I can get that. Were there other papers besides Zhou?Legitimus (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Legitimus. As for other papers, you mean regarding this dispute between me and The Mysterious El Willstro? If so, as the diff-link shows, he also altered text sourced to Berglund & team. If you mean studies on this topic in general, I'm not so familiar with the research on brain anatomy in this regard that I can name researchers outside of this Wikipedia dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have Zhou and Berglund as PDFs and will send them by e-mail soon. I cannot post them as they are copyrighted and also because Zhou is so old the PDF is a scan of a paper copy, so cannot be pasted.  This particular area is a far bit away from my expertise so I can't provide any insight or guidance on the topic right this second.  I will need to do some reading to catch up.Legitimus (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. It would be good to email them to both me and The Mysterious El Willstro, or I'll email them to The Mysterious El Willstro once you email them to me. That stated, I'm sure there's some appropriate hosting site that can house the PDFs so that we can link to them on the article talk page and make them accessible to others; in that way, it will hardly be any different than when someone links to a Google Books source. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, The Mysterious El Willstro, regarding "not every male with a normally-female brain structure will be trans"... There is research out there indicating that some gay men have a female brain structure. But as you likely can imagine, that research is very controversial, likely more controversial than research indicating that some transgender women have a female brain structure. The latter aspect possibly being problematic in some cases is briefly discussed in the Gender identity disorder article; it states, "However, these markers do not identify every individual who undergoes transition, and using them to define transsexualism could falsely exclude some people from treatment." Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes some sense about gay guys. There may even be a few non-trans straight guys with brain structures you would normally expect in a female. In any case, the sample size of only 6 trans men (male-to-female) in Zhou (1995) is far too small to be definitive, and the Article should probably mention this caveat. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Male-to-female" means trans woman, The Mysterious El Willstro. Anyway, I take it that you read the full articles. I have no problem with you mentioning the caveats, as long as you do it appropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My new edit should clarify what I meant to say. Since this is a User Talk Page, we have a little more liberty to go (strictly speaking) off topic, as opposed to an Article Talk Page.
 * I myself am a heterosexual male, and while I respect all human dignity I can't pretend to understand transgenderism on an intellectual level. (So, I'm obviously not trans.) I did, however, pass a very rare color vision test for a guy.
 * The test involved 2 copies of the same photograph of a basket of colorful fruits. One was in true living color, and the other was slightly dimmed. The dimmed picture was so mildly dimmed that according to everything we know about the human eyes and brain, only a female should be able to tell the difference. I, however, could tell easily, and I'm a guy.
 * Even though I have never been further tested to see if my color vision corresponds to some feminine brain structures somewhere, it does make me wonder. (If so, it might be a different part of the brain than is relevant in transgender research.) Hence, my interest in the topic of men with usually-female brain structures not always being trans. My optometrist says I probably have a number of cone cells he would normally expect in a female eye, but that could be only part of the equation. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: For documentation in this section, here is the link to the article talk page discussion on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Replied on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

LGBT celebs: User:Lionhead99 sockpuppetry
If you insist on removing these LGBT people I'm adding, why not add them back yourself? Looks like you don't trust anybody - Somebody else added Miller back in the list (if you scroll down the history), you reverted them thinking it was me. You are hilarious.

What you're doing is just ridiculous. It's 8 months since I was blocked. I don't know why you're restricting me when I'm merely contributing. I'm not a sockpuppet anymore - I don't rely on multiple accounts as I was caught making them - Nice try with your sockpuppet 'reason'. My Wiki account is forever blocked - I tried appealing it 3 times. So I left it at rest. So now I'm stuck with using this nameless IP 'account'. You should start giving me the Wiki freedom. It's daunting to see you on my tail every time. 211.30.163.86 (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I won't be adding them back because I don't want you thinking you should be allowed to edit here by WP:Block evasion; I don't want you thinking that you should get your way at all. For the last time, it is you who is indefinitely blocked, not just your registered Wikipedia account. And that is also made clear in this latest report by me concerning you. Yes, you were WP:Sockpuppeting with other IPs, and you are still WP:Sockpuppeting (you seriously need to read all of that policy). Nice try denying it, but the text, including the repeated focus on that one celebrity -- Wentworth Miller -- gives you away. You were most certainly this IP, for example. And you helped give yourself away with this edit you made on the same day a few hours after that IP tried to add such material. And is definitely your WP:Sockpuppet. If a registered editor (AKA who is not you) re-adds Wentworth Miller, then fine.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": User:Lionhead99 sockpuppetry" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead section (Manual of Style/Lead section): the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule
Re, the issue was posted on the talk page at the beginning of January and "advertised" at the Village Pump. No edit was made to the guideline until the discussion was archived, and then some - plenty of time for objectors to comment. Do you have a substantive objection to the change? If so, please post it at the talk page so it can be discussed. Reverting just because it has been like that for a long time is not really adequate.  Spinning Spark  18:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Spinningspark, like I stated when I reverted you, you had no WP:Consensus to make those changes. Just because people, such as myself, ignored your "ideally no more than four paragraphs" complaint, it does not mean we were in agreement with you or that you had WP:Consensus for those exact changes. I obviously was not in agreement with you. Reverting just because it has been like that for a long time is really adequate in the case of Policies and guidelines, and I have stated as much there on the talk page.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "(Manual of Style/Lead section): the "ideally no more than four paragraphs" rule" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a page for "Underreported"
Check underreported  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 02:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you made a WP:Redirect for it minutes ago, that spelling variation of it had no Wikipedia article. So that was clearly the point of my comment. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was quick!  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I created that page. How it can be extended. You got any ideas for me?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean expanded? Hmm, I'm not sure about what else it would need to cover. I mean, I know that there are a lot of things that are underreported, but I'd need to get more acquainted with sources regarding the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Religious population, commercial sales, are often underreported. But I have little confusion. It can be arranged "By country" or "by subject" ? Or both. But you can take your time.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Like I stated here, thank you, West.andrew.g. Thank you very much. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations buddy! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You being an admin
You aren't allowed to be an admin on Wikipedia because you have been blocked in the past. In order to be admin you must complete these: 1. You should never have been blocked. Failed 2. You should be active every day. Completed 3. Have 1,000 edits. Completed Looks like you need to create another account and redo these if you want to be an admin.JordanL462 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And it looks like you should review WP:CIVILITY, especially the part about respect. A little respect is due in this case because Flyer has about 6 1/2 years' and about 114000 edits' worth of experience on you. IMHO, you may want to dial back the arrogance a bit.  Dwpaul   Talk   22:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dwpaul.


 * JordanL462 is responding to my revert of his tampering with my user page. He also tampered with it here. For those who don't know, this (tampering with my user page and the above) is JordanL462's way of getting back at me for this matter and his resulting block (just scroll down). JordanL462, what makes you think that I want to be a WP:Administrator? Years ago, by one editor (and I will have to check for who it was, if that editor's post is in my archives) and by Plastikspork, I was contacted about taking on the role, but turned it down. Your requirements for being an administrator appear to be in conflict with what policy states about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a lie. In reality, I read your block log and saw you blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. So I was letting you know that you cannot be an admin because of your blocks.JordanL462 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Jordan, enough. If Flyer ever runs for admin, you're welcome to oppose on those grounds, but unless and until that happens, there's no neex whatsoever to go on about this. And don't mess around with other users' user pages, by the way; continue to do that, and I'll issue a block. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * MY NAMES NOT JORDAN! It's a nickname I like. And some wikis on wikia ( a mockery of Wikipedia ) mention that you shouldn't be blocked in order to be an admin.JordanL462 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that admins must have a clean block log? - A l is o n  ❤ 01:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * [walkingwith.wikia.com/wiki/Walking_With_Wikis:Rules Click Here] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanL462 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to state the obvious, but this isn't Wikia. We have our own guide for requesting adminship. Also, she would need an admin in good standing, or preferably a Checkuser (like me) to explain the details surrounding her block log. Note that I have both blocked and unblocked Flyer22 in the past. What does that tell you? - A l is o n  ❤ 01:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * JordanL462, since you had so much fun reading my blocklog, you might want read all of what is stated in it. And then read the block cases. In one case, I was even blocked because my account had been WP:Compromised. I did not abuse any multiple accounts, and I don't care if you believe me or not. People will always have their suspicions that I did, especially because of the way my sibling went about emulating me, but anyway. I have not lied in this thread, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * JordanL462, are you aware that harassing another user on Wikipedia for whatever reason, such as, say, incessantly rubbing the fact of their having been blocked in their noses in lieu of an argument, is grounds for being blocked for incivility?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would also be helpful if you could stop wasting time with your misguided crusade of harassing Flyer22, and instead, say, make more substantial argument at Talk:Utahraptor beyond saying "not true." Or, should we assume that you intend to wait until the page protection expires, so you can just revert and resume the edit war?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , incorrect. There are many admins who were blocked. You need 1-2 years of clean block history for becoming an admin. I will definitely support Flyer22.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it really true that you can't pass an RfA if you have been blocked? 'cos I know an admin who was blocked before the RfA. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no formal requirements for RfA. You just have to convince the community that you will use the tools in a responsible manner. While I expect Flyer's block log to come up in conversation were she to file an RfA, I certainly wouldn't be able to predict how much it would influence the outcome. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I had failed to see Jordan's edits prior to my earlier message. Right, a prior block log shouldn't affect an RfA. Infact, I know for fact that a lot of the CVUs, especially those who actively work with STiki would definitely support him. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rsrikanth05, as noted above, I'm female. I thank you and the others for the support either way, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: is now indefinitely blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry; see here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Never a dull moment on Flyer's talk page. I do remember when Flyer was invited to apply for adminship that was shortly after she was made a rollbacker. Lot of water under the bridge then everyone started hatin' on Flyer. I'm not on WP much anymore so will leave this page per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK .Wlmg (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wlmg, good to see you. I don't remember that everyone started hatin' on me, but I do know that I perhaps started getting into more disputes around that time. Maybe that was because I was editing contentious and/or controversial topics more and more, not as focused on soap opera topics. I sometimes chuckle when I hear phrases like "Don't be a hater." or "Stop hatin.'", by the way, especially when political public figures (such as George W. Bush) use the phrases. And on that note, the Hater (Internet) article needs cleaning up.


 * By "leave this page," I take it you mean leave for today and not drop it from your WP:Watchlist? Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

James Lafferty article
Hello, I recently edited James Lafferty's personal life section about his relationship with Eve Hewson, the couple have not broken up at all! There is no evidence or articles confirming or even speculating about any kind of breakup. If you look at their social media accounts they are clearly still an item. Please restore my edit. Cryingforlaughs (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Fixed; will also indicate this on your talk page. I apologize for having mislabeled your edits; I was not paying the text the attention that I should have been paying it.


 * And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Lyfe Jennings Article
Hello, it appears that the citation that is meant to back up the statement that Lyfe Jennings went prison at the age of 19 in fact clearly states that he went to prison at the age of 14. I urge you to take another look:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/events/2008/feb/01/407/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patmactol (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Consider using a WP:Edit summary in the future when you edit Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Shemale
Hi, I’m writing about the “Shemale” article, where I made an edit to the opening sentence and you reverted it. I think I understand the reason for your reversion, and I’d like to explain my reasoning for an edit. I feel an edit is necessary, because having female breasts is not a complete or accurate description of a shemale. Shemales have a whole set of characteristics that make them look like females, and different from their genetic status as males. For example, a shemale would not be expected to have augmented breasts combined with a beard. Also, a small proportion of shemales have little or no obvious breast augmentation, yet they have a body that looks like a woman in other ways and are called shemales.

In your explanation for reverting my edit you said “see what the first line of the secondary sex characteristics article states”. I assume what you meant is that the sentence says “appear during puberty”. However, if this were problematic for “secondary sex characteristics” then the same problem would apply to “female breasts” which is what the shemale article currently says. If you click on that breasts link, see paragraph 2 which states “at puberty… women's breasts become far more prominent than those of men.” This, I think, makes the key point: female breasts, like other female secondary sex characteristics, are by definition something that appears in a cis-gendered woman at puberty. Precisely what a shemale is doing is to imitate a set of features (other than genitals) that appear in a cis-gendered woman at puberty, and are used by other people as cues to distinguish females from males. Or – in other words – a shemale is imitating female secondary sex characteristics.

Although the sentence I just wrote includes the word “imitating”, I don’t think this is necessary in the shemale article, any more than the current version of the article needs to say “imitating” before “female breasts”. What makes this unnecessary is that the sentence states that it is about a trans woman (not a cis-gendered female who undergoes these changes spontaneously at puberty). Also, I’m concerned that using words such as “imitating” may upset some people since it could be interpreted to suggest that there is a lack of authenticity or validity in the personal choice which trans women make. I hope this explains the reasons for my edit. Please let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasoned skeptic (talk • contribs) 04:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Reasoned skeptic. Yes, I reverted you here (that IP is you is what you have now revealed). Yes, it was because of how secondary sex characteristics are (usually) defined. Anything could be meant by "secondary sex characteristics" with your edit, and I don't like inaccuracy. If "breasts" are meant by it, for example, then it's a valid addition because hormone therapy puts a transgender person through puberty in a way, which is what Chaz Bono described when growing facial hair and hair in other places he hadn't had hair before or as much hair before. As for "female breasts," the line states "augmented female breasts from breast augmentation and/or use of hormones." It makes clear that the breasts are augmented. We could remove "female," and that line would still be clear because breasts are usually considered a female trait; it's rare that the male chest is referred to as breasts. As for including "breasts" at all, it is a key aspect that defines "shemale" in pornography...which is where that term is primarily used. We could include the word or to indicate that not all such individuals have "female breasts." As for imitating, I don't see where that word is used in the article or that you used that word there. And I agree that it should not be used. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On a side note: When you made this edit, I would have added the word derogatory  back in some way...if the lead were not already clear that the term shemale is considered offensive (though of course not by all or usually within the porn industry). Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Flyer22. Thanks for the reply.  On a technical note, I didn’t understand your comment about my IP address.  I don’t do much wiki editing, so if there is something I should be doing differently, I’d be grateful if you could explain.  It must have been something I did inadvertantly, I wasn’t trying to conceal who made the edits or anything like that.


 * About the shemale article, just to clear up a possible misunderstanding first, I wasn’t proposing to delete the word “female” in “female breasts”. I think the article needs to state that the characteristics in question are female, sorry if the wording of my earlier comments created confusion.


 * So, based on your reply, we seem to be agreeing on the underlying concepts, which is good. In addition to (usually) breast changes, transsexuals undergo changes in other puberty-related characteristics such as body hair.  Your reply also said that secondary sex characteristics could include anything, and I agree with that too. Not literally anything, of course, but to quote the opening sentence of the secondary sex characteristics wiki page, anything consisting of “features that appear during puberty … especially those that distinguish the two sexes of a species, but that are not directly part of the reproductive system”.  As I see it, the breadth of the term is an important advantage, because the changes associated with transsexualism are an essentially indefinite list (discussed further below), and it would not be possible for the shemale article to include everything on the list.


 * I did a bit more reading, and here are some of the things I found on the web and in the scientific/medical literature.


 * On Wikipedia, if you look at the page for Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female), it uses the term 'secondary sex characteristics' in the second paragraph: “Its purpose is to cause the development of the secondary sex characteristics of the desired sex.” Similarly, the wikipedia page for trans woman includes the following: “A major component of medical transition for trans women is estrogen hormone replacement therapy, which causes the development of female secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, redistribution of body fat, lower waist to hip ratio, etc.)”.  Also worth noting, the Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) wiki page includes a long list of characteristics that are changed, in addition to breast development.


 * Other than Wikipedia, there are lots of other websites (one example: http://tarasresources.net/asktara.htm) that describe characteristics other than breasts that transsexuals change (skin texture, facial features, body odor, mood… the list is essentially indefinite).


 * I also looked through the scientific and medical literature. Here is the opening sentence of the Abstract of a recent article in the journal Hormone Research entitled Hormone Treatment of the Adult Transsexual Patient (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16286768): “Hormonal reassignment has two aims: (1) to reduce the hormonally induced secondary sex characteristics of the original sex and (2) to induce the secondary sex characteristics of the new sex.”


 * Messages I drew from this reading are (1) The current version of the shemale wiki page is inaccurate, since its opening focuses exclusively on breasts, which are not the only relevant feature. I do agree, though, that it would be reasonable to keep a mention of breasts here as an important example.  (2) “Secondary sex characteristics” is a recognized term for the relevant changes, and would be in line with other Wikipedia articles (which I had nothing to do with), with other websites, and with the scientific and medical literature.


 * With the added explanations and evidence, I hope you will agree it is reasonable for me to edit the article, but please do explain if you think there are important issues I’m missing. I’ll try to incorporate some of the links and references, so other readers can understand where this comes from, and it's probably good for this to be clear, so thanks for the helpful comments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasoned skeptic (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't do anything wrong regarding your IP address, though it is better if you always sign in when you edit Wikipedia. Otherwise, people are more likely to think that you and your IP address are two different people when you edit an article as a registered account and then as an IP. I was noting that you are that IP for documentation (besides the URL) in this section.


 * I know what hormone therapy entails with regard to gender transition. My point about the shemale pornography genre, however, is that, with regard to trans women, it usually focuses on "a trans woman with male genitalia and augmented female breasts from breast augmentation and/or use of hormones." It does not include a trans woman at any phase of the transition, including completely pre-op (pre-operation). See the Related terms section in the article, for example, where it states, "Other slang terms for she-male that emerged from sex work include tranny, ladyboy, and a number of rhyming terms (not to be confused with rhyming slang), including chicks with dicks, sluts with nuts, dolls with balls, and dudes with boobs." My "Anything could be meant by 'secondary sex characteristics' with your edit" commentary concerns the fact that hormone therapy does not produce all of the secondary sex characteristics that usually come along with puberty, which the Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) article (though currently lacking in sources) you noted above makes clear; I didn't want the term to be interpreted the wrong way in this regard. But mentioning secondary sex characteristics does not have to mean "all secondary sex characteristics" that appear in a female during puberty. So I suppose I no longer object to you mentioning it. No need to add any references for that, and a reference such as tarasresources.net/asktara.htm is not a WP:Reliable source for this material. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks so much. Appreciate your comments and flexibility (and advice about log in and suitable references).  I'll edit the article in the next day or two.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasoned skeptic (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, about deleting the second two out of the four examples of rhymes, I’ll explain my reasons and hope you will agree. Googling the first two examples does indeed bring up many porn sites, these two are excellent examples. However, googling dolls with balls, I couldn’t see a shemale porn site in the top 100 (maybe I missed something, but the basic point remains). Meanwhile top hits are pages unrelated to porn and often related to wholesome topics or children, such as the tumblr page of a nice young lady ‘blessed with a little baby boy’, a web page about donating to poor children in Africa, and other pages about innocent young children who play with dolls and balls. People who made some of these web pages might be dismayed or upset to find that wikipedia/google labels their words as being typical of porn sites (which would be especially unfortunate considering that the phrase actually isn’t typical of shemale porn sites). Maybe I should make it clear that I wouldn’t object to the risk of offending or upsetting people if this were essential to convey some important truth, that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Similar points could be made for dudes with boobs. If the shemale wikipedia page gives the first two examples, that still makes it an accurate reflection of the source reference, since wikipedia doesn’t have to include every example in the source. I think that restricting it to the first two examples makes the shemale article better, because the first two examples are excellent and extremely accurate, so a reader is going to feel the article is spot-on and reliable, whereas including the second two examples makes the content of more debatable accuracy, and potentially upsetting or disruptive for no compelling reason. It’s not even so clear that the last two examples are good examples of rhyming (http://www.rhymer.com), which further makes them a stretch in the absence of a compelling reason to include these extra examples. I hope you will agree after reading this, but let me know if there’s something I’m missing.Reasoned skeptic (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't agree with this removal; that's why I reverted. If you think that including them is less accurate because the phrases are asserting that these trans women are male, that is not valid to me; it is not valid to me because the same can be stated of the offensive term shemale. Not to mention that "dolls with balls" is very similar to the first two phrases. And if one were to state that the two phrases you dispute are less accurate because they don't address secondary sex characteristics, that also does not pass with me; this is because the same can be stated of all the terms and phrases concerning this genre. And Wikipedia editing generally should not be about what is upsetting to readers, not unless appropriately applying the WP:Offensive material guideline. I don't see that the WP:Offensive material guideline applies in this case. Less common examples are included with common examples in Wikipedia articles all the time; it's often a good contrast. I don't see a valid reason for not having that contrast in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not saying that it is a problem that these terms reference both male and female characteristics - in that regard I think those examples are very much in the spirit of the term "shemale" itself. I also doubt that the terms technically violate WP:Offensive material. I think we agree on all that.  My point was not to say that there is something technically wrong with those terms and they must be removed.  I'm going to further explain my points, see if you're persuaded, but in the end I don't feel this is critically important either way.  (1) I personally feel that it's sad if the shemale article helps to transfer the words dolls with balls into the domain of pornography, when google implies that they are currently far more associated with notably innocent things. Wikipedia are often among the top google hits and may influence the culture.  The battle is over for chicks with dicks, and sluts with nuts, but is it for the good of humanity overall to push innocent terms toward the realm of porn?  Not that I object to porn, but I think it's also good for there to be innocent domains of life that are relatively untouched by it.  Is this potentially negative consequence counterbalanced by a compelling positive reason to give these extra examples?  (2) It seems to me that the first two examples are really excellent.  Adding the second two examples I feel weakens the paragraph, by diluting it with less good examples (examples that are not typical of shemale websites, more typical of innocent pursuits, not good rhymes).  So, I'm not saying these examples are downright wrong, I'm saying I feel they weaken the article, and may have negative consequences or upset people unnecessarily.  See what you think, I'm ok with keeping this the way it is. Reasoned skeptic (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasoned skeptic, you live up to your username; I mean that as a good thing. But "the good of humanity overall" angle is not how we should be editing Wikipedia, not generally at least; that falls into WP:Activism for me, and I am no fan of WP:Activism type of editing (as my user page currently shows, in the WP:Neutral/WP:Undue weight section). Your "these are less common/less important phrases" argument is stronger regarding how things are done here at Wikipedia. Still, I don't see that the aforementioned phrases you object to need to or should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine, thanks for explaining. Reasoned skeptic (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you are watching the aphroditus page too (glad you approved of the small edit, thanks). I practically fell off my chair when I came across those images, initially at Androgyny. Evidently interest in this combination of characteristics is not a recent phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasoned skeptic (talk • contribs) 05:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not watching that one. With this edit summary, I explained why I thanked you via WP:Echo. I looked at your WP:Contributions and then that (what is documented in that edit summary) is was what followed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. I was hoping to get your advice about something else, as an inexperienced wikipedian. At some point I may get around to making some more substantial edits to the body of the shemale article (adding information, citations, maybe changing some titles). It probably won't be soon, since I want to do some more reading first.  My question for you: what is the best way to go about this?  Just go ahead and make edits?  (And see if they get reverted...)  Describe what I plan to do on the shemale talk page first, and see if anyone wants to respond?  Some other way?  Thanks for any advice you can give. Reasoned skeptic (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean "OK, got it." to my "07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)" comment above, or to this, or to both?


 * About the editing, some Wikipedia editors would tell you to be WP:Bold (the whole WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle thing). But taking a topic to the article talk page first can be best; generally not in cases where you are unlikely to get a talk page response because the article is not a high-traffic article and/or well watched, though. In the case of the Shemale article, there are a few of us Wikipedia editors that care about it (some more than others), so proposing changes on its talk page first is not a bad idea. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "OK, got it" was a response to your "07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)" comment above.


 * Regarding this, I transferred the wording to a second sentence partly because the first sentence was becoming rather long. Could we put "a term used (though not exclusively) in sex work" in the first sentence?  However, if you feel that’s problematic, we can leave it alone, because I think the whole article could use some work, and I want to do some more reading before I get into that. My edit was not an attempt at being bold, I just thought reverting my own deletion of "not exclusively" might be uncontroversial while I think about the article more generally.


 * Thanks for the link to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. After reading that, I agree with your comments, it seems that this is probably a case where discussion should come first, since I already know that there are at least two VIPs (you and me).  Anyway, my preference would be to work in a collaborative spirit.  So, it would probably be best for me to start by putting suggestions on User_talk:Flyer22 or Talk:Shemale.  If I put comments on Talk:Shemale, will you see them, or would a different way be better? Reasoned skeptic (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer that the first sentence stay as it is with regard to sex work, for the reasons I mentioned in my edit summary.


 * Your proposals for the Shemale article should be posted on the article talk page instead of here at mine; this is so that others watching that article or others who happen to come across it and see the talk page can weigh in on your proposals (before or after they are implemented). People, the vast majority anyway, won't know to look at my talk page for discussion of the Shemale article. And I will know you have posted to that article's talk page because I'm watching it; by this, I don't mean that I manually watch it. I mean that the article and therefore its talk page are on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anne Heche
Yeah, I know about limited use of italics but there is so much text in the Heche article, from sources which may be called unreliable (Heche claims she was insane for the first thirty or so years of her life) that I felt italicising and blockquoting would make it clearer reading. I mean it usually has that effect on me but change whatever you think you should. Yours, Quis separabit?  16:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. I replied before I got your second message. Sorry. Quis separabit?  16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sorry" not needed, as stated there on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for further explaining, Rms125a@hotmail.com. And, hey, I'm sure that there are some Wikipedian editors (experienced ones, mid-experienced ones and inexperienced or generally inexperienced ones) who would disagree with me that claims absolutely should not be used for the bit about Heche stating that she was insane. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Message
Hi, You messaged me about the need for speed edit... I'm new to wikipedia so I don't know how to rearrange things in a list, but the mario kart franchise has officially outsold need for speed:

N4S has sold 100 million copies total: http://news.softpedia.com/news/100-million-Need-for-Speed-Games-Have-Been-Sold-to-This-Day-125015.shtml

Mario kart has sold 119 million copies: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Mario_Kart

(8.76+9.87+5.47+6.95+31.55+38.82+18.10 = 119.52 million)

So I just deleted the N4S entry because I didn't know how to rearrange it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.44.98 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, I didn't know that I reverted you and sent you a message about this; I revert anything that is or seems problematic when I'm looking at an edit via WP:STiki, and generally when I come across such an edit. Using a vandalism tool such as WP:STiki, I revert a lot more than an average Wikipedia editor and so it is not as easy to remember a revert in those cases. Sometimes I remember the revert; other times I don't. I suggest you contact someone else in that list's WP:Edit history, someone else who reverted you, about what should be done on that outsold matter. Removal does not seem a good option at all in this case, and I see that you've been repeatedly reverted at that list by different editors. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and that Wiki source you displayed above is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , the above is certainly the most unique and oddest barnstar I have ever been awarded.


 * Anyway, looking at the WP:Edit history of the Craig Gore article and your talk page, it is clear that I am not the only editor who has reverted you at that article or left a warning on your talk page about that article. I see that you have removed information from there again. In this case, you should familiarize yourself with the WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP policies; we should not remove things from that article simply because you do dislike those things and/or claim that they are inaccurate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Top medical editors

 * Thank you, Jmh649 (Doc James). Though I sometimes work on Wikipedia anatomy articles and keep some Wikipedia medical articles tidy (including free of vandalism), I'm not sure that I deserve the top medical editors barnstar; having received it, however, means a lot to me, especially coming from you (the most prolific medical editor Wikipedia has). Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats Flyer22!  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you a lot. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Stiki is useful?
Looks like you've been using it a lot. So how was your experience with this tool?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally like it. But like I told an editor via email: "What I hate about patrolling is that my WP:STiki does not detect as much vandalism as it used to. I know that sounds bad, since it's a good thing that there is less vandalism. But it's boring clicking through page after page on WP:STiki just to find vandalism instead of the vandalism being on every, or almost every, page when looking through the tool. I've been meaning to ask at the WP:STiki page if the vandalism is down because so many people are using the vandalism tools." Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of those active editors are not always active. Soon, they are limited with number of pages. You have definitely observed. Knowing that global population is on rise, there will be vandals.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rus' people
Hi Flyer22 - Excuse my bad skills in how to communicate with you - I appreciete your advice here. The thing with the article about "Rus People" is that I am just restoring it to its original text from late 2013. Someone has distorted it with text that I believe is of russian nationalistic origin. Can you please change the text back to the origin? An origin that has been in place for several years. If someone should prove facts then it is the peson(s) that are trying to alter facts, i.e that Rus people at large originally originates from Roslagen in Sweden. For facts, please read the book "Viking Rus" by Wladislav Duzco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalregementet (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , that article has contentious WP:Edit history. You've recently been reverted by . I'm not sure about restoring anything there. But go ahead and look into that article's edit history and let me know which version you are attempting to restore to (the exact time stamp). The main reason that I reverted your version is because you replaced the current version with a copy and pasted version that included copy and pasted versions of references that are not the actual references...but are rather text. The actual references need to be included. And I reverted you again because your edit looked WP:Disruptive, non-productive (in addition to the text references). In order to properly revert to a version on your own, meaning with the references intact in this case, you should do the following: Click on the time stamp of the version with the intact references, then click "Edit" at the top of the page and either press "Save page" or edit that old version (the time stamp) to what you feel is appropriate (removing certain parts, adding in certain parts) and then click "Save page." Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Peyton Sawyer article
Hi. You said I added some incorrect information to the Peyton Sawyer article. wat was so incorrect about it? and why do you keep reverting peyton elizabeth sawyer to peyton elizabeth scott? she is peyton sawyer scott not just peyton scott so please let it remain peyton sawyer scott and do let me know of the incorrect information i added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.198.95 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for finally replying. I am not aware of Peyton Sawyer having kept her maiden name when she married Lucas Scott. And apparently neither is Jany90, who has also been reverting you at the Peyton Sawyer article. I've reverted you not only because of the maiden name bit but because of other reasons I noted at your registered account, at User talk:Sahyadrisingh. You need to stop the WP:Edit warring and logging out to get around being recognized and reverted as your registered account. The content: Well, this content that I reverted included inappropriate WP:Fancruft and assertions that need to be supported by WP:Reliable sources. The "compared to" text and the "Peyton is said to be" text need to be supported by WP:Reliable sources, and neither of those aspects are WP:Lead material. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. That stated, when it comes to the married names, I don't think it's good to have that WP:Spoiler material in the lead; this is because fiction is always in the present for readers/viewers and many people who have not watched this series or watched to the end of the sixth season will not be familiar with Peyton Sawyer being known as Peyton Scott...until the end of that sixth season (or unless they have come across a spoiler on that matter). Peyton Sawyer is her WP:Common name, and that's what I think leads and infobox titles should stick to in the cases of fictional characters. I know that most fan editors don't think like that, however; they will add the married name as though the character is a real person.


 * On a side note: If you don't already know, I mentioned you at Requests for page protection; I will now note there that you have finally replied. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
Hi Flyer, I know we've been working on the Todd article, but you know what I said about having other fish to fry? Well, one of those is my current FAC, which represents one of my niches in this project. Would you mind going over and taking a look? It only has three supports, and I'm a little concern that it will fail due to lack of support. Thanks, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, understandable, Christine (Figureskatingfan). For example, though I don't mind improving the Todd Manning article and it can be fun to revisit his storylines, and a bit scary to be reminded of just how sick in the head he was, via YouTube clips, I should be focusing on continuing improvements to the Vagina article. But, like you stated, there is no hurry with regard to improving the Todd Manning article. Working on this article with you has also caused me to take a look at some of his more modern appearances that I never saw, ones from General Hospital thus far, such as this bizarre but funny moment where he does a handstand while thinking; I just looked at that (and other recent Todd clips) last night and it gave me a chuckle.


 * I'm headed over there to your aforementioned WP:Featured article project now to give it a look and weigh in on it after that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support over there; it's muchly appreciated. Yah, the 1994 clip is pretty intense and something I need to remember since I only really met Todd on GH, when he's just bizarre, less evil, and more redeemed.  That scene with him trying to think totally made me fall in love with him; I wonder if that was an RH improv.  I'm having fun, too; it's been a while since I've been so obsessive about an article.  Thanks for playing with me! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (linking your username again because I don't know if you have my talk page WP:Watchlisted for the time being or if/when you will check back here and read my latest response). Yes, Todd stalked and harassed Marty Saybrooke for a year and months after his rape of her. It wasn't enough to gang rape the woman and that he had broken her spirits almost beyond repair, he had a need to make sure that she always feared him, never recovered from that fear and the other tragic aspects that came along with the gang rape. Todd is often said by fans of One Life to Live to have been pure evil back then (December 1992-1994), and, as you can see from the Todd Manning article, he has been basically called such by Michael Malone, soap opera critics, mainstream press and other press types. I've likely described him that way as well, but I don't think he was ever pure evil (well, I likely thought that he was pure evil when I was a child, at age 10 and later, watching him commit horrific acts). What I mean by Todd never being pure evil is that there were remnants that he was more than just a horrible person even when he was originally intended to be a one-note character, which may have more to do with Roger Howarth's portrayal than anything else; he sometimes seemed like a lost little boy, which is how Sam Rappaport, who was Todd's mentor and father-figure, described him years after the gang rape (in 1998 and at other times). Todd is a character many people, men and women, boy and girls, have instantly loved (some in a "love to hate" manner) and I can't state exactly why that is, except to cite what Malone states about that. I'm generally more drawn to gray characters (the ones that are seemingly a half good/half bad person) and dark (evil) characters anyway. I'm not 100 percent sure why I am, and I think my mom may have at times wondered why I was so obsessed with Todd while growing up. I was especially obsessed with Todd's 1998 storylines, which are well documented in the Téa Delgado article (the split personalities storyline is pure brilliance), and that's when I began taping Todd Manning stories, and collecting information on Todd, regularly. I like some good-natured characters as well, such as Superman, but it's the characters with such boiling conflict/complexity, such as Daenerys Targaryen (Game of Thrones), that really compel me.


 * Todd appealed to this man so much that he mentions in his book that Todd was an inspiration to him. If that source were not a self-published source (AuthorHouse), we could use it for the Todd Manning article without any problem from WP:Featured article reviewers. Todd also dominated One Life to Live so much that he is indicated as the main draw for that show in books of fiction, such as this and this book that have fictional characters commenting on Todd; the first of the two books states, "I did not even get to see the end of 'One Life to Live,' so I don't know what the hell Todd did to fuck up someone's life now."


 * Anyway, as we know, Todd did begin to feel terrible about what he did to Marty, as indicated by this YouTube clip where he reflects on all the horrors he inflicted on her (shown in flashbacks), and he began to be redeemed, though he was never fully redeemed; he was never fully redeemed because Howarth felt that it would be dishonest to have a brutal psychopath (which is what he considered Todd to be) become a good person and he felt it was disrespectful to the rape storyline and a disservice to the topic of rape; this section of the Todd Manning article (Howarth's 1995 quote) shows that, of course. I watched a bit of the General Hospital Todd appearances near the beginning of that transition, but I wasn't too much into watching One Life to Live by the time the show was cancelled and Todd was relocated to General Hospital, and I was ready for the book to close on the Todd character, mostly so that no more damage could be done to the character (though I also felt he had run his course); many fans, including me, never fully accepted Trevor St. John as Todd (many fans never accepted him as Todd at all) and were outraged by the "re-rape" storyline, and never wanted anything so akin to character assassination to happen to Todd again or for him to be recast again. I'm certain that the "re-rape" storyline and other disappointing directions the writers took Todd in during St. John's portrayal is why they eventually wrote that St. John's Todd was never Todd; not to mention that many fans had held on to hope for years that St. John was an imposter. Before Howarth even departed the series in 2003, I pitched the idea (months before that) to soap opera magazines that if the series does recast Todd, they should recast him as having had plastic surgery, so that this way the series does not ignore Howarth's portrayal and that face (especially the scar) that made Todd so iconic in the soap opera genre, but also so that, when the time comes, they could easily state that the new guy claiming to be Todd is an impostor; I held on to that hope for years, and was finally rewarded it (though mostly not in the way that I pictured the storyline playing out). Still, though I prefer Howarth over St. John as Todd, I did what I could to make and keep the Todd Manning article neutral with regard to these actors' portrayals of him.


 * Good tweaks on the Background section, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and, yes, I also wondered if Howarth was doing improv in the handstand clip. Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So you really are *the* Todd expert on Wikipedia; you really could write a book about him and about the impact he had on the genre of soap opera and on society at large. I like the darker characters, too, like Luke Spencer on GH--another rapist.  I'm a huge Doctor Who fan, and he's probably the most nuanced, layer character ever created for TV.  I've watched some of the clips you've suggested, but I haven't been able to watch the original rape scene yet.  My husband and I were talking last night at dinner, and I was torturing him with my soap opera talk and my most recent activities on WP during my Spring Break this week, and he asked me, "What's up with all the rape?" because he knows about my work on Angelou, who graphically described her rape at the age of eight in her autobiography.  I said, "I know, right?"  No, I haven't been raped, but it is striking.  I so like how Todd has been handled on OLTL, and even on GH.


 * I'm not sure about the mentions of Todd in those sources you mention, unless we put them in the "Reception and impact" section. Let's hold off about it until we get there.  I think you've done a great job not putting your personal opinion too much into the article, which is really hard, especially with how close you are to the topic.  It's probably good that I've come along to help improve it, as someone with not as much invested in it. And I'm so glad that this is turning out to be a positive collaboration.


 * Hey, I have a GH clip for you, for when Tuc Watkins was on the show . Plus, it has the luminous Stephen Nichols in it, who is the sole return I returned to GH in the  mid 90s.  Ah, great stuff. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've heard of Luke Spencer; many Americans, including me, and non-Americans have heard of him because of the Luke and Laura storyline; their 1981 wedding was watched by 30 million viewers, after all, with celebrities weighing in on the matter, and it remains the highest-rated hour in American soap opera history. Todd is a complete contrast to Luke, as you know, and is refreshing in that he, unlike Luke, is commonly presented as carrying so much guilt about having raped and never acts as though he was not a rapist.


 * I was not suggesting that we add the above books to the article; I even noted one source as unusable because it's a self-published source. As for "not putting [my] personal opinion too much into the article," LOL, I may have engaged in one or two instances of WP:Synthesis (two instances noted on the Todd Manning talk page in our Todd sandbox discussions; here, second paragraph dated "19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)"; and here), but I never added anything to the Todd Manning article that is based on my personal opinion; it's always based on what happened on the series or what critics or other commentators have stated, and added with sources unless, per Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, it's storyline material that doesn't need sources. I agree that it's good to get a more objective pair of eyes on the article, on any work. With writing, that's often encouraged, and it has a lot to do with what the WP:Good article and WP:Feature article processes are about. But be careful; you're becoming quite invested, LOL.


 * Thanks for the YouTube clip; I'll watch it later. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lengths of IP blocks
I was very interested to see this edit summary, as it certainly didn't agree with my impression, and I wondered whether it was you or me who had formed a mistaken impression. I looked at the last 200 blocks in the block log, and picked out all those which were IP blocks. For each one, I looked at the first ever block on the IP address. I disregarded checkuser blocks and proxy blocks, both of which are really a quite different situation from normal IP blocks, and tend to be much longer. (In the case of proxy blocks, first blocks are usually 6 months or more, and 2 years is by no means uncommon.) That left me with 51 IP addresses that had been blocked. Of the 51, 3 of the first blocks were for less than 24 hours, 5 for 24 hours, 16 for 31 hours, and 27 for over 31 hours. That means that 43 out of 51 blocks, i.e. 84% of them, were for 31 hours or more, which is consistent with my impression. In fact, slightly more than half of all first blocks (51%) were for more than 31 hours, and less than a quarter (22%) were for less than 31 hours. The evidence certainly does not seem to support the long-standing statement in the policy that first blocks are "typically" 24 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw your thanks just after posting the above message. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For some reason I was thinking this was just about IP blocks, but looking back at the relevant section of the blocking policy, I see that it is about blocks in general, not just IP blocks. I have spent long enough on this for now, and I am not going to repeat the analysis for blocks on accounts. However, my guess is that first blocks on accounts are typically longer than for IP addresses, and a good many of them are immediate indefinite blocks, such as vandalism-only-account blocks, spamusername blocks, and so on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, JamesBWatson, I was a bit surprised when I saw this edit you made, which is why I queried the matter via the aforementioned WP:Dummy edit. As you know, I saw your WP:Dummy edit on the matter and thanked you for it via WP:Echo. I queried the topic via a WP:Dummy edit in case it was something that might need to be discussed on that page's talk page, but I was not so concerned with the change to start such a discussion. Thanks for further explaining where you were coming from on that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know how interested you will be, but out of curiosity I did go back and check statistics for first blocks on accounts. I had said above "my guess is that first blocks on accounts are typically longer than for IP addresses", but that turned out to be far more true than I would ever have guessed. It turns out that over 90% of first blocks on accounts are indefinite, with indefinite blocks for spamming and sockpuppetry together accounting for about 70% of all first blocks on accounts. Actually, it may be unfair to include sockpuppetry blocks, because even if we count only the first block for an account, it may not be the first block for the editor. However, if we disregard all blocks where the reason given is abusing multiple account, block evasion, or CheckUser block, we are still left with over 90% of first blocks being indefinite, and 57% of them being indefinite blocks for spamming. Not at all what I would have guessed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That is interesting, JamesBWatson. Thanks for the update. 90% of first blocks on registered accounts being indefinite blocks is not something I think too many would have guessed or would have come close to guessing, even if excluding problematic accounts that need to be blocked. For the topic of a first-time offensive, I was thinking about Wikipedia editors who are otherwise good or decent Wikipedia editors or can be if given another chance. For example, when it comes to a WP:Newbie who has messed up by violating one of our policies, doesn't that WP:Newbie usually get a 24-hour block and a second chance as long as he or she didn't violate WP:Vandalism, WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:No personal attacks and isn't a WP:SPAM-only account? Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the block log is so full of long-term blocks for spammers, persistent sockpuppeteers, etc, that searching through to find a large enough sample of the kind of blocks that you have in mind to get reasonably reliable results is quite a big task. Sometime, maybe I will look into it further. At present, the best I can say is that counting only those first blocks which are not indefinite, it looks as though most are in the range 24 to 48 hours, with the median most probably somewhere in the region of 36 to 48 hours, but I would want a lot more data before committing myself to that. I don't yet have enough data to tell whether 24 hours is the single commonest length or not, but it looks unlikely that it is the "usual" length, in the sense of being more common than all others combined. If I do look into it further, I'll let you know what I find. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * " It turns out that over 90% of first blocks on accounts are indefinite, with indefinite blocks for spamming and sockpuppetry together accounting for about 70% of all first blocks on accounts."
 * This just doesn't seem right, JamesBWatson, especially if most sockpuppet blocks are based on WP:DUCK which a) requires no proof and b) allows for no self-defense because it is based on suspicion and the editor is not given a chance to clear their name (indeed, how can someone prove they are not a sock unless it goes through checkuser?).


 * I have rarely seen an account accused of being a sock (which didn't go through checkuser) be cleared. It's difficult, if not impossible, to shed that label and the suspicion of being a sock once an account is accused, even if the editor has been active for a while. That's why the accusation is thrown around so much, I think...usual blocks can require diffs of vandalism or disruptive editing but just linking an account one is finding troublesome to a previously blocked account means an immediate, indefinite block and I don't think accounts blocked as socks are allowed to appeal even with the standard offer. And it doesn't need to withstand scrutiny on AN/I, all it would take is to find a friendly admin and post ones suspicions on their talk page. I'm not pointing fingers, I just see a lot of blocks occur without any due process. Maybe circumstances require this rush to judgment, I don't know, but I also think that some admins are quick to hit "block" while others need some justification. Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Liz, blocking based on WP:DUCK does take proof; this is made clear by the WP:DUCK page. Behavioral proof can be just as strong as computer proof; indeed, this is why behavioral aspects are a part of the WP:CheckUser process. Someone who has been accused of WP:Sockpuppetry does not have a difficult time shedding that label if there is absolutely no evidence implicating that person as a WP:Sockpuppet. So, if there is no such evidence, linking an account one is finding troublesome to a previously blocked account does not mean an immediate, indefinite block. Do I often make such a link, including sometimes here on my talk page, such as in this recent case? Yes. And that is because I'm very good at spotting WP:Sockpuppets, which may be one reason some people possibly still suspect that I was at one time WP:Sockpuppeting. It's very rare that a WP:Sockpuppet can fool me, and I use that to my advantage, as I also did in this other recent case, where I was absolutely correct about the Picker78/Sakis Sg connection. Common sense and my several years of experience editing site allows me to easily catch WP:Sockpuppets; so I am a great believer in WP:DUCK. Due to my own block cases, I know possibly better than anyone that WP:DUCK can be flawed, but it is also usually correct (in my experience). Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Brazos Valley Edit
Hi, I edited the page, "Brazos Valley" earlier today and now see that you have undone my edit. I don't understand why. The Brazos Valley is the size of Connecticut yet out of the four paragraphs of the article, one of them reads like a brag page for a shopping mall. That does not seem appropriate to me. Further, three of the citations for that paragraph were bad links. The fourth citation is a newspaper article that is 32 years old with no link. Even if you could find the newspaper to confirm the citation, I doubt the tax figures would be up to date. I thought you might have found the correct links before you restored them, but I checked and they are still broken. I use Wikipedia everyday, but I very rarely edit it. I don't know the protocol, but this seemed like a no-brainer to me. Please explain. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.71.252 (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It didn't seem to me that the content should be removed. Sometimes dated information can be preserved by rewording, wording the text so that it's clear that it refers to a certain point in time. And dead links should not be removed solely because they are dead links; see WP:Dead link (often, there are ways to repair the dead links). Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mahler Symphony No. 8 discography
Hi, I joined Wikipedia this afternoon when I found an article (on Mahler's Symphony No. 8) with an incorrect statement that needed removing. However, my edit was reversed and the incorrect statement was reinstated. So I edited again and this time I received a message saying that Flyer22 had reversed it again. I don't understand how this misunderstanding has arisen, but I can vouch that my edit is not vandalism. The sentence in the original text is based upon misinterpretation of the website from which the information appears to have come. This subject area is one in which I can claim to have specialist knowledge. As I'm new to Wikipedia I'm not sure if I'm writing in the correct place ... this is all new to me.RayThePianist (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Yes, you were reverted by User:ClueBot NG (a bot) and by me (seen here). What proof do you have that the sentence in question is wrong? For article content such as this, Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability (what the sources state instead of the word of other editors, usually anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. The website that is cited in the Mahler Symphony No. 8 article gives the date of each recording plus a picture of the artwork used when the recording was first issued commercially (please take a look at this website). That website is reliable and trustworthy. However, it needs to be remembered that the date given on that website is only when the recording itself was made, NOT when the recording was made available to the public. In the case of that 1950 Stokowski recording, the original author of the Wikipedia article has fabricated a claim that it was one of the first LP releases - with no evidence! - whereas actually that 1950 recording was not issued commercially until the 1980s, and the artwork shown on the website refers to that initial CD issue. It was never issued as a vinyl LP. In fact, the first recording of Mahler Symphony No. 8 to be issued on LP was the 1954 one conducted by Eduard Flipse which appears as the third complete recording (i.e., excluding Ormandy's incomplete recording) in the list on the website that is cited. There is ample documentation that the Eduard Flipse recording was indeed the first to be made available to the public in any format; Mahler scholar Deryck Cooke states unequivocally in Gramophone magazine (September 1965 issue, p. 165) that the Flipse recording was the "first-ever recording" (i.e., first recording available to the public) and that it was issued on LP in January 1955. At that time, the Stokowski recording was just a reel-to-reel magnetic tape in an archive which nobody planned to issue. As this is an important symphony, it is equally important that the incorrect assertion that the 1950 Stokowski recording was issued on vinyl LP is removed. It is also important that the facts regarding the Stokowski recording are not misrepresented as it is a historically significant recording, not merely because it is the earliest surviving sound document of the complete symphony, but also because Stokowski gave the US premiere of the symphony in 1916, only six years after the world premiere. I hope that my comments indicate that my edit to remove the incorrect assertion is accurate. Please let me know if you need any further information.RayThePianist (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining. I apologize for having labeled your edit a test/vandalism when using WP:STiki. I should have paid attention to your edit summary. Since your edit was neither one of those, you should remove my and ClueBot NG's messages from your talk page while noting in the WP:Edit summary that your edits were not vandalism and that the matter has been cleared up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know how to remove the messages from you & ClueBot and I don't know how to make a note in the WP:Edit summary that it is cleared up - I'm so new to all this, as I only joined Wikipedia today! Is it important that I do this now, or can it wait until later when I find out how this works?RayThePianist (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To remove the messages, simply do what you did when you removed your message; click "Edit" at the top of the page, then remove the messages and click "Save page." The WP:Edit summary page shows you how to type in an edit summary, but you typed in one before; for example, see here for your latest edit summary. You don't have to delete the messages from your talk page and leave a note about the matter; I simply felt that it's best that you do, so that those who visit your talk page won't initially think you were vandalizing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've attempted to make the changes, but I'm not sure I've been successful ... have I removed the relevant entries? It takes a while for newcomers like me to find my way around, though I guess in time it'll be easy. Until today I was a Wikipedia reader only.RayThePianist (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something?
Tell me, am I missing something here? Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center I honestly do not see wtf is the problem... but maybe I'm missing something? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, for that matter (and I'm listing the WP:Permalink here), we could state that the FBI used to list the Southern Poverty Law Center under the resources section of the FBI web page on hate crimes. But to list it as currently being there does fail verification; I'm with you on that, and I will state such on the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Lab color space
Hi Flyer2, you reverted my contribution. When discussing the colour theme and the colour definitions, I noticed that the majority believes (supported and backed by the Wikipedia explanation), that a color defined according to cielab rather than i.e. RGB, it would always present itself identically - no matter which computer monitor or printer is the output device. This is - of course - pure nonsense but will be understood in this way, when reading the WP text. I added this clearification and do not really get the point, why this has been eliminated. Don´t get me wrong, I don´t feel offended in any way but would have much more prefered and regarded as constructive, if you or someone uses this as suggestion to put my point into perhaps better wording rather than just out. --YdJ (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , regarding this, feel free to add it back without the WP:Editorializing use of "Which of course." Also, it would be best if you added a WP:Reliable source to support it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 - thanks for your advise - I will act accordingly & search for more sources, adding them when found. Meanwhile: each use of the internet is an evidence when comparing the coded page specifications with what is seen on a normal display or printed --YdJ (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

New to "talk"
Hello! I did not notice the "talk" messages you had left me until just now. I am still learning how to use this feature. I did not remove someone, just added someone. If someone was removed, then that was not intentionally. Also, what is sockpuppeting? I do not understand. I clicked the link and it said someone under the name jamietee32 did something, but that is not my account. Rightman5 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , it is highly suspicious that you kept removing Ryan Cassata from the Trans man list, even after I warned you not to, and then, when I added him back, after you finally provided a WP:Reliable source for your entry, brand new account showed up to remove him and to alter his Wikipedia page. Jamietee32 was reverted at that article by IronGargoyle. Whether you are Jamietee32 or not, something fishy is going on there. And there are three options that my experience tells me to look at in this case: Jamietee32 is your WP:Sockpuppet or WP:Meatpuppet (read WP:Sockpuppet to find out what a WP:Sockpuppet and WP:Meatpuppet are), Jamietee32 is a Wikipedia editor who is trying to toy with me based on past encounters with me that he or she perceives as bad (or actually were bad), or Ryan Cassata being listed as a trans man on Wikipedia is being discussed on some other website's discussion board and more than one person there feels that he should not be listed as a trans man and Jamietee32 is not your WP:Meatpuppet. One thing is for certain, the "general fixes" WP:Edit summary that Jamietee32 used at the Ryan Cassata article is a dead giveaway to me that Jamietee32 is not a new Wikipedia editor, and this action, one that I clearly will not stand for, does not help matters for Jamietee32 either.


 * And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize for any confusion. I am not jamietee32 nor am I sockpuppeting anything. If this person is causing issues, then clearly they are in the wrong. I am new to the wiki world so I am still learning. I did not initially know how to cite something until I saw your message and fixed it accordingly. I honestly did not mean to remove anyone, nor did I do so intentionally. Forgive me for being a newb lol I truly hope you resolve any issues with that other user. Rightman5 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh and added note: there was a discussion according to a few friends about that Ryan person so that could be the issue at hand. Rightman5 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I will note at Requests for page protection that you have stated that you are not a WP:Sockpuppet. However, if more people keep showing up to remove Ryan Cassata as a trans man from the Trans man article or alter his Wikipedia page so that it no longer identifies him as a trans man, both articles might need WP:Semi-protection. And if Jamietee32 is truly not your WP:Sockpuppet and you have not sent a WP:Meatpuppet to help you, I apologize for my actions toward you in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes?
Hi- I just updated a company summary for Level 3 Communications. Can you let me know why you have undone those changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad.roudebush (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2014

Ditto. I added the "In Popular Culture" section to the Copper Mtn page but you removed this, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkiNEwhere (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2014

Pac-Man
Hi I was in a rush. I didn't know that A edit was that compacted: Alex 122.58.135.124 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Query about undone good faith edit
Hello, Flyer22! Regarding this edit: it is accurate (I read the book) but kind of awkwardly placed. (Is that why STiki recommended undoing it? I don't know much about tools and such.) How do you suggest better integrating the info? Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rotideypoc41352, that revert had nothing to do with a WP:STiki recommendation; I see that your edit concerns fiction, which I didn't notice before. It's fine if you restore it. No wording suggestions from me on that. And thanks for signing that comment; it irks me when people don't sign, when User:SineBot fails to pick up the slack and when it's up to me to sign for others. I understand that WP:Newbies usually (when brand-spanking new) or often (when less new) don't sign, but still... Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, no problem! Thanks for your help! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

sorry
sorry for being stubborn on the Sexism page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsbenja (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping on Todd
Hey Fly, I'm sure that Todd would've had some smart-alecky double entredre joke about the header, but it is what it is. ;) Anyway, I'm waiting for your response over at his talk page so we can move forward with improving his article. I have some time tomorrow to devote to it, so it'd be nice if you gave your opinion about my suggestions before then.  If not, that's cool; I had other stuff to take care of.  At any rate, I hope all is well and you had a great weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wondered why you weren't editing in the Todd sandbox or commenting on the talk page lately; I'd forgotten that you made a more recent comment. I still haven't read it, but I will soon. And will of course reply. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, just another ping/reminder that there are more things pending here. I have some ideas that I wanted to get your reactions to before I proceed. Thanks, hope all is well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I just now saw your latest message here on my talk page. I'll get to that matter soon (either later today or tomorrow). The latest I usually wait to reply to you about things at that article is two or three days; other times, as you know, I read your comments promptly/reply to them promptly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Jean-François Plante
Hi Flyer22. I edited this article because, to me, it's clear that's it was written by Plante himself. That's why I removed self-victimizing words. Stuff like calling a journalist "Denis Lessard a journalist close to the Quebec Liberal Party " has no place on a Wikipedia article. Lessard is the head of provincial politics at La Presse. He's not a party hack... The entire article is full of editorial content. "Left wing medias" is not referencing some left-wing's blogs, but the entire Quebec's mainstream media.

I also question the pertinance of having an article on him. The biggest contribution he made to public life was has a city concilor. The Parti Conservateur du Québec earned 0,18% of the popular vote, at 2012 Quebec general elections. It's a marginal party. They finished 7th.

Jean-François Plante is a internet troll with a small political past. Nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.19.11 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation of articles
Hi, I know we've had our differences, but I'd like to ask for your help for something bigger. I don't know if you've heard of WP:MED's translation project, available here WikiProject Medicine/Translation Task Force. The goal is to translate high quality medical articles to languages where there might not be such material available.

For the future there are a number of articles concerning sexual health that I feel are important to translate. To list a few that are pretty close to being accepted for translation: These may need some small corrections etc. before they can be accepted for translation. The requirement essentially being that articles have reached GA or FA. The following could use substantial work before being accepted, but I feel they are very important, and I was wondering if you wanted to help move them towards GA? This is just a very short list of the articles I found which may be of immidiate relevance. Very happy for additional suggestions, but remember that the more articles that are added the slower the translation work will become, it may be better to have 5 articles on the list, and add more once work has begun properly. There is also work to be done in making shortened articles for translation to many languages. See WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT(Simplified) (Not entirely started yet) -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Menstrual cycle - FA
 * Female genital mutilation - GA
 * Birth control - GA
 * Pregnancy - C
 * Family planning - Start
 * Safe sex - B
 * Sexually transmitted disease - B
 * Menstruation - C


 * Hey, CFCF. After recently noting at the Labia article the Puppo matter I addressed at the G-spot talk page, I reread our dispute at that talk page (and part of it in the GA reassessment) and felt that it is a shame that we butted heads that way and possibly may never get along too well. So I am pleased to see you making a step to get us past any hard feelings that may be lingering from our unpleasant interactions (the G-spot article being one of the few). I'm willing to make the effort as well and work with you on one of the above articles you have listed. I think it's wise that I only take on one for now because I have other Wikipedia articles that I should be focusing on and am having trouble getting myself to focus on these articles in a way that I would years ago, with enthusiasm and a lot of progress made in just a day. Which of the above listed non-GA/FA articles do you think we should work on first? Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd probably start off with pregnancy, as it is probably not too far from being promoted, and most likely will not be to difficult to get translators for. After that I'd probably progress down the line of those 4 articles which may be a little less important (seeing as there are already articles ready to be translated covering them).
 * Also a note: Masturbation (B) (but also Sexual intercourse (B)) might be relevant in the future. I think they may be harder to get translators for, but there is a dire need. Just an example: the Arabic article on masturbation states that effects can be severe psychic disorder as well as "corruption" of brain cells and a lack of employment (google translate). The section is quite extensive, and the scary part is that someone has taken time to write all of it. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also took to google translate for the Sexual intercourse article in Arabic, and the view it brings forth is definitely equally frightening. As for the G-spot article I understand my reaction of applying it for reevaluation may have been rash, but I learn about new ways to cope with disputes on Wikipedia every day. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me know when you want to start working on the Pregnancy article; it might be best if we divide the tasks for that article, such as I work on a certain aspect or aspects and you work on a different aspect or aspects. I'm sure that you noticed that there are other WP:MED editors watching that article, such as Jmh649 (Doc James), so we are likely to get help in that regard. Working on this article might also snap me into action when it comes to helping LT910001 with the Breast article. I'm working on the Vagina and Sexual intercourse articles bit by bit. And, yes, that is frightening about the Arabic Masturbation article. Goodness, sometimes I'm still surprised by the lack of good sex education in other parts of the world, despite religious and/or other cultural reasons sometimes playing a role in that lack of education on sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder,, I had almost forgotten about the breast article, but I will get there eventually! (possibly after Cervix is promoted). Good luck both of you working with translation! --LT910001 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, I've been a bit busy lately, but I've started gathering sources. Seeing as a very large field is summarized in a single article here I'm mainly looking at high-level textbooks and a few general reviews to start off with. If you need any papers from pubmed etc. you can't get hold of yourself drop me a mail and I can see if any of the three uni-libraries I have access to have it. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The usefulness of threatening people
Please refrain from what is basically threatening/challenging/egging one on, because it is a form of emotionalism that with courtesy and respect at the base of how WP's are to function irrelevant and if official complaints are not lodged it makes one look like a whiner. Also, there was a recent situation where another WP'n since the beginning of that person's involvement with WP used intimidation and threats to influence article content. One too many accusations of sock puppetry by that person got their bucket full of bullock sausage tossed into their fan when all the editors that were involved in that article basically turned on them.76.170.88.72 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean this and this? I never make a threat without following through if challenged. And none of my WP:Sockpuppet accusations have been "[o]ne too many accusations of sock puppetry." Almost all of them have led to blocks for those WP:Sockpuppets because of clear-cut evidence. I care not that you consider getting people blocked for a violation of the WP:Sockpuppetry policy to be "intimidation and threats to influence article content," just as I care not that you "just happened" to take note of my latest accusation and come here and complain at my talk page about it as an IP. Oh, and I have never had "[my] bucket full of bullock sausage tossed into [my] fan when all the editors that were involved in that article basically turned on [me]," and I have no doubt that will never happen. Now if you excuse me...I have a WP:Sockpuppetry case to file. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The previous message must have been sent to the wrong party as I do believe what it says in any way indicates one would want to pick a fight and to continue with this note would certainly be for naught as it seems that is the intent of what was addressed to me; something that I have already indicated that I do not seek. But as that tone seems to permeate these communications I will know in future that it is most likely part of your character and with which there is not much that can be done about it. WP is not a contest or battle. And it does not put jingle in my pocket; pay my bills or is used on my behalf to indicate either my fulfillment in life or level of self esteem. Again, this is not an invitation to pick a fight, or handle WP as a contest or battleground. All the best with your experience on WP.76.170.88.72 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your initial message in this section does indicate to me that you were picking a fight. And your followup message has all the condescension of someone who thinks they know better than I do. Well, you don't. And what is best for you in your approach is clearly not what is necessarily best for me in my approach. I don't need to be reminded of WP:BATTLEGROUND or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline, just like I don't need you snooping around my user page and objecting to when I note that common sense should tell an editor that they should not be trying to WP:Sockpuppet around someone who can easily recognize them and/or is otherwise very experienced in catching WP:Sockpuppets. You call it "basically threatening/challenging/egging one on" and whining; I call it making a note to stop problematic editing. WP:Clean start, for example, makes it clear that if you don't want to be recognized, then don't edit in familiar areas. Pass a Method's latest registered account incarnation cannot be called a WP:Clean start. There is no doubt in my mind that is, and this Wikistalk tool and what can be found when comparing these accounts using the User Contribution Search tool, as I am currently doing, certainly does not help his defense. Pass a Method is a highly problematic editor and is currently topic banned from from editing religious topics. Partly because he is topic banned, he is currently WP:Sockpuppeting to get around that; the main reason is no doubt to avoid the general scrutiny his editing has received for years. My wanting him off Wikipedia (editing-wise), whether you call it trying to influence article content or not, is all about his problematic editing across a range of topics. I don't edit religious topics, not usually anyway, but I am certainly in the camp (along with Middayexpress, John Carter, StAnselm, In ictu oculi and Adjwilley) that feels that he should not be editing religious topics whatsoever. I am very stern when it comes to such problematic editors, and I make no apologies for it. If you want to defend/help highly problematic editors and/or take objection to identifying them as WP:Sockpuppets before filing an official sockpuppet case, you are more than welcome to do so elsewhere on Wikipedia. But not on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One wonders whether the IP might be another sock?John Carter (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet? No, I don't think so. Different style (communication style, grammar style and editing style), a style that Cinemwallz44 also does not display. And a different IP location (Pass a Method is British), though WP:Proxies do exist. However, when it comes to an IP focusing on LGBT and gay porn topics in the way that the above IP is (whether it's been the same person operating that IP account from the beginning or not), one should always keep a certain editor in mind (who teamed up with Pass a Method and defended him in the topic ban discussion). Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On a side note: With regard to starting an official WP:Sockpuppet case on Pass a Method, I'm not sure that I have enough evidence to get a WP:CheckUser to take on the Pass a Method/Cinemwallz44 case. But as noted above, what I have seen has thoroughly convinced me that they are one and the same. I pretty much stated on Middayexpress's talk page that I almost recognized him instantly. Even the citation style is the same. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The stylistic issues re PaM & the IP are very significant, including the edit summary matter.John Carter (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean independently? Or do you mean that you suspect that the IP is Pass a Method? Like I stated, I don't see that the IP is Pass a Method. But do I think that the IP is new in any way to editing Wikipedia? Of course not, and especially since the IP was aware of my Pass a Method/Cinemwallz44 WP:Sockpuppet accusation, which suggests familiarity with me/my user page. Anyway, either today or tomorrow, I'm still going to file an official Pass a Method/Cinemwallz44 WP:Sockpuppet case report, after I compare the accounts some more, type up a case on the matter and do some other things on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I screwed up - I meant the new account.John Carter (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The edits indeed don't inspire confidence . Middayexpress (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not surprised by the reaction of Flyer22 since if one expresses themselves in what could be characterized as a hostile and caustic manner then what is there with the anonymity of the internet for people to refrain from such activity regardless as to WP encouragement about courtesy and respect; especially when views may not be consistent with one's own. As for coming upon Flyer22's original comment about sock puppetry, there is very little with WP that is not available to those that click on the various links.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And I am not surprised that you couldn't help but reply here again. Nor am I surprised by your latest response, including your "there is very little with WP that is not available to those that click on the various links" excuse for how you could have possibly known about the Pass a Method/Cinemwallz44 WP:Sockpuppet accusation (posted only to two user pages). You should have saved yourself the embarrassment, considering that you must surely know that you are not fooling me or any other very experienced Wikipedia editor. That "hostile and caustic manner then what is there with the anonymity of the internet" notion applies to you as well; being passive aggressive the way that you are does not make it any less so. You also apparently have a tendency to call people "emotional" when they don't suit your ideal of what a Wikipedian should be, as seen here and above on my talk page. This is despite the fact that you are very clearly "emotional." Only difference, regarding the anonymity of the Internet notion you have brought up, is that I absolutely would have stated what I stated above to your face without the anonymity of the Internet. You on the other hand? If it were not for the anonymity of the Internet, you would not be able to WP:Sockpuppet the way that you do. C'omn, IP, you and I both know why you are in IP form here at my talk page. This kind of excuse is not at all convincing. So if there were a face-to-face Wikipedia, you must forgive me if I don't believe that you would have shown up in person to address me with the above. Funny how you try to come across as standing up for the little people and being one of pure and good of heart, and yet here you are at my talk page continuing to engage in WP:Harassment after I made it very clear to you that your little "noble" digressions are not welcome at this talk page. Eh, it's not something I haven't dealt with before; yours is simply a rarer breed. Flyer22 (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks: Sodomy
Thanks for this. I couldn't understand what you're objection was. It was because that "anal sex, oral sex" ran into "between a person and a non-human animal" that I was interested in clarifying.

All's well that ends well. --Tóraí (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tóraí, I came to realize that that's what you were going for. Initially, it looked to me like you were trying to state that sodomy usually means anal sex and only sometimes means oral sex or bestiality. While sodomy does most commonly mean anal sex in everyday language, as discussed on the article's talk page, that's not what the sources used for that line state.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Sodomy" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. However "Thanks: Sodomy" sounds funny. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Programmable Macro Language Edit
I was just wondering why my edit to this page was removed? is it because i did not give a reference source for my information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atannytan (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , it originally looked like WP:Disruptive editing, but well-intentioned, which is why I reverted it as a WP:Good faith edit. As you know, you were also reverted by User:ClueBot NG (a bot), and your editing indicated possible WP:Vandalism to that bot. But looking at it better now, I see that you added it in a non-encyclopedic format; sure, it should be sourced, but it's that format that would have led me to revert either way. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , So for example i closely followed the C sharp "hello world" section it would be acceptable? Atannytan (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014‎ (UTC)


 * No, Atannytan, that's not it. It's that this type of formatting, with spacing that creates that big gray strip, is inconsistent with how text like that should be formatted on Wikipedia. Then again, I don't deal with topics like that on Wikipedia. Take a look around similar Wikipedia articles about programs and copy one of the appropriate styles used there for such information, similar to how you copied my WP:Indent style and username linking style above.


 * And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . A bot signed your initial comment for you above, and I signed your second comment. Flyer22 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Cradle of Aviation Museum
Hello,

I'm not sure why you undid my edit to the Cradle of Aviation Museum page. Our dome theater used to be "Leroy R. & Rose W. Grumman IMAX Dome Theater" We have rebranded as a National Geographic Theater and added a planetarium so we are now the "Jet Blue Sky Theater Planetarium' and National Geographic Leroy R. & Rose W. Grumman Dome Theater." You can check out our website to verify this. http://www.cradleofaviation.org.

Thanks,

rleonhard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleonhard (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting my edit to Anita Baker's vocal range.
Flyer, it has come to my attention that you have been reverting my edit of the terminology used to describe Anita Baker's vocal range back to the erroneous term "Alto" after I had corrected it with the proper term "Contralto." I respectfully ask you to cease this, as I have cited several sources that use the term "Contralto" in their articles, it being the proper terminology for a solo vocalist. According to the "Contralto" article here on Wikipedia, "The Italian terms "contralto" and "alto" are not synonymous, the latter technically denoting a specific vocal range in choral singing without regard to factors like tessitura, vocal timbre, vocal facility, and vocal weight." Anita Baker, being a solo vocalist, is therefore a Contralto, not an Alto.

My edit was not a "good faith" edit, but a properly-sourced one. Your reversion of it is at odds with the terminology cited in my references, which is a violation of Wikipedia's citation policy. Please do not revert my edit again. Thank you.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , as this diff-link shows, I reverted you once. I take it that you are that IP. You should generally sign in to edit. But anyway, I reverted you because I thought you were tampering with sourced material, which is quite common for IPs to do in cases such as that and otherwise. I apologize for reverting you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer, thank you for your prompt response. As far as I can tell, I had indeed signed in to make the first edit and citation; I was not tampering with the source material, as I had provided several reliable sources to back up my citation in an effort to stick to Wikipedia's policies.  I had stated my intention to do this on the "Talk" page for Anita Baker.  In my surprise at your first reversion, I made the mistake of quickly reverting it back without signing in out of simple haste (which is why my IP was visible).  I assure you that I am not a tamperer or a destructive editor.  I created my account for that reason, which is why I was surprised you thought I was tampering.  And I apologize if I came off as initially hostile.  Thank you for helping to clear up the misunderstanding.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , you're welcome. As for coming off as initially hostile... Nah, you weren't that bad, and I've certainly dealt with much hostility on Wikipedia. But, again, I only reverted you once. The person you reverted as an IP is this other IP. Judging by this change you made, though, it seems that sources disagree on her vocal range; if there are a lot of WP:Reliable sources out there for either claim, this is something that should be discussed in that article, per WP:Verifiability. "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind about the "either claim" part, as least with regard to this source that was used; it states that Toni Braxton is an alto who has been compared to Anita Baker, but I don't see where it states that Anita Baker is an alto. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nasty sockpuppet ahoy
The editor you had a little tiff with over the Bareback page is a particularly nasty and tenacious sockpuppet we like to call Lloydbaltazar. You may not run into the same behavior in your chosen topic areas, but if you do, be on the lookout. He always comes back. Elizium23 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elizium23. I knew that the editor is not a new editor and may be a WP:Sockpuppet; I simply was not 100% certain of WP:Sockpuppetry in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw your post on Talk:Rape, maybe it was too quick to assume that it is Kohelet, but we can wait.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this; oh, it's Kohelet. I see that he's been busy carrying on with his same editing at the Czechs article, but with different IPs on the same IP range. That editing, combined with the editing of that article not being too active (except for when Kohelet and Yopie are WP:Edit warring), combined with the IP's interest in the topic of rape, combined with the IP having the same signature as Kohelet (two dashes before the username), has me certain that it's Kohelet. I never assert WP:Sockpuppetry in such a way unless I'm certain that it's WP:Sockpuppetry. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And look what we have here; it looks like his WP:Sockpuppetry has suddenly popped up with a completely different IP and at a different rape article, but with the same source that others, especially Jehochman, disputed, and pretty much the same text. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had agreed with your 2nd last message of this section. Yes, I had also seen that he has admitted. If you see User_talk:Kohelet, you would know that he can be unbanned, but only if he admits to renounce racist posts in wikipedia.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, he's not technically WP:Banned; he's simply WP:Blocked. I know that banned is used interchangeably with blocked on Wikipedia, though. To be unblocked, it's going to take more than Kohelet simply stating that he won't engage in the same WP:Disruptive editing he engaged in before, especially now that he's WP:Sockpuppeted and engaged in more WP:Disruptive editing. And judging by his statutory rape commentary at Talk:Rape, if he goes down the line of suggesting that any minor can give consent to have sex with an adult, I won't be tolerating any of that, as seen by this post; there are certainly minors who are nowhere near close to being capable of giving valid consent to have sex with a legal adult, such as the 5-year-old child example I gave. I'm pretty much done speaking with him anyway.


 * And, Dream Focus, just in case you don't know, that IP you reverted is likely Kohelet as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Taken care of for now, but he'll be back. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct about block and ban. Good catch.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 11:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lewis' Trilemma
Greetings, you did the auto edit twice on my statement improving the text on Lewis's trilemma. You gave as your reason that I didn't provide a source, which is something I can fix. I'm not trying to be snippy or rude here, but given the trivial availability of information on Christianity on the Internet, did you understand my edit enough to be able to discuss it? If you didn't, then why were you reverting it simply because it wasn't sourced? Kamatu (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , after I reverted you for the second time, I essentially told you to source it. This means a WP:Reliable source. And this is because it's how Wikipedia generally works when relaying content, per WP:Verifiability. Either source it, or I will remove it again. Also, remove "It can be noted"; that is unencyclopedic. We are not supposed to tell readers what can or should be noted. See WP:Words to watch. I won't entertain the rest of what you stated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your reversal of my edit: Lucasian Professor of Mathematics
Please explain why you view it as unconstructive to counterbalance an unsubstantiated statement of a rumor, claiming to know in advance who will get a certain job, with a factual remark about how that decision will actually be made. If you do not wish to reinstate my edit, perhaps you should delete the unsubstantiated rumor that caused it. Since the identity of the tipped candidate will be easily guessed by many people familiar with the appointment criteria for this particular job, that person could be significantly embarrassed by a rumor like this if and when her candidacy proves to be unsuccessful.

Best wishes

DoaRynA (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , either version is inappropriate -- the "According to one Wikipedia editor, rumour amongst" and "Rumour amongst," the WP:Editorializing, and so on. Just remove that entire passage.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Lucasian Professor of Mathematics" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was the one to introduce the "rumour" in that article. Naturally this is completely unofficial, and I am not myself a member of DAMTP, but when even DAMTP postdocs know the name of the expected outcome of the election I thought it was valid to inform that for the first time it is expected to be a non-British professor and a woman.  Besides, in his first fix,  said that the majority of the members of the Board of Electors are not members of DAMTP; this is strictly true (there are 4 members of DAMTP, 2 other members of the University of Cambridge, and 3 external members), but still DAMTP dominates the board quite heavily (plus one of the non-DAMTP members is the vice-chancelor, who is a professor in a completely different discipline).  Finally, it's not that easy to guess the tipped candidate: fortunately, the number of female American mathematicians and theoretical physicists with a profile high enough to be strong candidates for the Lucasian Professorship is greater than one. Ripero (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ripero, whatever your reasons were, if that was unsourced, you should not have added that text; this is per WP:Verifiability, and the WP:Tone essay with regard to the word rumor. That stated, looking at the old edit above, I now notice that the passage is in quotation marks; were you citing a quote from a source? The (now dead) source I see in that old edit? Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

USB vandalism
Just a heads up that that IP user has vandalised the page before and then blanked his talk page; would probably be a good idea to get him blocked straight away next time. :) pcuser42 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you, Axl. This barnstar is much appreciated. MUCH APPRECIATED. Since last I remember, you watch the Vagina article, I take it that you saw this latest matter there? I can be all "girl power" just as much as the next girl or woman (as no doubt shown by this current discussion at the Human female sexuality article), but not at the expense of encyclopedic information. I often do what I can regarding sexuality matters on Wikipedia, but I also often feel like the lone wolf, which is why I sometimes use WP:Echo to call on others. Sometimes I am ready to just quit everything concerning sexuality on Wikipedia, and I often contemplate ceasing to edit Wikipedia altogether (as has been stated at this talk page before). Sometimes I think there's no point; people will believe what they want to believe about anatomy and/or sexuality, whether right or wrong, and, hopefully, someone sufficiently takes over "my role" when I do cease to edit Wikipedia altogether (which, hopefully, isn't too many years after I leave). Anyway, thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't quit, or at least take a break before making that decision. Good, well-written sexuality articles really show off what Wikipedia can do - educate readers (especially the "Internet generation") about sensitive topics - and need informed, dispassionate editors like youself. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Neil. Yeah, I keep considering to leave, but, as you can see, I'm still here. And it's for the reasons you named (which is similar to what is stated at the top of my talk page). Wikipedia is sort of like a drug for people, me included; it can be hard to quit. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Email
Hello, I've sent you one. Graham 87 06:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Graham87, I don't know what is going on with the Wikipedia email system, but I didn't receive your email. And yesterday, I couldn't send an email to Hahc21 via Wikipedia; he had to email me via the system. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How bizarre! Just send me a ping at and I'll forward you the original email ... I don't really want to post it onwiki. Graham 87  07:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Micropenis edits
I clicked this wiki by chance and just wanted to make a little correction.

Even the article used as reference said this "  the average size of the human penis is around 12.5 cm or 5 inches, a micropenis spans less than 7 cm or just over two inches. "    >  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041206205001.htm

So why than put 7cm as 3 inches? when 7cm is 2.76 inches...... not 3 inches.

WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Reuben Singh
Accusing me of 'vandalism' of this pages shows you have no knowledge of the subject and are just assuming "removed = vandalism". Enjoy your silly little power trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.69.76 (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!
Dear Flyer22, thank you so much for protecting LG Williams from continued WP:Vandalism and acts of disruptive editing. Your work and oversight is great contribution to the Wiki community and fully appreciated.--Xxxartxxx (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , you're welcome. This had to be reverted. Cyphoidbomb helped out as well, as seen, for example, here, and I see that you thanked him accordingly. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

List
Hi Flyer22. As a rollbacker, could you please review the latest edit here? An RfC was just concluded on the talk page, with no consensus for the current title and scope (five for the proposal vs. five against it). However, an administrator erroneously closed the RfC in favor of that page title. I've summarized the situation here. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Middayexpress, I don't think that the edit in question is a WP:Rollback matter; reverting that edit is a matter that only requires an "undo" revert. Is it that you want me to weigh in on that topic? If so, I'd rather refrain from weighing in on that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see. Thought I'd contact you since the anonymous ip from the RfC seems to have been the same one from here . Best, Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Middayexpress is not happy with the RfC decision but that doesn't mean it was closed "erroneously", it just means that not everyone agrees with the result. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The RfC was indeed closed erroneously, as users who actually participated in it have confirmed. Five votes for the proposal vs. five votes against it is obviously a no-consensus, not a vote in favor. Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you participated at AfD, CfD or MfD, you'd know that closing a discussion isn't a strict vote count. The closer weighs the strength of the arguments for and against. You just need to go over to Deletion Review to find other editors complaining that votes weren't counted correctly. You could have an AfD with 14 votes to keep, 6 votes to delete and the closer can decide to delete the article because the arguments are stronger. And, yeah, a lot of people get upset with this method of deciding disputes (I know I have been) but it's the way debates are closed on Wikipedia. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Question
If a person is topic banned, are their previous edits (or edits that lead to the ban) supposed to be removed/undone? Also, should KoshVorlon be added to Editing_restrictions? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See BAN. As for Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, the lists there are all for indefinitely banned people. So if KoshVorlon is now indefinitely banned, then perhaps he should be listed. I suggest asking at that talk page about it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So it seems that just edits made after the ban can be reverted. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see from here on down, it's not all about indefinitely banned people. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Update and request
Hi Fly, sorry that I haven't been able to work on Todd's article much this week; between RL busy-ness and other projects here, I've haven't had much of a chance. It's my intention to get back to him today and tomorrow, which will be a much-needed break after dealing some some intense things, both here and IRL. Like this, for example:  And where's Roger Howarth on GH when you need him! ;)

Anyway, I also wanted to ask if you could go look at my most recent FAC, Featured article candidates/Mom & Me & Mom/archive1, which is languishing and in danger of failing due to lack of support. Would you mind going over and taking a look? It'd be muchly appreciated. Hope all is well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Figureskatingfan (not linking your username since you've told me that you currently have my talk page WP:Watchlisted), I'll get to your featured article nomination some time today. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Invite to contribute
As a frequent editor and watcher of gender, LGBTQ, and feminism related articles, I would like to invite you to comment or edit on User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2. I am attempting to prepare a subsection about TERFs for Radical feminism once the page protection expires. I am striving for balance, NPOV, and sourcing as I know it will be a WP:BOLD edit and would like to make it as robust as possible. The lack of any mention of TERF on the article is an glaring oversight. However, we do not have enough RS to create its own article (or at least I do not). Because TERF is a neologism, many of the sources are "meh" quality. However, they do seem to be WP:RS, even if they are not neutral (which they are not required to be). I welcome any comments on improving this section and you are welcome to edit it yourself. If you do not think the section should be included, please let me know why so we can discuss it and perhaps reach a compromise. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * EvergreenFir, I'll look over that and comment on it sometime today or tomorrow. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If you want to see the current page's section, it's Radical_feminism.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * EvergreenFir, okay, I looked at the pages in question. You stated, "In the first paragraph I made sure to include the meaning of the term, its scope, and that it's rejected by those it targets. I want to describe the term and its context so readers can learn about it. This means we need to balance it between both sides with appropriate weight but also make sure we're not giving UNDUE attention to it. Trying my best to keep it concise."


 * I agree with that statement of yours. Sorry that I'm not more helpful on this. I'm focused on other Wikipedia articles at this time, working out things with regard to those articles in drafts on my computer. And I see that Carol is involved with what you are working on there with regard to TERFs, but I've yet to work well with Carol; though we've only worked together on the Death of Caylee Anthony article so far, I generally don't agree with her style of editing (have seen her elsewhere besides at the Death of Caylee Anthony article). Anyway, I wish you the best with the TERFs piece. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an alternative solution
One could decide to ignore the young lady. Perhaps you have already tried this. ANI is an unpleasant process for all. Better, if you can, to take the moral high ground and simply ignore. Fiddle  Faddle  12:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Timtrent, like I recently told someone via email with regard to Dark Mistress: "As for her age, she is 19 (if we are to believe what she previously stated of her age and about being in college)... That is an adult, and old enough to know right from wrong...even with her claimed Asperger syndrome. ...And, actually, she may very well be age 20 now... I don't care who she is, how young she is or whatever, I want her to stay away from me. I want her to stop seeking me out, etc. And if she edits behind me again, I will very likely seek an interaction ban; she has proven to me that she shouldn't be editing sexual or anatomy article[s] regardless. I do WP:Deny her [though she is not a vandal], until she bring[s] something to me so clearly. That recent edit was a clear stalking matter, as far as I can see; she needed a reminder to stay away, and I gave her that reminder." I meant every word of what I stated here.


 * I understand that you are somewhat protective of her, but I don't want to read any defense of her. I want her to stop. And if she won't stop; I'll force her hand. I don't see how that is not taking a moral high ground. Ignoring her is part of what caused her to seek me out. One of the main reasons she keeps seeking me out is because I ignore her; she has stated as much. As a very experienced Wikipedian, I don't need any warnings about WP:ANI. Besides that, I was involved in an interaction ban request there before because of a creepy stalker, and I will get an interaction ban in the case of this latest stalker if need be. I always get the creepy and/or obsessive stalkers, at least three or four so far (five if counting one of my brothers, though I wouldn't call him creepy or necessarily obsessive), but that's part of Wikipedia life for me. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not protective. I've tried to guide her and to make it possible for her to have a decent and enjoyable time editing here, but I am wholly neutral. I don't care whether she goes or stays. She's capable of making decisions about her future and should go or stay by those decisions. You will do what you will do in the same way that she will do what she will do. If ANI is your chosen route so be it. Wikipedia will be neither better nor worse for her presence or absence in the same way that is true for all of us. Fiddle   Faddle  20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as is clear now, I won't have to seek WP:ANI. One thing I have been concerned about with regard to Dark Mistress is the suicidal aspect, as was addressed here at my talk page (though, as I noted to her more than once since then, I still have not read the two emails she sent me). But when the stalking/harassment continued, I got past the point of being cautious about not mincing words.


 * I disagree that none of us here make Wikipedia better or worse. If I believed that, I wouldn't be here. Nor would I highly value certain editors. But I do understand the Wikipedia does not need you line of reasoning. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hadn't seen that essay before. My line of thought was more along the lines of 'being indispensable'. None of us is, and each will be replaced almost at once by a better, or by a worse, editor. We, most of us, edit here because we enjoy it and think we are better than the next editor. We may be :) On the other matter, well, time will tell whether she gets indeffed or not. May I suggest that, despite your feelings, you attempt to be unconcerned about it? Fiddle   Faddle  21:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the case of some editors (a good number of them, actually), I know that they are better editors than me, LOL. I'll lay off of Dark Mistress for now. When I do state a few things to her, I usually do back off after that point. But if I start to see a pattern of her following my edits again, I can't promise that I won't take action concerning that. If it's just one clear instance of having followed me, like the most recent instance, I'll likely ignore it. But again, I stress that ignoring her causes her to seek me out more aggressively, and I don't want to ever give her the impression that I am fine with her following me the way she does. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your Edit War: Man of Steel (film)
Look...clearly you want to have an edit war over Man of Steel. You win. I won't waste time on an internet sociopath like yourself. Your edits don't change the fact that (a) it's a crappy movie, as far the consensus of critics are concerned (and as far as "taste" in general is concerned) and (b) that the studio was disappointed in it's lackluster performance (the reason they are rolling Wonder Woman and Batman into its sequel is all but an omission by the studios of that. Wiki should be about reporting the facts, but I guess like the rest of America "opinion" and ego rule for now. I fully expected a narcissistic fanboy like yourself to jump in and violate PAGE OWNERSHIP standards here by keeping the page hijacked for the purposes of maintaining corporate studio propaganda about an awful film. And if I cared to fight this, I probably could maintain some ground here. But for what? Your karma in this is that you have to keep up this fight on this front to cover up the truth about how laughably bad this homicidal emo-Superman was. Your protection of this page doesn't change that fact. Sadly it changes this from an article to your fan page but you're too egotistical to see that. So do your angry nerd thing and put some pathetic warning on my talk page about violating this or that. See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped thousands on bad movies you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges for rentals at the public library! I might not win edit wars against you, but at least I won't be unoriginal.Thefearedhallmonitor (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thefearedhallmonitor, I haven't had someone so inappropriately overemotional about a film rant at my talk page about reverting him since the section above. Bignole was right to revert this (that IP was you, huh?). And I followed up on that revert for the reasons stated in my edit summaries. With regard to this, this and this, you are wrong. It's clear that you aren't new to editing Wikipedia, despite the newness of your latest Wikipedia registered account and your WP:Newbie behavior when it comes to the way things are supposed to work at this site. I won't leave a warning on your talk page about your ridiculous behavior here, including the clear-cut WP:Civility and WP:No personal attack violations. That behavior speaks for itself and shows which one of us is the biased one. I don't care if you think I'm a male fanboy of Man of Steel; I told you that I am not a fanboy of the film and that I'm not male. You choose not to believe that; I don't care. But do take care not to bother me at my talk page with such nonsense again.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Man of Steel (film)" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Kudos on one of your edits!
Hi, Flyer. Thank you for rolling back this edit; it was very obvious vandalism. Keep up the excellent work! :) EmilyREditor (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

MyLinks page
Hello again, I recommend that editors be able to create "MyLinks" pages where they could have quick access to links. Those links would show up at the right side of any page. Maybe your talk page is not the right place to suggest a new feature. If it is not, let me know and I will move my suggestion; thank you. EmilyREditor (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Bisexuality Edit
The changes I made to the page "Bisexuality" consisted of the deletion of pansexuality as Bisexuality should NEVER be confused with pansexuality. What drove me to make those changes was my best friend is pansexual and it hurt her feelings greatly. Bisexuality is BI meaning TWO. Theyre attracted to males with male genitalia and females with female genitalia. Pansexuality is basically anyone you fall in love with regardless of gender, sex, etc. Theyre different. If they were the same, they wouldnt be two separate terms. People who are pansexual dont like to be called bisexual and bisexuals dont like to be called pansexual. Regardless of what resources say, those sources are written by people just like you and me and not everyone is right. Please refrain from adding pansexuality to bisexuality as it is extremely inaccurate. And also, leave a message on people's talk page before declaring vandalism. You never know someone's reasoning. Ambercarter5 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , and you were wrong to make that deletion twice now, per what has been stated in this section on the Bisexuality talk page and this section on the Pansexuality talk page. And that is why I have twice reverted you so far on this matter. Your characterization of these two concepts is what can be considered extremely inaccurate, as shown by the WP:Reliable sources used for pansexuality in the Bisexuality and Pansexuality articles. Wikipedia goes by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability, not your or anyone else's personal belief's. So, no, the sources in this regard are not a matter of being "written by people just like you and me." What you are doing by deleting this alternative definition of bisexuality (and, as the WP:Reliable sources show, it is an alternative definition of bisexuality) is presenting one side of what you refer to as "not everyone [being] right," which violates Wikipedia's WP:Neutral policy.


 * Continue your WP:Disruptive editing on this matter, and you will be WP:blocked. Your reasoning has no standing with regard to Policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And considering that you clearly saw the hidden note about this topic, and twice deleted it with regard to the WP:Due weight policy (an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy), as seen here and here, surely you are already aware of this important aspect concerning the way Wikipedia works; you simply refuse to follow it, which, again, is the wrong way to go. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wikipedia articles are written based on what the references say about a particular topic, not personal opinions. Graham 87 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OBGYN class
Hey Flyer we have an OBGYN class editing. Do you know if there is a list of articles they are working on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay found it Education_Program:Harvard_University/Obgyn_bootcamp_(April_2014) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jmh649 (Doc James); that's why in this latest discussion, I pointed to my having noted the class before. I would supervise some of them, but it's usually exhaustive supervising/advising a class of WP:Newbies. And with all of the articles I watch, I'm also dealing with student editors in other fields, such as with regard to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant talk page
Here is a relevant talk page to discuss the changes to the page. [] Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

NSSI and other contributions to Self Harm Page
Hi. You keep deleting my information from the self harm page, despite the multiple references to scientific journals, the NIMH, Harvard Affiliated websites and other credible sources. This is for a class project, and all of the information has been thoroughly researched, so there should not be any concern over the accuracy or validity of the information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexcurhan (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . When reverting you at the Self harm article, I explained to you why I was reverting you, as seen here and here, though not in detail (WP:Edit summaries don't allow for much detail). The main reason I've reverted you twice now on this matter, and the main reason you will be reverted by someone else on this matter, is because your addition is not where it needs to be with regard to the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) standard of sourcing. In your latest revert, you stated, "This information has been well researched through primary scientific journal articles on NSSI, as well as information from Harvard and the NIMH)." Well, that's part of the problem; WP:MEDRS generally requires WP:Secondary sources over WP:Primary sources for health information. Though this source you used is a WP:Secondary source, it's generally a weak source and is better used to cite a list concerning available self harm assessment tools (note, however, that the source can be considered biased when it comes to reviewing their own self harm assessment tool). The next problem I have with your addition is that it is not formatted correctly: Per MOS:HEAD, references don't go in the headings. Per WP:FIRSTPERSON and WP:YOU, we don't talk to our readers (unless on a talk page about improving the article or articles in question). Per WP:REFPUNCT, references are usually placed after punctuation. And per WP:Dead link, it's better to use WP:Citation templates for references instead of bare URLs. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that EvergreenFir reverted you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I "welcomed" them on their talk page and suggested that they use the article's talk page. Your explanation above sums up the main issues though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Chill: Yobol's user page
Dude, chill - it was a mistake on my part, which I've already corrected. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , yes, seconds before you came to my talk page, I saw that you'd been informed of your mistake by Jytdog. And I know that you placed the message on 's talk page afterward. Either way, if by "Dude," you assume that I'm male, I'm not. If you man "dude" in the general sense, I'm fine with that. I don't see anything wrong with having stated, "Get off the man's user page. Take it to his talk page.", however, when removing your message from his user page. If my tone sounded harsh...eh.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Yobol's user page" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Also fixed the original level heading you created. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for these corrections to the formatting. Yes - I meant dude in a very generic sense. I couldn't think of a gender neutral alternative (Human or Person didn't sound right). Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pindick
You suck. Really. I hate you. Just go away. 121.221.153.247 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for playing with WikiSpamIsFun and me at the Human sexual response cycle article. It's been lovely. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, loads of fun for all. I needed a laugh tonight. WikiSpamIsFun (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

TeaMp0isoN article
Try actually reading my edits before assuming ClueBot is right and that it is vandalism - if you bother reading you'll see that all sources are cited and the information i have added is both informative and correct. It makes you seem extremely pretentious to come to the unwarranted assumption that the bot MUST be right, and the fact that you revert the edit without actually reading it first just displays your sheer ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F0rsaken1337 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , I read enough of your addition before deciding to revert, and what I saw is a mess, which is why I reverted. Yep, still a mess. That is not how we are supposed to write encyclopedic articles. And if you don't like my tone by stating your obvious mess of an edit, then why don't you try being WP:Civil if you want me to be WP:Civil back at you? If not, and you are fine with me being harsh with my words, then so be it. Also, try attempting a heading when you start a topic on someone else's talk page instead of commenting in an unrelated section. As you can see, I created a heading for you. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Explain how the extra information I added makes the article ANY MORE of a mess than it was to begin with? besides surely making some small edits in order to make the article less messy would be far more of a beneficial contribution to this site than completely removing the relevant information that has been added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F0rsaken1337 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 23 April 2014‎

Ryan Garbutt
You took the adjective "punk-ass" out of Ryan Garbutt's page. He is, in fact, a punk-ass. I don't think the revision was warranted or necessary. Please re-insert the adjective "punk-ass" into his description. It's a descriptive word intended to give the best factual representation of the player to curious investigators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.82.239 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When following the guidelines only half way does not improve the encyclopedia
When you did this revert it is true that you were reverting a bad edit. Good! But you also, by so doing, revived an unsupported assertion. Bad! At least the bad edit made the entirely reasonably possible point that the assertion was that of the article author, not one supported as per WP:V. Whereas what you did was correct, it did not improve the article, it made it worse by restoring the seemingly factual assertion that had been challenged. Your "fix" did not help the article even though you followed the guidelines. The previous edit (which you undid) was helpful, but did not follow the guidelines, and did not result in encyclopedic language. Anyone could have done what I did: Remove the challenged assertion and removed the un-encyclopedic edit, in one step. What the point of an encyclopedia which reads as if it is one if the contents are not verifiable? That's how you left the article, after your "fix". Thank you :-( Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Psb777, without even reading all of your paragraph above (I'll read it after this): You are wrong, as indicated here, here and here. I knew that you were likely to bring this matter to my talk page. But your visit in this regard is wasted. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, having now read your paragraph above: If I was not clear before, let me be explicitly clear now... When I am using WP:STiki or WP:Huggle (or a similar tool) to revert vandalism or other unconstructive edits, my focus is on reverting the article to the state it was in before those edits, just like the vast majority of editors using these tools. My focus is usually not on examining the edit beyond that and the article as a whole. If it were, a lot less mess would be getting fixed on Wikipedia. Unsourced edits are taken care of by tagging them, removing them, or WP:Preserving them in some other way. You chose to remove the unsourced bit; that is your decision. Your decision and what you believe is correct has no bearing on the way I edit or what I believe is correct. If I had been restoring the material because I was asserting that it is correct, which therefore places the WP:Burden on me, I would understand your point on this matter. But that is not why I reverted; I reverted because the IP's edit was a mess. Whether the text in question was a mess either way clearly was not my concern, nor do I think it should have been my concern. I decide what is my concern when it comes to Wikipedia text. And I will continue to revert IPs and others just like that IP, whether they mean well or not, if the changes are problematic. And that is what I mean by your visit to my talk page on this matter being wasted. Flyer22 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and when an editor tells you, "And, no, I don't want to talk about this elsewhere either." (a statement I made to you in the third diff-link above because I knew that you would likely want to discuss this matter with me; I'm familiar with editors who are like that about wanting the last word), that should be where you WP:Drop the stick and move on. There is not a thing you can state here to me on this subject that will help matters, and that is why I explicitly told you "no" when it comes to discussing it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
 * Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with   with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
 * Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
 * To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation!  D ip ta ns hu Talk 12:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm Free (Heaven Helps the Man)
When reverting edits please add an edit summary unless in the case of very, very obvious vandalism. I can see nothing wrong with this edit that required reversion.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Launchballer, you see nothing wrong with including that inappropriately bolded block of unsourced text? I do, and that's why I reverted. My edit summary there is: "Reverted 1 good faith edit by 86.172.56.76 using STiki." If I'm using WP:STiki, that is the type of edit you can expect -- a revert of vandalism or other edits that I feel are unconstructive or are clearly unconstructive. I am not going to take the time to revert by using the "undo" (manual, in a way) option and customize a WP:Edit summary when I feel that a customized WP:Edit summary is not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see an unsourced block of text, yes, but the only thing bolded was the first two words. That can be solved through editing and I do not feel it should have been reverted. I've checked, and as far as I can tell the edit summary is editable. I will be fixing its faults and reintroducing it.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Launchballer, I didn't state that it was all bolded. But as for fixing the IP's edit, including looking for a source that may or may not support all of (not just a part of) that IP's text, I obviously was not interested. You are, and that's fine. One could argue that similar to Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, an inline citation is not needed for that material because the video is the source, but I think one should err on the side of caution when it comes to presenting music video material (meaning I think a source should be provided for it and, if possible, the source should support it in its entirety). Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Pliuskaitis
Hello Flyer22,

You changed my edit for Michael Pliuskaitis because you said it was not helpful. But if you Google him, you will see his ban from USA swimming was overturned. He is first coach to ever fight and win his ban. This is extremely significant and not sure why you would delete that? Unless it was due to me not bookmarking it correctly, but nothing I wrote was not true. But I do not really know the proper way to edit in correct or outdated information, Thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoNotSpreadLies (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Pliuskaitis
Hello Flyer22,

You changed my edit for Michael Pliuskaitis because you said it was not helpful. But if you Google him, you will see his ban from USA swimming was overturned. He is first coach to ever fight and win his ban. This is extremely significant and not sure why you would delete that? Unless it was due to me not bookmarking it correctly, but nothing I wrote was not true. But I do not really know the proper way to edit in correct or outdated information, Thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoNotSpreadLies (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got e-mail!
WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, I didn't get an email from you. The Wikipedia email system has been wonky lately; see . Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I was afraid of. Sending e-mail to people with Yahoo accounts isn't working any longer (Yahoo refuses the messages), so if that's where your account is (mine is), then that's likely the problem.  I don't have time to sort it out right now, but I'll try again later.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, WhatamIdoing, my email account is at Yahoo. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the problem is with my account—anyone with a Yahoo! e-mail address at Wikipedia can receive, but not send, e-mail (using Special:EmailUser; obviously, you can still send e-mail directly from your Yahoo! account if you know the other editor's e-mail address). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, on April 24th via email, Graham87 pointed me to that WP:Village pump discussion about Wikipedia's email woes. I finally got your email; since you emailed me via a Yahoo account and the email doesn't state that it's via the Wikipedia system, it seems that you went back and found me in your contacts or rather as someone you've been in contact with a few times via email. I mainly converse with my contacts when it comes to Wikipedia email communication. As for the email, I already had an idea of what you were trying to email me about; I was somewhat off, but still on the same target. I'll get back to you about it later. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Self-contradiction: Bareback (sex) article
Saying that something is obvious and needs to be sourced is the most self-contradictory and illogical objection that I've read on Wikipedia in ages. Congratulations on that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Aw, yes, Jason A. Quest, you are referring to this, this, this, this, this, this and this exchange, particularly diff-link number five, at the Bareback (sex) article. If you think it's always the case that something that is obvious does not need to be sourced, especially something that is medically obvious, then perhaps you should read recent discussions that were had at Biographies of living persons and Verifiability, especially Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36 and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62. Or read the entire lead of Identifying reliable sources (medicine). We source sexually transmitted disease material on Wikipedia, no matter how obvious it may seem; we even source that a woman is more likely to get pregnant without the use of a condom than with one, and this is because there are a lot of people who don't have good sex education on matters such as these. For example, there are teenagers who think that vaginal sex is riskier than anal sex and that a sexually transmitted disease cannot result from anal sex. So save your combative attitude for someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, or for fixing up that mess of a Bareback (sex) article you've been editing for years.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Bareback (sex) article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into the local language

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Article you might want to add to watchlist
Fuck-me_shoes seems like an article that would be up your alley. Just thought I'd share. Not sure if you were aware of it or not. Tutelary (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny this page had 5,000 views in last 30 days.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)