User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:47, 22 February 2014

This user may sometimes share an IP address with Halo Jerk1.

Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and would wish to be blocked. If you want to know more about me, see my user page. My work, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was even blocked because my request is answered. See the block cases. And it's during that first block case that I learned a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible. I swear a lot.

Especially see User:Flyer22#Main type of editing style for why what you consider neutral, or what you consider needed with regard to images, likely differs from my view; don't know about you, but I'm following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines in that regard. Any questions, compliments or criticism of my Wikipedia work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Article titles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi! You seemed to be the only neutral party to this discussion. If you get a chance, could you please revisit my (overly wordy) response and see if I've now met the threshold? Thanks! --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaswmsday, sorry to let you down, considering that I usually try to be helpful when a Wikipedian asks me for help with regard to a Wikipedia matter (I know what it's like to need that outside opinion or some other kind of additional help, especially when dealing with an editor or editors who are misinterpreting a guideline or policy or just don't care that they are), but I don't have anything more to add to the "Is exceptional treatment of alternative names within WP:USRD allowed?" discussion. At least not at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Pregnancy - Media Portrayal

Hi Flyer22. I suspect you're right [1], but can you point me to the relevant TV and film policy that states "the fiction serves as the source for plot material". I'll probably argue that while that's fine for articles about TV episodes and films, for other topics we should have secondary sources relating the media material to the article topic. I have to ask why you didn't revert the deletion of this material if you felt that it was appropriate? Anyhow, as it was large chunk of work, its deletion probably should be discussed on the talk page. Would you like to start the discussion? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in addition to that link, you are referring to this, this and this link. WikiProjects don't have policies, but with regard to practice or official guidelines... For WP:TV, there is WP:TVPLOT and we had a big discussion about such sourcing at WP:SOAPS in 2011 (WP:TV editors took part in that discussion); you can find that discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5#Storylines sections lack references. For WP:FILM, there is WP:FILMPLOT, though, in part it states, "in film articles" (which can support your argument that such a "the fiction sources itself" approach is only appropriate in the article about that particular fiction). And, nah, I'm not interested in starting a discussion about the removal of the Media section in the Teenage pregnancy article; anyone else is free to do so, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Flyer22; sorry to hear that you're in the slough of WP despond. I'll link to this discussion on Talk:Teenage pregnancy. Best FiachraByrne (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

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

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

What?? Involuntary celibacy article

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

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

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

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

Mergers

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

Removed text

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

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

Seems to me to a matter of simple courtesy to err on the side of discretion, especially when it is requested. To my knowledge, this issue has not been discussed at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Memills (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. But why link that way, given the connection that is likely to be drawn if you don't intend for the connection to be drawn? As for Men's rights movement/Article probation, I wasn't talking about it having been discussed there. I was talking about the identity matter having been noted and/or discussed on Wikipedia before and that it is related to the Men's rights movement/Article probation, though I can't pinpoint where at the moment (whether what used to be your user page, on your talk page or somewhere else on Wikipedia). Since JamesBWatson has been involved in this matter as well, I also ping him to comment on this WP:Outing topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

"No, I am not unwilling to do so." Double negative there, which means you are willing to delete this section? Er, right? But, you haven't done so yet.

You write that you have a general question about WP:OUTING. Fine. You can error on the side of discretion by deleting this section as I have requested. Then, you can take your general question to other WP editors / WP pages without further violating my privacy. Memills (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A double negative? Hmm. Anyway, you stated, "As an alternative, if you wish, just delete this section, and I will consider the matter closed. Thanks." I've clearly declined the alternative.

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

It may be possible for anyone "who pays good attention" to deduce your identity via your username, the information on your user page, and some web searches. If someone did deduce it, that doesn't mean that you violated your own privacy. Personally, if I deduced it, I would have the courtesy not reveal your identity on a WP Talk page.

However, explicitly identifying someone's real name on the talk page of an article, as you did, is something else: "I just realized that the author of that Psychology Today source is you, if going by the similarity of your Wikipedia username and that author's name." That was both irrelevant to the article Talk page discussion, and, it is WP:OUTTING.

At this point, we wait to hear from the Oversight folks. Memills (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Me too.

WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are quite different.

"I didn't identify you" ...you made a point of it.

"I did so because it was relevant." My identity was not relevant to the Nature vs. Nurture Talk page discussion. Memills (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are quite different; I never stated or implied that they are not. I don't think you heard of WP:Outing before I mentioned it today, though. As for the rest, I've already clarified my stance on those matters; no need to repeat. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are quite different; I never stated or implied that they are not."

Yes you did:

"...connections [to identity] are made all the time involving WP:Conflict of interest matters and I don't see this case involving you as too different than that."

And:

"I don't think you heard of WP:Outing before I mentioned it today, though."

Who cares if I have or haven't? It is presumptuous to assume either way, and, moreover, it is irrelevant. Memills (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not state or imply that WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest are the same thing; as shown, I basically stated that your action of having linked that article in the way that you did is not much different than a WP:COI matter. That is not the same thing as stating or implying that it is one; nor is it conflating WP:Outing and WP:Conflict of interest. It is comparing what you did to a WP:COI matter. WP:Conflict of interest matters are generally exempt from being considered WP:Outing. As for you clearly not having been aware of WP:Outing, it's relevant because I feel that you have misapplied it in this discussion; if you were more familiar with that policy, you likely would not misapply it. As for "presumptuous," if it's not obvious to you by now, I'm extremely perceptive (which has been a great benefit on Wikipedia). Either way, I don't see why this discussion is still going on. We disagree on this matter; now we should be waiting to see if anyone else weighs in on it and/or if WP:Oversight is used with regard to it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Flyer22 wrote "Since JamesBWatson has been involved in this matter as well, I also ping him to comment on this WP:Outing topic", so here I am. I don't offhand remember when I was involved, and I'm not even sure what "matter" I was involved in. (Nature v nurture? Outing policy? The identity of this particular editor?) Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I will throw in some of my thoughts about the outing issue. I shall start with my own opinions, and then consider what the outing policy says.

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

Thanks for weighing in, JamesBWatson. I'd coincidentally just woken up (intend to go back to sleep for a bit soon) minutes before you posted here. Hours before you commented, via email I consulted with a Wikipedia administrator who does not see this matter as a WP:Outing matter, but believes that it would have been best if I had not made the author connection on Wikipedia. That administrator watches my talk page, but I'm not sure if he's willing to add on to your comment on my talk page. You and I see the first line of WP:Outing differently, as shown above. I can't see this matter as WP:Outing since I was not intending to harass and since the editor did (from my view) voluntarily post a link to his personal information (meaning his name, his credentials, etc.); so, it seems, I have the view that you used to have on the WP:Outing topic. I don't even consider the information personal in this case since it concerns an article where his real name, credentials. etc. are available to his readers, are available to anyone who comes across that Psychology Today source online; that's public information that he posted to on Wikipedia. I don't think there is anything that can make me view this as a WP:Outing matter, but I'll take care not to repeat this behavior in the future (not unless a clear-cut WP:COI case). As for "JamesBWatson has been involved in this matter as well"; I had just mentioned Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. What I was referring to is your involvement in weighing in on Memills's feminism/masculism editing; see this section and the following section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if it's outing or not? There is no reason to make a big deal about someone linking to an article while discussing issues at a talk page, even if that article may have been written by the editor. There was no appeal to authority or other abuse of logic—it was just "there is some further info here". It was undoubtedly unwise to post a link and then request that the genie be put back in the bottle, but we are not talking about corruption, or any kind of dubious COI, so why not forget about it? We don't seize on a mistake and pursue it, and the outcome of the discussion should not hinge on whether an editor unwisely posted a link. I think the redaction by JamesBWatson was very helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"WP:Oversight having been granted does not mean that I violated WP:Outing."

What else could it mean?

Anyway... carry on. Memills (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently are not familiar with the fact that WP:Oversight is often granted when a person requests it because they feel that personal information about them is on Wikipedia and they want it removed. Such matters usually involve cases where a person posted personal information about themselves, or a link that leads to such information, and now want it removed; such matters have nothing to do with WP:Outing (unless of course the person feels that that the information could be used to out them).

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

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

Shutter Island

Hello! Happy New Year, and hope you're doing well. :) As you can see, I am commenting on the Shutter Island situation. However, in the future, I would recommend keeping the main discussion on the film article's talk page and posting a brief notification at WT:FILM. Otherwise, the discussion gets effectively split. (I commented on the film article's talk page, but others have commented at WT:FILM, making it unclear for additional parties to weigh in.) I've also shared sources that we can use to best define the critical consensus. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you as well, Erik. And, LOL, great minds think alike (okay, okay, we sometimes disagree on film matters, but we agree often enough); I was preparing to make this comment before you even posted to my talk page today. I feel the same way about centralizing a discussion. Thanks for your help on this matter, and for the Happy New Year good wishes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts: Pedophilia article

A cookie for you

I wouldnt revert you without discussing, as I do respect you as an editor in this contentious area we both work in♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what I stated here about you likely reverting... I stated that, SqueakBox, because I know that you are passionate about this topic (and child sexual abuse) and that often, instead of first taking a matter to the talk page, you will revert when you believe that you are right. I've certainly been known to do the same. So my not reverting you was a matter of deciding what the best course of action would be in this case. We have worked fine together in these fields for years, and I wouldn't want anything to sour that. Thank you for your statement about respecting me enough not to revert me (or perhaps you mean that if you had reverted me, you would have discussed it afterward?). If you had reverted me, though, I wouldn't think that you respected me any less. Reverts simply come with the territory on Wikipedia. Also thanks for the cookie.

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

Wiki 'violations'

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

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

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

Yeah, the edit I made was somewhat 'editorial', but pointed out the FACT a suspension of belief was required to fully enjoy the show (never mind the dialogue/repartee which everybody loved was completely unbelievable). The article reader might find my 'trivia' relevant without having to 'click' on the links to the two actresses and discover/compute their age difference. Perhaps I should have used different construction or phrasing? But that would still have attracted you. Yeah, I watched the show, saw maybe a dozen or 20 episodes over the years. Reruns likely, as I seem to remember there was something else on at the same time that I favored more. But unless they're fans, the readers here probably have not, more so as time passes. Someone using Wiki to do (here comes a dreaded phase) 'original research' would get a better picture of the facts.

I know, I know -- I've violated all kinds of Wiki policies and guidelines here with this verbiage. And that this entry will be deleted QUICK! But you say you don't answer email and I have a serious question for you: Can you honestly say NONE of your articles regarding 'sexual' issues contain NO 'original research'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.247.57 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

You know what

Keep on reverting vandalism while I take out the minor stuffs. Happy editing. Soham 16:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Soham, about this edit that I thanked you for via WP:Echo, thanks again. And happy editing to you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did'n't want to divulge information as to the edit, I received the echo and knew why I was being thanked. Soham 16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I did it so that this section is clear as to what it is about, which also serves as a reminder for me. Your edit was reverted, but I'll leave that matter to you to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being reverted, but this kind of editing will only lead to excessive unnecessary admin work. I going to notify the user about his behaviour along with warring nature. Soham 17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That user also has a WP:Pending changes problem, if this case is any indication. It aggravates me to see editors accepting changes that they should not be accepting. This type of bad monitoring is why I'm not a fan of WP:Pending changes; too much mess still gets through that system. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to pending changes, he or she said it was a mistake and that he or she was about to revert. Hopefully that's the case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that was not a mistake, but AGF. Soham 06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Zad68 01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Zad68 01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got... message!

Dear Flyer22, i am the one that made some -heavy- editing in the "National Youth Organisation (Greece)" at 20:16, 9 January 2014‎ (94.66.14.189), that you reverted. I removed some dead links (most references don't exist anymore), but mostly rephrased the text removing some strong characterizations about the organization been "fascist" (but still keeping some "hints", as it's not clear that it surely was not) - please keep in mind that the regime that created that organization -at the time WW2 was starting- fought AGAINST Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, plus many members of that organization were Communists (actually, there are still some of those -very- old folks that are currently elected in parliament with left-wing/Communist parties, the same parties that were members while members of that organization!). To be honest i don't know how thinks work in wikipedia (that's my first "contribution" - i don't even know if this place is appropriate for my message!) - i understand that you are an old member and (hoping that it's not an issue of "ideology" - i think that you just try to protect the article from vandalization) i would appreciate if you could help me with my editing (e.g., in the article's title exists the word "Organisation" - i think it must be "Organization"). Thanks. P.S. I am Greek - sorry for my English! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.14.189 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you removed sourced material without explanation (without an edit summary), and that's why I reverted you. With regard to sourcing, Wikipedia editors should adhere to WP:Verifiability. What WP:Reliable sources do you have to support your claims and counter the article's sourcing? Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spambot post

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

The Crying Game

I thought you weren't here to play games? Now who's playing the Crying Game? LOL Thanks for clarifying that sodomy can also mean bestiality. No need to get all upset.Cluelesswonder (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard my (sort of) interaction with you thus far, seen here, here, here, here and here, and with the message I left you about edit warring, I would be fully justified in "crying" by reporting such behavior (your behavior). Look at your WP:Edit warring, including your WP:3RR violation, at the article in question (Sodomy law), over something so easily WP:Verifiable. Look at your adding a "clarification needed" tag for something you knew the text was referring to and could have clarified yourself. Yes, I'm not here at Wikipedia to play games. And if you honestly didn't know what sodomy typically refers to (including that bestiality is commonly a part of that definition), you do now. If you intend to continue editing at this site, become familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and cut out the WP:Battleground editing. Otherwise, editing here will be far from easy for you. Replies like this will sink you fast. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I'm not the only one who suspects that you are not a new Wikipedia editor. What tipped me off that you are not? The vast majority of new Wikipedia editors don't know to sign their usernames (even with the editing box staring them in the face and telling them to sign it) and they usually don't talk about primary and secondary sources or know about the "citation needed" tag; the ones that do know about it, don't know how to use it right off the bat. Seems you have also admitted to not being new. Either way, the way that you edit Wikipedia is the typical inexperienced style of a WP:Newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Cluelesswonder 48 hours for personal attacks and sockpuppetry, I fully expect the admin who handles that SPI to resolution will block indef, I'm still learning the processes there. Zad68 18:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And indef now, which I've been instructed is the normal procedure. SPI case will be kept open to check for other socks. Zad68 19:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nature, nurture, various associated terms

Hi, Flyer22,

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

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

Rationale 1 The Wikipedia policy on article titles Use commonly recognizable names says, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." The three sources cited first in the article since at least as far back as February 2011 all quote Francis Galton for the phrase "nature and nurture,"[2] and more recent sources also credit Galton with originating the phrase in that form. Moreover, the Google Books Ngram Viewer[3] shows that "nature and nurture" has been the predominant phrase in English ever since the topic has been discussed in English-language books. Of course the core Wikipedia content policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests that we should follow the sources in what terms we use as we write articles.

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

I'd be glad to hear what you think about this, based on your editing approach of emphasizing mainstream views, in light of the sources you have at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WeijiBaikeBianji, I stated almost all that I have to state on that matter when it comes to titling that article. I still feel that the article should be titled "Nature versus nurture," per WP:Common name. The alternative name, "Nature and nurture" should also be in the WP:Lead, per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again, I've already stated how I view the sourcing. And there is no WP:Consensus there at that talk page that I see for you to change the title of that article to "Nature and nurture." And even if there was, and you were to change that title again, the alternative title should be in the lead right beside the new title...per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Suggestions of any particular sources you recommend would be much appreciated. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Hustle

Hi, Flyer. I'm afraid I haven't seen American Hustle yet, so on the chance that you had, and given our and User:Doniago's good work on Titanic (1997 film), I thought you might want to take a crack at the 1,000-word-plus monstrosity over there! I almost laughed when I saw the word-count! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, above you linked to a disambiguation page for the film, but I can see that you are referring to American Hustle (2013 film). And, yikes, that plot summary is definitely out of control. I haven't seen that film yet either, but, since I'm not planning on watching that film any time soon and I won't care much if I'm spoiled on it, I'm willing to take a shot at reducing that plot summary if Doniago is not. But like you know, it's tricky reducing the plot summary for a film that you haven't seen because you are more likely to cut something that should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Sorry to give the wrong link!

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

Nomination of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Levdr1lp / talk 12:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits: Herpes genitalis and Timothy L. Tyler articles

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

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

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

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

Your screenplay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My sense is you've done your homework and know much about writing screenplays, so I wish you success. Agree about too much backstory hindering a story -- I think we'll agree that working out the backstory can be important, so you know it is there, what happened, and perhaps you can refer to parts of it, tangentially, if needed, since it might give your story more realism and depth. I think I was thinking about The Hunger Games not Game of Thrones -- sorry -- that is your script reminds me somewhat of the HG, with the idea of a tournament.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did Teaching Co courses on diseases, illnesses etc, thing about viruses is like a miniature animal piggybacking on a host. Viruses want to spread themselves; usually they'll attack a human for a few days and there is a cycle, with different stages, the last one being some way to get the host to expel new germs (coughing, sneezing, itching) so the process can be repeated in a new victim/host. Viruses which overpower a host (kill the human) die too, so generally they don't want to do that, but rather live off the host for a while. Meanwhile, the host figures out (usually) how to get rid of the virus. So a virus which permanently infects humans, generation after generation, marking their status substantially -- like making the human permanently be identifiable as an "infected" -- maybe an explanation is needed. When a human becomes infected with a virus, usually (according to the Teaching Co course) there's redness, swelling, temperature -- how the body fights the infection. So if people are infected in your world, maybe the condition reverts to something chronic -- maybe more like acne or AIDS or herpes -- something that sticks around somehow, that is noticeable (so the "cleans" can identify the "infecteds"). If the cleans and infecteds intermix, like on the Council, what will keep the cleans from becoming infected? What is the ultimate source of their animosity towards each other? No doubt you've been thinking about these things. If they agree to a tournament, then the animosity is somewhat regulated by the rules (since they both agree to the tournament approach), so it is not a fever-pitch anger between the two groups but rather a controlled dislike? That is why I was thinking along the lines of a caste system.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my sci-fi book I've tried to think through much of this stuff but I doubt I've been as thorough as some major sci-fi writers; rather, I'm trying to keep it rather simple, for thematic clarity, not sure if it will work as I hope.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Man of Steel (film)

Right. It was the change to the release date (the previous edit) that was unsourced. Rather than revert or remove altogether, I tagged to indicate the change needed to be supported by a citation. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the unsourced change has now been reintroduced ... Dwpaul ^Talk 02:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now a source has been added. All good. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Morris

Please explain why the sourced addition is not construcitve. It is not vandalism to add text that has an RS It is extremely relevant to BM vies and statements.81.159.118.159 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Fixed and tweaked. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breast article: Even though I agree with you

that in common English usage breasts refer to those of women, the lead of the article says "[b]oth men and women develop breasts from the same embryological tissues." So, we should look for sources that also comment on how the mammary region of males is erogenous too, or change the lead? The way it is now is rather prone to misconstruction and/or incomplete. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srtª PiriLimPomPom. You are referring to this revert I made. I saw some validity in one aspect you changed, which is why I restored this (followed by a minor tweak). I stated here on NeilN's talk page that you were likely going to revert; nice to see that I was wrong about that. Like I told NeilN, one of my other reasons for reverting you is because "the source about orgasm from nipple stimulation only claims that some women can orgasm that way (the orgasms are still genital orgasms, regardless); it mentions that a few men have similar response with regard to how the brain reacts to breast stimulation, but it doesn't state that those men achieved an orgasm from such stimulation." Either way, this is best discussed on the article talk page, so that other editors, those in general, can weigh in on this topic.

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

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

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

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

Continuing disruption by User:John on biography articles

Aloha. Did you ever file the RFC on John?[4] I ask because John is now disrupting John Barrowman with the same, unilateral interpretations of what is and what is not tabloid journalism and of course, he's refusing to discuss it. [5] He's gone so far as to remove celebrity interviews of notable subjects while deleting content that is already sourced in the article. It's hard to tell if he is simply incompetent and/or disruptive, but he just removed a huge swath of sourced content simply because a vandal removed the source. I asked him to look at the last good version to compare it and he refused. He also edit warred and threatened to use his admin tools while falsely claiming there was a BLP issue. If you did not file the RFC, then I am ready to co-sign and file an AN report. If you did file the RFC, please provide a link. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only way you're going to get John to stop is by holding a community-wide RFC on what circumstances those sources (Mail, Mirror, Sun, etc) can be used. That was my experience. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but this does seem to go beyond that, at least on Barrowman. First, he claimed there was a BLP violation. There wasn't, and reliable sources already in the article supported the content, so I reverted his deletions and asked him to come to the talk page per BRD. He didn't discuss, but went straight into edit warring, followed by a threat to block me on my talk page over a non-existent BLP violation. Just to get him to the article talk page, I had to confront him on his user talk page, at which point he made a number of unsubstantiated claims. When asked to explain further, he was either unable to do so or incapable of doing so. Then, he began removing more content simply because a vandal had removed a citation. I asked him to look at the last good GA version to see the sources and he refused. How can someone like this be an admin? I don't think an RFC on the sources alone will either solve or address the problem. John doesn't seem competent to edit Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue you face is that past Wikipedia discussions have held sources like the Mail and Mirror as unreliable so someone can rip them out without considering any of the nuances and other editors won't get too fussed. May not be what you want to hear, but that's how it is in my view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the Mail, I'm talking about admin John's bad behavior. However, if you want to discuss the Mail in this example, the fact of the matter is that it was a celebrity interview by Jenny Johnston who has received commendations for her interviews. There is no question whatsoever this is a reliable source, but that is not the primary issue. John is making a series of bad edits, bad allegations, and bad actions all around. The fact of the matter is The Daily Mail has won awards for its journalism.[6] There is absolutely no consensus on RS/N to remove sources like this. I know this because I have followed those discussions about the DM (there and in other talk pages) since 2004, and I have been one of its leading critics. This is a unilateral POV campaign being run by User:John based on absolutely no interpretation of any existing policy or guideline. He's either totally incompetent, purposefully disruptive, or a combination of the two. We've repeatedly seen, over and over again, how one editor will wage an obsessive campaign against a certain source, a style guideline, the use of grammar and or typography, or some other pet issue. And, we've seen how editors that do this get shot down time and time again because they are acting tendentiously. That's what's happening here, but John is getting away with it because of his admin status. There's no editor without admin rights that would be allowed to act like this. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "only warning" on your talk page was completely uncalled for. From past discussions, it should be clear to him the community does not agree with some of his views on BLP sources and he should take that into account when dealing with experienced editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the biggest issue is that after he was reverted, he should have taken to the talk page to discuss his concerns. At that point, I would have patiently explained and addressed his concerns for as long as it took until we were both satisfied. But that's not what happened. He edit warred, warned me, and then instead of engaging in discussion, made a "my way or the highway" comment on the talk page and failed to discuss the problems. That's what upsets me. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Flyer, thanks for your feedback. If it's helpful, I agree with NeilN's suggestions here that would have been useful to clarify in my close-- I'm sorry that this causing more trouble. In my defense, I tried to stick to the language used by many editors in that RfC, and they variously stated that "contentious" material should not be sourced to People (or at least, not alone). To speak to your example, I would say that unless there are discrepancies between it and other reliable sources, something like a celebrity's birthday or their family members could be reasonably sourced to People. I agree that sometimes editors will call something contentious, but there should be a demonstrable reason why that is so (which it may well be in specific cases). Calling it a "gossip magazine" or saying that birth dates are simply iffy in People alone just aren't going to cut it, for instance. John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also, Viriditas, John is absolutely in the wrong with regard to pulling Hello! as a source; I specifically brought up Hello! during the People magazine debate because John had been removing it and it's in the same camp as People magazine with regard to its acceptability for biographical content, with People magazine being more well known and slightly more trusted. I think that pulling Metro is wrong as well; again, "tabloid format" does not necessarily mean "tabloid journalism." Nothing but WP:Disruptive editing going on with these two aspects regarding John. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I guess what I'm having trouble understanding is why this guy is even allowed to edit. If you or I put up a subpage saying such and such source is the worst source in the world like John has, and then we acted on our personal beliefs by targeting that source wherever it appeared, I can guarantee you, we would be indefinitely blocked for pointy POV pushing and disruption. Yet this guy not only continues doing it after his bad behavior has been pointed out before on the noticeboards, but is an admin to boot? This is crazy. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I left him what I think was a reasonable note on his talk page about the matter, and he just deleted it with edit comment "not needed"... so this is not a good situation. Looking for silver linings, I do note that he accepted the People Magazine RfC, I think. Right? So rather than an RfC/U and going that route, how about a RfC for Daily Mail and Hello and NY Daily News and so forth wrapped up into one RfC, the proposition being that, at least for uncontentious material where various markers exist such that the material is likely true and no contra-indication that it's not, it's OK to use XYZ as sources where we come up with a lengthy list to fill in XYZ. I think this is the way to go. I'd prefer to avoid RfC/U on otherwise productive editors over a single issue. Herostratus (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to NeilN that he make the WP:RfC about more than just People magazine; for example, I stated in this discussion (my "14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" post): "Though we will be focusing on People for this WP:RfC, something needs to be done with regard to the New York Daily News as well, considering that John has recently indicated on his talk page to Herostratus that he still considers that a tabloid. He likely feels that way because it uses tabloid (newspaper format). But like I noted at WP:ANI, 'As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not [necessarily] equal 'tabloid.' Many valid newspapers use that format.' NeilN also pointed this out to John with regard to that source."

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

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

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

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

So watta you all say? If you do want to run an RfC, edits or suggestions to the suggested text at User:Herostratus/Daily Mail et al RfC are solicited, or make a new one from scratch if that'd be better. Herostratus (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that you are loading the question when you say right at the beginning that it is a "fairly sketchy publication". That's not entirely true, and if you've performed any kind of deep research on any topic, you'll find the Daily Mail used quite often to support a number of reasonable works. So it is prevalent in the literature, its writers have won numerous awards, and its interviewers are fairly respected. That being said, our guideline on WP:RS already covers this. Do we need an RFC on a particular source or set of sources because we've got an obsessive editor who has spent considerable time composing a jeremiad on a source and acting out his personal beliefs in a way that is incompatible with our best practices? Seems like the solution is to block the editor, not give weight to their obsessive fantasies by taking it seriously. Call me crazy, but it does seem like John is being given far more leeway than a non-admin. I can list quite a number of indefinitely blocked editors who did the same thing John did. Wikipedia tends to attract obsessive compulsive editors who get fixated on a certain thing and act out on that thing, not realizing they have gone over the edge. For some reason, John has been allowed to do this for quite some time now. Isn't it time to put this to rest? Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If he's also doing other bad stuff or if it's reasonable to believe that he would turn to doing other bad stuff, such that he's a net negative, then maybe we should fire him and here's our chance. If there's reason to believe an RfC won't work, then maybe we should fire him and here's our chance. But the People RfC worked. Other than that, just being annoyed or wanting to get back at him, meh, not a good reason for escalating.

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

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

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

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

I don't see anything protective about his edits. For example, John complained about a lack of sources in the article. I explained to him that he should look at the last good version to clear up his concerns.[7] This is because the article has been repeatedly vandalized over the years. In this instance, a vandal had previously removed a source in the article.[8] John refused to look at the GA version and removed the content because he couldn't be tasked with adding back the source the vandal had removed.[9] Instead he added a source to already sourced content in the article and refused to add the sourced content back. I have now added it back.[10] This is not "protecting" a BLP, this is fucking shit up. He edits unilaterally, he won't discuss the problem on the talk page, and he refuses to admit error or fix a problem he caused after being shown the problem. Frankly, he shouldn't be allowed to edit, let alone have admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Daily Mail source is used to support the claim that John Lydon "was named among the 100 Greatest Britons following a UK-wide vote".[11] This source is supported by many others.[12] John removes the easily verifiable and uncontroversial statement from John Lydon with the edit summary "no tabloids on BLPs please".[13] That's odd because the material is not likely to be challenged, is not contentious, and the sourcing is not tabloid journalism. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Let me try and explain where John is coming from. Have a look at the discussion in Talk:Nic Potter#First departure from Van der Graaf, where a sentence cited to Mojo, widely considered to be a far more reliable source than the Daily Mail, was challenged and successfully removed for violating WP:BLP. To us, it's just a reliable source, but to people mentioned in the article, it's upsetting for them to see questionable content about a recently deceased friend that they did not write and have no control over. At the end of the day, when it comes down to brass tacks, I just feel sad that the two of you can't see eye to eye and get along. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever called the Daily Mail a WP:Reliable source? I have not. Even in the section immediately above this one (my "04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)" post), I told Viriditas: "There also is not much support at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard for use of the Daily Mail, but it clearly should not be removed in the case of exclusive interviews." And regarding the Mojo magazine example, I don't see it as the same at all; if John were going around removing that source from any and every Wikipedia article, he'd be in the wrong on that as well.

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

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

Willing to help or suggest someone?

I undid an edit on Association of Women for Action and Research by Owlterego (talk · contribs). Given the subject matter, I feel awkward giving advice. Cheers Jim1138 (talk)

You handled it well. I'm not sure what to state to that person either, or who to suggest to give advice in our places. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense article

Hi. I get what you mean with this edit. But basically it is "this ability ... is shared by". The confusion comes from the number of words in the "...". I can not see any easy way to shorten it though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lancaster, if it's "this ability is shared by," which I thought might me what is meant, it seems that there should be a comma before the word which. Right now, the words "which is" seem to be especially connected to the word things. And, of course, in the case of things, the words "which are" should be used instead. It's not grammatically correct to state "things is"; it is grammatically correct to state "things are." Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying the comma idea. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Baptist College

Do you think we can get this page protected? Vandals have been wiping the page of a well-sourced and notable scandal for about two years now. Their edit summaries show a common motive, and they clearly aren't editing in good faith.74.106.243.248 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP. I'm not a WP:Administrator. Yes, that article qualifies for page protection; you can request such at WP:Requests for page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's been requested. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the Man of Steel edit?

Why? Karim3343 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's incorrect, as shown by the Critical reception section in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

109

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

Ah, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP friend on Young adult (psychology)

I see he was blocked before I logged on tonight :-). I was trying to think how we can emphasise that it's a section not to edit. Running through the various guidelines - Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting does say Quotations must always be clearly indicated as being quotations, but doesn't really help for very short ones - neither does Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations offer much more.
There are a variety of quote templates - I'm not certain I like any of them that much, anyway, I've taken the paragraph, and applied 3 types at User:Ronhjones/Sandbox2 - see what you think. I'm not fussed about which one would be better (not that keen on No.3), or if we just leave it as it is. If you think one of them would be a better solution, then go ahead and change it.
IP resolves as static, so unlikely to change :-), be watchful in a week's time! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since the Erik Erikson line gets objections every now and then from different IPs, I've been thinking of rewording the first line of the lead so that it is initially a more general statement, and Erik Erikson's definition after that. What these IPs are not understanding on this topic is that the article is about defining young adults psychologically, not legally. Everyone knows that, for the vast majority of the developed world, people are categorized as adults once they reach age 18; the age of majority. But again, the Young adult (psychology) article, though addressing legal adulthood, is not about that (though, seeing the IP in question add material about age of majority to contrast it with the article's topic, it seems he or she eventually realized that). Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I wasn't that keen on the quote templates at that place, as I said. The only good thing is that this IP appears to be a static IP, so we should be able to apply progressively longer blocks if they continue with this mad change (typically up to 1 year max for an IP - in reasonable jumps - I tend to do 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year - but there's no fixed rule). Be vigilant :-) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blond article: ????

hello, what's your problem with me ?? please don't vandalizing my edits just because you're admin i'm sure i don't vandalizing anything let my edits sorry i will not stop i Contributes here --شاول (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that I'm stupid?! You are a prolific WP:Sockpuppet, like I noted at this talk page minutes ago. When it comes to that article and your edits to it, you can't manage to fool even a fool. How many times have I caught you socking at that article? I lost count. Stay off my talk page if you are going to insult my intelligence so atrociously. And stop wasting my time. I would rather be writing than reverting your messes. No, I am not WP:Vandalizing by reverting you. And, no, I'm not a WP:Administrator, no matter how many times I get mistaken for one.

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

Drifting Cowboys edit

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

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

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

Okay, Foustysr. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deity Complex

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

Jdogno5 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Men are Gods, Women are Goddesses. That is always how it has been labeled. Jdogno5 (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated to you on the aforementioned talk page, gods can also be women. Think of how an actor can also be a woman; she does not have to be referred to as an actress. Keep this discussion on the article talk page instead of at mine. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups: Eskimo

Hi Flyer, I actually have been going to the original sources; not indiscriminately switching terms. In the article you mentioned Child sexuality, Rolf Kjellström studied two groups of people, the Tahagmyut of Leaf Bay in Ungava Peninsula and the Eastern Greenlandic Inuit people, the Tunumiit, of the Angmagasalik District, aka Angmagssalik in Greenland. The pdf of his dissertation can be downloaded here: www.gbv.de/dms/ub-kiel/21559682X.pdf. These are real ethnic groups with actual names and locations. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Actually the identities and locations of the ethnic groups are found in the description of his dissertation so I'll add that reference. Some terms are broad, such as Sioux, so I created Dakota people and Category:Dakota people to disambiguate those as well. I've been working on Indigenous American ethnic groups articles steadily for years. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

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

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

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

Please don't bite the newbies

Hi Flyer22. If you're going to undo a brand new user's first ever edit, please at least have the courtesy to leave a message on their talk page explaining why and welcoming them to the project. Thanks. — Scott • talk 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Martin, I'll think about it. But I also think that I generally won't be doing that, taking the time to welcome them. I'm using WP:STiki mostly these days, not WP:Huggle as much anymore. And I don't consider this biting a newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're mistaken, I'm afraid, because what you did is an almost guaranteed way to scare away a new user. Your failure to be kind and thoughtful to someone that clearly doesn't have even the slightest understanding of our rules or how this project works at all is Wikipedia's loss. Using some kind of script tool to warn people is a contributing factor to that, and you should rethink your reliance on it. — Scott • talk 21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Martin, while reverting a newbie without leaving a message might scare away that newbie, it is a common practice on Wikipedia. Some of us like stopping to welcome the newbies; some of us don't or are indifferent to it. My experience has been that such reverts generally do not drive the new editors away. I've read various things from previous Wikipedia editors, including very brief Wikipedia editors, about what drove them away from Wikipedia, and a single revert usually was not it. I usually take the time to help editors (newbies, oldies or those in between) when they come to my talk page for help or when I see that they are trying to re-add the material. And I of course often leave messages with WP:STiki when appropriate. You want me consider leaving a message with every revert I make to a newbie's edit, I presume even when I revert an IP; I stated that I will consider it. And I mean that. After all, it was just last year when an editor, Insulam Simia, wanted me to consider issuing warnings when I revert vandalism or other problematic edits, and I was not big on the notion of consistently doing that. Now look at me, reverting with warnings left and right. But keep in mind that a lot of us do not stop to see if an editor is new or how new the editor is (just because the editor is a red link does not mean he or she is new), or at least we don't consistently do that. And also keep in mind that some of us have different ways of doing things at this site, and that just because you disagree with those ways...it doesn't make them wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you use the pop-up which expands on links by hovering over them (without clicking)? If so, this reveals at a glance how many edits an editor has made, without having to do too much time-consuming investigation and following of links, etc. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never focused much on the edit aspect; just sometimes where it states "autoconfirmed," etc. Either way, I have nothing more to state on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Martin, looking this over, I'm agreeing with Flyer, mostly for reasons of expediency. Reverting an unsourced addition of names without articles on a list of notable people at Fox Primary School article is highly sensible; my experience suggests there is a high likelihood that it could be non-notable friends. Consider that it takes much time and effort for us to continually patrol and police articles like these, and if we had to write a polite little note each time, we'd probably never have time to build the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC) And Flyer is one of the best patrollers we have so maybe there should be rule against biting the oldies?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't raise any issue with Flyer's revert.

If you "don't have the time" to interact with new users in a humane fashion, then you are the worst possible people to be working on our front line. Time and again, research has demonstrated that the very start of a new editor's experience of Wikipedia is a key factor in whether they choose to stay. Impersonal, mechanized "patrolling" is a recipe for the opposite of what we want to achieve - new user retention and long-term engagement. — Scott • talk 13:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue you raised with Flyer's revert was that, in your view, Flyer and all established contributors should feel obligated after a revert to provide an explanatory note on a newbie's talk page explaining why their half-baked additions were reverted. I disagree that any of us should feel so obligated. Such note-writing takes time. There is no indication that I can see that the newbie's contribution was serious by any measure; it sure seems like the three names were added as a prank perhaps, like a student putting in their friends' names. I googled each newbie-added name with "Fox primary school" and found basically no hits; not only did the names not have any articles (customary practice) but no references. If a newbie demonstrates some signs of serious attempt to learn the ropes (almost all newbies), some expression of willingness to learn, then maybe a helpful note is warranted. Rather, I take issue with your comment here, that Flyer -- who does a great job on many articles here -- who should be complimented and respected for her contributions -- is somehow being rude or "impersonal" or "mechanized" when she is helping the encyclopedia by these rather (thankless) tasks of removing the gunk.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Scott Martin: Speaking of the impersonal and the mechanized, how about those impersonal, mechanized "welcome" messages to vandals? I suppose there's a study somewhere purporting to show that they help the project in some way. Our primary goal must always be to build and maintain a better encyclopedia, and we do that first and foremost by improving and defending our articles; recruitment and retention of new volunteers must always be a secondary goal, and deciding when to pursue that it is best left up to the discretion of experienced editors. I've spent a fair amount of time over the years welcoming and assisting new users who show potential, but I certainly haven't wasted my time writing a personalized explanation for every nonconstructive edit I've undone. If I had, I don't suppose I would have done anything else, and there'd be a lot of utter garbage in various articles that isn't there now. Edits such as the one Flyer reverted are a dime a dozen, and some of them do creep in despite the best efforts of human and bot. In Flyer, we're fortunate to have an editor who's highly adept both at building content and at patrolling recent changes, and second-guessing her on something this trivial seems petty and, to be frank, a little bizarre. Rivertorch (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Scott. No one (well, not many) doubts Flyer's editing credentials, but her style, whether intentional or not, helps create a "them and us" culture, where new users feel unwelcomed, talked down to and generally sneered at by self-appointed guardians of the faith, because precise knowledge of WP editing rules has not yet been acquired. It's interesting that in a recent reply to Flyer on an article's talk page, I had included the phrase (before deleting it) "please don't bite me". So, I guess that's two of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.254.89 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of American feminist literature

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

Okay, Arms & Hearts, good looking out. And thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pitt/Robin Givens

While it's an allegation (and I stated that it was), I feel like coverage from The Hollywood Reporter, ABC, VH1, AND The Huffington Post aught to be sufficient enough that it's relevant. I didn't say it was true. I'm not going to revert because I'm fairly new to BLP's, but I'm not getting your rationale for this one. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Corvoe. I explained on the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual intercourse discussion

Hi Flyer, I'm not able to jump into that discussion at the moment because it wouldn't be appropriate for me to review images in my current location. :) I should have time tomorrow to weigh in if needed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ohnoitsjamie. I wasn't looking for you to weigh in on that discussion. I certainly don't mind if you do. It's this discussion I linked you to because the editor does not seem to understand Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS. Flyer22 (talk)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Vandals suck.

Okay, so they do, but someone has to stop saying that they suck and actually get rid of them. Fortunately, thousands of dedicated volunteers work to clean up the mess they leave behind. And you're one of them. Doesn't matter what they leave behind - whether it be graffiti or empty pop cans or spoiled food or XXX images, but we vandal-fighters proudly clean it up. One of the best things about doing this is that you get these lovely awards. And they (the vandals) don't! "Oh, you want this shiny thing? Well go and get your own, turd. This barnstar belongs to those who deserve it." K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see the Transgender article talk page.

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

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

Justin Bieber RfC

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

Talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

OK, understood. Lesion (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:anatomy error revert

Sorry, I hit the wrong button removing your comment. --WS (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		When I look at your overall contributions to Wikipedia, I think defender of the Wiki Barnstar captures well all of your contributions! I am One of Many (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

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

Sockpuppet: User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am focusing on Yemen related articles and in no way similar to the users in questions. --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not similar to that user (not users) in question, I would not have suggested that you are that you user; I would not have given examples as to how you are similar to that user. Either way, it is best that you continue on with what you were doing. Or maybe not "best," depending on what does or does not benefit Wikipedia. But commenting here on my talk page any further is of no help to you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I did not mean to disturb you. You accused me of something out of the blue and had to ask you. --يوسف حسين (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the "vow"

About for my vow I only said that I won't disrespectfully talk women. But if you do a wrong thing and still expect someone to be respectful to you then you need to wake up. Justice does not see who has which gender. Ours is a matriarchal society unless you Christians who believe man are better than woman. Even though we have matriarchal that does not make us believe women are better than men. No unlike you Christians we believe in true equality. Judaism is better than Christianity and I don't blame you for your biased mindset and biased actions. Even though you're non-religious you're still affected by that biased Christian mindset. You were born in it after all. What I said about you in the edit summaries, you know it is real and you're trying to enforce your views. Whatever I said about you and Betty Logan aptly suits you. If you have any guilt for your wrong actions and if you believe in justice please revert your edit yourself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hah knew it. Such a hypocrite you are. Calling yourself feminists and such. Ooh what happened to your vow? Listen to me carefully. You're no feminist you're just a pathetic discriminating person like other feminists who wanna take revenge by opressing men because they've opressed you for so long. I'll never allow this vendetta agenda. You dont't even know what the goal of real feminism is.This is a civilized society not law of the jungle. You know I think there's only one real feminist in the world. And that'sw me. I hardly doubt there is any real feminist left in this world except me. For once stop being so discriminatory and be a real human being for once. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bigotry towards Jews? Well I am Jew myself so I don't know how I am a bigot towards Jews. I think I gotta ask my Rabbi if someone made me a bigot towards Jews that too when I myself am a Jew. Also I made this statement because I've been insulted many times by Christians because I am a Jew. I suggest you take back your foolish comment of "bigotry towards Jews". You are a bigot towards men. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little before this latest post of yours, I read all of your post that contained the Jewish comment and saw that you were referring to yourself. So I struck through my comments about the Jewish matter above. WP:Edit conflicts followed. Either way, you need to disengage from me now. Stop coming to me every time you get into a dispute with Betty, and take the matter directly to Betty instead and/or the article talk page...like you are supposed to do. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, not a bigot toward men. A bigot toward certain men? Yes indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Bigot towards certain men". Gender discrimination. Again! Thanks for proving me right again. Also I didn't come to you because I had a problem with Betty. I came here because you have a problem with me. You are interfering in my constructive edits, you are making destructive edits against me in order to enforce your views. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness. The "certain men" part has to do with their personalities, not because of their sex. I have not proven your point in the least. Go away already. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow now we're having a real brother-sister fight aren't we. Thanks for telling me to go away. That's what you get for giving someone the position of your elder sister. Insults. If that's your wish my sister then I shall go. But please don't hate me for what I said. Trust me I actually have no intention of hurting your heart. Trust me I would never ever wanted to do such a thing to an elder of mine. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Huh of course why would you think of me as a brother. I guess I am a loser anyway. You still think I insulted you but what I said was the truth. Still anway why are you hating me over it? Ofcourse it's your choice and your right to accept me as your brother or not. But why insult me over it and why hate me over it? What I have done wrong that you gotta hate me and insult me? KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate you, but you should turn some of those questions around on yourself. There is no truth in your silliness, and it's obvious above what you have done wrong. Betty has taken the Gone with the Wind matter to the article talk page; so either go resolve that matter there, or drop it and leave me alone. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either like "hanging out" on your page anyway. Goodbye. Oh and I just wanna say one last thing to you. And actually it's the only thing I wanna say to you after your repeated insults. I hate you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really getting in the spirit of the day, are we? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Court

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

The link, seen in this edit, shows differently to me. It clearly states, "[Slang of U.S. origin.]." Whether you see justification for the source stating that is irrelevant. Flyer22 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Get a life.

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

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

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

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

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

Shemale penis

Where can that image of a female with the penis go. It seems to be a clitoris, but does look like a penis. Could you tell me what the name of that thing which females could possibly have a penis like other shemales have?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HappyLogolover2011, like I stated here, that image is not of a clitoris; it is of a human penis. I'm not sure how you think it looks like a clitoris, but a clitoris cannot reach that size through hormones or at all. Not even with phalloplasty, which is about constructing a more natural-looking penis. And a scrotum certainly does not develop to accompany the clitoris via hormones. I'm not sure what article your image would fit in.

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

Why not try Hermaphrodite or maybe Intersex articles. I'm not sure how females can actually get a penis, but I know they can get vagina and other female genital parts when they are born.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just - no. I think the topic you're searching for is phalloplasty, but that image does not belong there. Or anywhere else, for that matter - Alison ^❤ 00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alison. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phalloplasty is the surgery that reconstructs the penis. What I was mentioning about is that a trans women who have the penis, but without surgery (which you might find that they are born like that and don't have those stitches attached to the penis. Surgery will have stitches on it and bruises if altered by the doctors during surgery.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

please do not revert my edits without trying to build a consensus: Cisgender article

for reference, please read this:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Do_not_revert_during_talk_page_discussions#Consensus-building_in_talk_pages 24.220.174.68 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notice: Personal talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Reliable Source": Asexuality article

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Asexuality article" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange, because apparently https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Asexuality#cite_note-Relationships-17 http://www.asexuality.org/home/relationship.html is a "reliable" source (AVEN), but my references to AVEN wiki were not. Hmm? Urvabara (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this also doesn't seem very reliable a source, does it? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Asexuality#cite_note-Wellington-18 http://www.gayline.gen.nz/asexual.htm "Sorry, we can't show you that!" Urvabara (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Congratulations from STiki

The Platinum STiki Barnstar of Merit

Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 50,000 classification threshold using STiki.

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

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POVFORK

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

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

Unconstructive edit?

Hi, you left a message on my talk page a while ago and reverted an edit to the City of Boroondara page here. Looks like STiki got it wrong this time ;) Coral Ross is the current mayor and all councillors have the title of 'Cr': http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your_council/councillors-wards/wards/gardiner Takerlamar (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that, Takerlamar. It's often on Wikipedia that editors WP:Vandalize names in cases such as these (the principal of a school, mayor of a town, etc.). I will revert that warning I left on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you formulate one yourself

About this revert: [14] Please have a look at the concerns expressed here: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#ASSERT. As worded, the section implies that any statement in a RS that has not been contradicted, can be asserted in Wikipedia's voice as fact. Since this is not a good idea, and you don't like my wording, I suggest you reword it yourself. LK (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He/She

Apologies for not remembering your gender Flyer. I've not been as active as i'd like since my job changed. Have a nice day ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here at the Homosexuality talk page. I did wonder how you didn't know that I'm female, whether you never paid much attention to any pronouns that may have been used in that regard during our brief interactions (or when seeing my interactions with others) or whether you'd simply forgotten. Thanks for explaining, Jenova20, and no worries about that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I have a learning disorder (ironically i couldn't remember the correct word there, but it's Dyslexia) I sometimes struggle to learn things, while easily memorising others. It's a quirk. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. And again, no problem regarding the sex/gender matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of paraphrasing: Gender identity disorder article

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Gender identity disorder article" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can copy this discussion to that Talk Page. The most relevant source document is Zhou et al. (1995), and it speaks of an ongoing interaction between brain structure and sex hormones. So hormones matter too. The fact that brain structure isn't the only factor implies that not every male with a normally-female brain structure will be trans. However, the source does not specify in the abstract what percentage of cases bear out the typical pattern concerning brain structure and transgenderism. If someone could archive the full article for Wikipedia citations, and not just the abstract, that would be helpful. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, pinging Legitimus for full access to the works. As stated on his user page, "Have a copyrighted journal article you can't access but would like investigated? If it's medical or psychological, leave me a message on my talk and I will see what I can do." Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I think I can get that. Were there other papers besides Zhou?Legitimus (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Legitimus. As for other papers, you mean regarding this dispute between me and The Mysterious El Willstro? If so, as the diff-link shows, he also altered text sourced to Berglund & team. If you mean studies on this topic in general, I'm not so familiar with the research on brain anatomy in this regard that I can name researchers outside of this Wikipedia dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have Zhou and Berglund as PDFs and will send them by e-mail soon. I cannot post them as they are copyrighted and also because Zhou is so old the PDF is a scan of a paper copy, so cannot be pasted. This particular area is a far bit away from my expertise so I can't provide any insight or guidance on the topic right this second. I will need to do some reading to catch up.Legitimus (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. It would be good to email them to both me and The Mysterious El Willstro, or I'll email them to The Mysterious El Willstro once you email them to me. That stated, I'm sure there's some appropriate hosting site that can house the PDFs so that we can link to them on the article talk page and make them accessible to others; in that way, it will hardly be any different than when someone links to a Google Books source. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The Mysterious El Willstro, regarding "not every male with a normally-female brain structure will be trans"... There is research out there indicating that some gay men have a female brain structure. But as you likely can imagine, that research is very controversial, likely more controversial than research indicating that some transgender women have a female brain structure. The latter aspect possibly being problematic in some cases is briefly discussed in the Gender identity disorder article; it states, "However, these markers do not identify every individual who undergoes transition, and using them to define transsexualism could falsely exclude some people from treatment." Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{User shared IP address|Halo Jerk1}}
-Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. If you want to know more about me, see [[User:Flyer22|my user page]]. My work, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was even blocked. [[User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases|See the block cases]]. And it's during that first block case that I learned a lot about [[WP:Assume good faith]] and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible.
+Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and would wish to be blocked. If you want to know more about me, see [[User:Flyer22|my user page]]. My work, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was even blocked because my request is answered. [[User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases|See the block cases]]. And it's during that first block case that I learned a lot about [[WP:Assume good faith]] and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible. I swear a lot.
 Especially see [[User:Flyer22#Main type of editing style]] for why what you consider neutral, or what you consider needed with regard to images, likely differs from my view;  don't know about you, but I'm following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines in that regard. '''Any questions, compliments or criticism of my Wikipedia work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.'''