User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 15

Changes

Hello. Thank you for your message. Why did you undo my changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herenotthere (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, I edited the Wiki page "Best-Selling R&B Albums" for OutKast and especially Bob Marley are not R&B artists, therefore their albums should not be on that page, hence why I edited it as to remove those albums from the list. Why would you put them back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.192.213 (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. It looked like vandalism to me; that's why I gave you a vandalism note. I haven't read the sources on the matter...yet, but if those sources disagree with you, we should go by those sources. I'm sure that there are WP:Reliable sources out there that refer to OutKast as R&B, wrong or right. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

School projects?

Isn't there supposed to be something special done for school projects (see [1] and that page's edit history)? Bit worried about COI, but more just wondering as this is the first time I've encountered it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "something special done for school projects"? Do you mean what is addressed by WP:Student assignments? Or perhaps you mean the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard? And I'd state that you've likely encountered school-project editing before, but didn't know it, such as at the Gender article (a common target for WP:Student assignments). I stated it before, and I'll state it again: I'm not a fan of people editing Wikipedia as part of a student project; this discussion, currently linked in the GA section on my user page, addresses why. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. That's what I was thinking of. I'll check out the discussion you posted. I'm not sure what I think about school projects yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes they help improve Wikipedia, like WP:Student assignments acknowledges, even if more experienced Wikipedia editors have to clean up after them. And sometimes (more often than not) they create messes that are not beneficial to Wikipedia, like WP:Student assignments acknowledges. I do keep in mind that they are usually WP:Newbies, but (though I used to generally be fine with it before years editing this place hardened me) I'm not a Wikipedia editor who enjoys guiding newbies and/or cleaning up after them; I sometimes do it when it seems needed, though, especially if the editing is centered on a topic I care about. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Use talk pages for talk

Please use talk pages for talk, not strings of null-edit summaries at major guideline pages; you are triggering 100s of people's watchlists for no reason when you do the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I use WP:Dummy edits (not the same thing as WP:Null) as appropriate. I'm not going to take something to a talk page that does not need to be taken to a talk page. The same often applies when it's something that likely does not need to be taken to a talk page. If you are referring to this matter, which it seems that you are, judging by your revert of another editor's edit, I was correcting a previous edit summary, which is exactly one of the things that WP:Dummy edits are for. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that my WP:Dummy edits made it more difficult to catch that addition by Pol098, but I'm not going to let one of my incorrect edit summaries stand. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your work on Human sexuality. I didn't have the patience for it and kudos to you for having more than I.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, EvergreenFir. I was certainly clear near the end of that discussion that I had no desire to see it seemingly go on forever. That editor apparently does not let up until he gets his way or at least a compromise. And since he's delved into sexual and anatomy topics, I very likely will "have to" interact with him again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Todd update plus other stuff

Hi Fly, I was going to write this on the Todd talk page, but then I realized that it was getting a little too personal, so I moved over here to respond to some of your statements.

Sorry it's been a little while since I've responded over there; between feeling a little un-well, RL busyness, and other fish to fry here, I haven't been able to get back to this article. Which is a shame because despite this article being intense at times, it's a nice reprieve and distraction from everything else. I'm kinda mad, though; this week, GH is showing the Nurses Ball, which is a tradition from way back, and I've always wanted Howarth involved, but this is the second year since they revived the Ball and his second year on the show, and nothing! Instead, they had Franco and Carly go on the lam together! I did love it, though, when he leaned towards her and asked her, "Carly, would you go on the lam with me?" ([2] starting at 31:13) How can anyone say no to that! But I digress. I've also been following some of your recent difficulties, and have been sending good thoughts your way. I sympathize, really I do. I hope that Todd can be a distraction for you as well.

I haven't been frustrated with you at all. I also recognize that we have different styles, but I sense and appreciate your sincerity in making this article better. Collaborating with you has been fun; I've learned a lot about how to do it better and about improving a difficult soap article and about how to redeem the unredeemable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, there is never any need to apologize for taking days or weeks, or even months, off from working on the Todd Manning article in your Todd sandbox and on the Todd Manning talk page. Again, I'm in no hurry to edit that article and am busy with various other things (on and off Wikipedia). The reason that I stated (at the end of the Characteristics section) "I have perhaps at times frustrated you a bit, but it's only because I care about the article and we have some different editing styles that we are bringing together to improve this article." is because I know that I've been picky at times when it comes to some of the things we are working on at the article talk page, such as headings, and I'd find it perfectly understandable to get frustrated with that. I don't view our working together there as intense, but I thank you for clarifying how you've been feeling during our interactions. I also thank you for your good wishes with regard to getting past the recent troubles shown above on my talk page. I'm past that block now. Do I hate it that my block log now has an edit warring block in addition to the others? Yes. Do I accept the explanation for the block? No. But that's just the way that it is. I do get past slights and forgive and when I feel that sincerity in the person and when it's something I believe is forgivable. Blocking me is not something that is unforgivable; it's the rationale that went into it that may give me pause. The most recent editor to block me is someone whose sincerity I can't trust on the matter, for different reasons, in addition to the fact that, despite being repeatedly told that I'm female and seeing others refer to me by female pronouns, he continues to refer to me as "Flyer22, "they," etc. instead of as "she," "her" and so on, which shows a complete lack of respect.

Thanks for the note. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fly, are you on the Gendergap mailing list? As inconsistent as it is, it has been a good place for support and encouragement, and I've found it helpful, even if it's knowing that there are people (women and men) who get the whole gendergap thing. I must say, I've never experienced the amount of sexism (overt and covert) that's here in WP. Part of the reason for it is that I just don't go to the places on the internet or in the world where it's an issue. My problem IRL is that I'm middle aged and don't have the socially-accepted appearance for females, so people make assumptions about me, which is really annoying. My other problem is that I forgive easily as well, so sometimes that means that people take advantage of me, which seems to be your problem as well. There was the time when I was overtly ridiculed for using my female discourse (downplaying my expertise, attempting to use consensus), but I chose to just let it go and not bother engaging because I didn't think it was worth it. Of course, that probably meant that he thought he won the argument, but since I don't usually have anything to do with him here, I dropped it. The gendergap list just had a discussion about how being a female editor teaches us how to survive in a male-dominated, antagonistic environment, until more women can influence these settings for the better, which is a good point, I think. So be encouraged by the fact that in the end, you were the victor (using male-speak) and he was the one who looked bad (switching back to the superior female discourse). ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

What do you mean? - Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Shane Cyrus, by "Coming to this talk page via the Justin Bieber article.", I simply mean that I see you editing the Justin Bieber article and that I decided to check out your talk page by seeing you there. Flyer22 (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber=well, I will be discreet…so I won't say:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJMnCatz (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Eidetic memory

Please don't keep bulk reverting my additions without discussion on the talk page. It's better to improve on the exact parts that you would like to improve. You're reason for reverting the edits is not accurate, so I think it requires further discussion. "No" is not descriptive. Thanks. Let99 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Let99, I was not reverting without discussion. You reverted thinking that just making a comment on the talk page or another editor's talk page and telling me not to revert again means that your edit gets to stay. No, not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. But then again, your lack of experience regarding the way Wikipedia is supposed to work is already apparent to me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really want to argue about it with you. I just want to fix the wrong information in the article. If you want to help make the article accurate rather than just enforce rules, then help me to find the best way to word it rather than just deleting my free work for the site. Please have at least some background in the topic if you want to debate fine points about wording or common knowledge in the field. Let99 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Let99, I WP:Assume good faith regarding your involvement with the Eidetic memory article. I'm just not too motivated to engage you any further on it. I don't need to have "at least some background in the topic," but I know quite a lot about the topic, mainly because I took an interest in it when addressing the degree to which I can remember things. I've told you before, it's about what the WP:Reliable sources state, and they conflict on the interchangeability factor. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Favor

I feel dumb asking this, but... I've recently noticed on some pages I get a panel on the right side that prompts me to "review" articles. From what I gather, it's to check newly created articles. Is this part of my "reviewer" rights? I was only really told about the pending changes page and didn't recall reading about this other type of review. More info would be awesome. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are clicking on. If you didn't have it until your WP:Reviewer rights were granted, it's safe to assume it has to do with that. I barely use my WP:Reviewer rights; I usually leave that matter to someone else when I see that alert pop up in front of me, unless I see that it's vandalism or some other unconstructive edit (though I occasionally ignore that as well). So it's one of the several features of Wikipedia I have not made myself very familiar with; other aspects I don't care much for are WP:My preferences. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's the New Page Patrol sidebar. Not at all related to reviewer rights: Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help

Flyer22, do you mind me stalking your page? I'll go away if you like. I can't tell if it's creepy or not. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Meteor sandwich yum, watching someone's talk page is fine. You are not the first to watch my talk page and you won't be the last; as the Blocked section above on my talk page shows, it can also be the case that an editor has a watcher they'd rather not have watching. If you mean whether or not I mind you weighing in on a matter here when you feel like it, like what is noted at Wikipedia:Talk page stalker, I don't mind that. Some of my talk page watchers do that, though not on every matter. Sometimes they follow me to an article. As long as I feel no WP:Harassment and it's bettering Wikipedia, then okay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as you're comfortable with it. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Cough*Iwatchthispagetoo*Cough EvergreenFir (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure (*snicker*) Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Great work! I often see your reverts when I revert edits as well. Keep it up! JustBerry (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, JustBerry. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, well deserved. Also, Flyer22, are you on IRC? If so, what is your username? --JustBerry (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, JustBerry, I'm not on WP:IRC; I have yet to use that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Come join me in #wikipedia-en-help or ##justberry. Feel free to message me if you come on. Looking forward to messaging you! :D --JustBerry (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Also, how did you receive rollback rights, Flyer22? --JustBerry (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

JustBerry:See Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting_rollback --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) or... an admin can give it to you unrequested as happened with Flyer in 2008

"Rollback

You have been granted with rollback, for more information, please refer to this page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)"--Wlmg (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Grats EvergreenFir (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to answer JustBerry's query about that, or rather neglected to do so since NeilN had answered him. Thanks for answering as well, Wlmg, and for refreshing my memory. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

?: Celibacy article

I can't help thinking that there is some kind of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing going on on that article, to contort and twist the notion. According some not so representative views, [3], I say this sounds like New age talk to me. The others... [4] ^{Can't help wondering if these authors are having accounts here...} Hafspajen (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, are you referring to any of my recent changes to the Celibacy article, as seen here, here, here, here and here? Or do you mean this, this and this matter? Since you have thanked me via WP:Echo for my edits to the Celibacy article before, including recently for this, it doesn't seem that you are referring to my edits. Either way, I assure you that I have no vested interest in the topic of celibacy and that I am only going by the WP:Reliable sources at that article with WP:Due weight. With regard to the Gabrielle Brown and Elizabeth Abbott material, I don't think that is a result of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing; as you know, though, there has certainly been Wikipedia:Tendentious editing going on with the topic of involuntary celibacy (incel). Whether or not to keep the Gabrielle Brown material should be based on WP:Due weight; that paragraph asserts that she is not the only one who holds that view; therefore, it might be best to retain that paragraph. I don't feel strongly on that matter either way. As for having Wikilinked Gabrielle Brown, I feel that she should not be Wikilinked unless her article will be created any time soon or unless she should have a Wikipedia article; this is per the WP:Red link guideline.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": 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) 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Man I don't mean YOU, don't make me cry. Sorry if you thought I meant you. No, nonno, it is the incel-thing. I think the whole article has been reworked to match those ideas. You are doing an exelent work on it! I mean that it was changed here and there just to try to put in those new ideas about celibacy as incel. Somebody was looking (Not YOU), desperately for sources to support this teory, and now we have a lot of weird sources, like this Wikilinked Gabrielle Brown, who will never have an article.... (we should remove the whole sentence...) Hafspajen (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Hafspajen; I just had to be 100% sure as to your concern. I noted above that it doesn't seem that you meant me. And thank you. The Celibacy article is, for the most part, the same as it's been for a long time, putting aside your significant changes and improvements to it. But I understand what you mean with regard to the incel topic. If you think that the Gabrielle Brown paragraph is WP:Undue weight, it might be best that you start a section about it on the Celibacy article talk page and ask those watching that article if they think it is WP:Undue weight and should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's an idea! Hafspajen (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That discussion...: melissajoanhart.ning.com WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion

(I'm assuming you meant "was unintended" rather than "wasn't unintended". :-) ) Sadly, I think the flow of the thread has been lost. I thought about trying to sort it out (perhaps with some sub-headings) but decided not to get flamed - especially because it'll probably make no different to the battlediscussion.--Otus scops (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Otus scops. I meant "wasn't unintended," for the reasons I stated in that edit summary. I intentionally WP:Indented the IP's post that way because "I misread the proper format for that [post] when making the move." As for the flow of the thread, it's very often that the flow of Wikipedia threads are the way the one in question is formatted, considering that editors on Wikipedia often place their comments ahead of others' to reply to a specific post; hardly ever does a Wikipedia discussion have good chronological order.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": melissajoanhart.ning.com WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion" 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) 22:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I misunderstood the way you phrased your edit summary, but I get it now - sorry for incorrectly suggesting you'd made a typo! And sorry for my sloppy heading.--Otus scops (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I wondered why you removed my information concerning the murders of the Russian POWs at Vollevannet? I have now included a link to the local history page describing the events. It is in Norwegian and I feel that some of this information should be in English. I had planned to go down to the lake this evening and photograph the cross and place the names of the POWs on the page. While everyone involved is dead, I had thought that it is far from certain that the relatives of the Russians ever knew what happened to their family because this story has not (as far as I know) ever been told in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minuett68 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Grand, we've made it! I'm pleased to see that now the Frozen article has a broader coverage of the film; and I'd like to thank you for your ideas and revisions on the issue, which has lasted for months. Let's take a coffee to relax :D I also have a personal request for you, if you are interested: an editor has nominated Frozen for good article review when things haven't settled down yet. Unfortunately, before I could delete the nomination template, a reviewer had taken up and started the reviewing process. If you want, please add the review page to your watchlist and help solving the issues once they are listed there. Thanks in advance! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 12:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran, sorry that I'm just now getting back to you about that. I don't drink coffee (tasted it once or twice as a kid and decided that I'll never like it; maybe I should try Starbucks), but thanks for the offer. I thank you for your work on that article, and for the section in question, as well.

As for the WP:GA review, yes, I've seen that the article is nominated for WP:GA status. I'll consider helping with the suggestions that the WP:GA reviewer there makes, but no promises that I will. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the article for deletion Pussy

But maybe parts of the article can be split up into different categories. Perhaps the article should have a Slang notice attached to the word like Pussy (Slang) and then the word Pussy could be redirected to Vagina. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2014‎ (UTC)

JasonHockeyGuy, it's best that you keep your views on the matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pussy (2nd nomination)‎ instead of bringing them to my talk page or to another editor's talk page, as you also did in the case of BD2412. Keeping the discussion at the deletion debate is to keep the discussion centralized (see WP:TALKCENT) instead of fragmented across Wikipedia.

On a side note: I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazing.. I remember commenting on this Nomination previously, check this. I have inserted same comment again. OccultZone (Talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I am new here and very glad 2 see such a GREAT writer....ALL THE BEST FOR UR FUTURE ARTICLES Christian Merlyn (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Interspecies bias

Dear Flyer22, Regarding your reversion of interspecies bias, it is important to respect the rights of other animals. We are not toe only ones to liv on this planet, other innocent creatures share it with us. We must respect their rights, even if they cannot read or write Wikipedia articles (similar to some humans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.49.25 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. Regarding this, this and this, I am not interested in your animal rights cause (except for when it comes to reverting you on it). Wikipedia is not the place for your WP:Advocacy. In every part of the world, humans give especial weight to humans over non-human animals, for obvious reasons, and I'm quite certain that the world will always be that way, which is not a bad thing in my opinion. If you want to preach to me about animal rights and animal equality, then I suggest you acknowledge that humans are also animals by using the wording "non-human animals" or "other animals" like I do when using the word animal to refer to animals that are not human. And perhaps become a vegetarian, like I am (though I'm more of a vegetarian due to habit and thinking that vegetarianism may be a healthier diet than regular consumption of meat; the healthy aspect depends). Flyer22 (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And I just minutes ago noticed that you used "other animals" above in this section. Okay then. Flyer22 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Slang

Thank you, and thanks also for your comment. You're right, of course, about my too-general assertion concerning slang. There has been one editor who loves the specific "morning wood" expression in particular, and got into an edit war a couple of years ago at "penile". I had been hoping this problem had finally gone away. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Reading your userpage, I find that editor already listed on your sockpuppet watch. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this and this, Milkunderwood. Though I thanked you via WP:Echo for removing the slang from there, I thank you again. I am well aware of Pass a Method's affinity for slang, and your disputes with him in that regard over the erection/nocturnal penile tumescence topics. Before looking at my user page, were you aware of his recent account troubles (topic ban and eventually abandoning that account to avoid scrutiny and get around that ban)? Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't been checking up. (I don't really "edit" here in the sense of trying to work on articles - other than List of compositions by Alan Hovhaness which I basically got snookered into compiling; and doing a bunch of work on Budapest String Quartet recordings. I did get into a big scrum over whether Moonlight Sonata was an appropriate article title; and a few years ago I had a grand scheme in mind for a complete re-do of Arthur Rubinstein discography, but got shot down by the page's "owner". To the contrary I just come to look up stuff, and not infrequently find something in an article that could use a bit of editing help.)

I try to avoid PaM; but a couple of hours ago I did restore my old wording at Morning wood that he had removed. If you look at my edits, it's easy to see that I wander a lot, finding something in one article that leads me somewhere else, and on and on. Generally I post more on talk pages than in articles. Tonight I really came because I was confused by something I read about Helicobacter pylori in the new Scientific American - that it's actually bad for you not to be colonized by it.

I meant to ask you: where does your Badke quote begin? With "Admit it"? That wasn't at all clear to me from your formatting.

Milkunderwood (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Milkunderwood, it begins with "Admit it" (as the source for it on my user page shows). That was added several years ago, back when I felt a lot better about Wikipedia than I do now; several years of labor and frustration at this site, facing all kinds of things that make me want to pull my hair out, has made me far less enthusiastic about it than when I was a WP:Newbie. Feel free to change my formatting for the Badke quote. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking you at your word to "feel free to change the formatting", I think right-shifting as blockquotes helps. Since the entire quotation takes more than a single screen, I was looking for how to make the huge curly quotation marks that I've seen occasionally, but haven't found an example to copy. If you know how to make them, I think they would help clarify it. (I did find this but can't decipher the edit page.)

Also, I thought the "busy" display is fun and interesting, but confusingly placed relative to the Badke quotation - so I've moved it to follow Badke rather than preceding it.

Just revert me to restore your page. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor Inquiry

If quite a lot of (let's say 7~10) editors kick in and question a previous consensus (like the one on Talk: Frozen (2013 film)), should the discussion be restarted and reach another consensus? Forbidden User (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Forbidden User, you're still concerned about this matter, I see. Obviously a new discussion to assess WP:Consensus could be started for that matter; that doesn't mean that one should be started. I was clear that if their arguments hold no water as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are concerned, their arguments are very likely to be discounted by me. But if a flock of "new editors" suddenly pour down on that LGBT parallels matter to object to its inclusion, I'm more inclined to think that they are WP:Sockpuppets, or a version of that -- WP:Meatpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, there's a GA review going on (and I'm the nominator), so I'm still quite concerned about what I count as "notable development". Thanks, Flyer22!Forbidden User (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Mail!

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

Narcolepsy caused by fish

Hi Flyer22!

I tried four times to add to the narcolepsy article that fish can cause narcolepsy. I unfortunately have no source that I can cite. But I know it because of my own experience. Isn't that enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.120.64 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, IP. Your personal experience is not enough. See WP:Verifiability. And for medical material in particular, the type of sourcing required for Wikipedia articles is noted at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As per your request

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

As discussed on Talk: Todd Manning. Thanks as always. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why revert my edit? Human skin color article.

You reverted my edit to the Human skin color article, but why? I edited a link because the html code was too long and was causing the whole page to become elongated horizontally. I don't see why you reverted it, but if there is some good reason can you please explain?. --Hibernian (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hibernian, look closer at the edit (which is what I should have done before reverting you). I reverted you because I thought you were randomly moving the reference away from the sentence. You did move the reference away from the sentence, but not as far as it looks from the diff-link.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Human skin color 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) 05:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, whatever, I've done the edit again now. If you have anymore problems with it, tell me. --Hibernian (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hibernian, yes, I saw the change. No reason for me to have a problem with it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You Suck!

	Come on then
	Square Go Like SJFRA (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Why thank you, lovely vandal SJFRA (talk · contribs). Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL!! You seriously just did a cover or parody version of Ridin'. LOL!! Oh you silly vandals. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Better yet, White and Nerdy (it includes Wikipedia). Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 22:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about referring to that. But since the Ridin' Wikipedia article mentions it, I decided not to. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

But then again, since Al says "You Suck!" in the video, maybe I should have referred to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat puppetry

Hi Flyer22, I understand you are an expert sock hunter. Well, I would like to tap your wisdom in regards to a possible case or cases at Talk:Personality test. There are certain claims of at least meat puppetry already being floated. One of the editors claims to have nine years of experience editing Wikipedia and comes to us today as an IP editor with scarcely three weeks' worth of edits. I am curious about all of this and would like to hear your opinions on it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really hunt them; I simply usually cannot be fooled by them. This is because they do something that easily indicates to me that they are a WP:Sockpuppet or are an otherwise experienced Wikipedia editor (such as signing their username, despite the fact that the vast majority of WP:Newbies do not sign their username for their first comment or for their other early initial comments; it usually takes WP:Newbies practice to get acquainted with signing their username). I am often able to put little things like that (different aspects of their editing style) together and identify the IP or registered editor as a WP:Sockpuppet, as in this case; in that case, you can see that I listed different ways that a WP:Sockpuppet is easily identified, and you can see that the WP:Sockpuppet's response was to deny until blocked, all the while further convincing me of the WP:Sockpuppetry at hand because of the WP:Sockpuppet-style responses. But to identify an editor as a specific WP:Sockpuppet of a previous account, I have to be familiar with their past Wikipedia behavior (even if only recently familiarizing myself with that behavior). You are referring to the IP that you and I have interacted with together because the IP was acting in a problematic way, as seen here and here, but I am not familiar with that IP outside of those exchanges (I think); I have no previously registered account to compare that IP to, unless you give me one. There are cases where a Wikipedia editor chooses to edit as an IP, and, as is well known on Wikipedia, it is common for a Wikipedia editor's IP address to change, especially if the Wikipedia editor has a dynamic IP. It's not usual that a Wikipedia editor has been editing solely as an IP for nine years; it's far more likely that the IP has had a previous registered Wikipedia account. But as to whether or not the IP in question is breaking the WP:Sockpuppet policy is another matter. Why are you and the IP in question continually involved with each other across Wikipedia? Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality

Hi, just a heads up that you had asked for this article to be userfied over six months back. I have removed the AfC templates and marked it as a user draft, so it won't get deleted just yet. Rankersbo (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Rankersbo, I won't be working on that any time soon, if at all. It mostly got moved to my user space so that it could be saved from deletion in case any of that content may be valuable for an existing Wikipedia article. Is the discussion that took place between Calliopejen1 and I about it still accessible or is it deleted and only WP:Administrators can read that previous discussion? From what I remember, I proposed a few candidates regarding where Calliopejen1 could merge that content, and that some redundancy would need to be cut during the merge, but Calliopejen1 did not have the time or enthusiasm to do so. So Calliopejen1 proposed that it be saved to my user space, and I accepted that. As for deleting it... Considering that it's a part of my user space, like some other long neglected things, I don't see why it would need to be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I can answer the last bit: when the article was moved the WP:AfC templates were left on it. Articles with AfC templates that are abandoned for more than 6 months are checked and deleted whether they are in wikipedia, draft or user space. I have now marked it as a user draft, so it won't be deleted unless you yourself mark it for deletion. Rankersbo (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Rankersbo. Thanks. In that previous discussion, I might have also indicated that the above draft is problematic, and partly needs tweaking, because it somewhat confuses sexual orientation with sexual identity. Scientists generally are not of the opinion that sexual orientation changes, but rather state that sexual identity, including sexual orientation identity, can change due to further exploration of sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And indeed, a good number of sources in the drat use the words "sexual orientation identity," "sexual orientation and identity" and "sexual identity development" instead of solely "sexual orientation." Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW if you don't plan on working on it soon, you or I could move it to the draft space (I don't think that existed when I came across this AFC draft) so that someone else might work on it eventually... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah, Calliopejen1, I'd rather leave it with me, per what I stated above. That draft has problems that I easily recognize due to my familiarity with the topic, and some of that material is better left to other Wikipedia articles, such as the Erotic plasticity article (the merge aspect I mentioned before). I still don't see the topic as needing its own Wikipedia article. You are more than free to work on it in my user space if you ever feel like doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Kristeen Young

There was a huge wp:vandalism on that article on 21 May at 3:36 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristeen_Young&action=edit&undoafter=609473384&undo=609477251. I see that you have reverted another post right after this one and didn't notice the previous vandalism. I obviously presume wp:good faith from your part but would you please next time also check out the history of that page. That would be useful. Indeed, I added a picture, several sources proving that this singer has collaborated with famous acts/producers such as David Bowie, Dave Grohl, Morrissey, Brian Molko or Tony Visconti. All of this information had been erased: this was clearly a lame attempt from a singer's detractor. Thanks for being careful about this issue next time you check out this article. Greetings. Woovee (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Woovee, I often look further into the edit history when reverting vandalism. And it's often that I don't, usually when using WP:STiki or WP:Huggle. This revert that you mentioned was not sufficient, but at least your revert after that was. Thanks for the heads up. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Constructive? Peter Duesberg article.

I don't know what that means. I find your high-handed revisions troubling as I do the overheated use of terms like "conspiracy theories" and "AIDS Denialism" (for all his faults, Duesberg does not "deny" AIDS.) Also you're talk of relegating me to the "sandbox" is a transparent attempt to control the page via pedantry--its not your personal satrapy. Since we essentially agree on the merits of the Duesberg hypothesis I suggest you allow for some compromise here. Detmcphierson (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Detmcphierson (talk · contribs), I had to look into your WP:Edit history to see what you are talking about. You're talking about when I reverted you when you were this IP. Looking at that article's edit history, and seeing as I didn't warn you on your Detmcphierson account, but rather when you were an IP, it's easy to deduce that you are that IP. I reverted you once. Since then, you have been reverted by Yobol, 123chess456 and Jarkeld, as seen here, here and here. It seems that you came to me about this because I'm the first editor at User talk:2604:2000:F6C6:7C01:5AB0:35FF:FE73:EC9D who left you a message about your editing of that article. But I don't care much about what is going on that article. It seems that your edits appeared problematic to me via WP:STiki and so I reverted you. You've taken the matter to the article talk page. So I suggest you discuss it there, among editors who care more about the matter than I do, instead of attempting to discuss it with me.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Peter Duesberg 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) 23:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How very transparent. You revert my edits, message me about it, and suggest I respond on your Talk page. Now you're ducking addressing my arguments on its merits because you "don't care." But a battalion of like minded peers who agree with your reverts enter the fray. Given such a flurry of revisions in short order--on a holiday--maybe you should be, per your specialty, hunting sock-puppets? But again "you don't care" so that's only 3 wiki users with a penchant for unnecessarily authoritarian language I have to worry about. Oh, and thanks for the clarification on my heading. Detmcphierson (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Detmcphierson (talk · contribs), your characterization of me is wrong. Yes, the WP:STiki tool left you a message in my username because I reverted your edits as "test/vandalism" with that tool. It told you this: " Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Peter Duesberg because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)"

Does that message state that I have to care about the topic at hand, that I have to debate you on it? No. I routinely revert problematic edits at this site using the WP:STiki or WP:Huggle tool. I and many other editors at this site do that because we care about reverting the problematic edits; the vast majority of the time in these case, it's not because we have an interest in the topic. If you don't like that, then okay. But at least two of the editors who reverted you at that article care about that topic; so you would be better off opining to them than here at my talk page criticizing me. And my specialty is not hunting WP:Sockpuppets; nice of you to take the time to read some or all of my talk page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes to "Bisexuality" page

Hello -- you recently undid some of the changes I had made to the "Bisexuality" page on the basis of vandalism. The changes I made were not vandalism, nor were they experimentation. I've re-edited it; please don't change it back again. 206.208.133.156 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

ETA: The definition currently on the Bisexuality page -- "attraction to both males and females" -- is incorrect as according to the bisexual community itself. This is a harmful spread of misinformation, as is the idea that only two sexes and genders exist. You also removed the addition of asexuality as a possible sexuality, which is frankly offensive, as asexuality gets little visibility elsewhere as well. 206.208.133.156 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. No, you should not change it back again. As you can see, you keep getting reverted, and not just by me. If you keep the reverting up, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You clearly see the hidden note, so you should cut out your WP:Disruptive editing. Your changes contradict the initial WP:Reliable sources, and you are changing quoted material to state something contradictory to what the quoted material states, which is against MOS:QUOTE. The alternative definition of bisexuality is already in the lead and lower in the article, covered by the topic of pansexuality; the initial definition is what it is in the Bisexuality Wikipedia article, per the WP:Due weight policy. When it comes to relaying information on Wikipedia, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight, not our personal opinion (or at least we are not supposed to go by our personal opinion), and they (when speaking of sexual and/or romantic attraction) define bisexuality in two ways; first and foremost, it is defined in the binary way that you object to (which is where we, Wikipedia, follow WP:Due weight). Secondly, it is defined as the "all sexes and multiple genders" way that you approve of, which, again, is also covered in the article; that latter aspect is the minority way to define bisexuality, and, per WP:Due weight, we should not give as much weight to the minority way as we do to the majority way. Further, the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association are authoritative sources on the topic of sexual orientation; the American Institute of Bisexuality, while a suitable source for the topic of bisexuality, does not hold nearly as much weight as those two sources. And as for sexes versus gender, we obviously note both matters in the article; but, for the record, science has not discovered more than two sexes. While intersex people are sometimes categorized as a third sex, they generally are not scientifically considered a third sex; they are a combination of both sexes, and the vast majority of them (like transgender people) identity as male or female/man or woman. Gender, on the other hand... Various researchers have described more than two genders, as in third gender and so on.

I suggest you take your objections to the article talk page. As you can see there, a similar matter, which points to past similar discussions, was recently discussed there. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, as the main editor of the Asexuality article, I am well aware of how little attention asexuality, in terms of sexual orientation and sexual identity, gets. But again, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And taking out "romantic attraction," as you did with this reasoning? Not only does that oppose what the authoritative sources state, it makes bisexuality out to only be about sexual matters and not emotional matters that may come along with sexual aspects (or be independent of sexual aspects, as in the case of some asexual people who identify as bisexual because they identify with the romantic attraction aspect of the definition). If you notice, we use "romantic" in addition to "sexual" for the Sexual orientation, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Pansexuality articles, and so we of course use it for the Bisexuality article as well. I see that you're blocked from editing for 31 hours. I ask that you take that time to consider what I stated above; not just shrug it off and/or continue WP:Edit warring. The bisexuality vs. pansexuality aspect is an active debate among the LGBT community and some scholars, with the vast majority of the scientific community not defining pansexuality at all, and so Wikipedia is currently doing what it is supposed to do when covering the topics. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Note I have updated the Pansexuality article with the two sources you provided above; also take note that those sources acknowledge that bisexuality is usually defined in a binary way. Flyer22 (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Explanation and more... : List of EastEnders characters (2014)

OK. However, surely if this is a problem; THIS IS - Mick Carter!

♣₳d♣

If a main article is made - Babe Smith, isn't it supposed to be noted on the list? I only thought this because of the Mick Carter section on the list - I made the Babe Smith one just like that.

--TheCoker (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

TheCoker, I see what you were trying to do before I reverted you. You can still link to the main article article without removing what you removed. Also, consider using WP:Edit summaries. And since you were not committing WP:Vandalism, feel free to remove those warnings from your talk page.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": List of EastEnders characters (2014)" 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) 10:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)