User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 8

About Tribadism
You do not agree that tribadism includes her partner's chest and/or breasts? 129.107.225.207 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources say nothing about women rubbing their vulvae against their partner's chest/breasts. Stomach, yes. But not breasts. But even without mentioning that, the article already makes clear that tribbing can mean grinding the vulva against any body part. We don't have to mention every instance. For example, we mention thigh, but not knee. This doesn't mean grinding against the knee isn't tribadism, and I doubt anyone would come to that conclusion. "Includes" mean "includes," not "only." Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that's fair enough. Rather it be up to the person to figure it out. 129.107.226.173 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yeah, I think it's fairly easy to figure out with lines like "...is a form of non-penetrative sex in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation." and "The term can also refer to a masturbation technique in which a woman rubs her vulva against an inanimate object such as a bolster, in an effort to achieve orgasm."


 * Thanks for understanding, and addressing me about your concern. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I went ahead and made it clearer by adding "or other body part"...which is backed up enough by the first line simply calling it "non-penetrative sex in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation." Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, "other body part" may lead some to include "the mouth" as well. Though I would think people would know oral does not count as tribadism. Hmm, I'm sure I'll tweak it further later, so that there is no confusion at all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to your recent postings on my talk page, I would answer as follows. - I am not sure that 'commonly known by' is more neutral, if anything I suspect it is less clear. On the other hand, I do think it (as written) is typically what people will believe/understand/know it to be. I would argue that 'common' is less neutral as it is often used to imply that something is less than favourable, though I do not believe that was the implication here. Referring to the understanding, it is not that it is harder to understand, it is that the typical understanding people have is of the 'scissor' position -- rather like the typical understanding (or better still 'first thing imagined when the term is used') of heterosexual intercourse is missionary postion, even though many others are well documented. - I think 'it is usually uderstood to mean' is reasonable -- it is both true, neutral and reamins appropriate even in the event that it may not *actually* be true and is there fore a misconception. - I did add erroneously, yes, in order to deineate between masturbation and tribadism. Naturally one should describe the two dispassionately but it seems reaonsable to delineate between them and thus remain clear, e.g. readers should not be given to thinking it could refer to a woman plerasuring herself with a pillow (or even a man, come to that), where the term actually refers to two women having sex. I think that without 'erroneously' it would be easy to read that refers to both sex and masturbation, which of course it does not. Showjumpersam (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how "commonly known by" is less neutral. It is a matter of fact that it is commonly known by its scissoring position. Saying "typically known by" or "typically understood by," however, is more of a POV assertion. It is saying that scissoring is the type of tribadism that people are typically more familiar and/or what they typically think of when they think of tribadism. How do we know that to be the case? I already stated that I am in agreement that scissoring is the most well-known aspect of tribadism, thanks to the media, but we have no source saying that this type of tribadism is what people typically think of. We don't have a source saying "commonly known by" either, but some of the sources do show that scissoring is a commonly known aspect of tribadism. I also told you that "commonly" is more neutral due to the great number of lesbians who object to the term scissoring because they don't partake in that position and/or never heard of it until some curious guy asked them about it, and hate that it is often used as an umbrella term for all types of tribadism.


 * I've never heard of "common" implying something that is less than favorable, except for in cases where one act/thing is described as "common" because it's boring and the other is described as "exciting." However, I don't believe that people will interpret the wording "commonly known by" in that way.


 * As for the wording "understood by," I still prefer "known by." But when it comes to saying "it is usually understood to mean," are you referring to the "commonly known by the scissoring position" line or the "This may involve female-to-female genital" line?


 * Using "erroneously" is very POV-ish, seeing as I'm sure that someone would come along and remove it...and cite it as "editor opinion." I've seen that word removed from Wikipedia more than once because of that reason (unless sourced). I asked you if that line should be removed altogether because I have not come across a reliable source for it. Something like that, if it cannot be reliably sourced (per WP:Reliable sources), shouldn't be in the article. It's best to get rid of it altogether than to have "erroneously" in there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is indeed a context in which it is less that favourable but not the one to which I was referring. I would suggest that 'common' is difficult to support as an objective term, partly because it is often mixed up with general, well-known, and so on, and is thus somewhat indistinct.


 * Although 'known by' sounds better to the ear at first reading, I would say that 'understood by' is more objective as it refers to what people understand (or just think), whether or not this is in fact correct (i.e. we do nto have proof that it is not a misconception, and this covers both bases objectively). Also, as a scientist, 'knowledge' is a something of a redundant concept for me, as is truth.  Understanding is the thing :)


 * Erroneously as a term is direct I agree but I would be loathe to shy away from using it. Certainly I would suggest that delineating the term from others with which it may be mistaken is an appropriate use of a wiki page.  Certainly as far as my experience goes, the term is used lazily/wrongly (for which I used the word erroneously) to refer to other things.  I would strongly suggest that as a place for objective information on a subject, this is appropriate here.

Showjumpersam (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still can't see "commonly known by" as the more subjective of the two. To me, it is clear that "typically known by" or "typically understood by" is the more subjective. And if "commonly known by" implies "general, well-known," then that is not a bad thing. It gets across the point that this is the most well-known form of tribadism without sounding so definitive about it. I also still prefer "known by" to "understood by."


 * You still haven't answered my question about removing the bolster line. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your James Dean article reversion
Hi Flyer22

Thanks for letting me know the reason why you reverted the changes I tried to make to the Dean article on Wikipedia. I hadn't looked at the article in a long time, and I was concerned to see what a gossipy mess it appears to have become over the past months. Everyone seems to have added their two cents worth. Even though references are given, some of them are to books which frankly are simply gossip mongering tomes written for fans rather than serious works.

I was particularly disturbed by the fact that Dean's, shall we say more well established and documented relationships, had become mixed up with the section concerning speculations about his sexual orientation, which I would agree should come secondary to the bare facts of his life.

Dean, unfortunately, like all icons, has become public property, which means everyone has a claim on his or her version of what he was "really" all about. However, I think quite obviously a biographical article should stick to sources that are actually known to have known, and been a part of, the life of the subject, rather ideas spun by third parties, amongst whom I would definitely include gossip columnists.

The Wikepedia article as it now stands is an inaccurate and amateurish hodgepodge. If I can't clear it up, maybe you, or some moderator, could do Dean this service?

Sincerely,

KitMarlowe3
 * The speculation about his sexual orientation has been in the article for a long time now. I think since the last time you edited the article, months or a year ago. The talk page is full of complaints about it. What changed was how it was originally a part of his Personal relationships section, as though it is all truth. Everything said about Dean's sexual orientation is someone else's word but not his own, which makes it all claims and speculation. I didn't think it was fair to present these people's words/theories as fact, and so I divided the information, leaving the Personal relationships section to deal with his known relationships...and the Speculated sexual orientation section, which has had something to do with his popularity in the LGBT community, to deal with the claims/speculation. This can be seen at Talk:James Dean. Are you saying you feel that most of what is stated about his sexual orientation should be removed? If so, what would you recommend fill that section? What sources? Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Single Ladies by Beyonce.
Hi Flyer22, i am Jivesh from Mauritius. I am the one who fixed the article and i am sincerely very happy that someone has appreciated my work. I am here almost exclusively for Beyonce, i rarely contribute to other pages). I have fixed 8/10 singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce. And i am expanding singles from (B'Day). I will be very happy to work with you one day. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, thank you. Yeah, I noticed it was you who had done the work. I appreciate it indeed. I thank you for that hard and good work. It wasn't awful before your contributions, but it's certainly well-improved now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. I thought you would reply on my talk-page. I just saw your note on the top of your talk-page. I am sincerely very happy you appreciate my work. May i ask you whether you are a fan pf Beyonce? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like some of her music, and liked Destiny's Child, but my 21-year-old sister loves her and is a huge fan. I have two sisters and two brothers. My 14-year-old sister likes some of her music too, but, yeah, the 21-year-old is the huge fan.


 * As for not replying on your talk page, sorry about that. I thought you'd seen the note at the top of my talk page about replying. Sometimes I reply back on the user's talk page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not matter. May i ask if your sisters are on Wikipedia? Please do not get me wrong. Actually, my point is i would have requested them to join WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, not on Wikipedia. Not even that familiar with it, with the exception of having used it much like the general public has, I'm sure. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, and i ever i need help, may i ask you? Be frank. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  11:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yes, as long as it is something I can help with. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you and would you like to join th e Wiki-project? I mean are you interested? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  12:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest and say I'm not interested. These days, I'm not even that active in all of the projects I am a part of. But if you think it will help you.... Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. I understand. I am very happy to know that you will help me when you can and that is important. Thanks for being kind to me. Not everyone is like you. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Whitney Houston
Hi,

You reverted my paragraph split in Whitney Houston lead, citing 4-paragraphs rule from WP:LEAD. While I totally agree it should be this way, I think now it's too much things put together and that was my way to start showing this fact and eventually slimming the lead down a bit.

A career history is not a strict definition of who it is. Maybe her relatives belong to the first para, because they're also famous, but the rest does not - "Houston began..." should be next sentence and a paragraph.

Now we have way too long introduction, with 2. and 4. para being just a list of her achievements - it should be joined and cut to the most important. Alternatively we can make the 4. paragraph a separate "Awards" section and cloning the sentence about Guiness record to the first paragraph (as a general proof that she is very important artist, which should be reflected in this shortest summary - 5. here). But please don't pretend it all still fits in the lead just by squeezeing all the materials to the "demanded" amount of paragraphs.

What do you think about how to resolve this the best way? -- kocio (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions seem reasonable or like a good place to start. I only look after that article at times. I don't heavily edit it. I was just wondering why it was made into five sections all of a sudden, which only looked worse to me. The lead I never thought of as too big, because there are good or featured Wikipedia articles with leads that big or bigger. Michael Jackson, for example. The Whitney Houston article's lead was most recently designed by Bookkeeperoftheoccult, who has experience getting such articles to GA or FA status. I'll ask Bookkeeperoftheoccult to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not sure who broke up the Jackson lead into six sections. I'll be addressing that on that talk page soon. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For Jackson, I went ahead and reverted, instead of addressing it on the talk page, as it was done by one editor after that lead has been through extensive debate and conformed to the WP:LEAD "no more than four paragraphs" standard. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't edit the article that much anymore either, so I have no qualms about trying to improve it. Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson and Madonna are all good examples of how to summarize the most important points in someone's career. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These examples are good (shorter, better split to paragraphs), but I don't consider them good enough. They follow the strange pattern of glueing together the nutshell definition with debuting informations, instead of putting generalizations in the first paragraph, and trying to enumarate too many things. I said much more on this topic down here. kocio (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead bloat
All important articles tend to have bloated lead, which I think is understandable, but still a flaw. People try to catch every important thing here, but - as we know it - in some cases you end up making neverending lists, because on some topics we have many facts to note, while on the others just a few. My feeling is the most important we want is comprehension in the lead, which means we have to be more picky and think more meta-level in some superimportant articles.

While MJ or WH can be 1000 times more rich in world-important details than the average singer, we should still keep the leads as 4 short, logical paragraphs, even if we lose some details here, because what we want is to gently introduce a reader, not forcing him/her to parse the text. Instead we have to summarize more tightly and have better generalized things. For example instead of writing here all achievements as a singer, actor and dancer, we should just say that he was important artist in all these areas, maybe with some most notable, one in each field. All details should go to the sections or even separate entries, if needed.

What I see in such cases most of the time is overloaded stories as a lead. The first paragraph should be the core definition on its own - then lead as a longer overview - and then sections for details. Reader can then always adjust any topic, no matter how big and important, to his personal time frame: fast skipping (few seconds, not even leaving the first para), overviewing (let's say less than a minute, but still skipable), then detail-picking in relevant, well planned sections.

When we make the lead "a story", we stop making summary and it tends to grow out of control. We lose clarity also - in MJ case we had too many para, but you could tell at once what they were about and skip those you're not interested into. Now our nutshell definition (first paragraph) suddenly ends not as what it should be - some general facts are connected with the beginning of his career, which is totally different level of abstraction. And this is when the reader gets puzzled and has to read all the story and can't skip paras, because a story in the lead is not logically split into paragraphs - we just try to have 4 paragraphs, not caring if they are still logically separate parts.

I think we have to think more what is the lead for and how it could be more useful for people, not just how much paragraphs it will take. I like killing too long leads very much (look at my page =} ), but I believe the first step to do it properly is to create logically separate paragraphs. Then you have some structure, which you can slim down by generalizing. This is why I prefer too many simple "one-aspect-at-the-time" paragraphs in MJ and a template claiming it is too long, than the proper amount of them, but with "a novel" approach, when you have to follow the writer from the beginnig to the end if you try to find something. It is hard to maintain in the long perspective, since the story is one big and not very clear construct.

That's why I think it's better to explicitely show why it is too long (too many separate topics gathered here, not well generalized) than simply hide this fact, making it even harder to manage. kocio (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've brought up some valid points. Would you mind copying and pasting this to the WP:LEAD talk page? I feel that it's something that should be addressed there, as most leads of very well-known people do what you mentioned they do. Bringing this up there is the best way to get things to change. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
The main problem here is that this part of text wasn't structured, IMHO it's just a long "praising" section. =} Whatever we do, there will be some uncosistences and subjectivities in trying to sort the things out, until someone makes a brave rewrite and cuts some quotes. I'm not that fluent in English to make such things myself.

I just thought this 2 paragraphs summarize this praising, so it's good to remove them from the long enough Influence section, especially since it all sounds like telling all the same in different words and I don't like such duplication. You can combine it back if you feel it'd be better - or maybe cut some not-essential-enough stuff by the way?

The Voice section - here we have at least some hard facts and some other quotes, which concentrate mostly on the voice, not just on the influence. I believe it has some justification to be separated. However, it still is praising and does not differ clearly from the rest, so if you feel... etc.

One thing I really don't want to be removed is more fine grained paragraphs I made this time - at least most of them - because they give some breath to the reader's eye. kocio (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your rearranging, this is exactly what I think should be done! kocio (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you're okay with it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Statutory rape
Although I agree more or less with your recent edits on the article, I don't think that when the example of the Texas Statutes is given, changing the language of the precise statute is appropriate. Perhaps finding another example from another state would change the language appropriately without removing the quoted citation? Atom (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see where the exact wording was sourced. It alluded to the Texas statutes, but I thought it was just some random editor's wording (paraphrasing). Feel free to revert me, of course. I feel that "actor" is a weird word to use and do not see why we should not use "accused" in its place, but you have a point. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The word actor is, verbatim fom the statute, as is the other wording. Yes, it is strange, but they use it in legal jargon to basically mean a person initiating the action. The bias that they seem to assume the guilt of the person because they are older is strange, but it is from Texas. As I said, maybe other state statutes say it in a less biased way for the article? Atom (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I gathered in what way they were/are using the word, but still... We could still use "accused" but in brackets...as [accused]...since we would be changing quoted text. As for what word other statutes use regarding Romeo and Juliet laws, I'm not sure. Romeo and Juliet laws, with the exception of the typical aspects, are actually something I'm not as familiar with as compared to other sexual/relationship topics. I'm also not that motivated to look into what other states may use for the wording. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistake?
With this notice, I think you hit the wrong talk page. The Google Project is not the doctors' mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, WhatamIdoing. Yes, let's call it a mistake. The project was related enough to the doctors' mess for me, LOL. I disagree that it has nothing to do with medicine, but I see that it was the wrong project I posted it at months ago. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of people at WT:MED probably would have been willing to help, but leaving a note at the underwatched page dedicated to talking to the Google Foundation folks isn't really a useful way of reaching WikiProject Medicine. As you can see, it took several months before anyone noticed the comment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What Does Maggie Gallagher think about anal sex?
http://www.queerty.com/what-does-maggie-gallagher-think-about-anal-sex-20110128/

I totally understand feeling protective of articles that I have worked on. DCX (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Still, she has no bearing on what we do here. All we can do is try and have the article be as neutral as possible. It wasn't about me being protective of the article, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, she is a powerful anti-gay activist...we shouldn't be writing her material to use against..."us"(?), but she is still pretty ignorant to cite a Wikipedia artcile as a reference (J/K). FYI - Pregnancy is painful, unsanitary, unsatisfying for women and creates unique risks for serious physical injury and death (if you doubt me, go read the Wikipedia entry on the subject)...(lol).DCX (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * She was citing the negative aspects of anal sex, which, yes, Wikipedia does document, but Wikipedia is not on her side regarding anti-gay or anal feelings. Wikipedia was/is not trying to be anti-gay or anti-anal by reporting health risks of the act. That is what I was trying to get across to you. The woman clearly did not cite the fact that Wikipedia also documents how women can derive pleasure from anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to make a joke and extend an olive branch.DCX (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I know that. Just wanted to make clear those points. In any case, I accept your olive branch. It's nice that you are willing to move on and not hold grudges, the opposite of some Wikipedia editors here. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, your talk page headers never cease to amaze me. -- AniMate 08:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no explanation, LOL. Just grins. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better I've often wondered what Maggie Gallagher thought about anal sex. The question has at times kept me up for hours. I can sleep easy now. -- AniMate 09:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Too funny!! You often do know how to get a laugh out of me. I appreciate that. I know I just don't want to sound like her on the topic. Sometimes, I am too technical about what sex organs are, for example, completely overlooking the fact that some people view the anus as a sex organ. Anyway, thanks again. I either get called pro-anal or anti-anal working at that article these days. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anal Sex article
I'm fine with the BRD process. I made what I felt was a constructive change, and you reverted. No problem. This is the discuss part. "Anal sex is perhaps most often associated with male homosexual behavior, ranging from monogamous same-sex relationships, in which anal sex may be the central focus of lovemaking, to less consensual male-male sexual activity, such as male-male rape, in which anal sex is an act of aggression." Your edit comment was. "Atomaton, I'm thinking it was added because anal sex is most often associated with male homosexuality, which is sourced below" I looked through the references,[2] through [7] and I did not see that quote. Are you sure that this is not just speculation, or opinion offered by one editor? Which reference said that? Atom (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm late replying to this here, so this comment is just for readers of this section of my talk page, and clarity once its archived: It's been cleared up on the Anal sex talk page. Two sources cite the misconception. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the anal sex talk page. I explained my reasoning, and I believe it is sound. You say that the words sound like weasel words, and yet they are the opinion of the author whom you cited, and in fact, put the sentence in proper context. I'd rather that you had discussed it, rather that reverting me. It seems to me that you and I have a great deal in common. I will not get in a revert battle with someone whom I respect. If you look at my comments in the article, perhaps you will have a change of heart. Atom (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comments there as well. There is no reason to reply to me here about it, when we are discussing it on the talk page there. I have disagreed with your reasoning, and you should have replied instead of reverting me. I believe my reasons for reverting you are more sound/valid, for the reasons I posted there. Two editors (myself included) disagree with you for those very reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But, I did comment on the talk page. How can you say that the author you yourself cited is using "weasel words"? The quite you disagree with about heterosexual anal sex being larger in number is a direct quote from the author you cited. Atom (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You reverted me, instead of replying to my addressing you on that matter specifically. It is weasel wording to say "this certainly is not the case," just as it would be weasel wording if we worded any information in a way that encompasses WP:Weasel wording. It doesn't matter if the weasel wording is cited; there is usually always a way to word material without including weasel words, and that is what I did just moments ago.


 * The other aspect of the cited text is saying that heterosexuals have anal sex more because there are more heterosexuals. This applies to almost everything, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. It's like a "Duh" comment. That is why that addition by you is debated. One can easily state that more heterosexuals play basketball, since there are more. That is why such an addition is silly. It's not like that statement is saying that anal sex is practiced more by individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. And, again, would you keep this discussion in one place? I see no reason to discuss it here and at the Anal sex talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If I offered that wording as my opinion, it would be weasel wording. If we are relating what the cited source says, it is not.  Paraphrasing may need to avoid weasel words, but direct quotes are the exception.

I understand what you are trying to say, but you misunderstand what I am trying to say. If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers. If instead someone were to say that "a larger percentage of homosexuals participate in anal sex than other groups" then your comments would be valid. Percentage would certainly be more important there. But, that isn't the case. The misconception seems to be, according to Dr. John Dean, "anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men.". Don't you think that when I quoted Dr. Dean again by saying "It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." that I was countering that premise to dispel that misconception?

I will keep the discussion over in the article after this. Best to you, Atom (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weasel wording is weasel wording, and I already explained why it was not needed.


 * I understand what you are saying, but I do not see how it is valid at all. You say, "If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers." ...But the problem with that is what I stated above. Like I mentioned on the Anal sex talk page, No source exactly states that anal sex is mostly practiced by heterosexuals. "In absolute numbers" is ridiculous for all the reasons stated above. It's like saying, "In absolute numbers," more white people have sex than black people because there are more white people. Or "in absolute numbers," more heterosexuals eat pizza than homosexuals because there are more heterosexual people in the world. It is deceptive. It is one of the same reasons that stating that most serial killers are white has been debated at the Serial killer article time and time again. "Absolute numbers" means nothing since it is quite clear that there are more white people in the world than black people. The same applies to heterosexuals and sex. What you are stating can apply to oral sex and various other sex acts too, not just anal sex, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I do not get at all why you feel it is needed or logical to mention this "more heterosexuals do it because there are more" stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
'Twas nice of you to say that. I appreciate it. Tvoz / talk 04:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only stating the truth. You've been a great help. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Whitney Houston article
Hi Flyer22! Thank you for reverting the unsourced additions. I'm guessing you're a Whitney fan? Novice7 |  Talk  10:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My mother is. Though I do like a lot of Houston's classic songs. I am just someone who looks after certain articles, either often or from time to time. Sometimes, I become concerned with articles that are not that well-watched and have a lot of vandalism, etc. To me, the Whitney Houston article was definitely an article that should have had more people helping to revert stuff. I'm glad that it has that now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I loved Whitney back in the day (and the Bodyguard still an all-time fave), so I'll keep an eye there too. Tvoz / talk 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I also keep an eye on articles abut people I don't love... Tvoz / talk 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Thanks for the help, Tvoz. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm happy to see people clean up Whitney articles. Novice7  |  Talk  04:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again! So, do you think with enough fixes, Whitney Houston can become a FA or even a GA? Btw, I work on some of her singles and albums too (like the GAs How Will I Know and Why Does It Hurt So Bad). Please keep an eye on them too (I have lots of articles on my watchlist). Novice7  |  Talk  16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It can, just like most articles on Wikipedia. I say "most" because I've never seen a stub article as GA or FA, LOL. As for my watchlist, I haven't looked at it in a long time. It's too frustrating to see all that vandalism or unsourced stuff, and makes me despise Wikipedia. I already have a love-hate relationship with this site. Plus, my watchlist is long, and I can be there all day correcting matters (though I sometimes spend most of my day correcting things on Wikipedia anyway). I check articles by looking at my contributions or just going to the articles, as I usually edit or revert on the same articles over and over again these days. I'm not up for looking after any other article at this time. In my view, Wikipedia should only allow registered editors to edit. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, okay. You're right, some IP edits can be frustrating. Thanks again. Novice7  |  Talk  16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey if you're talking about the X-factor performance then I removed that because its one performance. Can you imagine if every performance she did had some kind of review to it? The article would be ridiculously long. I mean, she did over 100 performances in 1986 alone. Should each of those have some kind of sourced critisicm (good or bad)? Do we really need that kind of detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoop85 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you just now replying about that, months later? Anyway, you remove all criticism about Houston, I've noticed by looking through your edits. That performance is not just some random performance. It serves as part of her comeback reception. It should not be made to look as though her comeback was all positive critic/fan-wise. It wasn't. And that should be showcased, which is what that material does in comparison to positive-only information that was in that section. So, yes, we need that kind of detail. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I replied now, because I only saw it now, I haven't been visiting often lately. That performance was just a regular performance, it wasn't her "comeback performance". Her comeback performance would be the Good Morning America concert, (which also had bad reviews and was NOT removed by me, so your theory that I only remove negative criticism is incorrect. Also, I am the one that had to constantly re-add all the drug talk, and that is also "negative"). And for an OVERALL reception of her comeback, how about her FIRST worldwide tour in a decade? I just don't see the point in highlighting a random performance. I also removed the POSITIVE reception from the Italy X-factor performance, because, again, it is a random performance. So again, please don't accuse me of "removing all criticism". Check my edits again, and I'm honestly not trying to be rude here though it may sound like it, but check ALL the edits and not just selectively with all due respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoop85 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You replied now because you have sporadic editing. And I said "comeback reception" and "[i]t should not be made to look as though her comeback was all positive critic/fan-wise." I did not say "comeback performance." All of the reception with the debut of her new album is "comeback reception." She performed at various places for her return to music. So in essence, there was not just one "comeback performance," and I don't know why you are trying to distinguish. The X-factor performance is included because it balances out the positive reviews. That's why that "random performance" is included, and because it details some of the worst reviews she got and is outside of America. Her performance on Good Morning America was/is not in the article (at least I don't currently remember seeing it back then and I don't see it now), so that's a moot point.


 * All that said, if I was wrong about your behavior, I apologize for accusing you of "removing all criticism." Flyer22 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Prostate massage
Hi, flyer22. I don't really like having discussions on my talk page (I am going to remove the comments their as I standardly do with matters germane to articles rather than my own actions) and I cannot claim expertise on the topic, but my understanding from watching a cable documentary on artificial insemination is that properly executed stimulation of the prostate is a sure-fire way to induce ejaculation in males whether human or bovine, is standard in animal husbandry and captive breeding programs, and that it is pretty much involuntary and automatic - hence the use with bulls. The source for the article is not exactly the most authoritative imaginable, and I doubt this wisdom of drawing any conclusions from it, since it was not written to address the specific question you raised. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay, Medeis. I'll leave that discussion here with just that link alone, for my archive. Thank you for addressing my thoughts. And, LOL, I know Go Ask Alice! isn't authoritative on the matter. I was just making chatter in wondering which wording is more accurate. "Some men" or just "Men." Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording following the source is most appropriate, and had you not done so I would have made the same change myself.μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And, again, thank you for indulging me in discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not conflate "male orgasm" with "ejaculation of semen." Yes, they usually go hand-in-hand, but prostate massage can trigger an ejaculation without an orgasm. (Conversely, when I was a wee lad of about 11, I figured out how to masturbate myself to a dry orgasm five or six months before I had my first ejaculation.) And as long as I'm in full and candid disclosure mode, my considered opinion as a homosexual man who very occasionally enjoys "bottoming" is that the pleasure from prostate massage is real, but the DEGREE of pleasure has been hugely, enormously, CATASTROPHICALLY oversold within gay male culture. If there is any such thing as the "male G-spot", it is the frenulum region on the underside of the penis shaft, not the prostate. (Which is why I'm a frot advocate.) Throbert McGee (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Throbert McGee. You're mainly replying to Medeis, right? I'll alert Medeis of your reply. And, yes, even the Orgasm article makes clear that "male orgasm" and "ejaculation of semen" are not always related. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me make myself as clear as possible, so as not to have to repeat myself. There is no identified class of otherwise healthty sexually mature males who cannot, except due to some abnormal condition, or perhaps the intentional lack of effort, reach orgasm or ejaculation by this means. Of course there are men who cannot orgasm, just as of course it is possible to ejaculate without orgasm by penile stimulation. These caveats are all standard. An analogy to these objections would be responding to the claim that men can walk tippy-toed with complaints that some people are amputees or that some people would rather crawl on all fours. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Editing
Hi flyer if you have the time could you take a look at this edit I made here I feel I sufficiently warned the editor and was warranted when they slipped into 1st person plural. It could have been a close paraphrase, but looking at the whole article I don't think so. --Wlmg (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's definitely conflict of interest editing. Such a statement would not have been made otherwise. Your warning was valid. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement with the 'Frot' page
Hi, Flyer22... I am extremely grateful for the time and effort you've put into answering the objections and nit-picking of "Mijopaalmc" et al.! (I sort of understand where he's coming from, since "Frot Granddaddy" Bill Weintraub is so fanatically opposed to sticking anything up the wazoo that his site forbids discussion of butt plugs and those "Aneros" thingamajigs, even though such toys may be much safer for rectal penetration than a man's penis. But on the other hand, Weintraub is a Lone Voice In The Wilderness wailing against a tsunami of anal-oriented gay pr0n, with bareback stuff accounting for 25% of sales, by some estimates -- so I'm inclined to forgive his fanaticism.) Anyway, I especially appreciate your efforts because you're a chick and don't have a prostate, so it must've been tempting for you to recuse yourself from the whole debate on the "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. But you didn't, and I thank you. Throbert McGee (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You made me burst out laughing with the conclusion of this statement. Thanks for that. "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. LOL!!!! And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: cleanup of Anal sex
Hi, F22. Thanks for your compliment. I agree with your tweaks to my rework of that section, with one minor and one moderate exception you'll see if you check the article history. I'm heading over to the talk page to start a discussion about how best to deal with Weintraub. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll meet you there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill
I never opposed it, I was the one who added it in the first place. I don't mind if you remove it, I only added it back because nobody gave a reason as to why it was removed before. Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn that Mjs2010 kept adding it back, saying it was important, and that you reverted him or her on the matter at one point. If you originally added it months ago, it wasn't you who kept readding it after it kept being removed. I think Ckatz and I gave reasons in our edits summaries for removing it. My current reasoning, which you saw, is in my most recent edit summary there now (though I reverted myself on the matter because I saw that it was you who'd added it and your reason for the add). Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I added it back once, I think. Either way, I agree with your reasoning, I'll remove it. Jayy008 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 I have edited the one tree hill page and worked really hard on the season one thing and i felt i was good and to see that you deleted everything i wrote made me upset. I am not trying to be rude and i kept all of your work. Did i do somthing in the writing that was bad could we work together on this because i really love one tree hill and know almost everything about and really want to write about it too. Sincerly Mkaylach.
 * I reverted you because your addition is bad grammar/spelling and unneeded plot. See WP:PLOT. Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. Furthermore, this information is already available in the Cast and characters section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have changed and fixed all gramar mistakes and i say that it is a summary of the first season talking about what happened to each character and i dont care what you think because everytime you take it off i will put it back on. I have saved my summary on my computer so all i need to do is copy and paste it. i tryed not to be rude but since you think you are the keeper of wikipedia i will contiue to add what i like. so yea it aint gonna go anywhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.232.8 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you have not fixed all the grammar mistakes. And, yes, it's clear you don't care what I state, because you are completely ignoring what I stated about your addition being unneeded plot. It's already in the Cast and characters section, worded in a much more coherent manner. We have formatted the article so that the Cast and characters section deals with details about these characters' lives, but not too much (per WP:PLOT). You show up and want to go challenge that? Fine, you can challenge it, but we go by policies and guidelines here at Wikipedia. One of our guidelines is that grammar and spelling should not be as sloppy as yours. It's not about me being the "keeper of Wikipedia." It's about going by Wikipedia's way of doing things, and having worked with other editors to format the article a certain way. You say you tried not to be rude? I say you are just like every other newbie who shows up at Wikipedia thinking that things are supposed to be their way and that we don't go by rules here. We have a thing called WP:Consensus. And since you insist on re-adding your poorly constructed version, I will take this matter to the article talk page to gain consensus to remove your addition permanently. And when I do (because I will, one way or another), your version will be gone. But I encourage you to keep adding it back in the meantime, even as others revert you (because, apparently, I'm not the only one who has noticed your bad grammar). That way, I can report you for WP:3RR. And being logged out (editing as an IP) will not help you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK so if my grammar is so bad then why did word help me change all mispelled words and i have used other sites to check my grammar i my not be able to spell the best but at least i know not to be rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.232.8 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 I have read over my lastest notes to you and found that i have been rude. I am sorry for that. I have now put my summary of season 1 under 7.1 Summaries of the seasons I hope this is better for and ask that is stays there and again i am sorry for how rude i have been. But please look at the way you said somethings too. Yes it my look like i am new but i have been on here for 7 years but i lost my password and had my account shut down. I hope we can get pass this and not contiue to go agaist each other.
 * Leave past comments on my talk page where they are. And this edit by you is unacceptable and shows your inexperience in editing Wikipedia...or at least your inexperience in how things are supposed to be done here. Not only is that addition placed in an inappropriate spot, it is the type of needless plot information we removed from this article when there was a serious "too much" plot problem. All that edit would have done is welcome a "summary" of all the other seasons, when all of this stuff is already adequately summarized in both the Plot and Cast and characters section. And this edit is not much better, seeing as this information is already covered in Peyton and Brooke's listing. Why do you insist that we have this redundancy? And an example of your bad grammar? Here is one passage: Nikki jakes baby momma. Well... There's no comma after the word "Nikki". It should be "Nicki," not "Nikki." Jake is not capitalized. There's no apostrophe in "jakes." And you wrote "baby momma." I get that you are trying to help out, but your writing is not as sound as it should be, and we go by policies (aka rules) and guidelines here. You are lucky that I held off on coming back earlier, because I most certainly would have reported you for WP:3RR. What you need is a Welcome tag on your talk page to help familiarize yourself with Wikipedia.


 * Now, since you have decided to add your addition to the Cast and characters section, I need to go clean up your grammatical errors and wording. I have nothing to apologize for in the way I have reacted toward you, and so I won't be apologizing. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I never asked to apologize i was just saying that i would like you to look at the way you said somethings. I went back and looked at my comments from a different view and saw it was rude. I have changed the things about Nicki and would like your help to get a welcome tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaylach (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is how things are supposed to be done. I'll add a Welcome tag to your user page shortly. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's Peyton's feelings too. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear flyer22 i belive that we may have stepped off on the wrong foot but would like to get on the right one. I here to ask you if you would mind adopting me as a user and i am also asking your help on how to adopt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaylach (talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mkaylach, as I told Jacob in the section, "I appreciate your interest in wanting me as a teacher of sorts, but I'm not sure I have the time to guide a new user as much as is needed. There's a lot you will need to learn. I am willing to assist you in any way that Wikipedia allows, but for a full-time tutor, you can check out Adopt-a-user." Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Esta Gillian Andrassy
I have seen you contributed the screen shot of Gillian Andrassy her pouty expression makes her look like her pet puppy just died. I have created an alternate screen shot where she's smiling http://tinypic.com/r/2qmd7nn/7 I have also endeavored to expand the Esta TerBlanche article going as far to consult the Afrikaans wikipedia and she's surprisingly read ink. sigh another dead end. --Wlmg (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I don't mind. We need better quality screenshots of her as the character, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an AMC screen shot of the character, but agreed it's blurry a little more quality would be desirable. I shall soldier on.--Wlmg (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

re Adolescent sexuality in the United States
Could you tell me in a nutshell what is the deal with this article? Sorry, I'm just having trouble getting my head around this. Is Illumnato pushing POV, or is he being ganged up on by POV pushers, or what? (I've had run-ins with Atom elsewhere, which doesn't prove that he's not the good guy here.)

What is the purpose of this article? What is it supposed to be? What do you think it should be? I trust your judgment and highly value your view of things like this. Herostratus (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is my view: I've been careful with this article because, frankly, I am biased towards one view.  I try to not inject that in the article.  Speaking of the last change by Illuminato, there has been a dispute for awhile between him and several other editors (not me).  I've tried to keep out of it.  They seemed to have consensus, and then Illuminato came in and made many massive changes (not a few) that pushed the balance of the article radically.  I see that some of the material he puts in (if not most) is cited correctly, and not necessarily bad material.  But, it is very much towards one view, and he offers no balance or alternative views nor does he support building alternative views.  I'm not saying he has to.  However, a large and huge change in the article swinging the balance substantially, in opposition and against the consensus of the other people who had been working on the article caused me to ask him to discuss it on the talk page.


 * Both of you are strong headed editors whose work I respect very much. I often have agreed with both of you, and also have disagreed often as well. Disagreement does not mean a lack of respect though.


 * "or is he being ganged up on by POV pushers, or what" Look at the edits by the other editors.  They are working to find a balance where *all* views are accurately represented without any one side being pushed.  Illuminato feels very strongly about his position and is not willing to compromise.  Look at his edit hostory in the article, he consistently pushes his view and disregards the view of others.  In my view, his last edit was basically ignoring weeks of discussion on the talk page by many editors to sweep away what was becoming a more balanced article with what, changes to more than 90% of the article?  more than 50 paragraphs? []  A complete rewrite, with no recent discussions or participations on the talk page, and no explanations afterward.  Even if every single change was accurate and justified, then his method could use some improvement.  Atom (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Atom, that is useful background. Still would like to hear Flyer's perspective. Herostratus (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, I'm leaning toward indifference regarding that article and its talk page debates. All the edit warring there, along with the arguing (arguing, not just debating), has made me want to generally stay out of it as well. I have stated just about all I can on the matter. To me, the article should be about adolescent/teenage sexuality in general -- not just the sexual activities of that age group. This would also help to take away some of the negativity in that article, because, as I stated there more than once, there is not a lot of research out there saying adolescent/teenage sex is a good thing or that it is very beneficial to that age group. More sources say 10 to 16-year-olds should not be having sex than they say it is not such a bad thing if they do. Illuminato wasn't the only one making the types of edits he has made. And right now, it's three editors (including Illuminato) edit warring and not working much of anything out. The RfC and note to one of the related projects has not seemed to have helped much. Someone needs to take initiative and start editing a more neutral version of that article in their user space, and then present it on the talk page and let others weigh in. The new article can be worked on that way, in user space, until it is ready to go to main space.


 * And, Atom, by, "Both of you are strong headed editors whose work I respect very much," I take it you mean Herostratus and I, not Herostratus and Illuminato? Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks for correcting me (again.) Atom (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

him-/her-/themself
That is a vexing problem. "Themself" is disputed in this usage because it is ungrammatical; it is a plural pronoun and therefore not applicable to a singular referent. Your present form is also ungrammatical; we don't use "hisself" or "his self". It would want to be The best opponent for one who sees him- or herself as justice is another who also does.. But the more elegant solution is probably to bring the mountain to Mohammed since the other way isn't working: The best opponents for those who see themselves as justice are others who also do. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all about the ungrammatical stuff on my user page, LOL. Apparently even trading one ungrammatical usage for another. According to this, which cites Oxford, "themself" used to be correct or rather just preferred. Anyway, I'll go ahead and tweak it to your suggestion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED is much more liberal for including English words today. If it's being used there's a good chance it will be included in the future. Also fyi according to National Geographic after a 200M year absence some living frogs have recently been discovered to have re-evolved teeth^^^^^^^^^. So lost forms can be recovered .--Wlmg (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexual penetration
I tend to think the penetration dab page makes the two meanings (generic and criminal charge) clearer. So I would prefer that sexual penetration redirects there. But I don't really mind your proposed change and wont object either way. Grant |  Talk  08:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Grant. Thanks for replying. What I stated on your talk page is pretty much how I feel about the matter, but I won't redirect it for some time. I'll wait two months or so and see if anyone else decides to redirect it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Frot barnstar

 * Aw, thank you, Simon. Much appreciated. I know it could still do with more work, and I wish there were scholarly references on the term "frot," distinguished from Bill Weintraub. But the truth is...male-to-male genital rubbing is more often called "frottage," just like other forms of frottage, and there are scholarly references for that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hebephilia
I would like to make it clearer that Hebephilia is the sexual attraction for early - mid adolescent. (11 - 13 year old, early adolescent) (14 - 15 year old, mid adolescent). VickNad (talk) 5:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you'd like to make clear. It's about what sources make clear, and the sources in that article right now address 11 - 14-year-olds as early pubescents for the definition of hebephilia (also see pedohebephilic disorder, which stresses the age range for the hebephilic type) even though it seems pretty silly to say 14 and 15-year-olds look all that different from each other age-wise. In the case of girls, even 13 often looks no different from 15. And, yes, a lot of girls are in the middle of puberty by age 14, but it varies, and more so for boys (as boys typically start puberty two years later than girls). Thus...the hebephilia age range is trying to address both of these aspects.


 * Moving on: Although the source I just cited above does not make this clear, hebephilia also stresses the preference, not mere attraction, to that age group. If it did not, then a great number of "normal men" would be hebephiles as well, according to experts (due to the appearance of secondary sex characteristics, which is what sexually attracts adults to other adults). Being sexually attracted to people with secondary sex characteristics generally is not abnormal no matter the age, but having a preference for such a young age group may be (which is why hebephilia is being debated as a disorder/not a disorder by experts now, as its Wikipedia article states in the lead). Flyer22 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Heart of the Ocean
As a matter of style, I shy away from formulations like "revealing that..." or "the scene opens with..." or "the movie closes on..." because I find them slightly redundant. The facts about what we see in the picture should speak for us -- partly to avoid speculative conclusions. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but if we believe that Ross had the diamond all along, we should be able to provide the reader with the facts that require that conclusion. In that way, we provide a summary that obviously avoids OR. So, maybe I could ask you: how are you so sure she had it all along? I would like to include that information in the summary instead of our conclusion that she had it all along. That's what I was trying to do but maybe in this case it doesn't help. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing what is wrong with the wording "revealing that." It's not the same as "the scene opens with..." or "the movie closes on..." at all. Nor is it redundant in this case, because as I stated in my edit summary, "the rest of the plot summary, just like the film up until that point, doesn't make clear that she was hiding it. 'had it all [along]' says she was more than anything else." I'm also not sure what you mean by asking, "How are you so sure she had it all along?" ... The film makes clear that she had it all along, at the end, when it shows Young Rose pull it from Cal's jacket pocket and that Old Rose still has it before she throws it overboard. Are you saying we are to assume it got lost for some time in the years between that and Rose only recently found it, or something like that? If so, that is OR, as the film clearly tells us it has been in Rose's possession all this time. It is hardly any different than your "personal safekeeping" version, except that "had it all along" makes clear that she'd been intentionally keeping it from the others. By "had it all along," I of course do not mean that she had it in her clothing all along or something like that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I'm confusing. I didn't ask what your evidence was because I doubted your interpretation, but because by answering that question we are pointed to what we could include in the summary that communicates the same thing without speculating. And if I understand you, you believe that she had it all along because we see her acquire it and we see her dispose of it. Would something be lost by simply stating those two facts and leaving the inferences to others, no matter how obvious? It's a principle that I personally think is important for plot summaries. Sorry if it seems too precious, but Titanic is a big film so I'd like to make it formally excellent. And thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. How else would you have it worded, other than your and my current examples? I do stand by my version as being clearer, per what I stated above, but I am open to other alternatives. I just don't feel that we should go out of our way to add more to the matter when it is clear just by the line "revealing she had it all along." I mean, again, the film tells us it was in her possession since she was age 17. Because of that, I don't see why we should not show exactly that. It can be called "our interpretation," but what other interpretation are we supposed to have? I would see your point if this were truly debatable, like whether or not she died at the end of the film. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I simply think it's a bad habit to do anything other than cite the evidence. On the other hand, my draft was a bit vague. Let's think about it. No rush. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with the original? If she produces it at that moment, isn't it obvious she had it all along? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, like you stated, your version is a bit vague. I mentioned before that I feel "revealing she had it all along" is more powerful. My reasons are that it clicks for the readers, alerts them to that fact quite clearly. Your "from her personal safekeeping" to me doesn't quite let the readers know that. I mean, the plot summary only summarizes the film; thus, the reader could conclude that she'd already shown the jewel to the others and is now throwing it away. My version makes it clearer that she'd been keeping it from them during the whole film, I feel. I suppose what I mainly want to get across is that Rose never showed the others the jewel. True, Brock doesn't have the jewel if Rose throws it overboard, but it doesn't make clear that he never saw it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding one of your very recent edits
→ Please do not use edit summaries as null edits for the sole purpose of communicating with others. If you're going to make a comment to someone or a general comment, use that user's talk page or the article's talk page. Thank you, –MuZemike 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Null edit, where it says, "The dummy edit summary can be used for text messaging, and correcting a previous edit summary such as an accidental marking of a previous edit as "minor"... Sending a short message via the edit summary ("SMS") is one way of communicating with other editors if there is no need to create a new thread for the message." Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Young Adult
Thanks for the good word - may have gone a bit OTT by the end, but at least there's no "creative vandalism"! Jacobisq (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I hear ya. And thanks again. It really is lovely work. We're lucky to have you working on Wikipedia psychology topics. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue reply
Hi, Flyer22. I'm sorry for the delay, but I have finally had a change to reply to your question on my talkpage. I hope you've been well. — James Cantor (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, James. Thanks. Good to hear from you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Frot#New section for frot vs anal debate
Sorry for my late response:- I have repeatedly tried to follow the debate but just not succeeded. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, did it get too long-winded for you?


 * No worries, though. As you can see, everything seems fine now... Well, for now anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar
Don't we have enough sourced discussion to place them under "gay males" categories? The cited synthesis from AfterElton does a really good job with that case. The 'ambiguity' is only in the characters' own reticence to adopt labels; their real world reception, and the significance of Brokeback Mountain, all recognise them as important depictions of gay males. The bisexual category, as applied by some editors, is well-meaning but misconceived. 'Settling' for 'LGBT characters' seems so too.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's tricky to me, Zythe, since their sexual orientations are actually debated. Some sources, as you know, feel that they are bisexual within the film and that the media was trying to erase/ignore their bisexuality by referring to them simply as "gay." And then there's the actors interpretations of the characters' sexual orientations (Gyllenhaal saying that Ennis and Jack were heterosexual men who "develop this love, this bond"). So it seems safer and more neutral to me not to place them in either the gay or bisexual categories. Or to at least place them in both and point towards the debate with a hidden note. But, by "gay" in this case, do you mean the broader definition of the word -- homosexual behavior in general? After all, when people say the "gay male community," sometimes they are referring to bisexual-identified males (or men who have sex with men in general) as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am simply pointing to the film having shown these men to be monosexual homosexuals -- deeply unsatisfied with their wives and heterosexual sex, deeply longing for each other (and possibly other men). But I realise it's contentious. It's a shame it's contentious, due to heterosexual actors' "processes" or bisexual viewers' lack of representations (I would assume if viewed as a portrayal of bisexuality, Brokeback Mountain would be a particularly negative one as far as heterosexual partners are concerned). But yes, at least all the above sources acknowledge that in the public consciousness, at large, the characters really are understood as gay, not bi.
 * On another note, what constitutes the separate notability of these characters? Should these articles, which replicate most if not all of their content, not be merged into Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar (a la Nikki and Paulo)?~ZytheTalk to me! 17:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In their articles, the sex researcher's opinion on the characters believes Jack was more so gay (and I have to agree there; I don't see how Gyllenhaal believes Jack was heterosexual)...and that Ennis was/is more so straight. My main point is that there are more sources out there on the Internet saying that these characters were/are bisexual...or at least represent bisexuality just as much as homosexuality. We have to remember that most people who identify as bisexual have a preference for one sex over the other (I'm not sure if you do), instead of a 50/50 outlook. So if a character is presented as bisexual but leans more toward one sex over the other, then, yes, I suppose bisexuality is going to be portrayed negatively in regards to least favored sex.


 * Maybe this should be opened up for larger discussion. But RfC and the LGBT WikiProject haven't been much help to me lately (and that goes for other WikiProjects I have asked for assistance from). My opinion is that the characters should either remain in the LGBT category only or be put into both the gay and bisexual categories on the basis of the debate. And good idea to merge the articles; I am all for that. Once the articles are merged, I'll transport this discussion to their talk page for others to weigh in, if you don't...or if you don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means start the merge discussion. My only problem with dual categories -- and I'm all for it, Real World Perspective and all -- is that it will serve to confuse amateur editors, and you'll have the problem of people weighing in and removing categories to fit an interpretation. And I know about the bisexuality/preference model you were supposing, but I was sort of just agreeing with AfterElton's analysis -- I remember, back in 2005, trying to justify these characters being bi in my own head too (almost a justification of the widening difference in my preferences... but let's not delve into that).~ZytheTalk to me! 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, I wasn't suggesting I start a merge discussion. Just that I copy and paste this discussion to their merged article talk page so that people can weigh in about the category stuff. I'd rather you start the merge discussion, if you feel one is needed instead of just going ahead and creating a joint article and then redirecting the names there. As for amateur editors and IPs changing categories, they already do that, experienced editors too (usually putting them in the bisexual category). As for my opinion on the characters' sexualities, I'd say Jack was gay or at least homoflexible. Ennis is a harder read. I don't think either of them hated sex with their wives. But Jack probably would rather not engage in it. Ennis was a bit...hmm..."indifferent-seeming" a lot of the time. Like, "Sex with a woman? Okay, why not? I'd prefer Jack, though." I guess it all depends on how people define "homosexual" and "bisexual." Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk about editing for Titanic (1997 film)
Hello my dear Flyer, please relax and do not be sad or angry. I'm male and was born in 82 also and i hope you be the best my friend. I think terms like enormous was a little puerile, what is your idea about this your | copy edit version? My darling are you have any protest?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer that version instead of the current one in the article, yes, as it seems you know that I do. But, Bakhshi82, you need to take part in the talk page discussions more. Not just stating that you like your version and then leaving, or reverting and then leaving. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My beauty, i want to say All About Eve has won only six oscars between 14 nominees and truly Cameron's visual masterpiece earned the highest acclaim from the Academy. I wish you be a little smarter... i'm joking! Whould you please see the All About Eve article?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who referred you to All About Eve to show you that Titanic doesn't have the most nominations. Both films have 14. And as for being the most awarded, Titanic, Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King all have 11 wins. Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So... Come be involved...

Medal table
Ha ha ha... That was not fun??? get it?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd have to propose this on the talk page if you want it included in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Suing

 * Flyer why did you sue me? why sly? I was Jack and you Rose, don't you? But why article closed?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't sue you, Bakhshi82. I reported you. And I did so because you kept restoring to your version despite the concerns stated on the talk page and without engaging in discussion about those concerns. Of course, your actions have been better since then, and I thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not speak bookish Flyer! I sow Titanic 100 times, i wish i had drowned in the ocean waters for my love, and then people remember me the heart of the ocean. do you see? what a glorious!--Bakhshi82 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Siawase (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

right church, wrong pew at the time
Just to tie up a loose end - you (and I agreed) id'd a sock that wasn't confirmed at the time - remember? I had suspicions that he was not only socking with another pair on the talk page but actually part of a notorious sockfarm. Well, we were right - the account was blocked last night. Eventually they get found out - I wouldn't care as much if the accounts didn't disrupt, but he typically eventually does. Tvoz / talk 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I knew Ryan White Jr. was a sockpuppet. It was painfully obvious. I didn't know he had so many WP:Socks, but it isn't a surprise.


 * I have been known to get accused of being uncivil or "assuming bad faith" (such as in a big, recent dispute I've been engaged in at the Frot article) when I am only stating the obvious, trying to help out, and simply willing to state what others may not be willing to. I simply don't understand people who create sockpuppets in order to game the system or other such disruptive editing...thinking they will never get caught. True, they may get away with it for years, but they'll eventually get caught if they continue to sockpuppet (at least I think so). I usually recognize the same editing patterns, the same way of speaking (or rather, typing), etc., so deceiving me for too long is not likely...unless you're smart enough to. Thanks for alerting me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This guy is quite tenacious, but having had the displeasure of being exposed to him for so long, I can usually spot him a mile away. I don't go looking for him - I have better things to do. And I'm quite sure he has dozens of other accounts all over the place, possibly even occasionally making a good contribution. But invariably he shows up - like a bad penny - in the same places as before, being disruptive, employing the same tics and patterns, and it's obvious.  Such a gross waste of time.  I thought you'd like to see the loop closed.  As to why they do it?  Beats me. Hope all's good - just saw there's been some activity at James Dean since I last looked at it in December - I have too many things on my watchlist and I just don't get to look at all of it. Feel free to let me know if you happen to see something going on in an article that you think I might have an opinion on.  Cheers! Tvoz / talk 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An apology? Two accounts
I'm sorry for any confusion caused by or deception implied by my failure to follow WP:CLEANSTART. I have not properly availed myself of the procedure, which I should have done. Mjpam (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read both of your replies. The current one here and this one. The former sounds like you created a new account due to all the drama associated with your Mijopaalmc account. To me, that is an attempt to evade scrutiny associated with your old account; for example, my calling you a single purpose account (largely involved in only one article -- Frot), which calls into question what reasons you had/have for being so focused on only one article. As I stated on your talk page, following WP:CLEANSTART means if you are going to continue the same type of editing/disputes at the Frot article, you should not have changed accounts. If your having this new account means no more of the same edits and disputes with me at the Frot article, then good. If it means having "clean contributions" while resuming the same type of actions at the Frot article, then not good.


 * To answer the question in your previous message, you cannot continue to use the username Mijopaalmc if you are going to truly have a clean start as Mjpam. But if you do intend to continue to edit/engage in the same disputes at the Frot article, then you should link the two accounts -- remove the retired tag I placed on Mijopaalmc and instead acknowledge there on Mijopaalmc 's user page that it is a former account of Mjpam. The best course of action, however, is that if you intend to continue to edit/engaging in the same disputes at the Frot article, you should have simply sought a name change (WP:NAMECHANGE). You can still do that now. Once done, Mijopaalmc will be redirected to Mjpam. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm in
Thanks for your note. I agree we need a major slate cleaning. Count me in. Feel free to let me know if I'm messing with your head. I promise if it happens, it's an accident. Cheers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I sort of believe the IPs might not be Bakhshi because it didn't seem like his vocabulary. Not that it matters either way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed the improved spelling/and or more expressive wording in one or two of the edit summaries too. But the way the IPs acted, and the way Bakhshi82 acted after the article was locked (including his reasoning, which matches the IPs' reasoning, even though he was originally satisfied with the lead)...it is just too much of a coincidence to not have been Bakhshi82. He seems to have his "on" days in addition to his "off" days when it comes to spelling/grammar in the article or his edit summaries. One of the IP's was him, I'm certain. Sure, I've never been wrong in suspecting someone of sockpupppetry, and that may be making me a little cocky on this...but I'm 100% positive he edited that article as an IP during the disputes. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the IPer didn't come back to deny it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jack rollers
Dear Flyer, have you ever heard of "Jack rolling"? It's recreational gang rape In South Africa. My attempt to create an article was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax despite having the reference   Any thoughts on the matter?--Wlmg (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of it, no. Maybe my rape research isn't as extensive as I thought. I'm not sure what to make of the deletion of your article, Wlmg. Perhaps you need more sources? Better sources? Both?


 * Did you let the editors who sought to have it deleted know that it is not a hoax and why? If they have valid reason for keeping it deleted, I don't know what to state. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks flyer but I doubt the admin even read the reference. I'll try a longer article one day.--Wlmg (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Preadolescence
Trespassing again: hope we're cool Jacobisq (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course we're cool. It's about time someone came around and started fixing up that article. It was like no one had much to state about preadolescence or that it was too difficult to define. On the subject of the age range for preadolescence, I noticed that you added it's from 7 to 13. The "ending at 13 bit" always seemed odd to me, and apparently to IPs I kept having to revert on the 10-13 bit. I mean, adolescence is generally considered to start at ages 12 or 13; some sources even define it at 10 or 11, largely basing it on the beginning of puberty. What do you make of the age range going all the way up to 13? Isn't that a little late to define to preadolescence, considering that people are generally considered adolescent at age 13? Are sources defining preadolescence a little outdated? Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I take the point about "possibly outdated"; but I think it's quite important to keep a wide range open and not be too precise because a) sources vary b) people vary c) cultures vary, and "mean ages" in diferent societies may move at different speeds. Is a teenager automatically adolescent? What about late puberty? all grey areas...Jacobisq (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean about those gray areas and have brought them up myself, such as with precocious puberty. I suppose I feel that the lead should be clearer that "there is no exact agreement," like the Span section already states. But don't worry about it. You did a great job. "No exact agreement" did not keep IPs from changing it away from age 13 anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Love triangle section
Hi, Flyer. As mentioned before, I admire the work you did a while back on several One Tree Hill articles, particularly the love triangle section of the show page (if that was you). I recently created a similar section in the Blair Waldorf article (though I rarely watch the show). If you ever have any advice on how it might improve, I'd appreciate your input. Take care. -- James26 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me who created the one in the One Tree Hill article, though I still need to tweak one part of it. And I might tweak more than that. Your version in the Blair Waldorf article looks fine. I don't watch that show, and haven't watched One Tree Hill in months. Still on Season 7 and need to catch up to Season 8 (not very motivated to, though.) But, yes, your section looks fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1-way orgs
As per your notification replied here, hope we can sort out the phrasing. Disputing your correction, I think there would be a means of conveying the predominance and superior ease of it without implying it is the exclusive means for anyone, which there is no proof for. Proving negatives is harsh and such conclusivity would be well known and easy to source. DB (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording is not saying it is the exclusive means for anyone; it says "most." Most women are only able to achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation, and the proof is most women stating this time after time and the research backing it up. But, yes, I replied there again, and hope we can work something out. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#NAVI_Talk (Have fun, thanks) (information for you) 62.200.86.169 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Aubrey
Thanks for the message, but you didn't really need to explain your edits. I've currently been trying to think of some ways to expand on the sections, etc, so yeah, it was kind of messy. I see you've edited her articles before, and if you'd like to, feel free to help out on the sandbox I made for her upcoming single. ℥nding · start 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. I felt I needed to explain so that we wouldn't keep reverting each other on the formatting style. It wasn't a hardcore revert war, LOL. But we did revert each other. As stated, I'm mostly okay with your heading changes now. After getting over the heading issues, it's just the information placement I was concerned with. And thanks for the offer to edit your sandbox. I may. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When did we revert each other before? I'm confused. xD Yeah, it's all good. :P I hope to get her articles well rounded, they are kinda, to put it frankly, bad atm. xD ℥nding · start 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's me reverting your changes the first time:


 * Here's you going back to your setup just yesterday (though changing the title of the final section seen in the link):


 * And here we are today, after I tweaked your setup. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Megan McCauley deletion.
Chime in.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I'm too late. I really had no idea who this person was/is...and still don't. I'm going to need to Google her. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rain check
Flyer, I appreciate your invitation to comment on Talk:Heterosexualization; but I'm going to beg off on this one for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I have deliberately pulled back on my investment in WP because over the last five years I have learned it really doesn't pay to care too much what happens here: you work hard to build a consensus or write a well-crafted article, then tomorrow some new, clueless butthead rolls in and messes the hell out of everything you sweated over. I simply don't need that kind of frustration and upset, and I'm not dealing with it anymore. I use WP as a place to edit/write about topics that engage my interest, when I have the time for that - a hobby that is only as good as the enjoyment I get out of it. We don't get paid for our labors, so if it's not fun - why do it?

For another thing, the Heterosexualization article has some content & source problems. The over-long lede defines the concept as if it is a widely accepted, somewhat scientific point of view, with practically no verification, and the rest of the article (as well as the majority of citations) seems to discuss bullying and harrassment. But the last two things are not the same as the first; and the first seems a bit puffed up to me, lacking enough reliable sources to be established as a mainstream, not a fringe, point of view.

Now I am most certainly totally opposed to homophobia and bullying and all that, make no mistake. I am also opposed to loose talk and frail logic; the article makes it sound like heterosexualization (what a mouthful, huh?) is a devious plot by nefarious forces, when of course it's just a subcategory of human conformity - which exists in many, many guises and operates much of the time on a subsconscious level, I think. As you may have read, the latest report from the Williams Institute comes up with only 1.7 percent gay population in the U.S. That might be a percentage point or two low, IMO, but nevertheless:  when 95 percent of the world does something a certain way - anything you care to name - it's rather natural to assume the other 5 percent will feel mighty pressured to go with the flow. That's human nature, and it's an old, old story.

As a gay man, I of course have suffered from this attitude, as has everyone else in the LGBT community. In a private essay I might expatiate upon those effects at length, and with feeling. But WP is an encyclopedia; the task here is to present not our personal feelings and views, but what reliable, expert sources have said, not giving undue weight to one side or the other.

So the article, as I see it, needs to be rewritten, cut way down (bullying and homophobia already have their own articles), and better sourced on the use and origin of the term itself. I skimmed over the talk page, but having been through such long, dragged-out dogfights before, a futile exercise for reasons I already stated above, I really don't want to go there. But I hope these reflections are of some value to you, and thanks again for the invite. Perhaps another time, another article. Textorus (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your taking a rain check. Wikipedia is largely not fun for me anymore either. I continue to edit here because I have become addicted. Plain and simple. I have become addicted to making sure certain articles okay...and to wanting to know they are okay. I'm not too addicted to improving articles anymore, though I still do that too, but my main concerns at Wikipedia these days are vandalism, deceptive edits (which of course fall under vandalism), messiness, and inaccuracy (which may or may not fall under vandalism). Your take on the Heterosexualization article, an article I don't remember being involved in until now, would be beneficial and relevant, I believe. This is not a long, dragged-out dogfight, and I have made it clear to the editor that I am not going to sit there and debate his Westerner-objections for hours on end. My complaint is not a matter of debate, I feel. My complaint is his habit of not playing by Wikipedia's guidelines/rules. I advised him to do that. I am not interested in getting into a debate with him, because he believes what he believes and it affects everything he does in regards to editing LGBT topics at Wikipedia. You say, "...WP is an encyclopedia; the task here is to present not our personal feelings and views, but what reliable, expert sources have said..." I'm saying this editor most often doesn't go by that.


 * I asked others to weigh in because otherwise...nothing is going to get resolved. As I stated on your talk page, "I posted a message about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, which you may have seen already, but I hardly get any help from there or from other WikiProjects these days. So part of my approach these days is to go to relevant editors individually and hope they weigh in." I'm not sure what is going on with people not helping out at Wikipedia anymore and ignoring requests for opinions to resolve disputes/and or how to make improvements, but it is extremely annoying and is making me want to quit Wikipedia even more. I don't understand this "Leave them to it" attitude that has been going around lately. I mean, I understand it in cases such as yours, but it seems almost everyone here is doing it now (being lazy or otherwise disinterested) when editors genuinely need help to resolve issues at an article. It often takes more than two editors to resolve disputes and sometimes content issues. What's the point of WikiProjects or WP:Dispute resolution if people generally aren't willing to help weigh in? I understand your objections to weighing in, but part of me also wonders how a quick comment from you will hurt anything. Unless you are not the type of editor who can comment and then leave it at that. I'm that type of editor most times; if someone replies in a challenging response, I usually have to reply back. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After discussing this with you and other editors, I feel it might be best to redirect this article to Heterosexism or Heteronormativity. Those articles are better put together and are covering the same thing, though still a little distinct from each other. If this article cannot be expanded in the way the editor I reverted suggests, it should be redirected to Heterosexism or Heteronormativity. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be that editors who have been around a while, like me, are likewise just plain tired of putting up with so much crap, and no adult in the room. But I wonder if you have thought of putting the article(s) up for discussion at WP:RFC?  That might get the results you seek, from editors who are actively interested in wading into such discussions.  Good luck.  Textorus (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, RfC hasn't been working either. It's the same everywhere. That's why I mentioned WikiProjects or dispute resolution. Either way, there's nothing in particular I want to ask of editors in regards to this article. I just wanted others to weigh in on the situation -- the mass deletion, the issues the deleter has with the article, what needs to be done with the article. Stuff like that. I've been around here for some too (since 2007), and still don't understand this recent "Don't wanna help/battle it out amongst yourselves" attitude, as if leaving it to the two or otherwise few individuals usually helps matters. I am almost always up for weighing in on matters when asked by someone or when I see that other opinions are desperately needed. But, alas, I know that not all Wikipedia editors are like that. And, recently, it seems most editors are not like that. If Wikipedia is going to be like this, then it is most assuredly on the path to failure. To some people, it's already failed.


 * Thank you for your input, though. And take care. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can only recommend adopting an attitude of WP:DGAF as I have, and focusing on what you enjoy here. The problem with Jimbo's grand scheme from the beginning is that there is no reward for dealing with ignorant and obnoxious editors.  And they are legion.  And the anonymous nature of WP lends itself to confrontative attitudes; when I find myself responding in kind, I have to draw back and say Why am I doing this?  If we were getting paid to deal with all the crap, it would be one thing; but as volunteers, no way.  As time permits, I enjoy scattering some nuggets of good writing and reliable sources here and there, hoping someone, somewhere will benefit.  But there's a lot of manure to dig through, as I'm sure you know.  And I don't see a solution to a system that produces mediocrity at best, and which at every moment is in danger of being overturned by the next jerk with a bright idea; so look on it as a pleasant hobby, and don't fool with what doesn't give you pleasure, is my advice.  Textorus (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is, Wikipedia is a popular site and so the source of info for many people (including young people). And if there is something on the site that is deliberately misleading, and the information is such that it might negatively affect a person's actual attitude or actions or life experience, that is wrong, and it's kind of hard to say Well I'll just ignore that and contribute somewhere else. On the other hand, it is very tiring to open the Wikipedia with a feeling of absolute dread, which has certainly been my attitude at times (as well as getting a sinking feeling when the "You have new messages" banner pops up -- now what). There's only so much of that a soul can take before the well runs dry. For me, certainly, I spend most of my time doing what I enjoy (translations, mostly) - I have to, or I couldn't stand it. But also do some of the other. I figure, when you volunteer at the soup kitchen, you can't just hand out food, you have to take a turn scrubbing the pots too. (This is my own personal attitude and no criticism whatsoever is implied of anyone else.) (Actually, Flyer22, I haven't been very good about any of this lately... I have my eye on Sexual intercourse, but I haven't looked at Frot (I mean to, really) and Adolescent sexuality is way on my back burner... I dunno. I talk a good game, I guess...) Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right, millions of uncritical people turn to Wikipedia and take whatever they read as gospel truth; even a few courts around the world have cited WP articles in their decisions, which is appalling. But the problem with Jimbo's original concept is that if you have an encyclopedia "anybody can edit," then Anybody and Everybody will edit it - but not everybody and his kid brother should, for several glaringly obvious reasons. Real encyclopedias employ well-trained writers, skilled researchers, and an army of fact-checkers to ensure the quality of the final product. Unless WP decides to start hiring a paid crew to do those things, or devises some way of locking in place a really well done article - then it will always be deeply flawed and unreliable, minute by minute.

There's simply no point breaking your heart over an unfixable problem the magnitude of WP - which is why I advocate don't-give-a-fuckism. I add or repair what I conveniently can, when I can, to the extent that I find it pleasurable to do so, not a drag or an upset. Even so, I can't take the madness for more than a few weeks a year - why stay in a constant inner turmoil over what you can never fix? My energies are better spent in more constructive ways online and in the real world. So having spent more than 2 cents on this topic, I think I'm going to shut up now; everyone has to decide for himself what the best use of his time and talents is. I made that decision a good while back. Textorus (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Chris Brown
No problem. I think the domestic violence info should be mentioned first. The part where it mentions Brown began work on Grafitti in 2008 should be removed. I don't think its needed there and its probably mentioned on the album's article. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:THREAT issue
Do you see WP:THREATS against you in my comments now?? OK. I'm very busy now, but i will be there as soon as possible.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't the point. The point is that you made them, and you keep tampering with my comments. Removing threats does nothing for me, except hide the fact that they were made. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some administrators don't see what we see" not true, maybe "we don't see what they see", this is a friendly message, don't be pertinacious, remove my username and do not destroy our time more than this.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you still harassing me and insisting that I remove your username after I stated that I will not? Did you not read where the administrator told you to leave me alone? Follow his advice, and stay off my talk page!! You have already destroyed "our time more than this." Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't leave you, i want your heartbeat, i'm the light air around the ship, open your heart to this breeze.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, you think i'm deceiving you or am insane.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You love me so much, don't you? Answer, but no, don't lie to me.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never did you harass my darling, i love your serious tendency to this film like me.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bakhshi has repeatedly attempted to remove these comments, which have been restored with respect to Flyer's wishes. I have struck them to signify that they are withdrawn, and so that they remain visible.  This should be a reasonable compromise for all parties.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude, seriously? That's a little creepy. Millahnna (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Flyer. If you do remove these comments, can you make sure to get mine too so I doesn't look like I'm calling you creepy? That keeps really bothering me during this whole mess, if you see what I mean. Millahnna (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't plan on removing them (against it, as stated in my edit summary), but what you worry of is also part of the reason I am against removing the text. I don't like comments being left out of context like that. So no worries. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, I still think most people would have assumed you were not talking to me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up
You've got mail. Rivertorch (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, I forgot to note that you have one from me also - a day or so ago? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm checking now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
I would like to second the above barnstar, thanks for your excellent work! I have added Titanic (1997 film) to my watchlist and will notice any further nonsense there. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, thank you, Herostratus. A lot. Thank you both. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue reply, 2

 * Okay, James. I'll be right there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

re 16 and Pregnant
Yes that would be great. So many of these articles are written by fans. In this case the fan base is even less scholarly than usual sometimes. I first got involved in the article when I saw some edits like this: "[name of character] is the real slut! She lied about who the father is! She doesn't take care of her baby! She deserves to get beat up!" (corrected for grammar and spelling). This, mind you, in the body of the article, LOL. Ummm thank you for encyclopedic contribution, OK.

My main interest in the article now is the minor points of removing any slander or invasion of privacy, and trying to ensure that references to the actors use their last names. This is per the WP:MOS and the dignity of the actors, we don't say "Bobby led the Confederates at Gettysburg" and these actors deserve the same respect.

As I had mentioned, I have gone on a sort of Wikibreak, just to chill and get away from it all a bit. I will still be here and editing but not as active, and this may last a only few days or perhaps. But I will see any messages on my talk page. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw your email yesterday, and will be replying soon (in a day or two). Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, I also just noticed you referred to these individuals as actors. LOL, you don't seriously think they are acting, do you? Out of all the suspected scripted reality shows out there, I am pretty sure that this one is unscripted. It's certainly as real as you can get about teenage pregnancy. It has also received praise for its unscripted, gritty reality from what I have seen on the Dr. Drew show. Or did you mean "actor" in the sense that they are starring on this show? Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that sense; perhaps "performer" would be a better term. (I've never seen the show and don't wish to.) Herostratus (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, "performer" is just as bad, Herostratus.


 * Anyway, sorry that I still haven't gotten back to you by email. I'm very lazy these days when it comes to replying by email (unless it has to do with work outside of Wiki). But instead of dwelling on explanations, I'll just say I read the other half (yeah, the other half; sorry about that) after posing that 16 and Pregnant question to you today, and will be responding soon. I mean it this time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New publication you may be interested in.
Hi, Flyer22; I hope you've been well.

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers has just come out with a comprehensive review of the research behind sex offender policies. It is quite readable and provides summaries and citations of the relevant science. I thought you might find its contents helpful (and a relevant EL on several WP pages): http://atsa.com/pdfs//ppReasonedApproach.pdf

— James Cantor (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, James. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Vulva picture in the Vagina article
I agree with you that it's shaven. Perhaps someone altered the picture. I do remember altering such a caption when a vulva clearly had hair. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. If you click on the picture, you can see the times it was altered. And at one point, there is a hairy version. Sorry if you felt I was attacking you. With the version I saw, I just couldn't fathom how someone thought it wasn't shaven. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Child pornography article
Actually I did not have it in my list. Thanks for alerting me. Now the good news is on investigation, it looks like a post-and-run. That account hasn't done anything in a month. Hopefully it will stay that way and we can quietly let it fade away.Legitimus (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, thanks. I looked at both accounts, too. The one you speak of seems to show up randomly, like every few months. And, the other, as you know, is blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing again…
Hi, F22. We appear to have a recurrence of Christianist POV-pushing; see here and here. Oy vey! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded at Talk:The Bible and homosexuality. Thank you for alerting me. I had seen your revert of him at the Anal sex article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Babe and Lily
If the first image of Babe is of Alexa Havins, and not her recast, should the first image for Lily Walsh Snyder be Martha Byrne instead of her recast? --DrBat (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say so, especially now that the show has been canceled. Flyer22 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:B.Davis2003
is not a new user...  a_man_alone (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, hopefully, the user will find the welcome template helpful...because I still feel he needs it. This user isn't quite familiar with Wikpedia's rules and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh aye - that's true, but I just felt that you might want to be aware their shortcomings are not down to being new around here.  a_man_alone (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attentiveness!
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_identity_disorder&curid=43097&diff=437960457&oldid=437954029 m Gender identity disorder‎; 18:39. . (+45) . . Flyer22 (talk | contribs) (→Controversy: Bonze blayk, you reverted your own changes.)] Oops! That'll teach me to open a Reflinks window while still in the middle of an edit!

BTW, there's an excellent WP:SPS addressing the topic I was editing on there, regarding skepticism as to whether brain-sex research is actually helpful, by an (anonymous) trans woman, "Quinnae Moongazer" at Raiders of the Lost Etiology. Disclaimer: I'm a fan: great writing affects me that way.

Anyway, thank you very much for correcting my "over-edit"! -- bonze blayk (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. You're welcome. And thank you for the link for more on this topic, as well as your help with a lot of matters dealing with gender topics. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony
Hi, good work on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. Previously there has been a "Casey Anthony" section on that article. As some people were interested in having her own article perhaps we could re-instate the Casey Anthony section about her. If you find that suggestion OK I can fix it back and you perhaps can update it properly with your skills? And ofcourse you can just remove it if you dont find it to be of any use for the article. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tried to add the section back but it was reverted, you can see the content in the edit summary section of the article so if you find it to be good for the article as I do please do some good edits and the re-instate the text. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, BabbaQ. You were reverted because all that information is already in the article. Your concerns about this, if you still have them, should be taken to the talk page so others can weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't see my message on talk page - there is a stub here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee%27s_Law. I'm going back to medieval articles but I am sure that you and others could do a good job on it. Nice working with you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I basically stated on the talk page, I believe the person who created this article should have waited until the bill passes before making an article on it. Because what if the bill doesn't pass? There's no way Wikipedia is going to want to keep an article on an unofficial bill. But we'll see what happens with this article. Just be warned that editors are likely going to try and get it redirected and may even nominate it for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see your first message.  Yes, as you say, it may be too early.  I'm not personally interested in the article though I would like to see it passed.  As I said before going back to medieval articles.  Too many years in crminal law for me.  Like the middle ages better. Mugginsx (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Frot as a shortening of frottage
Thanks for your comment on my discussion page. However, I disagree with the assertions you made in your edit comment when you reverted my edit.

Frottage is the term it comes from and its meaning is applicable to all combinations of sexual activity and identification etc. The sexual identity of those who partake in the activity is irrelevant. "Frot" is simply a shortened version of the word, and its meaning is identical. This is different to the term "sword-fighting", for example, which is obviously quite specific. While the shortened version of the word may well be more commonly used amongst gay men, it is probably not solely used by that group. It's quite likely that the shortened version is not used by all gay men, and it is probably used by some heterosexuals and lesbians. The word itself had been quite 'technical', and it may well have entered the common psyche by increase in usage amongst gay blokes, but I doubt that group can claim sole 'ownership'.

I believe that distinguishing this is unnecessary, other than perhaps a short note in the article on non-penetrative sex. I also tagged the article with a suggestion to merge with Non-penetrative sex.

I would suggest also that, unless we can prove that the shortened version of the word is used exclusively and frequently amongst only gay men, we should mention the usage amongst other groups. Many people speak (or write) in short-hand, shortening longer words and creating 'slang'.

Frottage is a general sexual term or activity that can be applied to everyone and anyone who is sexually active with others.

It might be worthwhile discussing this on the article's talk page and/or on the article talk page for Non-penetrative sex. --86.153.35.156 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IP, we go by reliable sources here, per WP:Reliable sources. It is not my assertion that "frot" is about male-male sex. This is backed up by various reliable sources in the Frot article. You say, "unless we can prove that the shortened version of the word is used exclusively and frequently amongst only gay men, we should mention the usage amongst other groups." But that's just the thing: Sources only use the word in reference to gay men. Like I stated, [t]here are no reliable sources out there saying that "frot" includes heterosexuals or lesbians. "Frottage" does, as the Non-penetrative sex article states, but "frot" is exclusive. While some non-gay male couples may at times shorten "frottage" to "frot" in an "informal" manner, the term "frot" was coined by the gay male community. It's not our job to prove that it is not used by other groups. It is only our job to report what reliable sources say. And reliable sources don't use the term "frot" for any other group, at least none that I have seen thus far.


 * Distinguishing may be unnecessary to you, but "frottage" is distinguished from "frot." It is not identical in meaning to "frottage," seeing as frot means penis-to-penis...while "frottage" refers to any type of rubbing the genitals against a partner's body. It does indeed mean "sword-fighting." The sources in the article clearly state penis-to-penis. Now to be clear, it's true that the word "frottage" is often used by gay men to describe "frot." The two terms are certainly used interchangeably, as even I have pointed out before, but this is only in the context of discussing gay men and their sexual practices. You are going to have to provide reliable sources if you want to say that "frot" is also used by people other than gay men.


 * Take note that this has also been discussed extensively on the Frot talk page. Merging the Frot article with the Non-penetrative sex article would make the Non-penetrative sex article mainly about frot (male-male sex), which is not fair to the other non-penetrative sex acts mentioned there. And if we were to cut the frot material down, that would cut away a lot of relevant material. So merging is not an option.


 * Also, if you are the editor I have been in a constant dispute with at the Frot article, you know this is not the way to go...per . I don't mean to be suspicious, but there has only been one editor at that article consistently saying "frot" is not notable and trying to get this article merged. Seeing as I am not a gay man, I'm not sure why I care so much. Maybe it's because I've done just about all I can to fix up that article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the alert, Flyer.


 * I wasn't aware, until after I replied to you and looked at your user page (I noticed you had been given an award for expanding this "controversial" article) that there had been any controversy really. I haven't edited the article before.


 * I'll say again though: frot is just a shortening of the word frottage, and its meaning remains the same.


 * Also, I think that frottage is one of the main non-penetrative sex acts there are, and is indulged in by couples (of what ever gender) during 'heavy petting' etc. So the article on non-penetrative sex should justifiably include a fair amount of information about it. If the rest of the article is lacking by comparison, then it should also probably be expanded.


 * Bear in mind that substantial work on an article, or creation of an article, doesn't give one ownership of it. While I'm sure you did some decent work and research etc, you may have to accept that you have to be objective and possibly let go of it. I'm certainly not suggesting that frottage is not notable though.


 * I'm not sure you can state for certain that the word has been shortened by the gay community (of any particular country, or all gay communities in the English-speaking world?). As I said, people tend to shorten words all the time. Even if gay men popularised the shortened version, it doesn't mean it necessarily originated with them.


 * You suggest that Wikipedia uses reliable sources. So I guess that if just one reliable source mentions it in reference to hetero- or lesbian sexial activity, then that would be enough to support my position on this.


 * One such source might be Wiktionary although I'm aware that policy here is that Wikipedia should not be used as a source. Wiktionary is part of the same group, though I don't know if the policy here includes that particular project. Wiktionary suggests that the word as a noun is used as "third-person singular simple present frots, present participle frotting, simple past and past participle frotted". I know from experience that while I have personally never used "frot", I have discussed "frotting" in mixed company in a heterosexual context. Should we have an article entitled Frotting as well? Frot is defined as a verb in Wiktionary as:


 * (slang) To publicly rub one's genitals against someone for sexual gratification, especially without the other's consent or knowledge. (In this sense it is related to frotteurism and not frottage.)
 * (archaic) To rub, chafe.
 * (tanning) To work leather by rubbing.


 * And as a noun as:


 * A non-penetrative sex in which two males rub each other's penises.


 * On a quick look around the internet, I saw one site which suggests that "Frot is also the only form of sex that is uniquely and exclusively male-to-male."; one that suggests that "frottage" is "guys rubbing each other, rubbing their cocks together"; and the same forum that suggests that the poster is "sure there are plenty of heterosexual couples who frot. It's not strictly a dude/dude thing."


 * The thing is, "frot" is simply a shortened version of the word and the only thing we can really say for sure about it is that "frottage is often shortened to frot by gay men" - with no disrespect to the additional information on the act as it pertains to gay men that you have added. That additional information seems to me to be still valid, and probably deserves to be in an article about the act of frottage itself, or in the non-penetrative sex article.


 * I fail to see any reason to differentiate - the act of rubbing genitals is not exclusive to gay men and is more a generic sexual activity. "Sword-fighting" is more specific because, in order to participate, both parties must be in possession of a 'sword'! To help illustrate my position (though it may end up just confusing the issue!) would be the words "pussy" and "fanny". Pussy is generally seen as an American slang term for a vagina. Fanny is a British slang term for the same thing (although the word means something else in the USA!). But just because pussy is a term used by Americans, that doesn't mean that European, African and Asian women don't have them! Likewise, just because fanny is a term used by the British, it doesn't mean that American women don't have them. I hope that makes sense anyway, or at least makes you laugh. It's basically my position on the matter, and I'm not merely trying to cause trouble, or push any kind of agenda. Sexuality is sexuality, whether it's male/male, female/female or male/female etc. We shouldn't need separate articles for the same thing, unless that thing is something that only certain types of people can participate in. --86.153.35.156 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 86.153.35.156, wow, you are going to great length and effort to elide the difference between the connotation and the denotation of a word. Both are essential to the word's meaning. You're right that "frot" is a shortened form of "frottage", but that in itself does not imply that the former means the same as the latter. Your definition is denotationally correct, but a fair number of good quality reliable sources tell us the connotation of "frot" is pretty much constrained to male-on-male frottage.


 * Moreover, you seem not to grasp how sources are selected, evaluated, and applied here. Your "If I can find just one source…" idea doesn't hold much water, and we're not here to play a game—we're here to write an encyclopædia. A statement's inclusion in even a reliable source does not necessarily imply veracity, so it is important to evaluate sources' quality, not just their quantity. The process of steady, incremental improvement to an article is not centred around a majority-rules vote or popularity contest to see who can come up with the greatest number of sources supporting his assertion, but rather on an effort to create an accurate encyclopedia entry.


 * Please try to understand that we operate here by consensus. You evidently feel that the two articles in question ought to be merged. If consensus develops through discussion in a merger proposal on the article talk page (and not on this or another user's talk page) to merge the articles, then they are merged. If no such consensus develops, then they are not. You can certainly put forth your arguments -- make your case -- but going by my experience in many dozens of merger proposals over the years, the odds are against you on this one. You may well wind up having to accept that sometimes the consensus will not agree with your opinions and preferences, and that it's time to move on.


 * I notice you are a brand-new editor. Take a few minutes to read up on the highlights and lowlights of the core principles of how we do things here—and how we don't. Jumping right in and making big demands for mergers of articles like this, based on gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia protocols, is not going to get you much traction. Please, thank you, and you're welcome. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 05:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

86.153.35.156 is right. Leave him or her alone. Former homosexual (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh…yeah, Mr/s. Sock Puppet Blocked Indefinitely, we'll leave the IP alone on your say-so. Sure, we'll get right on it. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 06:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Former homosexual (I'll go ahead and reply to you, even though you've been blocked), the IP is not right when it comes to what reliable sources say. The only thing the IP is right about is that "frottage" encompasses all types of couples. What the IP seems to keep disregarding or doesn't quite understand is that the term "frot" is only linked to the gay male community (when it comes to reliable sources), to mean penis-to-penis sex. This is why the term is not viewed as including all types of couples. And I'll get back to that now:


 * IP, I don't know what else to say. I've told you that reliable sources only use "frot" to refer to male-male genital sex. I've also told you why it's not logical to merge all that content into the Non-penetrative sex article. There's no need to significantly expand some of the other sex acts in that article because they have their own articles. I am quite aware that frottage is "one of the main non-penetrative sex acts there are" (in fact, it is considered to cover every type of non-penetrative sex act), and that this is indulged in by couples of whatever sex/gender. I am also sure that some heterosexual couples shorten "frottage" to "frot," maybe even some lesbian couples (though I believe it's pretty rarely shortened, as even most gay men simply say "frottage"). However, I am saying that reliable sources only mention "frot" taking place between men. And in this sense, "frot" means penis-to-penis sex. This makes it different than the wider "frottage," which covers frottage between any type of couple and is not only specified as genital-to-genital sex. Frot being genital-genital sex between men is similar to how tribadism is genital-genital sex between women (though tribadism is wider in its range than frot). Yes, both are types of frottage, but they refer to a specific type of couple. This is backed up by reliable sources. I wouldn't have a problem adding that "frot applies to heterosexual and lesbian couples" to the lead of the Frot article...if you would provide a reliable source backing that up. But the fact would still remain that "frot" largely refers to genital-genital sex between two men. The Frot article would still largely be defined that way, because this would still be what most reliable sources say on the matter.


 * I don't need to be told that I don't own the Frot article simply because I've done substantial work on it (what work I could do anyway). It seems as though any article I've done substantial work on, I am sometimes accused of owning that particular article. I'm used seeing such accusations thrown at other editors who have done substantial work on articles as well. So I'm not too phased by your reminder. But I can assure you that I am quite aware of WP:OWN, and that I'm not doing that. I hate being accused of it. Or it being implied of me. If anything, it sends the message that I shouldn't significantly contribute to articles because I'll just be accused and/or perceived of/as owning it.


 * It's like I told you, IP. It's like Scheinwerfermann told you too. It's that simple.


 * Scheinwerfermann, thank you.

Wow, some nerves seem to be touched here! I'd like to apologise to you Flyer, for any sense of exasperation you may be suffering from "being accused" of ownership. I do not know your history here of relations with other editors and, with respect, I don't really care. But I assure you that it was not my intention to indicate bad faith on your part, or that of anyone else.

For Scheinwerfermann, I'd like to suggest that you forget everything you think you know about me. Disregard the assumptions you've made about me with regard to the only solid fact you know about me: that I have edited without a registered account. Disregard your prejudice which seems to make you think that anyone who makes edits without a registered account is somehow either stupid, has no knowledge of how Wikipedia works, or both. Also disregard your prejudice as far as making such dismissive comments as suggesting I have an unhealthy point of view. To me that only suggests that you certainly have a point of view and it is one which differs from mine, and that you are unwilling to discuss my own point of view - to the extent that you make accusations which could be taken as not only dismissive but insulting as well.

I have only skimmed through these replies, and not read them critically yet. However, I would like to point out to you, Scheinwerfermann, that you have contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you suggest that the article writing process "is not centred around a majority-rules vote or popularity contest". Yet on the other hand you suggest that I get familiar with the majority-rules guideline of Wikipedia.

I have not gone to any great length, by the way, other than the two minutes it took me too access a couple of webpages, on top of the time it took me to write a response or two here.

I don't know how you (or FH) arrived at this discussion page, though I do think that this debate should probably be taken to the article itself or a related project page.

For Former Homosexual, please understand that I do not wish to be left alone: I edited the article and responded to Flyer specifically because I wanted to communicate my ideas, and try to understand her ideas, in an effort to persuade one or other of us, or get to a third option whereby everyone can be happy with the work we've done.

It's called debate. And it's healthy, not 'megalomaniacal'.

Having got those points out of the way, I will perhaps get back to the topic and debate itself, if I feel there is anything further to add. Once I've had more time to read (fully) these last responses, that is, and perhaps I'll attempt to expand on where I'm coming from, if you'll excuse the cheap pun.

Once again Flyer, thank you for your time and for hosting this discussion on your talk page. If you feel it should be moved to the article's talk page or elsewhere, please leave a note here or on my IP's talk page. --86.153.35.156 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I make no assumptions and hold no prejudice about you, 86.153.35.156. My comments are based on your contributions and your behaviour in this present thread. Consensus is not majority rule. You've already done a thorough job explaining your point of view, it's just that it doesn't seem to be supportable to the standard required by this project. Moreover, please take a moment to review the first few paragraphs of WP:SOCK, in case you might not be aware that logging out of a registered account so as to make edits under an IP is considered sock puppetry. You are correct that the article talk page is the right place for further discussion of this matter. If and when you participate in such additional discussion, please try to be less combative and more coöperative, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Dane97
First off, it's always a thrill to come to your talk page to see what salacious sexual acts are being discussed here. Secondly, I saw that you left Dane97 a piece of advice about new articles. He or she hasn't started any new articles, but they have taken on the favorite past time of casual soap opera editors... moving articles! Random hyphens seem to be his preference. Keep an eye on Babe Carey, Kristina Davis, and David Vickers. Hope this finds you well. AniMate 06:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you still get a kick out of some topics here on my talk page, AniMate. Always nice to hear from you, even when it has to do with pesky behaviors of newbies. Thanks for alerting me. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, now that I'm single I'm considering asking you for advice. Seems like you know more about gay sex than I do. AniMate 08:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. And the gay Dr. Ruth? Sexuality is just something I've studied a lot. Creepier aspects, too, such as pedophilia. I'm more familiar with these topics than, say, soap opera stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Left you a message on casey anthony talk page
Someone added to the words of Judge Perry in his sentencing where he explains the difference in the guilty counts. There is only one video that shows his full explanation. It i the one that last 5.17 minutes. It can be found here as referenced. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/07/07/exp.CaseyAnthonySentenced.hln?iref=allsearch  I though it was important not to add or change his words. I did shorten the words but only the insignificant words. Someone ADDED to his words something he did not say. Judge Perry never said she NEVER worked at Universal Studiosthere in Count Six but that she did not work there at the time she stated to law enforcement officials that she did. I think I heard during the court case that she actually did work there several years before taking photos or something, but regardless that is not what the Judge state during sentencing. I deleted it. The article loos great You did a great job. It is a very good article. Going back to 1356 now. Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

List of paraphilias
You removed the common usage of ABDL over Paraphilic infantilism. Do you disagree that ABDL is the more commonly used term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.191.208 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, IP. I got trigger happy. At first glance, I must have thought you were adding unsourced material. I'll restore it now. Though it doesn't really need to be linked, because it takes us to the same article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

oy, reading the talk page
I see what you mean. I don't know if I have it in me to get involved there again, to tell you the truth. Glad Bugs stepped up. Promise I'll try though. Tvoz / talk 17:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm glad Bugs stepped in as well. As I stated on Bug's talk page: "The discussion with Avanu at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard combined with people at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎not taking action (and the accusation that I am basically some emotional idiot) almost made me quit Wikipedia yesterday. I suppose that would also be considered the action of a very emotional person, but I was very close to leaving for good. I'm sure that I still might. I need to rid myself of Wikipedia and get the other portion of my life back." Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ashton snickering behind his hand
I restored it. See why right here. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :)
Wikipedia can be addicting. Don't fret over it too much. It's the "encyclopedia any moron can edit", and many do, every day. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing I've found is that if an article battle is getting too annoying, take it off your watch list for awhile and work on something that's more fun. There are endless articles here, many of which could use improvement, and many of which are not lightning rods like this one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. I can't just walk away and let the other side do whatever they want with an article when I care about what happens to it too. This is why I feel like gaining enough strength to break my addiction to Wikipedia and just leaving it for good will help my psyche and life overall. I'd certainly get more free time back. After leaving, I'd have to make sure to keep from visiting articles I've worked significantly on or have created, though I'd ask a few fellow editors to take care of some specific articles in my absence. It would be best to not even visit Wikipedia for the quickest and/or simplest answers/information. I don't even use my watchlist anymore, because it has so many articles on it and I don't want to have to look at them to remove them from my watchlist. I might even be tempted to leave most of them on my watchlist. These days, I check back at articles through my user contributions and memory.


 * But, yes, thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Discussion is here wrt including anal sex in medicine. Have removed as it is only tangentially related to medicine. There are many risk factors we do not include and there is a project that better covers this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And exactly how is anal sex only "tangentially related to medicine" when the Sexual intercourse article is not? Anal sex is one aspect of sexual intercourse, and is considered the riskiest form of sexual intercourse. I've asked you this before. You didn't give an answer then and still haven't now.


 * But I'll bring this up in that discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sexual intercourse is broader in scope while anal sex is more narrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting more people involved
I agree that this is a difficulty. Will be offering a scholarship to UBC health science students this coming fall for the person who makes the greatest contribution. This is a pilot project which will hopefully be expanded to other universities / topic areas is successful. Am also working on partnership with a number of institutions that benefit both Wikipedia and these institutions. But it is slow and we are so few. Other ideas? http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Main_Page Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea, James. We get a surge of college students coming in and adding text along with terrific references to the Serial killer article every now and then. Having something like that happen for these other articles would be great. No, I can't think of anything else right now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Weasel words"
I am satisfied with the wording current wording that uses ("media obsession") on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. I believe you are however misunderstanding and misusing WP:WEASEL to support the change from "intense". "Intense" is not, in any clear way, functioning as a weasel word here and I fail to comprehend the reasoning to classify it as such. "Weasel words" are intended to make a statement true regardless of the truth of the content promoted by the statement. They seek to weaken the content of a statement. In this case, "intense" is qualifying a statement and therefore making it stronger (because now if one can argue that the coverage was not intense then the previously general statement is now false). In any case, it's no wonder that Wikipedia has gained a reputation as being run by a cabal of controlling editors when even such minor changes are aggressively reverted. This is especially true, in light of me politely asking for discussion to support your notion that "intense" is a weasel word. Your second revert comment merely suggested it "sounded [to you] like a weasel word". That argument is vacuous especially since it appears to me that you don't actually know what weasel words are and how they function. I guess my point is to be less controlling of articles, question your own point of view a little more, and edit in a way that isn't so off-putting to newcomers. I'm not a newcomer but I'm sure if I was &mdash; simple one-word edits are probably a major channel for beginning editors to start editing &mdash; you would have turned me off to the project, especially in light of the slightly insulting tone of the word "weasel". Jason Quinn (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jason Quinn, I saw your message earlier this morning, but didn't bother to read it. And now that I've read it... Wow. I don't believe that I misunderstand WP:WEASEL. I have years of experience with that guideline (back when it was a bigger page), have seen the "weasel word" explanation thrown around by many experienced Wikipedians all over Wikipedia. And I am somehow the one who is misunderstanding it? You are the one saying that weasel words are only used to weaken statements, when actually (you have it wrong) they are used to strengthen statements as well. And they are not always used to make something seem more true. I told you that "intense" would likely to be viewed as editorial or weasel word-ish. Even if not exactly a weasel word, the way you had it worded in the sentence would indeed be considered "weasel word-ish" by many Wikipedians. And certainly editorializing. Any such word used to sensationalize something that is not directly backed up by a reliable source using that word is considered editorializing. You would know this, if you had checked just a few edits removed for editorializing before yours. Even when backed up by a reliable source, certain words may still be viewed as editorializing or as opinion. Case in point, "media obsession" was removed by Shirtwaist with the following edit summary: (rm opinion - "obsession" relates to only one reporter in one source--clarify quote sources-fix Time source. However, despite what Shirtwaist stated, "media obsession" can be backed up various other sources as well. "media obsession" is even more accurate than "intense" in this case. But I'll ask Shirtwaist to weigh in here.


 * You need to learn that when experienced Wikipedian editors tell you that an edit is likely not a good idea, it is because it likely isn't. Not because Wikipedia is run "by a cabal of controlling editors when even such minor changes are aggressively reverted." I wish it was, because that way we would have less vandalism, along with a better reputation for accuracy. You asked for discussion of my revert but you didn't start a discussion about it on the talk page. Why should I start a discussion about it? I didn't consider the matter serious enough, and was politely throwing out suggestions to you through edit summaries. But, clearly, you did consider it serious enough. Serious enough to come to my talk page, tell me that I don't know what weasel words are and complain about how corrupt Wikipedia is. If you want to see corrupt Wikipedia editors, you are going to have to look beyond this talk page. Flyer22 does not qualify. I don't need to be told to be "less controlling of articles," and I already question my own point of view "a little more" enough (thanks). "Sightly insulting tone of the word weasel"? Then you must not be as familiar with Wikipedia as you think. Because citing "weasel words" is something Wikipedians do all the time and without an intention to insult. If you or anyone else are so sensitive as to be "turned off" by Wikipedia because of being accused of using "weasel words," then you and those others need to develop thicker skin, especially while editing at this beyond stressing site. There are more serious things to be "turned off" by in regards to Wikipedia. Believe me. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I must confess, I don't think I've ever seen such drama over such an innocuous, and proper, edit!
 * @Jason - The term "media obsession", though you may be convinced that is the truth of the matter, violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, and especially WP:WEASEL and WP:LEAD. Beyond that, as an unsupported and undefined statement, it would most likely confuse the reader or give them a false or misleading impression of the facts of the matter. These points are particularly important when talking about the lead of an article, as that is where the reader gets a summary of the most important aspects of the article that are cited in the body of the article - which this statement is not. Hope this and the WP policies I provided help to give you a better understanding of how WP is supposed to work. Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI
F22: re  —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 07:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On CA image deletion
Hi Flyer22- It's too bad the Caylee Anthony image couldn't be retained. I suppose the admin didn't find the various arguments in favor of retention very convincing. I tried to be concise, straightforward, and factual in my comments. I really thought the "public domain" argument was all of that, plus a convincing reason to keep it. As for the main article page, keep up the good fight. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

new email
 chris †  ian rocker 90 </b> 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed re-structure of death of caylee anthony
Flyer, and other editors: I would not restructure as per the CA Talk Page suggestion. I believe that if you do, the article will lose the continuity of the events as they happened. This is a story, afterall and most readers will understand it best in that context. Further, it will lose any natural ebb and flow it now has and look like a bunch of facts rather than a readable article - the style which is overwhelmingly used in Wiki. The article has been produced by a great collaborative effort that has thus far not been in dispute by the majority of the editors. The few exceptions, the title, the photo, the timeline (now settled), are outside of the restructuring suggested here. Slight changes are one thing - a great re-structure into all of these subheadings out of time and context would be quite another thing altogether. Also left this message on the CA talk page. Mugginsx (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yaoi pictures
I could use your help to make a decision on pictures for the yaoi article - I've started a discussion here. --Malkinann (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll be there later. Right now, I have to leave Wikipedia for some hours. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Weasel words: Death of Caylee Anthony revert
My edits to Death of Caylee Anthony should not have been reverted. Text such as "some people felt" or "others said" are weasel words, even if they are attributed in the citation because they need to be attributed right there in the prose. Putting 5 footnotes at the end of a sentence does not count as proper attribution. That would simply be citing the information, which is different than attributing it. Your revert also removed a tag from quote that had no attribution or citation whatsoever. Please avoid reverting in the future and do it only when necessary in terms of remove vandalism or other inappropriate content. It should not be used to remove tags from articles. – Dream out loud (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that "most," "some" and "others" are weasel words when attributed to what people think or feel or how they behave, I disagree that all these people must be named in the text. Per what I stated to you on your talk page, "The comparison to the O. J. Simpson murder trial is backed up by several reliable sources. I shouldn't have to name each and every one of the individuals who have compared this trial to the O. J. Simpson case, especially since it's too many to name (including the general public)." ...In fact, doing so is never practiced on Wikipedia, and I'll get to that in a moment. Look at the following line: The trial has been compared to the O. J. Simpson murder case, both for its widespread media attention and reported "shock" at the "Not Guilty." In terms of excluding the names of people, how is it any different than saying "The 9/11 attacks had immediate and overwhelming effects upon the American people" (as seen in the 911 attacks section)? Other than the fact that the latter line is specifically mentioned as effecting the American people through text, I'm not seeing a big difference in the style. Are you saying that each and every person, regular people included, who have compared this case to the O. J. case should be named? Are you saying that "most," "some" and "others" should never be used and that we should list all the names every time? If so, as it seems that you are, I'm saying that is never done. Not on Wikipedia or anywhere. Otherwise, it would be a namefarm and quite possibly a WP:Linkfarm. This happened with the 2011 Tucson shooting section. See where it says "numerous" instead of listing each and every one? For further example, we don't list every celebrity who has spoken out on something. We say "various celebrities" or "several celebrities," etc. Sometimes, it's not even possible to name exactly who all these people are, which is exactly why even reliable sources sometimes state "most Americans." And when even the reliable sources themselves are using "most, "some" or "others," we are simply relaying what the sources are stating. But if you feel strongly that you are correct that we are supposed to list all the names, even when we cannot, then I will bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch). Because sometimes it is a matter of "most," "some" or "others" and we cannot simply leave it as "people."


 * On a side note, my revert did not remove a tag from a quote that had no attribution or citation whatsoever. If we are talking about the same thing, you assumed that because the source was at the end of the paragraph. Per the template documentation, a citation is not needed for every sentence - every paragraph would be better. And I fixed what I feel is the only valid tag you added, as stated on your talk page. I also mentioned the other one. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you already started a discussion there. I will reply there with this same response. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness
Hey flyer, wondering what you think about this -- it's on the topic of why symmetry is related to beauty. My friend Gary and I were hashing about it -- do you know if its original research or whether it's been written about before -- and wondering whether it's true.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tomwsulcer. It's definitely an interesting article and I would love something like that in the Physical attractiveness article; I just got through talking about Angelina Jolie's perceived physical attractiveness on her talk page yesterday. As you know, many people consider her to be the most beautiful woman in the world. But I don't believe that Knol qualifies as a reliable source. You can always ask about this and other sources at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And you could add this same information to the Physical attractiveness article as long as it is backed up by WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, since your question was actually about whether or not your hypothesis is supported by reliable sources, I don't know. I'll check, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the knol doesn't qualify as a reliable source. I put it there in knol rather than Wikipedia because I know that it's an opinion. But I think it's right. What I'm wondering is if you've ever come across it before, and if you think it's right. Perhaps this is one situation in which Wikipedians are ahead of the curve. Or, it may be that I haven't read enough, since I'm not a specialist in the field of beauty. Just wondering, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes Angelina Jolie is pretty and smart, but not super-smart, since she tattooed-up her wonderful body; now why did she do that? Still I've always wondered about feminine beauty, like why it happens, and I continue to think about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hebephilia: 12 or 13 for boys
There were discrepancies on several pages, some list 11-12 and others list 12-13. I don't know which one is right. Negativecharge (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Different sources give a different age range for puberty, though most say the start is 10 for girls and 12 for boys. There are not discrepancies on several pages. Only a few articles deal with this subject. The Puberty, Adolescence and Adult articles are consistent, because they use the same sources. The reason that the Hebephilia article does not give 13 for boys is because of this discussion: Talk:Hebephilia (which involves sexologist James Cantor). I already pointed you to that discussion because I had the same questions about James's change. Did you not look at/read any of the discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think going at length to change two numbers and debating for days and weeks is boring. You could just use a mix of the two parts of information and use 11-13 instead. Negativecharge (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTHESIS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, the debate will go on for a long time, until Sisyphus decides he's tired of rolling the rock up and down, and blasts it to pieces. Negativecharge (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OTH List
I don't know, the only thing I can think of is that I changed his name to "Psycho Derek" for Wikipedia:CommonName purposes. Or he's in guest stars? Jayy008 (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see him on the list at all, unless I overlooked him. Whatever the case, if not there...he should be added back. Flyer22 (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's listed in "other characters," do you think he should be moved to recurring? Jayy008 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He needs to be listed in some way that takes readers to his name and who he is. The redirects for him just go to the article now...but not directly to the spot he is at. Flyer22 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. It's all fixed now! Jayy008 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * LOL. Thank you. It looks tasty. I had to read up on it, though: Baklava. Flyer22 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

preserving a vote
Flyer: I do not know how to do this but isn't there something that is done once a vote is completeled to preserve the material. I see that it looks different and states that it should not be edited or deleted. Do you know how to do this on the recent CA vote? Mugginsx (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about are article move votes, image deletion votes and the like. There is no such thing for a simple vote on whether or not to redesign an article. And the "do not edit" note is placed after everyone has voted. Flyer22 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Intercourse Article
Sorry about adding the signature on the article. I reverted that as soon as saw it. My addition was oddly worded, but I was attempting to distinguish between the biological aspects of sexual intercourse as opposed to its lovemaking aspects. From a strictly biological point of view, there is nothing wrong with premature ejaculation, as it gets the job (i.e. reproduction) done as quickly as possible.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to add WP:Reliable sources for such things. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you did not send messages directly to my user page. If you wish to discuss my contributions please do so on the article's talk page. As for your latest message - I do not regard my edits as silly. If I thought they were silly I wouldn't make them. I have better things to do, thank you very much. Ewawer (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your user talk page is for leaving messages directly to it. Why leave it on the article talk page when one doesn't know if you are watching the article? As for your removal of gay marriage, as though it has nothing to do with sexual intercourse and marriage, I do regard that as silly. Just as much as the edit war. Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Drmies (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You are a great editor: Re leaving Wikipedia
There are alot of good people on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are also alot of idiots. Don't let the latter get the best of you. Rest for a few weeks if you want, I have done it myself, but don't leave permanently over a few jerks. You are too valuable to Wikipedia as you strive for perfection. That is bound to give you grief from these few editors, but please do not give it up completely. Mugginsx (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mugginsx. But I have to leave. I'm not the same editor I was when I started back in 2007 (and what a newbie I was then). I don't enjoy this site anymore. It's more like a job, a responsibility. So many people cite Wikipedia, and it's become my job to make sure that things are well-presented and accurate so that not one person leaves this site with the wrong information. Despite that effort, of course it still happens at many other articles. I cannot deal with that anymore. I think to myself, "What is this all for? For a site that most people consider unreliable anyway? For a site where the articles are never truly stable because they are usually always changing and therefore and a Good or Featured article can become crap as quickly as it became honored? For a site that is full of edit wars, biased editors with hidden or obvious agendas, power struggles, rampant elitism, articles that are a certain way because of POV-pushing and consensus having maintained that POV? I have seen all of this at this site and I cannot take it anymore. Like I stated in the section, "This is why I feel like gaining enough strength to break my addiction to Wikipedia and just leaving it for good will help my psyche and life overall. I'd certainly get more free time back. After leaving, I'd have to make sure to keep from visiting articles I've worked significantly on or have created, though I'd ask a few fellow editors to take care of some specific articles in my absence. It would be best to not even visit Wikipedia for the quickest and/or simplest answers/information."


 * This has been coming since the section and probably before then. I'm sure a few people will be happy once I'm gone; I can think of two who would see this as an opportunity to have the Pedophilia article start off with inaccurate information -- the common use meaning that pedophilia is a sexual attraction to anyone under 18. The accurate definition is a sexual preference for prepubescent children. But oh well. I have to trust that the three editors I know to care about that article will maintain its integrity. One's been missing for months (maybe close to a year), but perhaps he will return. I'll definitely alert him of my departure.


 * All that said, I'm not leaving Wikipedia yet. Like I stated, I'm looking to get one other article to GA status (a sexual topic), and then I'm gone. It's not a bluff because it's how I feel, and I don't see that changing. I certainly won't be returning as a newly-registered editor. I have too much pride and/or ego (whatever) to be perceived as a newbie after knowing this site inside and out for years. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure that it is not a bluff but I am hoping that you will either reconsider or come back after a short rest. What you say is true, except that when an article reaches GA status, it is made so that further editing cannot be done.  That is my understanding.  To be sure, it is a great effort, but not impossible to achieve this status.  If perhaps you could look at Wikipedia differently, as I do, as a way of expanding one's knowledge through one's own research and "trying" to give that knowledge to many people through Wikipedia, you would not get so upset.   You are a perfectionist in my opinion and while that is an admirable trait it is frustrating because most people are not perfect.  Some, like one on the death of CA page are completely out of touch with reality.  Incidentally, I have noticed this person, in addition to having been blocked in the not too distant past,(see her talk page) has yet again been recently warned by an Administrator and I put my two cents in on his page as well since it seem an opportune time.  My patience has also run out on this person.


 * Reconsider, if you please, your reasons for editing here and try to learn to not take it so seriously and you might learn to have fun with it, even in the midst of the chaos. What was it that Marlon Brando said in that movie about Vietnam, "Embrace the horror". (smile). Mugginsx (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mugginsx, once an article reaches GA or FA, it is not locked so that any further editing cannot be done. Further editing can always be done. So even when an article is featured and needs no further improvement, more "improvement" happens anyway. This further editing and "improving" can cause an article to no longer meet the Featured article requirements and then it is d-listed. Anyway, that's obviously not the main reason I will be leaving. I will be leaving, per what I stated above. I did look at Wikipedia the way you do, and still do, but the rest of what I stated outweighs that. After you have contributed here for as long, perhaps you will then understand. I appreciate your concern and encouraging words, and even the barnstar, but I have to do what will help me. A perfectionist? I don't know. But Wikipedia does not blend well with my obsessive–compulsive disorder tendencies. Though I have never been formally diagnosed, the possibility that I suffer from it has been mentioned by at least two doctors, and I know that I suffer from it. I have to cut Wikipedia loose and cut away some of the stress in my life. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That totally sucks about the GA article information. Anyway, the most important thing I want to say is that I would not want anything to adversely affect your health, so you must do what is best for you. When you leave, you will be missed. Mugginsx (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * About thinking about your leaving Wikipedia. I've been where you've been. I contributed for about nine months or so when I ran into major hassles -- one long well-researched article that I had written was deleted, offhand, by what I consider to be a biased admin (there were 70+ references although there were some problems with viewpoint); another, my Philosophy of Spinoza article, was totally overwritten by what appears to be a PhD student so it is now almost impossible to read. I felt unappreciated, unthanked. It's partly the way Wikipedia is set up -- it's not a place where thanks come readily. Many times I've worked on articles and not one person even gave one hint of appreciation. So, I edited a rival encyclopedia, Citizendium, for a while but I found there was battling there too; while the atmosphere was more collegial, few people ever read Citizendium, and trying to improve readership there was frustrating. Part of my issue was that some stuff of mine was POV-ish (I hadn't really confronted this that clearly) other stuff highly factual. So I came back to Wikipedia with a compromise -- that I would put my POV-stuff in Google Knols (see my user page if interested) and write the NPOV stuff in Wikipedia. So it's like the best of both worlds. The Google stuff gets much less readership but I have total control over it -- even my picture and name are on my articles -- while I get a kick out of writing stuff in Wikipedia which gets huge readership (sometimes 1000s of views per day). And there's a place for each. And my Google knol Mentally healthy mind has over 5000 readers which is kind of a surprise to me (but it still needs work).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But let me address your statement above. And my sense is you are taking on too much responsibility and need to approach the project more from a "it's fun" point of view. You wrote it's become my job to make sure that things are well-presented and accurate so that not one person leaves this site with the wrong information. That's too much responsibility for any one person, in my view. Your mission will make it less fun for you here. Yes, agendas battle here. Yes, there are POVs. Sometimes articles will be wrong. But my view is that, because agendas battle, over time, the best stuff wins out; it's messy but I've come to appreciate that there are lots of people contributing here who know stuff that I don't. It's not perfect. We aim for perfection but only do our best. While Wikipedia does have its problems, which you are clearly aware of, there are strong pluses too. Your contributions have made a HUGE impact on people all around the world whether you know it or not, like millions, perhaps tens of millions of people, are better informed because of your contributions. I do not see Wikipedia contributing as an "addiction", rather as a hobby; and my advice would be to take it in stride, perhaps back off a bit for a while, but making pronouncements like "I'm never coming back" -- well, you may feel differently in six months or so. Another thing: your experience here is a valuable skill which few people have. Last, if you find yourself getting flustered by the same POV-pushers, drop a line on my talk page and I'll support you if you ask. And really last: if you think there's a perfect version of an article you'd like to preserve, why not write it as a google knol? That way, it's preserved and you have total control over it. Oops, and really really last (really!) if you have any ideas about the pictures on Physical attractiveness ie via the talk page, I'm interested in which ones you like and which ones you guess would cause the least edit battling (!!!) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, plenty of people have described Wikipedia as a job and as an addiction. And that includes people who love Wikipedia. By saying "it's become my job to make sure that things are well-presented and accurate so that not one person leaves this site with the wrong information," how is that inaccurate of what Wikipedia is? I'm not saying that I try to make sure that no one ever leaves this site with the wrong information. That's obviously impossible to accomplish with such a site as Wikipedia. I'm speaking of any day I have to revert of correct something, which is quite often. You call it "too much responsibility," but that is exactly what we're dealing with day in and day out at Wikipedia. With the articles we either watch over or stumble across. We are constantly checking up on things, reverting things, and making sure that what we contribute ourselves is accurate. Those of us who are very active and/or care, that is. That is a job in my eyes. It doesn't matter that we are volunteers. It's still a job.


 * I admire Citizendium's setup, and I don't think that not being like Wikipedia is what kept it from becoming popular. I think it's the fact that Wikipedia did it first. Imitators are usually less popular than the originals. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Flyer, while I think most of the problem here is that Wikipedia can be a difficult environment, I think it is also important for us not to take ourselves too seriously and realize there's a fun aspect. You describe it as "a job" (even if it's a volunteer "job".) You write I **have to** revert... You didn't write I **like** to ... I think you're taking stuff here too seriously. I advise: lighten up. Smile.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In your case, I think the question you should ask yourself shouldn't be whether to participate in Wikipedia but how you do so. We can wear many hats here as you know. We can choose what we do or not do. For some reason, you've gravitated towards the night watchman & policeman's role which involves tension and conflict and battling. It's a tough role. And, in my view, you're getting tired of the battling. Am I right about this?Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And while we all police each other to some extent, it's possible to wear other hats which involve much less conflict, such as creating articles, doing disambiguation pages, pictures, etc. What are the things you enjoy most doing? I try to do what I love best here, which is create new articles or improve existing ones and build readers. I avoid the FA and GA processes since these mean lots of fuss; rather, I'll take a mediocre article and try to make it good, more readable, and I enjoy even an occasional compliment. And occasional humor and jokes and jibes are fun too (although I've gotten in trouble for this in the past). It's possible to care, to get things accurate, while having fun.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And I find I learn stuff from my contributions here too. For example, I contributed to articles for a record label, and when I met a Nigerian doctor recently, I queried him about such artists as Fela Kuti and Seun Kuti, and he was impressed that an American knew about Nigerian protest music. It also helps me appreciate different viewpoints on things. It's made me more mainstream.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My recommendation would be to shrink your watchlist, and let stuff happen to articles for a bit. It's kind of Buddhist-like, Spinoza-like, to let go a bit, to shrug your shoulders. When my article (which I had worked on for two to three days) History of citizenship in the United States got whittled down, and then deleted, it didn't faze me much, since I have it preserved as a google knol (with 1000+ readers too). I like the foot in two worlds approach as I said (Wikipedia & Knol.)Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * About Citizendium -- you're right that it was second to the gate, which accounts for much of its lack of success. Still, Citizendium has, in my view, made additional mistakes technically and editorially which Wikipedia hasn't made. Mistakes include: idea of "expert" editors (needless segregating based on dubious qualifications), idea of "approved" version of articles vs "unapproved" (unnecessary layer of fuss), making talk pages invisible for many searches (hurts PageRank), the whole "forum" being separate from the encyclopedia (also hurts PageRank). There are a few very sharp academics in Citizendium quite skilled in a few technical areas who like the collegiality and who are great people. But I find the emphasis on "expert editors" brings a kind of elitist arrogance to the place -- I got treated as a dimwit since I'm a handyman by a few rather sour editor types there. I tried to get Citizendium to change to bring in more readers but the place was resistant to change. I experimented with ways to bring in readers, but to no avail. But a waste of time: Wikipedia is where the action is. Neither encyclopedia has solved the problem of how to rein in errant administrators, or how to deal effectively with disputes, but these are tough problems.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever you decide, good luck to you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, we're supposed to take things seriously here. I don't believe there is a such thing as "too seriously" when it comes to reverting vandalism and other such shady edits on this site. Of course I would state that "I have to revert." What kind of editor would I be if I just let it stay there? But I like to revert it, too, if that's what you want to hear. I don't look at my watchlist (haven't for maybe close to a year now, if not a year already), but I do check through my contributions and I can't just "let stuff happen to articles" when that stuff is not beneficial to those articles. I can't adopt don't-give-a-fuckism, like Textorus in the section above, unless I leave Wikipedia for good. But that's me. I take things seriously here because Wikipedia tells us to. We have a Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard showing just how seriously Wikipedia takes itself. And, really, if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, then it should take itself seriously. That means us not treating it like it's a playground. It's not a place where we're supposed to have fun...even though, yes, we can have fun here. It's a place where we are supposed to work. Work seriously. The main problem is Wikipedia's setup even allowing IP editors to edit (when most of them do vandalize) and the general public not taking Wikipedia seriously. People will cite Wikipedia to advance their point of view, but then call it inaccurate and untrustworthy when it reports something they disagree with or don't believe. This site is generally considered unreliable. And yet Wikipedia says its editors must take this site seriously. That's one of my issues with editing here -- that we are going through all these edit wars and other such drama, to strive accuracy and neutrality and whatever else, when the general public doesn't consider us reliable anyway. So, yes, it makes me think it's not worth putting so much work into this site. It makes me wonder why so many of us are so passionate about what is contributed here when we are just considered one source and generally unreliable. Building good articles just to see them crumble, infighting, etc., etc., etc. Yes, it makes me wonder, "What is this all for?" I'm not fed up with Wikipedia because I have taken over the roles of watchman & policeman. I'm fed up with it because of what I initially stated in this section. It's a combination and culmination of things.


 * But I do thank you, Tom, for trying to help me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No Flyer no. DON'T LEAVE!--Wlmg (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A different perspective
Please leave. You are a great editor, but you are also a person and not the sum of your contributions (and certainly not the aggregate of your perceived "failures") and you deserve to find out how you feel about not believing you need to make "just one more edit" to the project. Of course, I hope that you will find that you rediscover the appetite to contribute - but what I want most of all is for the encyclopedia to be a place where people derive pleasure from helping build the resource. If it cannot be that for you, then I do not think it is worthy of your efforts; I am sure that the skills you have brought here can be used in other beneficial ways, and in places where you may feel less pressurised. So, may I say, it has been a pleasure to lurk upon your talkpage, engage in a few discussions, and read what you have written. Adieu! Mark / LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LessHeard, of course I expect some editors to say "If you don't like it, then get to stepping." And that is exactly what I intend to do. Thanks for the push, I suppose. But I point out that plenty of people who productively edit Wikipedia hate it. I at least have a love-hate relationship with it. I feel that editors who fully love Wikipedia are few and in between. It's not that I need to rediscover my appetite to contribute, because that still exists. Is it there to the same extent it was before? Of course not. But what Wikipedia editor doesn't lose some degree of their appetite for editing every now and then? We are all most enthusiastic when first starting out. I do "derive pleasure from building the resource," but Wikipedia is not fun for me anymore. How can I enjoy building the resource but not enjoy Wikipedia? That may seem like a complicated answer, but it's quite simple to me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some - perhaps many - people may not "like" the process of contributing, but the satisfaction derived from the results compensates for the frustrations engendered. From what I am reading it appears in your case that the recompense no longer balances out the negative; particularly as you note that even the "result" is transient and can be quickly undone. You have reached a point where, I feel, only removing yourself completely will allow you to evaluate whether your contributions were worth your efforts, and decide whether a permanent departure is appropriate. What I hope I am prompting you to do is to stop you hanging on and trying to close things out, and poison your perceptions further in the process. As an admirer of your work I am counteracting in part all those other admirers who, in equal good faith, are trying to keep you here and potentially making any departure the more permanent. I, of course, am hoping that you go now when there is still a chance that the evaluation will result in a return. I hope to believe that you knew that. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, LessHeard, I would say that I have reached the point where the "recompense no longer balances out the negative." Though I do like contributing. Thank you for understanding and trying to help me in your own way. Separation does spur/help reevaluation. We are taught that in screenwriting, when we're too close to a script. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)