User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 21

Hey baby

Since this will be the only time I will ever be able to get away with calling you "baby" (Flyer 22 reborn), I thought I would take advantage of it! :) Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I am of course disgusted that you would make such a grossly sexist remark. And even more disgusted that you beat me to it. ;) John Carter (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The new Flyer dyed her brown hair platinum blonde and moved to South Beach where she is a high-priced call girl/Sexologist. Wlmg (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In your dreams, buddy. I can see her right now in my mind's eye: she's a beautiful, marine biologist who is desperately trying to save the world's oceans from collapse and trying to get her life-saving research published in a respected journal. She's figured out how to save the coral from bleaching and the fish from dying by decoding a message hidden inside a whale song frequency. She discovers that the oceans are being poisoned by a deadly mixture of caffeine and sildenafil seeping from wastewater treatment plants. She's in a precarious position: how to convince the world powers that they must give up their cup of morning joe and their morning wood? Think Jodie Foster in Contact meets Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich. I can do this for under 50 million. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome

I didn't mind the old flyer22's spirited editing, but I welcome the new flyer22 as well. Congrats.Mattnad (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not sure if I am using this correctly, but I just wanted to say, I am not using multiple IP's or accounts to edit pages. I only have this one account.

Thank you. Moley87 (talk)

RfA

I was going to ask if I could nominate you to become an administrator, but I'm not sure if you've left now or not. Still, if you are still here and would like to become an admininistrator, I am happy to nominate you. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This has come up before she has no desire for the mop.Wlmg (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That was before she was reborn. Dr. K. 01:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, at this point in my Wikipedia career, it wouldn't work. See User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 18#Adminship. Maybe in three or five years, when my hothead persona has cooled down (the name "Flyer22 Reborn" is to go along with a change in behavior); but even then, it likely wouldn't work. People have a difficult time getting over troubling past incidents, and often only look at one's blocklog without doing the important research on it. My sockpuppet cases (the two specifically about me), even with Alison helping to explain, and even with having been a big sock catcher, would be something to overcome. I can see all of the questions and other queries that would be posed about that. My youngest brother, who edited Wikipedia as an IP before getting a registered account that became tied to mine, is an actual person. He indeed copied my style of editing and writing (it was how he first learned to work his way through Wikipedia), but not completely; he made mistakes in adapting my style to his. The general Wikipedia editor doesn't know this. And they only have my and Alison's word on it. And then there's my attitude toward Wikipedia, even the current text at the top of my user page (about dying, being reborn. etc.) would be used against me (whether I were to remove it before the WP:RfA or not). As I've recently noted, I am very self-aware and I know how others perceive me (the ones who like me, the ones who don't, and the ones in between); I noted that not being an administrator allowed me more leeway in how I went about dealing with disruptive Wikipedia editors. Montanabw has dealt with disruptive editors in similar ways. And we see how some people commenting in her WP:RfA had an issue with it. I know exactly how administrators are supposed to present themselves and what they should and shouldn't do, but WP:RfAs are based on past behavior, not so much on current or future behavior. So, no, there is no way that I would subject myself to such a grueling process at this point in my Wikipedia career. And it is most certainly a career as far as I'm concerned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right Flyer. Your block log (rap sheet) makes you a Wikifelon :( Wlmg (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. During the renaming the archives were renamed also, therefore, technically speaking, the decision regarding RfA was adopted by the new Flyer. I am disappointed to hear that; the reborn Flyer should not be burdened by the past. Hopefully in the not too distant future the new Flyer may change her mind. Dr. K. 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's good to see you haven't left. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hugs to both old and new Flyer! And a song for you!. Montanabw^(talk) 03:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Like Montanabw said! Since Flyer can be reincarnated based solely on the force of her awesome personality, I request that Todd return to General Hospital, just so we can see more of this! For some odd reason, this whole situation seems to fit the ring tone. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Worried

I think you seriously may have slipped a cog this time Flyer. And don't f*ck around with multiverses. You may not like what you find. Wlmg (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

She lives in Florida, the alternate universe of the US. They don't call it "weird" for nothing. Where else can you get attacked by gators and humans, both of whom are trying to eat your face off? And the state government has prohibited their employees from discussing or mentioning climate change (because in the alternate reality known as Florida, climate change is a hoax). Don't even get me started on the hanging chads. If it wasn't for Florida, 9/11 might not have happened, there wouldn't have been multiple wars based on false premises, and I would still be able to get on an airplane without someone touching my balls. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

She's in the 'verse where Wikipedia has become the Galactic Library and there are no vandals or trolls or POV-pushers or socks or... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's More Than One of Everything. Flyer, I really hope you finally found time to make it all the way through the Fringe series. I admit, the last season is a pain, but there's no better treatment of the multiverse in popular culture. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Last wishes

To the "old Flyer22", so to speak, I hope you were able to enjoy the time you spent here. May the "reborn" Flyer also have a good overall experience here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello F. I strongly second SNUGGUMS comments here and the barnstar presented by The ed17 below. You have to put up with as much flak as anyone but I must say WikiP is a far better place for all your efforts. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: WP:Articles for deletion/Karen Franklin (2nd nomination)

A page whose deletion discussion you participated in was re-added and nominated for deletion again. See: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Franklin_(2nd_nomination) Barcaboy2 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, Barcaboy2, I don't have anything else to state on all of that; as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Franklin, I commented once. I recently linked Karen Franklin at the Hebephilia article, though, because it seemed you were going to forgo nominating it for deletion again. I did think that my linking the article there might lead someone to re-nominate it for deletion, not James since he has a WP:Conflict of interest with her (seeing those two duke it out is like watching a movie or reading a feisty book and needing popcorn to go along with the spectacle, despite the fact that debating sexual interest in early/mid pubescents is something I'd very much rather not be doing or reading), but I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the Karen Franklin article. I know that Franklin would rather not have her Wikipedia article deleted. The new Karen Franklin article is substantially different than the previous one, though. NeilN or some other administrator watching my talk page, do you mind restoring the previous Karen Franklin article, to my WP:Userspace, so that it can be used as a comparison to the new Karen Franklin article?

On a side note: Barcaboy2, I added on to your FYI heading so that it is clearer as to what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. User:Flyer22 Reborn/sandbox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. I'll link it at the new deletion debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I was remembering one of the older versions, Neil. The one you recreated seems to be a stubbed version. The stubbed version isn't all that different than the new version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Commented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Now restored the "largest" version. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping

Thanks for pinging me at WT:MEDRS, I had misinterpreted the situation. For me what biomedical means is so clear, so I merely meant that it should not need defining. I realize it is not so for everyone, and I hope my clarification helped. It can at times be difficult to get a clear view of the proposal at hand when a lot of text produced quickly, and quite often I don't have the time to go through every comment when I'm looking at things during my lunch hour. CFCF 💌 📧 16:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For you

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		For ... everything, really. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, The ed17. I shall work even harder to keep my cool on topics such as domestic violence and the WP:MEDRS debates (such as this one), all because of this barnstar from you. I will also work harder to extend that cooler head into other contentious topics. Only then will I feel that I fully deserve your barnstar. You see, "Flyer22 Reborn" is supposed to be a reincarnation of the Flyer22 that Textorus and others were familiar with, except with a touch of Textorus's WP:Don't give a fuckism attitude; this is why I, as Flyer22 Reborn, can take a much needed break from contentious issues and not return until several or many hours later to deal with them; I started doing this before the reincarnation, though -- clicking away from Wikipedia with a labored sigh and going off to do something I enjoy or don't enjoy that much (such as exercising). And, of course, there is also work (real life work). I refuse to let POV-pushers and other problematic editors fully burn me out. Admins and their burnouts are certainly not the only burnouts to keep in mind. Anyway, your barnstar means a lot to me and came at the right time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what happened to lead to the third person and all, but I do think highly of you and am glad that you're not burnt out entirely. Enjoy the barnstar and keep up the good work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Glenn

Color artwork for Glenn does indeed show him to be white (ex.) I don't see any commentary claiming him to be Asian in the comics other than the wikia?Cebr1979 (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cebr1979. With regard to this and your statement above, it seems that you are basing his race/ethnicity on drawings. I mentioned the artwork in that dummy edit because I've never seen or heard anyone state that Glenn Rhee is white, and figured that you must be basing the matter on your interpretation of the artwork. From what I've gathered from the artwork and interviews such as this one with Steven Yeun, Glenn has always been Asian. There is no indication (that I see) on the Internet that the writers changed his race/ethnicity for the show. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel like going on one of your searches. Where exactly in that article does it say that Glenn has always been Asian even in the comics? Also, drawings are artwork. So, if your "gathering" things from the "artwork" then it's perfectly fine for me to "base" something on "drawings." LolCebr1979 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

See the GIF where Yeun has the comic book imagery right beside his face. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What? The black and white one that solves nothing?Cebr1979 (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm stating that both of our interpretations seem to be based on the artwork, and that there is no indication (that I see) on the Internet that the writers changed his race/ethnicity for the show. If it was changed, then why isn't there commentary on it in WP:Reliable sources, like there is for Iris West from The Flash television series being black as opposed to being white for most of her comic book incarnations? Why wouldn't the aforementioned Vanity Fair article, which comments on Yeun's/Glenn's physical appearance, including his race/ethnicity, have mentioned it? I'll get around to asking about this matter at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You can get around to asking whoever it is you want to ask. The fact is, there's nothing that states he's Asian in the comics. I never added anything to the page stating he's white so, even if my edit summary is wrong... who cares? It's an edit summary. As far as the page is concerned (which, y'know, is what matters and all 'cause, like, that's what's important and needs to be accurate and sourced), I removed unsourced info from it. I never replaced it with any other unsourced info. I just removed unsourced info that had only recently been added. Wikipedia thanks me for that, because it follows their policies. But, feel free to go start all your lengthy conversations wherever it is you feel the need to do it. Unless you come up with a reliable source explicitly stating Glenn is Asian in the comics... what exactly are you hoping to accomplish with your questions? You've lost me there. You're not just starting talks for the sake of having talks, are you? Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a fan message board for theories, Flyer. Wikipedia is clear on that, that's not what talk pages are for. Cebr1979 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of asking at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series) and/or at Talk:The Walking Dead (comic book) is because people think of Glenn as Asian in the comics, and there will be more edits like the one you removed. It is fine to ask about these things at related article talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in having editors who are very familiar with the comics weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Taken to the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no global account for "Flyer22"

You may want to create a WP:DG account to prevent vandals from impersonating you. sst✈^discuss 15:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If editors are that eager to be me and throw dirt on the Flyer22 name, then they clearly have far too much time on their hands. Perhaps I should consider it a compliment that I've so thoroughly gotten under their skins. Unless they can get all or a good number of my Wikipedia mannerisms just right, such as my tendency to state "Like I stated," then I don't see that their impersonations will be successful. And everyone knows that I am very anti-child sexual abuse, so none of the boy wiki editors stand a chance.

Céréales Killer, since you renamed my account and are familiar with global matters such as this one, any opinion on this rename issue? At Simple English Wikipedia, it currently states, "User account 'Flyer22' is not registered." But it also states "This user has been renamed. The rename log is provided below for reference. 15:17, 23 October 2015 Céréales Killer (talk | changes) renamed user Flyer22 (0 edits) to Flyer22 Reborn (per request)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Vicarious traumatization

I just came across this article Vicarious traumatization while researching something else. Would you like to work with me on improving this article with more recent research - maybe even try to get it promoted to GA eventually? Minor4th 00:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, while working with you would help to heal the tempestuous relationship we have, I (as I've stated before at this talk page and in article edit summaries) am quite lazy on Wikipedia these days; I do not build content as actively as I used to. I mainly WP:Patrol. That stated, I am currently working on the Vagina article, and have the Human brain article on my to-do list. My to-do list has several articles on it, including the Sexual fluidity article. If you want to assist me with improving those articles, including bringing them up to WP:GA status, that can be our start to a better working relationship. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm kinda lazy too about creating content :) but I'm trying to make that a bigger part of my WP experience. I'll take a look at those articles. I do look forward to a more collaborative working relationship going forward. Minor4th 02:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Socking / Tisane

You're right again, as usual. I blocked about a dozen or so accounts tonight. You might want to go over their contribs and page creations for the usual POV. I notice they've been arguing with you on Talk:Child_protection, too. But yes - well spotted again - Alison ^❤ 09:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. If it weren't for you having so much experience with this sock (including data on him) and trusting me on these matters, I might have been declined by a clueless WP:CheckUser for lack of evidence when reporting this editor. As you may have deduced from the discussion on NeilN's talk page, that this user had something to do with the sexual aggression link made me even more sure that he was Beembly (talk · contribs). Despite my previous discussion with him about recognizing him/being significantly repulsed by people like him (now seen at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 18#Why banned users keep coming back, despite attempts to remove their incentives), he continues to directly or indirectly interact with me. Test me. I'm not always looking for him, or looking for him often, but I've been clear with him that when he creates articles like that, articles in those areas and which show that there is no way that they were created by a WP:Newbie, I will know it's him. Or suspect an editor of being him when I see that. Then again, testing me in that way is no different than other socks I continue to recognize. But with him, ignoring him is not an option for me. As for child protection, I see that you mean this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Child protection. Yes, as you know, the boywiki editors have pointed to that matter in a way that gives it a Flyer22 vs. Alison feel. Anyway, thanks again. I will look through the other accounts later to delete his material. In my opinion, per what he stated to me in the aforementioned archived discussion, any edit he makes to an article here (unless it's reverting vandalism or removing very problematic material) needs to be deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Acalamari, I appreciate you helping out with IAJHTBAE (talk · contribs), who (unless it was one of my other disgruntled stalkers impersonating him) I assume is Tisane by the edit summary "Your side will eventually lose this fight", and since, as shown by the aforementioned archived discussion, he's stopped by my talk page to rant after I've uncovered his sock farm before. Then again, Cali11298, who I still see around, has done the same thing. But I am interested in knowing what Tisane stated. I didn't even notice that post on my talk page until I got a new message indicating that you'd reverted him. This is because I sometimes go right to an editing concern before looking at what was posted on my talk page. In this case, I went straight to a WP:ANI matter. From what I see, what he posted on my talk page was there for hours, so it must not have been that bad. Either way, nothing he stated could have been worse than what various other problematic editors have stated to me at this site. It also helps to use such problematic behavior against these editors. In the case of Tisane and others, the things they state/how they type helps me calculate their next moves and gives me further information to identify them in the future. So feel free to post what he stated here in this section, or email me the details if you can't bring yourself to repost it here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 (or Flyer22 Reborn? Please let me know which you prefer), since it was Alison who revdelled the edit, I'll defer to her judgment with regards to your request so as to not accidentally overrule her admin action in any way. Acalamari 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Acalamari, yes, I just saw that, while you did the reverting and blocking, it was her who WP:Revision deleted it. I loved her edit summary: "(Deletion log); 23:35 . . Alison (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:Flyer22 Reborn: content hidden ‎(RD5: Other valid deletion under deletion policy: Apart from being a narcissistic screed)." LOL!! You can call me Flyer, or Flyer22, or Flyer22 Reborn; it's all relative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Check your inbox, Flyer22 - Alison ^❤ 00:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: I struck through part of my post above because I see that the sock's commentary hadn't been there for hours; it was left at 23:19, 2 November 2015‎; I'm not sure where I got "hours" from.

Okay, Alison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have long been an admirer of Alison's creative edit summaries. :) Thanks for the clarification on your name; I wasn't sure what you preferred choice was. (And thank you again, Alison!) Acalamari 00:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read the post thanks to Alison's email; there were no direct personal attacks there, just a lot of ranting about changing the world, how one can't change it unless stupid and persistent enough, how there have been political movements throughout history and that there will apparently eventually be a political movement that supports his side...even if not in his lifetime. In other words, it seems he thinks that sex with prepubescent children will eventually be the norm and well-accepted and/or that the age of consent laws will be significantly lowered. Given that age of consent laws allow sexual interaction with teenagers to some degree, it's clear that he is primarily talking about prepubescent children. He pointed to Rind et al., a study that pedophiles and child sexual abusers commonly point to in order to support their views, often in ways that Rind does not support. He likened this fight to one army against another, stating that we are nemeses because of our political views on child sexual abuse, but that neither of us can destroy the other or our respective sides. He also stated that, as I've acknowledged higher up on my talk page, I've gotten lazy at creating content, and he is creating material that I can't be bothered to create.

Sighs. Time to revert his remaining edits and/or delete any remaining articles he has (the ones I know he created and which fall under WP:G5, that is). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

	"High-Ranking Officer of the Wikipedia Sock Police"
	For your prowess in recognizing non-Newbies and defending the Wiki against their woolly and myriad deceptions, this very special officership to you, Flyer22 Reborn, in fuzzy gratitude Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Like Can I join the force? Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Per what I stated at the talk page of one of the articles this banned editor created, I will be taking the issue of whether or not to keep articles by this user to WP:AN or WP:ANI. And this user's statements on my talk page, including what he very recently stated to me (a statement reverted by Materialscientist and deleted from the edit history by Alison), will be used as evidence. When I do that, Alison, I'm going to need the posts by this editor visible to the community, not just to administrators. Either that, or I will repost them in a sandbox; again, this will only be done so that the community can read them at one of these noticeboards. WP:Deny alone does not work in the case of this editor. His latest post on my talk page was titled "I can't be deterred; I can only be temporarily incapacitated"; if that were the case, he would not feel the need to rant on my talk page after I obliterate his socks and work. Deleting his work does deter him. And temporarily incapacitating him is also good. Just imagine the frustration and/or anger that exploded in him when seeing that I'd gotten all of his articles (which were a lot, and are now memorized by me...title-wise) deleted, except the remaining three that I will be sure to continue pursuing deletion for as well. Also, every time he posts with a new account, it is an opportunity to report it in an official WP:Sockpuppet investigation and have that account checked for WP:Sleepers, whether the account is already blocked or not, and whether the account is immediately reported or the report is saved for later. Given the amount of socks this editor comes up with, saving the report for later is better; one can take out more socks that way. If we are going to have administrators restoring poor articles by this banned user, feeding his ego, then this is definitely something the community should have a say in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit for Gh0st RAT

I thought Wikipedia should be free of typos like those and that is the reason I edited it and thought it could be constructive. I apologise if I have done anything wrong. Kaartic (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kaartic (talk · contribs). You did nothing wrong. I am the one who messed up; sorry about that. I've reverted myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tweak

I want to wholeheartedly thank you for supporting the use of high quality evidence on health related topics, and I actually don't understand how those edits in August could be missed by so many. I guess people were busy and didn't understand the implication of removing every single mention of health in the guideline. Anyway, I tweaked one of your comments by adding {{od}} instead of 7 x : (or however many it was), I hope that is okay. CFCF 💌 📧 10:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

PONY!

Pony!
Congratulations! For being a brave, noble and "High-ranking Officer of the Wikipedia Sock Police," you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 17:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

The barnstar in the #Socking / Tisane section above and this pony by you are appreciated. The name that sock bestowed upon me sticks, I suppose. But now I have yet another disgruntled sock to worry about. Again, I don't go looking for socks or other non-new return editors (who are probably returning under a WP:Clean start account); I spot them, and sometimes I ignore, while other times I don't. I always know who is not new, but I'm not always going to pursue it, especially being "reborn" and all. That stated, it can be very detrimental to this site to ignore a sock like Tisane. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's all OK, I got nuked in my RfA by everyone I've pissed off over nine years (and at least two banned socks showed up to oppose me) and I'm still standing. Illegitimi non carborundum. Montanabw^(talk) 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question

MyLifeidisosdoisdio (talk · contribs) and AnUnearthedTaylent (talk · contribs). I couldn't tell who the overall master is and it is, in my opinion, irrelevant. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero, thanks for answering that question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Got busy looking at your awesome barnstars and stuff, and almost forgot to post my message! which is that there's a thread been opened about you at the main drama board, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit Wars with Flyer22 Reborn. Regards, -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mail call Nov. 5

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.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple IP Addresses

I have said it before on here, but since you're acting like the Wiki police whenever I try to add something, and very recently blamed me when I didn't, I'll say it again; I am NOT using multiple I.P addresses, or Wiki accounts. I have no idea who any of the others are, or belong to. Moley87 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Moley87 (talk · contribs), so soon after you made this edit and multiple IPs and this one-time editor showed up to make the same or a similar edit, and were reverted by various registered editors, it was all coincidences or an influx that started soon after your edit? Given that Clarke is very popular and that the birthday matter had been posted that day on instagram, it makes sense that it was an influx. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And, yes, I see that you replied in the #Hi section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Marvin Gaye

Didn't you read my explanation? I fixed a spelling error, how is that a disruptive edit? I don't have an account, I simply fix things I see. How can the correct spelling of his father's name, "Gay" be all over the site except in the one place it would be considered important? I hope this isn't considered "vandalism", just trying to get some clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.15.131 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No, looking via WP:STiki, I missed this edit summary. Sorry about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What I saw was this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. As I said I am not a "user". I usually read articles in my spare time. I know enough to click on Edit if I see something, but usually all of the articles are well written and I know very little of what you folks do. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.15.131 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Soap Opera Couples

Hi,

Maybe I should explain my edits in detail. The articles in the "soap opera couples" category are categorized as "Fictional duos". While this is by no means an incorrect categorization it can be categorized more specific as "Television duos". After all, all the articles about soap opera couples are about television soap characters. Plus: we're always encouraged to subcategorize, if possible. - User:Kjell Knudde November 7, 2015, 10:09 (CET).

Kjell Knudde (talk · contribs), I reverted myself before you posted here. If you started typing your post soon after I reverted you, that's good, since you were willing to discuss this instead of WP:Edit warring over it. Instead of me taking it to your talk page, you brought it to mine. Either way, I created that category when I was a WP:Newbie and heavily focused on soap opera articles. I don't care much about it anymore. If it were deleted, I wouldn't bat an eye. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Greetings

You are welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I would state a lot more about that, but it'd be more unnecessary drama, especially since Cebr1979 watches my talk page. Editors can check my history to know what is true and what isn't. For example, there was only one case where I stated that I'd let editors figure out the wolf in sheep's clothing on their own. Those who assert that I accuse just to intimidate either aren't paying attention or are editors with a vendetta. Of course, there are also the ones who are sympathetic to disruptive users. Such is the way on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

To define realistic existence of Public administration

Definition: Those all legal, authorised and Constitutional behaviour of elected or non elected people which related to maintain development, unity and integrity of people and nation could be known as "Public Administration" Q:how you can say this is not constructive?

Dheeresh Kumar Sharma (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dheeresh Kumar Sharma (talk · contribs), click on this link. See all of what you removed and what you replaced that with? That's not constructive editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I am just letting you know I have taken the initiative in helping us resolve our differences by posting a request for us to get some help from an in dependent third party at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard about the Domestic Violence article. Let's just try and work together on this article Flyer22reborn.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not interested. Even after I stated this, you are still acting like I have been against adding gender symmetry material to the article, when it's actually the case that I have been against it being added to the article inappropriately. And I'm not the only one, as even the WP:RfC there and that latest section show. You do not listen; it's like you've completely ignored any support I've given to gender symmetry material being added to the article. For example, how many times must I point you to the Discussion section at that talk page to show that you are wrong and that I am the first one to have suggested that 2008 review? Besides not listening, or not listening well, you twist my words/views. You act like I am some raging feminist taking a political stance. You don't seem to be trying to understand the WP:NPOV policy, and you consistently act like I am violating it and that I violate it across gender articles, as if you've seen me in action across Wikipedia. And you are wrong. It's always the editors who don't understand WP:NPOV who think I'm being non-neutral. And because I'd rather not engage you, it is not a good idea for you to visit my talk page. Notice that I do not visit yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any truce I can have with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for inconvenience flyer 22 rebom posted to wrong dispute resolution noticeboard. Will ask to have it closed. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Looked at the drama. I think you are right, Flyer. At best this user is a tendentious editor, is engaging in false disbelief, and IMHO is more than likely the sort of editor who doesn't need feeding. If not a sock, then certainly a duck. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanab. Have you got any reason or evidence for this direct and blatant Wikipedia:No personal attacks you just made? Can comment on my talk page if you want? Charlotte135 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To Flyer22 Reborn, I don't know what happened recently, but I remember and appreciate your many great contributions. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Axl. I'll be looking to build more content instead of simply WP:Patrolling all the time or reporting WP:Socks. I mean, there are WP:Socks I could report now, but I've been ignoring them, especially since they'll return anyway; I mainly only report when I feel it's needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Interstellar revert

In your revert of my revert on Interstellar (film), the wording of the opening plot sentence has changed from:

Crop blight has made growing food on Earth nearly impossible, threatening the existence of humanity.

to:

Crop blight makes farming increasingly impossible and as the blight spreads to every type of food (until only corn is left), it decreases the oxygen levels in the atmosphere, threatening the existence of humanity.

I really don't think that edit was a quality improvement to the article. It removes "on Earth", which seems like worthwhile context for a sci-fi film; "increasingly impossible" is clunky; the detail about oxygen in the atmosphere is wordy and superfluous - just widespread crop blight is perfectly understandable as a serious threat to humanity; and the parenthetical is similarly unnecessary. I'm assuming you disagree, although I'm not sure to what level since the edit summary is essentially blank (all of the above? or did you just think I went a little too far in my wholesale revert?).

In any case, rather than re-re-reverting and getting into an edit war, I'm attempting to find some compromise wording. What parts of the above do you think are critical for context in the plot summary? Or just take a look at my new version and let me know what you think.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fru1tbat, that revert was a mistake on my part, and I've noted it as such in the edit history. I don't know what I was thinking when I made that revert via WP:STiki; occasionally, reverting with WP:STiki has caused two articles to be reverted at once when only one article was supposed to be the target. I don't care what is done with the plot section of that article, as long as there is no WP:Film plot violation, and as long as no vital information is lost. But in the future, I ask that you take an article dispute to the article talk page, not to the user talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I also see that the revert was a WP:Rollback revert, not a WP:STiki revert. Again, I don't know what happened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I saw your dummy edit. I appreciate the explanation, and sorry I got overly defensive... Thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fru1tbat, you didn't get overly defensive. You explained yourself well and appropriately. I've seen overly defensive on this site times over, and your interaction here at my talk page is not it. Thanks for being exemplary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

It's good to have you here. Your efforts are appreciated. Jacona (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Todd FAC 2

Hey Fly, you've probably seen that I'm renominated the Todd article. I'll give it a week, and then I'll start recruiting my cabal to help out. Probably my fellow judges for the GA Cup and WikiCup, some of my pals who have helped out with other articles. If you can get anyone, feel free! And as my Deaf friends would say, "Happy Day, Turkey!" ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Derp

Sorry about the misunderstanding on the Manning page; I misread the question as being about all acronyms, so had to reverse myself, since MOS does say to italicize abbreviation of italicized titles. My system is freaking out and I have to reboot; it was difficult to read and respond, with my mouse randomly clicking thing, and I should have restarted first then come back to the matter w/o that interference.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, so regarding what you stated, we should go ahead and remove the italics from "OLTL" and similar? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The opposite, perhaps unfortunately, depending on your style views. I thought this was about italicizing things like UNICEF and ATM, but after I managed to get thru the article after my mouse issue keep taking me off the page every few seconds, the italicized acronyms/initialisms all appear to be abbreviated titles of italicized works, so per MOS:TITLES#Italics they should remain italicized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: After I made this post, Cebr1979 showed up again to challenge you so that he can get the last word. He also made this edit. You know the deal; it's his style. And I know that you are tempted to reword and/or suggest that I not take this to WP:ANI. But Cebr1979 has been given various chances to get in line on this matter, and I don't see why we need to keep adjusting things just because he doesn't want to use proper grammar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I still need to reboot, so I'll have to look at it later. I'm trying to avoid disputes with Cebr or anyone else over style matters. It should be enough to cite the applicable MoS sections (whether one personally agrees with that line-item or not; no one agrees with every word of MOS, not no MOS rule has universal support; the point is we agree that it's an arbitrary but necessary set of rules for stability, consistency, and avoidance of trivial flamewars). I think that the don't-italicize view, which I normally lean toward (as part of a "don't apply special style unless necessary, especially if it can be mistaken for emphasis" general approach) doesn't carry the day on this particular issue, because of the clear wording at MOS:TITLES#Italics about italicizing abbreviated italic titles. Whether a particular editor's behavior/approach to this news is 100% constructive or not is another matter, but I would advise against invoking noticeboards about it unless the behavior is grossly incivil or otherwise can be addressed as a "harmful to collaboration" behavioral problem. The more that AN/ANI/AE/ANEW/ArbCom's attention are drawn to MOS/AT as an alleged hotbed of controversy, the worse it gets for all of us who care about style and title consistency, because the general administrative response is to unquestioningly punish whoever is sticking to their position, and hand the keys over to whoever is posting less and pretending to be reasonable, no matter how unreasonable their position really is. This has been an observable, consistent pattern for about three years now. Every block, temporary TBan, and other administrative action against me has followed that pattern, and the same goes for actions against many other MoS regulars, several of whom have been driven off the project by this administratively punitive approach, predicated on false accusations of disruption, battlegrounding, and other "continu[ed] misconduct", regardless of what the guidelines and the external sources say. It doesn't matter if you're right, only that you're really really quiet and obsequious. It also doesn't matter in the end that these punitive actions often get overturned; the damage is done – troublemaking looks only at sanctions that can be leveraged, not whether they were actually sustained upon review – and the view against MoS being site-wide and centralized, or existing at all, will just be emboldened to apply greater pressure against MoS's stability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, to quote what you stated to Cebr1979, "You're demonstrably wrong about comma usage, as pretty much every other English-language user understands, and as any English-language guide book will explain to you. If you persist in doing provably non-standard things with punctuation against multi-editor opposition, Flyer22 is right: a noticeboard will eventually require you to stop." And that is what I am leaning toward. Why should I continue to let this editor have his way just because he views Wikipedia editing as a winning matter? I should not have to work around him; he should be following the rules, unless he has a very good reason not to. Furthermore, he takes every and any chance to try and WP:Bait me, which is exactly what the recent edit at the Todd Manning article was. We recently clashed at Talk:Glenn Rhee#Is Glenn Asian in the comics? (a WP:Permalink for it is here), where I noted to him that no matter how much he tries to get a rise out of me, I will not be falling prey to his tactics again. Because of that, he recently came out of the blue to weigh in on a case involving me at WP:ANI, and reported on that inaccurately out of spite...all while being clueless. My patience for this editor was already thin enough as it is; that patience is now non-existent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What changed for me: An editor was revertwarring to force a change to MOS's wording that was provably false, I'd already proven it was false and that the other's position was OR nonsense, and that the editor was deleting sources from an article on English language usage and changing its wording to make their incorrect position appear to be correct, and even making similar false-facts edits to the relevant Wiktionary article. So I took it to WP:ANEW; it was an obvious open-and-shut case, with a large number of diffs proving my assessment of what was going on and that it was disruptive, then along came some WP:AE enforcer out of the blue (one who had previously wrongly taken punitive action against me to allow an anti-MOS/anti-AT position to WP:WIN), who shut down the ongoing ANEW case before it was even examined by an impartial admin, and sanctioned me one-sidedly under WP:ARBATC. As long as there are admins running around taking actions that silence those who consistently apply AT and MOS, in favor of those whose WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-at-each-article views would lead to stylistic chaos, it's very hazardous to involve AT or MOS in any way in any noticeboard action. If you're being baited a lot, especially if it involves any incivility, you may just need to compile a long list of diffs demonstrating an uncivil, battleground pattern, avoid responding in similar kind yourself (be excessively, even ridiculously gracious), then take the matter to ANI or AE, casting it as entirely a behavioral matter. Try to get evidence outside a style/title dispute, so it can't be mis-cast as "those damned MOS people causing trouble again".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That said. I see what you mean. He's not giving up on the bogus-commas thing, no matter how many times he's proven wrong, or by whom. If you do take a noticeboard action, I'd support something being done about this behavior, even if I'm not too keen on it being a noticeboard matter. I left him a note that I think noticeboard action is likely if he doesn't stop. Let's see if it has any effect?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for this, even though he'll just blank his talk page and ignore you, going about his business afterward. Your "those damned MOS people causing trouble again" line tickled me, but you have my sympathy on that. Yes, as seen at #Glenn above and noted at that article's talk page, I've taken the "be nice to him" approach, no matter how much it pains me. I dropped out of that Glenn debate, and a different editor took over...to no avail, with the exception of being an extra opposing voice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

He didn't actually ignore me, but pursued me with ranty hostility to my own talk page. His gist seems to be "any and all criticism is banned from my talk page forever", which can safely just be ignored. If he continues reacting with WP:ICANTHEARYOU or, worse, with WP:MASTODON verbal explosions, any time an editor raises an issue with something he's doing, ANI probably won't have any compunction against topic-banning him, at least, from areas in which he's generating trouble, as long as there's sufficient evidence that it's habitual. Editors who do disruptive things are generally given some leeway to learn from their mistakes and correct their behavior. But he's effectively telling the entire project that no criticism of him could ever be valid and that all concerns will be ignored at best, so the "leeway to learn and correct" avenue is effectively self-closed by the editor, leaving little room for anything but bans and blocks. It's a bed he's making for himself and will have to lie in.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution needed for Talk:Health care in the United States

The discussion regarding an issue on article neutrality is currently occurring in: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

An edit I did not make....

Hello, I recieved a message informing me that you removed somthing that I edited. I have never edited any,(nor will I) artical on this site. I do not know what you removed, but it was not mine. Thank you. Mwhite8468 (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mwhite8468 (talk · contribs), considering that your Mwhite8468 talk page is currently a WP:Red link, the message must have been left on an IP talk page; in that case, you used an IP that someone else used. IPs are commonly shared by numerous people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

White Ribbon Campaign

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have gotten involved here because I've arguably lost the ability to act administratively. In addition to your taking a look at the article, I'm interested in your opinion whether the article should be subject to MRM sanctions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering what Fyddlestix, who puts up with these types of editors over and over again, is currently going through there, yes, it should be subject to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. I'm not sure it will help, though. After all, I'm putting up with much sketchy editing at the Domestic violence article, and it's editors like Fyddlestix, Gandydancer (even recently) and Kaldari who help out when they can stand all the walls of text and bickering or semi-bickering, or when the text should be reverted as soon as possible. I only have a few articles on my WP:Watchlist that are articles the men's rights editors are interested in, and those are enough for me to deal with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I have a number of other articles on my WP:Watchlist that men's rights editors would be interested in, but I don't see those articles being edited a lot, including ones that I don't edit (like this one, where an IP stated, "The english wikipedia is domited by these liberal lesbians man haters".). There are a variety of topics that they are concerned with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Brought here by the username mention - I'm not sure how exactly the criteria for "closely related" pages is judged, but I do think the White Ribbon article probably should be subject to the MRM sanctions. AVFM has evidently decided to mount a campaign against the group, so the article is subject to a fair bit of disruption by editors who are sympathetic with AVFM. Plus AVFM has their own, rival "White Ribbon" group, so I guess it does pretty much directly relate. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The article should definitely be subject to MRM sanctions, IMO. The White Ribbon Campaign is a major target of MRM groups (which is discussed in the article). Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input.  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops!

I think we tried to fix NeilN's talk page at the same time and I reverted you. My mistake! Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Page of Justin Bieber

The Biebs made a whole album (Journals) of R&B -- why did you undo all my changes? Hurrygane (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hurrygane, I reverted your edits at the Justin Bieber article because, with the exception of this material, you are treating that article like a dumping ground for any and everything involving Bieber. This is an encyclopedia. Not a fansite, or anti-fan site. And regarding this bit, Collect had already reverted your "Other scandals and troubles" section. Attempting to re-add it, if that's what you were doing, is not the way to go. Discussing the proposed section on the article's talk page is. If you were simply adding an extra heading, it was a heading that was unneeded; see WP:BADHEAD and WP:Headings. You shouldn't be creating a heading unless it's needed or improves the article in some way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN Case

Hi Flyer22, just wanted to ask if you will be participating (at this time) in the Health care in the US DRN case? You can opt in and out at any time, as participation is voluntary, but be aware that discussion may stall if you do opt out which will cause the case to be closed. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102, I was alerted to it with the #Dispute resolution needed for Talk:Health care in the United States section above. I won't be taking part in that discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Bohemian FC

2 good faith edits made by you on Bohemian FC were vandalism originally, and undone prior to your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.125.5 (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, IP. Thanks for fixing my error. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Carey

I think we might be talking past each other a bit on that one. I don't have anything against Carey, and I don't think you're engaging in OR. It's just that others are liable to raise OR concerns because of the lack of unambiguous "confirmation" of an African-American self-identity. And we have other alternatives that don't raise that issue. One thing I didn't get into is that is may unnecessarily cloud the issue, and make the parameters of the article less clear, to include people (e.g. Rihanna, too) of personal or immediate parental immigrant ancestry, when the immigrant wasn't from Africa. When we start mixing in multi-ethnic people in the cultural sense, it can start to misrepresent the nature of the article. If I recall correctly, Gloria Estefan has at least a bit of Afro-Cuban ancestry, but people would think of her more as Cuban American than African American unless they're pushing a racist not just racialist "one-drop rule" agenda and are trying to make a WP:POINT. I'm a bit suspicious about that with regard to Carey because her article is also making a point of her having some Afro-Latin heritage as well as some more conventionally "African-American" background, as if someone or other is trying very hard to question her Latina-ness and imply that she's "less" Latin or "too black" to be Latin. Either that, or some black-pride stuff is going on, and someone's trying to over-emphasize her "blackness" for positive reasons. Either way, it seems PoV-pushing. Think back to less than a century ago, when there was similar bias against Irish Americans, and it used to be common for businesses to post "No dogs or Irishmen allowed" signs. Imagine if that had never receded, and today someone at an article changed it to read that the subject was part Irish-American and part Mexican (including part Irish-Mexican). See the issue? There's something weird going on with the Carey article. And we don't need her in the African Americans article. That's really all my positioning is on the question. (That, and I think Michael Jackson should be in the infobox one way or another, maybe in place of an actor or other entertainment male.) Hope that clarifies. My point was not to pick a draw-out argument with you, or generate one on the page, in general, with anyone. My approach to infobox examples in "peoples" articles is never include anyone if people argue about it; just replace the disputed inclusion with someone that doesn't generate any dispute. That seems to be a stable strategy, except for rare multi-ethnicities. If we had an article on "Manx Indians" maybe we couldn't afford to be choosy. [That said, I'd bet anything that there are way more Manx Indians among the broad grouping "British Indians" or "Indo-Britons" than anyone realizes.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I figured that you might address me on this talk page about the Carey "race"/ethnicity matter. I replied there at the article talk page before reading your reply here. If I've misinterpreted your views, I apologize. And I certainly was not trying to push or endorse POV-pushing. The section's question took me by surprise, given what I know about Mariah Carey and her ties to the African American community, including sources listing her as one of the greatest black/African American singers (whether noting her rivalry with Whitney Houston or something else), and so I answered. This is also why, unlike you, I don't see any weirdness going on with the Mariah Carey article in that regard. As for cases like Rihanna, she is also identified as black in various WP:Reliable sources and, from what I've read and seen, identifies as black. As for multi-ethnic people specifically, so much of the African American community is multi-ethnic due to years and years of so-called "mixing", especially during slavery. Editors looking for "pure black people" will be looking long and hard. Same goes for "pure white people," and so on. And, like I stated at Talk:African Americans, "This type of discussion is why I mainly stay out of 'race'/ethnicity discussions on Wikipedia; I've been clear on my talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia that most of the scientific community doesn't believe in 'race' in the way that society generally does, which is also why I commonly point to Recent African origin of modern humans in these types of discussions." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC).

Yeah, it seemed better to try to clarify with each other here than back-and-forth any more at the article talk (and to make it clear that the OR-related concerns aren't a belief on my part about your intent). The point about Rhianna wasn't whether she's "black" but whether she's "American" as most of our readers will internalize the meaning of that word; sorry I wasn't clearer on what I was getting at. "Moved to the US and works there" doesn't really mean "American" to most people. Carey: If a) she self-identifies unmistakeably as African-American (not just agrees that she has some African ancestry when asked, just as I'll agree I have Dutch ancestry when asked but don't think of myself as Dutch American), and b) third-party RS also categorize her this way, that's one thing. If either component is missing we have a problem. If the self-identification is missing, we're imposing something someone else said, without verification, on a BLP. While it's not an issue in this case, if the RS component were also missing, we'd be accepting at face value a claim for which there's no external verifiability; this mostly comes up when various "white" people try to claim ancestry that's dubious, like being "part-Cherokee", etc. You'd be amazed how many people make such claims and are full of crap or are relying on a "one-drop" rule because they're trying to claim or justify something, like Johnny Depp playing Tonto in a way that is sure to offend most actual Native Americans; or they're innocently wrong because some old uncle lied to them about the other side of the family when they were kids.)

Anyway, we clearly agree on the science; your scientific-community self-quote above mirrors the kind of thing I say myself. My entire approach to this sort of question about who should be included in such infoboxes is the KISS principle + principle of least astonishment + WP:NPOV + WP:NOR + WP:BATTLEGROUND, put in a blender. If any attempt at inclusion causes strife or confusion, it should just be removed and replaced with one that doesn't. Even if the phrasing (by a sock) of the heading of the thread that opened this discussion was hyperbolic, the discussion itself indicates that the confusion/dispute concern is real enough. I'm not making any argument that "pure black people" should be the only ones listed; that would be counterfactual, since nearly zero people who anyone would call African-American are entirely from the genetic stock of African populations. I also suggested a couple of light-skinned replacements for Carey. Hope this clarifies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock/IP

Not sure what to do with this. User:98.202.131.126 made severely biased edits on Richard Ofshe and Thurston County ritual abuse case to argue against him. This is a calling card of User:Tylas. Tylas was blocked as sock/related to User:FrankEM, which you were involved in reporting. FrankEm's first edits were to an article about a town in Utah. 98.202.131.126 geolocates to a small town in Utah (though slightly north of the town in the article). I don't know if the IP is static. The IP is active as of yesterday, doing a revert that was edited in a way to avoid my revert editing message. DreamGuy (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, that IP's editing style does not align with Tylas's editing style. At first glance, the IP could be Tisane (due to the interest in law and child sexual abuse topics); see #Socking / Tisane above. But as seen here, here and here, the IP is also interested in feminism/sexism topics, which is not typical of Tisane. Tisane does try to change up his style to throw me and others off, though. The IP is also interested in pornography topics, as seen here and here. I have no doubt that the IP is a WP:Sock, but I don't yet have a grasp on just who the WP:Sock is; could be a number of people (whether one of the past problematic pedo and/or child sexual abuse and age of consent POV-pushers, a past gamergate POV-pusher, and/or a problematic men's rights editor). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, when assessing an IP, keep WP:Proxy in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, looking at Tylas's contributions, I see (s)he has commented on child sexual abuse. The discussion there points to this, showing that (s)he was apparently against what (s)he perceived as pedo-POV pushers. You are more familiar with Tylas than I am; if you strongly suspect that the IP is Tylas, I suggest you report it, especially if you come across strong evidence supporting you on that. Per Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure, the WP:SPI case likely won't publicly tie the IP address to the account, but something constructive can be done about any problematic editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll look when I have time. Tylas was blocked and said I know where he lives, which seems related to this, but he made up emails, so who knows for sure right now. There are multiple nuts on here. DreamGuy (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I recently identified Tisane at a glance; he was Zenitnaya (talk · contribs). I reported him and his past socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla after he was blocked; I reported him for fresh, "on the record" data, meaning data available to WP:CheckUsers other than Alison (she shouldn't have to do all the work all the time, no matter that she's the WP:CheckUser most familiar with this sockmaster). I knew that after I mentioned him here, he would pop back up in my sights soon afterward. So, yes, when I saw the red-linked account at List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations, I was convinced it was him. Long-term sockmasters think alike, for the most part, when it comes to testing the waters (even if they know I will very likely spot them). This sockmaster in particular has an affinity for child sexual abuse topics, including child pornography topics. So when a new account pops up at these articles editing like a non-newbie (signing their first post, knowing how to use reference templates, etc.), the account is likely Tisane. Either Tisane, or another past WP:ArbCom-banned pedo and/or child sexual abuse and age of consent POV-pusher. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary: "Throwing a temper tantrum, that's what you've done"

In other words, you're claiming that your temper tantrum is somehow my fault...? How incredible that you believe someone rather than yourself can control your own actions. Right from my first post in the article talk page I was kind but weary - it seems the suspicion was valid. Have it your way, as you probably always do. I'm moving on, it's way past no longer worth the time, too much has already been invested, and in just one user with several replies over the space of a few hours with no input from other users - after a decade on here I should know better than to get involved in an article so inherently controversial. Enjoy and farewell. Timeshift (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Timeshift, you threw the temper tantrum. Obviously, you know that I was referring to you, but nice try coming here with a snarky reply about the matter. When you didn't get your way, you went right to attacking me. You were impatient about waiting for others' opinions, as if other editors always reply within an hour or so. You made it seem like directly seeking more opinions via a WP:RfC is a bad thing and is a sign of a problematic editor. You got it wrong, and I was clear about why. Oh, and if you are going to thank me via WP:Echo, you would do well to make sure that you are not doing it in antagonizing way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

C-V distance, this is right up your alley

redirected from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vagina#Proposed_acknowledgement_of_C-V_distance_and_significance_during_penetrative_sex

i cant be bothered with editing wikipedia articles so im hoping you will, after reading this:

some recent thoughts on sexuality, physiology, genetics, gender relations, race, religion

-vulva size/length genetically corresponds to phallus size/length which are cross-heritable (father to daughter, mother to son), passed down from both parents to both male and female offspring the same way height and other features are inherited

-sexual selection for larger/longer phallus in males is causing the clitoris to evolve further and further away from the vaginal canal (called the C-V distance), as the length of the vulva increases corresponding to the length of the phallus

-sexual selection for increasing human height which can also genetically correspond to phallus size, has contributed to increased vulva length in taller women

-the female orgasm from sexual penetration relies on the distance of the clitoris from the vaginal canal, a shorter C-V distance allows women to orgasm during penetration which was discovered by Princess Marie Bonaparte in the 1920′s

-female sexual selection of larger phallus males has caused their female offspring to inherit an ever-increasing vulva length/C-V distance from the paternal side, thereby decreasing the enjoyment of sexual penetration for the female offspring and increasing the chances the female will fail to procreate or become a lesbian (or both)

-males descending from longer vulva mothers inherit an increasingly longer phallus which has also been correlated with homosexuality in males, this may be due to the mother disliking sexual penetration and eventually disliking men causing the mothers relationship with the son and father to be strained and leading to an increased chance of the son disliking women

-asian males and females including chinese, indians, and southeast asians are known to have the smallest phallus sizes and correspondingly smallest vulvas/shortest C-V distances which may allow an increased enjoyment of sexual penetration among both males and females, this may also help to explain why the asian population has grown so large despite the chinese having no religious encouragement to procreate, and the indians having developed a relatively gender-equal religion in hinduism, similar in buddhism and taoism

-in western societies, patriarchal religion(abrahamism) has thrived by encouraging procreation while largely ignoring female desires/ignoring whether the female enjoys sexual penetration, while also discouraging homosexuality (homosexuality may serve as an evolutionary threshold naturally discouraging larger phallus/vulva individuals from procreating)

-religion may have also facilitated the ascension to increased average height among europeans, height which corresponds to increased phallus size and vulva length has caused the clitoris to evolve further away from the vaginal canal which may explain why the european birth rate has fallen so sharpely as religion declines in the region (can also potentially be said for the u.s.)

-religious inequality and male aggression may both be caused by and help perpetuate the decreasing enjoyment of sexual penetration among women as the size of the phallus and thus- length of the vulva has increased with each generation

-to improve this situation it would appear reasonable to encourage genetic “shrinking” through the sexual selection of smaller phallus males and smaller vulva females which in the short term may be found in shorter height individuals (and in asian races)

-eventually an optimal ratio/equilibrium of phallus size/vulva size could be reached potentially increasing the enjoyment of sexual penetration among women, desiring more sex and improving gender relations, decreasing sexual frustration and violent aggression among males (like the kind seen in islam)

EDIT: this got a bit long so in summary- the distance between the clitoris tip and the vaginal canal called the C-V distance genetically corresponds to the length of the penis, meaning large penis men are creating female offspring who cannot orgasm during penetrative sex because their clitoris is too far from the opening of their vagina, even if these large-vulva women enjoy penetration they likely cannot orgasm from penetration alone, in a perfect world men would have short girthy penises and women would have small round vulvas with clitoris's right near the edge of the vaginal canal allowing both male and female to orgasm during penetrative sex

sources:

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-hew-ordistance11feb11-story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/sex-study-female-orgasm-eludes-majority-women/story?id=8485289

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/g-spot-vaginal-orgasm-myth_n_5947930.html

http://www.78stepshealth.us/human-physiology/development-of-accessory-sex-organs-and-external-genitalia.html

http://www.hypospadias-emotions.com/chapter01.html

http://the5thforce.tumblr.com/

12/1/2015

The5thForce (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

additional sources building on racial/religious implications:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/28/want-to-know-which-country-has-the-biggest-penises-in-the-world-5083922/

http://klaq.com/worldwide-penis-survey-heres-the-chart-were-talking-about-this-a-m/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_religion

http://distro.nonpolynomial.com/files/female_sexual_mechanics.pdf

http://lazypawn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

The5thForce (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The5thForce, how did you become aware of me as an editor? By that, I mean your very first post was to my talk page. As for the content you want to add, you are citing some poor sources; see WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS. At whichever article's talk page, it would also be better for you to propose the exact content you want added; by that, I mean a proposed paragraph or so...with appropriate sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Human sexuality

Hello, Flyer22 Reborn,
Could you check the edits made to Human sexuality by editor Giltnerj? I reverted their changes to the childhood sexuality section because the material seemed questionable to me. I noticed they are a student account but I don't know if these edits are related to some assignment. I warned them that it was unwise to edit in this topical area but since you are so familiar with these articles, I wanted to get your opinion. I don't want to remove content that is supported by psychological or medical research but this material seemed sketchy. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You were obviously right to revert this, given the way it was added. As for this, I reverted it as unsourced. What you are seeing with that article is what I noted before at that talk page after you inquired an editor about improving that article -- the constant on-and-off, poor WP:Student editing at that article is one of the reasons for that article's poor state, and one of the main reasons I'd given up on significantly improving that article. It is a dumping ground. When WP:Student editing is bad, the editing typically goes the way it's been going on at that article, or it goes like this other recent case at the Transgender article. As you may know, contacting the WP:Education noticeboard for help is an option. When WP:Student editing is good, it goes like this and this case at the Asexuality article. I've slowly gotten back into improving the Human sexuality article, but that article is a huge challenge, especially given the broadness of human sexuality; by that, I mean its large scope, if that wasn't clear already. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you checking it out, Flyer22 Reborn. I left a note with the instructor that it was unwise for students to be writing pro-child sexuality content on Wikipedia. More than one editor has gotten globally blocked for promoting a similar point of view. Personally, since this is a student in a class about feminism and sexuality writing, I think the student was aiming for cutting-edge, not creepy but you really can't be too cautious when editing on this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I know that the topic of child sexuality makes people uncomfortable, and that they are more accustomed to the topic of adolescent sexuality, but there are various scholars who state that child sexuality is normal (for example, playing doctor) and that we shouldn't stigmatize it. There are also a lot of people who state that they knew they were straight or gay as early as age five. I think that the student was simply reporting on some of the stuff in the literature. Since this is an encyclopedia, even uncomfortable stuff like that will be reported here; this is not a WP:Child protection violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, see, Flyer22 Reborn, this is exactly why I asked your opinion! You have a less reactive, more informed and clinical approach to sensitive subjects like this. Again, you have my thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 Reborn. I understand Liz's concern, but I agree that information on child sexuality does not encourage pedophilia. Muedemum 13:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muedemum (talk • contribs)

D'SuperHero

Doesn't look much like a new editor, but I really can't say anything more definite than that, and I can't see any other account that is obviously the same person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, as noted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Amazing Spider-Man 2/archive1, I'm sure he's a sock. And that he added the same exact text that JaJa0N11 (talk · contribs) was edit warring over makes me suspect that he is JaJa0N11, who also wasn't new and was engaging in other sketchy conduct. Either way, from what I see, D'SuperHero is a sockmaster; not a very clever one either. I'll look further into this, but I won't heavily concern myself with the case. With or without my help, D'SuperHero will eventually be indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see a number of similarities to JaJa0N11, but also a number of differences. I hate this sort of situation: too much evidence to dismiss the idea, but not enough to be certain. Well, if you do come up with anything more definite, please let me know. (And yes, I do understand what you mean about gut reactions and suchlike, but it would be difficult to justify blocking without anything clearer.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

My initial thought was D'SuperHero was the newest TJK sock, but CU findings said unrelated technically. The behavior absolutely screams sock though, and there are some strong similarities to TJK (see the SPI page). DSH's has started to a lot of new page patrolling which almost falls in line with Jin's recent efforts to get articles up to GA or FA status. They are finding new areas of Wikipedia and exploring them. The copyright stuff was an area that Jin has struggled with previously and it was got their main account (TJK) blocked in the first place. I don't know. Something isn't right here, but it's all fuzzy evidence and as you can see from their talk page, they aren't very good about responding to others (another TJK similarity). Ravensfire (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire, technical evidence certainly is not always everything; see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#The one that got away. It concerns a sock that got away with socking because the technical evidence didn't connect him to his master account, despite the fact that the behavioral evidence was overwhelming; I was so disgusted by the situation that I made it a goal to bring that sock down, and eventually did. Also, as indicated above, JaJa0N11 doesn't have a problem with letting someone else use his account; so if D'SuperHero is JaJa0N11, it's not surprising that he would beat the technical evidence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Slut article: Help, please

Hi there, it seems that we have come to a disagreement on the article "slut." We are obviously new to this; however, we are trying out best so please be respectful. We are open to your suggestions, so how would you recommend going about our changes? We need to make revisions to the article in order to get points for a final project in class, so deleting all of our changes is not an option for us. We are willing to work with you and listen to what you have to say. What do you have in mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolekappeler (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Adam (Wiki Ed), thanks for this.

Hello, Nicolekappeler. I apologize for not trying to directly engage you first at Talk:Slut#WP:Class assignment; I've clarified my problems with your edits there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: I added "Slut article:" to the above heading so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Education

I saw you posted about some mainspace issues on the education noticeboard. May I invite you to participate in an RFC on potential improvements to Wiki Edu, please?

Have I welcomed you reincarnation yet? I so so now. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent, nice to see you again. I will weigh in on that discussion later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Clitoral erection article

Re: the article on Clitoral Erection. Please explain why you deleted my contribution on the hypothesis of clitoral erectile dysfunction and its accompanying reference to academia.edu The Wikipedia rules require published references for claims of fact, but my edit only stated that there is a hypothesis, and cited an article verifying that the hypothesis exits.Newnamenow (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Newnamenow (talk · contribs), I briefly explained why I reverted you; I pointed you to WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). In other words, the source you added is not up to medical standards. Your addition was WP:Fringe, which is another reason I reverted. And these issues are also clear by the WP:Editorializing you engaged in, which is also yet another reason I reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply but you have not addressed my specific comment. My edit stated that a hypothesis exists (clitoral erectile dysfunction); I merely stated that the hypothesis exists, called it a "hypothesis," and cited evidence that the hypothesis exists. I also stated that empirical research is necessary for confirmation. I did not make any other statements of fact. Do you want a peer-reviewed journal to verify that somebody has proposed a hypothesis? I also did not editorialize using any of the specific words listed by Wikipedia. You are editorializing by saying "these issues are clear..." Newnamenow (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Newnamenow (talk · contribs), I did address your specific comment. Per what I stated above, your addition does not belong. And the "empirical research is necessary for confirmation" aspect is what I considered WP:Editorializing; if that's in the source, then it's not WP:Editorializing. Nothing I stated above is WP:Editorializing. I suggest you ask at WP:Med for more opinions on your addition. I have nothing else to state on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Newnamenow (talk · contribs) If I may de-lurk and attempt to help: The Academia.edu site is just a self-publishing mechanism for academics (and plenty of wannabes). The appearance of a draft paper there is no more a reliable source than me posting about a conspiracy involving Elvis and Bigfoot on my personal blog. The preprint service arXive is a little better, but should still be used with a lot of caution, and often raises objections. In particular, all preprint papers (and all new-research papers that actually do appear in journals) are in fact primary sources for the claims they make, and thus cannot be be used for "AEIS" claims (analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis). If the paper you want to cite is published by a reputable bio-medical journal (or perhaps even a reputable one in another but relevant field like sexology or physical anthropology), then you may have reliable sourcing at that point. But even then it would remain a primary source. Skimming the paper, I'm not sure the subject matter really is WP:FRINGE, but it's not a hypothesis that's verifiable with a reliable source (yet). The fact that someone has the idea expressed in the paper (i.e. the fact that the hypothesis seems to exist) doesn't make it encyclopedically relevant. I could come up with a "hypothesis" that clitoral erectile tissue was actually implanted in our genome by aliens from Arcturus, but that doesn't mean it should be included in the encyclopedia. See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not quite a lot of things, including a dumping ground for random unusual ideas that are not (yet?) scientifically supported in reliable literature. Hope this helps.

Ask yourself "Would Encyclopaedia Britannica print this?" If not, there's a good bet it should not be included here. (Except that WP's standards for what constitutes "notable" with regard to pop-culture topics is much lower than Britannica's, which is why we have so many articles on video games, porn stars, and soap opera actors. But WP does not have lower standards for biomedical information.) Flyer22 is correct that WP:EDITORIALIZING applies to article content, not talk page discussions. I'm not sure I'd consider "empirical research is necessary for confirmation" to be editorializing if this is apparent from the conclusion of the paper (which is often the case); the problem is basically that if the idea has not had any actual research yet, it's just noise, not information, and WP does not exist to publish click-bait noise of this sort. This hypothesis could theoretically become notable in its own right if it generated real-world controversy, even before it was subjected to research, but there's no evidence of this. We'd need external sources (e.g. newspapers, science magazines, etc.) telling us it was controversial. Doesn't seem likely. In the end, this sounds like a topic to blog about or discuss on Web forums; it's not encyclopedia material and won't be, if ever, for quite some time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish Thanks for your input. I appreciate your agreement that the subject matter of clitoral erectile dysfunction may not be "fringe," and my edit may not have been "editorializing." My edit was reverted by Flyer22 Reborn on the reasoning that the reference I included was not a reliable source of medical information. If that's the real issue, then why wasn't my edit marked or modified rather than being deleted completely? In addition, you now suggest that the hypothesis about clitoral erectile dysfunction may not be "encyclopedically relevant" (yet). If I understand you correctly, any journalist who decides the hypothesis about clitoral erectile dysfunction is newsworthy and controversial and publishes an article about it in a newspaper would make it "encyclopedically relevant"? I hope I don't sound impolite so I should mention that this isn't the first time my attempt to edit this article was swiftly censored by an editor (in 2012?) rather than being marked or modified for improvement. Newnamenow (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this has been a stimulating conversation to peer in on, but to answer your question (Newnamenow, that is) of "why was I reverted"; you were reverted because of a common editing practice known as Bold, Revert, Discuss (BRD). If an edit(/s) does not look like it belongs on Wiki, any reasonable editor may revert the edit, in which case the reverted editor should instigate discussion on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Clitoral erection. The reasons for reverting edits, such as the one above, is because some topic areas require more stringent editing practices (in this case, the Medical Reliable Source guideline and the "fringe/alternative" guideline, as well as the policies discussed and listed above and below). Hence, you were reverted because your edit did not appear to be of a sufficient standard to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, which is why talk page discussions are often helpful; the discussion stimulates interest in improving the article (whether through addition, status quo, or removal of content), in correcting the edit - hopefully/if possible - and to help the original editor. For the technical reasons of why the edit was actually reverted, i.e. the reasons the edit was reverted in the first place, see SMcCandish's comment above.

Also, in regards to the line; ...any journalist who decides the hypothesis about clitoral erectile dysfunction is newsworthy and controversial and publishes an article about it in a newspaper would make it "encyclopedically relevant"?; see also the quote from WP:WEIGHT - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:PROMO have relevance though they are directed more at editors posting self-created content, though they both rely on WP:NPOV, including NPOV's WEIGHT section. WP:Verify plays a role as well in these discussions.

I'm not sorry for the puns, but I do hope the brief explanations helps you understand the assumed reason behind the revision. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

___

Keshi anderson page

What I wrote on the keshis Anderson page was a nickname are you a CPFC or DRFC supporter CK DRFC 496 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Hounding: Daenerys Targaryen article

Cebr1979, you're suddenly at the Daenerys Targaryen article, I see. May I ask why is that? Whatever explanation you have, I'm sure you've mainly decided to edit the article because I'm there. You either followed me or TAnthony to that article, and I'm willing to bet it's me that you followed. I've been clear with you that if you continue to follow me to articles, I will report you at WP:ANI. It seems that you continue to follow me, and then make it out as though I'm being paranoid and as though you are not following me. You are engaging in a clear case of WP:Hounding (including when you popped up in a WP:ANI thread concerning me), and it will be dealt with if you continue to follow me (I'm just biding my time collecting evidence; there is no bluffing on my part), just like it's been dealt with when I've had other stalkers. As you know, SMcCandlish gave me some advice on how to go about this; I will also be keeping that in mind. When discussing matters with TAnthony at that article's talk page, I was thinking how wonderful it is that I've known TAnthony for years as a good soap opera editor, partly because of the calm way he discusses issues and how he doesn't resort to attacking (not usually anyway); after that, I thought about how my recent soap opera article experiences have been troubling because of you. I was also thinking of how wonderful it is that, unlike the The Walking Dead articles, I don't have to interact with you at the Game of Thrones articles. And not even two hours later, there you were at the Daenerys Targaryen article; at times like this, I feel psychic. I will ignore any reply you make in this section since it will be nothing but mischaracterizations, denials, and so on. I would have posted on your talk page about this, but you blank everything off of there and you've made it clear that you think you completely own it; there's also the fact that I've always refrained from posting on your talk page; no need for me to start now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I only read as far as "May I ask why is that?" No, Flyer, you may not. You have no right to. I can edit whatever pages I want, as can anyone, and I have edited GoT pages in the past. What you may do, Flyer, is grow the Hell up and quit delusionally believing my world revolves around you.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: More evidence of Cebr1979's stalking is here. Of course, he'll argue that he just happened to be at WP:ANI because of his own concerns. But that is not the case at all. Like a number of others, he is seriously obsessed with me. The pattern of his stalking, including claims of me just being paranoid or having an ego, is the same as others I've dealt with. I can anticipate his every move. And he will be dealt with as well, since the evidence keeps mounting up. That is, if he isn't indefinitely blocked first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lol - That's not evidence of anything, Flyer (except that you lie and are a drama queen).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Except those timestamps are evidence. Seriously, it took you six minutes to respond the first time, and now you've cut it down to three minutes Cebr1979. Perhaps taking a voluntary interaction ban for a week would be an amicable solution. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Shoulda been less than three/six minutes... y'know... since she PINGED ME and all (like you just did)! Good God...Cebr1979 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but when you're responding the way you are ... and about someone with Flyer's reputation in dealing with problem editors and idiots ... it looks fairly fishy, no matter the notification or not Cebr1979. Think about a possible voluntary interaction ban, it may help you both realise that Wikipedia is about helping to improve public knowledge in a public domain for the general public to publicly access and then publicly contribute to, rather than just the editors. Flyer knows this, but deals with too many problem editors and the like, and has dealt with stalkers before but I think she just wants to feel like she isn't being chased around by an editor, whether the editor is or isn't chasing her. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No (and, this time, I'm replying quickly because I've been waiting for your response). Nothing looks "fishy" here. If you ping someone to a conversation, they're going to know about it... instantly. I don't make false accusations against Flyer so there's no need for an IBAN. What I do, is tell the truth: Flyer22 Reborn is a liar. Flyer22 Reborn is delusional. Flyer22 Reborn walks around like her sh*t don't stink saying baseless sh*t about anyone she pleases and that needs to stop! "The way I am responding" is by stating facts: Flyer22 Reborn is a liar, she is delusional, and she does make baseless accusations and seems to assume that her excuse of "I'm collecting proof and will get to it at a later date" is acceptable. It's not. She needs to show her proof or shut the Hell up!Cebr1979 (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So, on the time thing: 19 minutes without a ping. Just saying; and yes, I am aware that notifications are instant since I just helped with a large update on the WP:Notifications page. I would also recommend on top of a voluntary, "no fault, two-way interaction ban" that you read the WP:No personal attacks page. Even if a user makes aspersions or otherwise attacks you, you should not respond in a similar, or pettier, way. Responding with comments such as the one above are liable to get you blocked or banned anyway. I'm just trying to cut the shit happening between you and Flyer Cebr1979 so you can stop trying to "right" Flyer's "great wrong" against you and just get on with editing Wikipedia. Is that really something you can't live with? Getting some sort of "revenge" on a person you 'interact' with over a computer screen, a person who you don't know and are quite likely to never know? If you can't live without that "revenge", then you really are being petty and need to be blocked so you can realise that and regain a life in the real world. Seriously, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So... you start by mentioning 19 minutes or whatever and then blah blah blah your way to telling me I should "just get on with editing Wikipedia" which (my contributions list will prove) I have already been doing so... What was the point of your post, exactly? Oh, right... there wasn't one. You're bizarre.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and... editors can't be blocked for telling the truth and the truth is: Flyer22 Reborn is a liar. Flyer22 Reborn is delusional. Flyer22 Reborn walks around like her sh*t don't stink saying baseless sh*t about anyone she pleases and that needs to stop! Editors also can't be blocked for stating facts and the facts are: Flyer22 Reborn is a liar, she is delusional, and she does make baseless accusations and seems to assume that her excuse of "I'm collecting proof and will get to it at a later date" is acceptable. It's not. She needs to show her proof or shut the Hell up!Cebr1979 (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? Whatever, you can have a fun ride on Wiki while it lasts before an Admin pulls you off your high-horse with a block for being a rude so-and-so. Have a fun time, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer! In regards to these accusations/allegations you've made against me (and have been making for quite some time now)... When can I expect your "proof?"

'Cause I'm only giving you 24 hours starting now. *tick*tock*Cebr1979 (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• tickety*tock*tock*tockerson*Cebr1979 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Less than 12 hours to go...Cebr1979 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: More WP:Hounding from Cebr1979 is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! If that's "evidence" of hounding... explain how I was there first (and then you tried to cover that up)!!!!!!! Hahahahaha! You just can't stop lying, being delusional, and throwing out accusations with no proof, can you? Less than two hours to go! (But, to be honest, I wasn't really thinking when I came up with the ultimatum... I'm off to work so you actually have until sometime between noon and 2pm British Columbia time).Cebr1979 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Remember when people used to come rushing to your defence? Ya! Those were great times, weren't they? Doesn't happen much anymore, though. Dang.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In regards to your edit summary... I'm not being ignored, Flyer. You're scared. And you know it as well as I do. You have been saying for months and months and months that you have been "gathering evidence" against for your phoney accusations.

You are not only a liar, you're ignorant. Allow me to ruin your reputation right here, right now. This is WIKIPEDIA! Not real life, Flyer. When a crime is committed in real life, investigators need to "gather evidence" by... oh... y'know... talking to witnesses... checking security cameras... doing this, doing that... HOWEVER: This is not real life, Flyer. It's WIKIPEDIA! EVERYTHING is time stamped. EVERYTHING is dated. EVERYTHING is RIGHT HERE waiting for you to click on it (and we all know you're the queen of linking). You don't need to "gather evidence." Noone on WIKIPEDIA does. Ever. Noone needs to talk to witnesses. Ever. Noone needs to check security cameras. Ever. Noone needs to do this, noone needs to do that. Ever!!!!!!!!!! All the (so-called) "evidence" someone (aka: you) needs is right here: in an edit summary... in a talk page... in a contributions list... It's all here. And you've been "gathering" LIES for MONTHS NOW! Show us some! 'Cause, sweetheart, I got lots to the contrary. This will be my last post to your talk page. Next we meet, it'll be at ANI.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hey Fly, looks like the Todd FAC is going well; I'm sure it will pass. The reason I'm here, though, is that I wanted your opinion. Tonight I reverted this edit [1], and then looked at the editor's talk page. It looked oddly similar to this talk page: [2]. You'll notice that both users have gotten numerous disamb notifications, and warnings about adding unsourced info and excessive, unnecessary details to articles; for example this warning [3]. Rtkak3 has been a thorn in my side for years; he tends to drive by Sesame Street articles and add OR to them, despite numerous requests to stop. See [4], for another example. I could cite more, but you get the gist. You'll notice that Maxamillion Smart also has lots of disamb notifications and warnings about adding unsourced details. They also tend to edit similar articles; see their respective contributions [5], [6].

So what's your opinion? Do you think they're socks? I wanted to ask you, since you have an uncanny ability to spot them. If they are socks, then I'll probably ask for your opinion in reporting it, since you're the expert on that, too. Thanks in advance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Jam Ai Can

How Do I Upload A Picture Though Jam ai can (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

what the hell man

Why are you putting misinformation on the Craig Kilborn page. Check the very citation that uses. He does not say 'lewinsky' he says 'blow me'. It's recorded in thousands of sources. I have no idea where this obfuscation came from or why you are perpetuating it. Now how is THAT constructive? Hmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.243.251 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

		The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Utbindas sock investigation

Ha - I was amused when I saw you'd thought I might be one of the offending parties. I don't blame you!! They were SO obnoxious and so aggressively pushing their agenda that I ended up trying to work around them - but now they've been blasted and blocked, I can take a look at their editing and start toning down the sleaze/objectification again. Just glad it's been dealt with! Mabalu (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mabalu, I didn't wonder if you were one of the offending parties for long. A quick examination of your account (including how old it is) and the way you interacted with Utbindas showed you to be innocent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that some more odd editing behaviour took place immediately after the block, particularly on Choli - I've summarised it on the sockpuppet investigation page, but I think we have a devious player here. Mabalu (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

I reported you there, for personally attacking other editors, with no evidence.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Charlotte135 is referring to this. And now Charlotte135 will see what happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Flyer22reborn you cannot call editors stalkers and abuse people. I'm sure you know the system very well, noting your direct threat after I dared to try and do trhe right thing and report you for abusing and attacking those other editors, based on your threat "And now Charlotte135 will see what happens" I won't be intimidated by you. Those 2 editors were obviously upset by your personal attacks on their good faith edits and their character, who wouldn't be!. You cannot keep casting aspersions, with no evidence either as as this editor tried to tell you but you don't listen. with this comment. I was hesitant to report this but someone had to.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably worth pasting the full comment hoping you finally listen and stop it!

@Flyer22 Reborn: Unfortunately, you seem unable to discuss this topic without scattering WP:ASPERSIONS like confetti, based on no evidence at all. Apparently I "enabled" men's rights activists for giving my good faith input at WP:RSN and WP:MEDRS. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. You might want to think about the possibility that you have become jaded after encountering too many sockpuppets and POV pushers in this area. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC}

• Charlotte135, I am going to give you some very good advice: Stop making these accusations against Flyer22reborn and focus on your own behavior. Montanabw^(talk) 05:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Query

How can you manage to keep so many pages under your watchlist? You are everywhere reverting vandalism. --The Avengers 04:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Flyer, but I've got over 5,000 pages on mine. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have 26,084 pages on my watchlist. But I mistakenly opted to have an automatic check for "Watch this page" so this includes every page I've edited and a few I'm just interested in. Since many of these pages are categories which are rarely edited, it's not too overwhelming. Right now, it lists 2,088 changes in the last 72 hours. But you rule out the bots and it becomes manageable. Some pages only get edited a couple of times a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Like you, Liz, I have many pages on my watchlist that are sparingly edited; that makes my 7,737-paged watchlist manageable. I remove some pages every few days or so. And I plan to eventually remove the vast majority of them. My watchlist is not how I usually revert problematic edits, though. WP:STiki is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your buddy, Viriditas, didn't notify you, so I am instead.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, Flyer, I don't know how you put up with all this drama. You deserve some kind of trophy from Jimbo himself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chotala. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GeneralKutuzov (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralKutuzov: Are you sure you left this message to the correct person? HighInBC 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighinBC: Yes. According to the edit history for Chotala, Flyer22 Reborn was responsible for inserting incorrect information into the main infobox of the article. I have reverted that edit to an earlier version with correct information. GeneralKutuzov (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Look again. This is the only edit they made and it is clearly not what you say. Also you did not edit that article at all from the history of it. I have left a message on your talk page, this is not the only incorrect vandalism warning you have given today. HighInBC 17:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

GeneralKutuzov This edit does not constitute vandalism. Flyer removed unsourced content that was laden with poor typography, in a subject area (India/Pakistan/Afghanistan) that is highly contentious and subject to discretionary ArbCom sanctions. Any editor worth their salt would have done the same thing. You should strongly consider striking out the warning (<s></s>) and apologizing for your mistake. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	To Flyer22 for being a true champion! Montanabw(talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Montanabw. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Kane Rape Accusation section.

I believe IF he is found innocent, it needs to be clarified. It will hurt his profile if not. Nezi1111 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nezi1111, I reverted you because I don't see where it's been confirmed that the rape accusation was a false rape accusation. I see speculation, but no confirmation. Therefore, I viewed your changing the heading to make it seem like the woman was lying as non-neutral. That the case was dropped, which doesn't mean "innocent," is already noted in the section. There is no need to bias the heading.

On a side note: It would have been better if you had taken this matter to the article talk page; I'll leave a WP:Dummy edit note to alert editors to the fact that this topic has been discussed. Like I stated when reverting you, I came across that article via WP:STiki and I will not edit over it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Flyer22 Reborn as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Holidays and thanks for all you have done this year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hey Flyer, Merry Christmas and I hope the New Year brings less annoying editors to you talkpage. Have a great holiday and please continue the wonderful work you do on Wikipedia, even when it feels wasted; your work is always appreciated by those who care. Holiday cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalking my edits

I would appreciate it if you would stop stalking my edits. Seriously, you actually reverted my edits, including valid ones, on a worthless article about Justin Bieber, whom I despise intensely but edited his article just to prove that I can be neutral. Power trip much?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PhiladelphiaInjustice, do your homework. I have been editing the Justin Bieber article for sometime now. I did not need to follow you there from the The Walking Dead (TV series) article. I reverted your entire edit to alert you to your needless censoring and to give you a chance to fix it; I do not need to clean up for you. I'm already doing that at the WP:Good article you are making worse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is you who is making articles "worse" via your "needless" edits. You improperly reverted my edits on the Bieber article, other than arguably the use of the racial slur in question. My version is more encyclopedic and you know it. Please stop playing games and being a bully.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PhiladelphiaInjustice, this discussion and this discussion show that I make articles better, not worse (usually anyway). I can point to other examples where your edits have been detrimental. You insist on an edit and then you stick to it, no matter how wrong you are. It takes multiple editors to set you straight. It's surprising that you even backed away from the apocalyptic vs. post-apocalyptic matter; that is, unless you are planning to revisit that, despite being blatantly wrong. If your approach to disputes were not to insist that you are right in the face policies, guidelines and/or the sources, we wouldn't butt heads the way we do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I usually just skim over text; I do not have the patience to read every word because I am almost always multitasking. As such, I often miss pertinent details. But at least my edits are made in good faith. The fact that you reverted all of my edits, including the completely valid/encyclopedic ones, on the worthless Justin Bieber article screams volumes about your hypocrisy and sanctimony in accusing me of Wiki wrongs.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PhiladelphiaInjustice, see this? Yeah, that's all I have to state to you for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You apparently have two standards, one for you and one for me. Again, you have disruptively edited my perfectly valid edits on the Bieber article (the least valuable at Wikipedia, in my opinion. If I can be neutral there, I can do it anywhere.) Your only possibly legitimate grip was with restoring the "n" word, which I had removed because it is highly offensive and spreads hatred and hostility towards blacks, and obviously makes them resentful. My other edits thereon were highly encyclopedic and you know it. And by the way, my research about the apocalypse vs. post issue consisted of a quick reading of the former word's definition at a website or two. Yes, I should have investigated further. But another editor has even admitted that there is no clear cut choice.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

PhiladelphiaInjustice, when someone states that they are not interested in talking with a person any further, they often mean it. When someone states that, it is a cue for the other person to go about their business anywhere but that person's talk page. It is not a cue to go on and on about how unjust you think that person has been toward you. I am not interested in your view of things when it comes to me. I am interested in the fact that you cannot be neutral and have to edit an article about a celebrity you hate in order to "prove" that you can be neutral. I haven't seen a case yet where you can be neutral. And, given what you stated above about Justin Bieber and his Wikipedia article, I remain unconvinced that you should be editing that article. It has enough anti-fans editing it; it doesn't need any more. It doesn't need any more fans editing either, since they often go about editing it like it's a fansite (see WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:Fansite). I am neither a fan nor a hater of Justin Bieber, and so, yes, I consider myself far more neutral editing that article than most who edit it. Either way, I only make minor edits to it and clean up after others. We do not censor words for no good reason; I already pointed you to WP:BOWDLERIZE. In the case of the word nigger, which many black people do not let hold any power over them, the word is censored in the references in that section, but not the way you censored it; you made it so that readers don't even know what slur he used unless they read the references; that is not helping our readers. Per WP:BOWDLERIZE, I am fine with censoring that word when the references do. As seen with this edit, Cornerstonepicker wasn't. I then made this revert. And with this edit, I compromised. As for the apocalyptic vs. post-apocalyptic matter, you are wrong; accept it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheers

Hello Flyer22 Reborn: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mistercontributer (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

hahaha what?

Nothing to do with editing or anything, but I was snooping around your page and reading stuff. Is this "BoyLover" wiki essentially a pedophile wiki? I didn't even know what "boylover" meant until finding this bullshit, seems like it's some sugared up term for pedophile. I can see why they'd have a bone to pick with you Second Skin (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Second Skin, yes, that's a pedophile wiki. It's also a wiki for the pederasty folks. Yes, "boylover" is a pedophile term (a term used by pedophiles or the pederasty variety). And, yes, I am one of the main targets for pedophiles who want to edit the pedophilia, child sexual abuse and age of consent topics in ways that violate the WP:Neutral policy. They want me gone, and have been vocal enough about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never ever been aware that there are literally a group of kiddie rapers on the internet who actually band together and start a club. This is blowing my mind on so many levels. Btw Merry Christmas and thanks for explaining. Second Skin (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

regrding article sethi

i have corrected the article to the best of my knowledge after being assured from many other sources like punjab caste system sangreh,articles from other trusted ssikh websites like sikhi wiki. i am citing the source according to which i have corrected the information. please undo it after being assured from the link given below. thankyou

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sethi

http://www.jatland.com/home/Sethi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhpal singh brar (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sukhpal singh brar, I first reverted you at this article. And minutes ago, I reverted you at another one. The problem with your latter edit is that we don't format articles like that; see MOS:Layout and WP:Manual of Style; the other problem is that wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's also not a good idea to copy the entire page of another site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

hello please help me correct the article sethi . there is some information needed to be added so that the information can be properly used. there are very few proofs for this information. please help me as this information is very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhpal singh brar (talk • contribs) 10:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

you see that sethi is also present in hindus as well as among sikhs. actually sethi was a jatt man , on whose name village sethiala was named and this village was afterwards named sathiala. so the natives of this village who are jatt put their surname as sethi. people often mistake them for the hindu sethis who are khatri.

in case of sikhs, sethi is both khatri as well as jatt. those hindus who adopted sikhism after the 1947 indo pak separation were actually khatris but after adopting sikhism they became sikh khatris. whereas on the other hand sikhs who hailed from village sethiala also put sethi as their surname because they hailed from the village sethiala which was later named sathiala. so sethis among sikhs are often mixed and harm the religious sentiments of both. because khatri sethis dont like themselves being called as migrants of sethiala but as khatri sikhs .also the residents of sethiala(now called sathiala) do not like themselves being calles as khatri sikhs as they are jatts by origin and birt and not khatris. so i request you to help me in some way. you can either put some informatio in the main article sethi or you can create sethi caste in both sikhism and hinduism different pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhpal singh brar (talk • contribs) 10:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sukhpal singh brar, I'm not familiar with this topic and am not sure how to help you expand those articles. What I know is how you should not expand them; this is why I pointed to MOS:Layout, WP:Manual of Style and WP:Reliable sources. Read those pages for a better understanding of what I mean. If you follow the appropriate layout for a Wikipedia article and source the material with good sources, you should be fine. Remember that Wikipedia or another wiki is not a WP:Reliable source. And be careful not to violate the WP:Copyright violations policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	"Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

Flyer22 Reborn reported as a WP:Sock

Noting this wonderful gift by Dennis Bratland; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420. Thank you for the humor/Christmas gift, Dennis Bratland. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What a joke. Merry Christmas, Flyer! Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: STSC, regarding this edit, see this edit. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive#Comments by other users. I'm sorry that you are having difficulty with this editor, but I stand by what I stated in that sockpuppet investigation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

		Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
		May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

...And a happy New Year!

GAB^Hello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wishing you all the best,

GAB^Hello! 03:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Help a girl out?

Hey! I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia and I was told that you'd be a good person to talk to about the areas that I'm mainly editing. In my sandbox right now is a short section on oppositional sexism, problem is I'm not sure if it would fit in on Sexism, as it relates to other issues like Cissexism and Heteronormativity. If you could help me out, that would be rad. Moira98 (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Moira98. What you have would fit fine in the Sexism article. While it relates to the other topics as well, the keywords are obviously "oppositional sexism." If I were you, I'd place it in the Transgender discrimination subsection of the Gender discrimination section. It seems like you've already thought about placing it there. Per WP:Summary style, you can summarize it in the other articles as well and point readers to the section at the Sexism article for more detail, using a WP:Hatnote if you have to. Sometimes copying a whole section is fine (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), but it often comes with needing to keep both (or all) sections (depending on how many times the section has been copied) in sync (meaning when you update one section, the other one in the other article needs updating too). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is also WP:Transclusion, which can make the copying matter easier. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Flyer22 Reborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

about that thing

I have to apologize for the sockuppet investigation. Obviously we disagree over what constitutes strong enough evidence to request checkuser, and when it turns out you're wrong it's hard feelings all around. I think you're aware of the kind of effects caused by editors like the person in this case whose only purpose is creating conflict. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to an RfC

This is a neutral notice for you to join an RfC at Star Wars: The Force Awakens given your work at the Film project. The RfC is regarding if a title including "Episode VII" should be considered an alternate title to the film. The RfC can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:GeorgiaWikiWriter

This User:GeorgiaWikiWriter doesn't stop. I've told him several times already but he still makes Chichua article disrupted. His editing behavior must be addressed. Pinging @Jimfbleak: to also see this user. Jaqeli 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Jaqeli, I see that I gave him a warning on his talk page, after your warning, and he hasn't heeded it. This editor might be a case of a person meaning well, but he is WP:Disruptive regardless. You can report him at WP:ANI since trying to communicate with him via edit summaries and/or on his talk page is not working out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You can also try calmly talking with this editor about what he is doing wrong, but I will note right now that he is unlikely to reply. That's why I give these types of editors a stern warning the first time I comment on their talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats! Todd's pet bird Moose came to your talk page to congratulate you for your hard work on his friend's FAC. And to thank you for your dedication to Wikipedia. And to wish you a happy New Year! Seriously, I really do thank you for this article. DYK that this is only the 6th soap opera FA, the 3rd FA about a soap character, and the only FA about an American soap character? Quite an accomplishment, and we both should be proud. I'm also proud that I got to work with you, and that we're editing buddies. Hope we can continue collaborating in 2016! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Figureskatingfan. I figured you might comment here at my talk page after the article reached WP:FA status. I also figured that I might comment on your talk page about it. As you know, we commonly disagreed, but that didn't stop us from working well together; that's the way Wikipedia editing should be (with the exception of trying to work with those who simply don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines no matter how many times one tries to help them understand, and are WP:Disruptive as a result; for example, the commonly misunderstood WP:Neutral policy).

Anyway, I've been meaning to show you two clips between Todd and Gabrielle since, like other women who were in Todd's life, they had an interesting relationship; the clips speak volumes about Todd's libido, humor and seriousness when it comes to getting what he wants: The first clip (best to start at 5:48) is Gabrielle trying to seduce Todd so that she can get back a sex tape he intends to use to blackmail her. The second clip is Gabrielle trying to get revenge and a job via blackmailing Todd about "the dead baby" lie. No matter how dangerous Todd was, Gabrielle was one of the women to test the boundaries of that danger. I never forgot the sexual seduction scene, because, well...you'll see. The second clip, where Todd is talking with Blair at the end also shows that Todd still had a desire to be "normal"; the both of them did (we can't forget that Blair was also quite a messed up individual). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Flyer22 Reborn!

Happy New Year!

Flyer22 Reborn,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Flyer22 Reborn

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2016. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Don't talk about me

You can't seem to make appropriate comments about me, so please don't mention me at all. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You are being incredibly obnoxious and disruptive. Don't drag side issues into the voting. It poisons the well and make it impossible to generate a consensus. Please revert your last edit and let people address the article content on the merits, without all the ad homeinem stuff you've been adding. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'd rather not talk about you since you are the only one being WP:Disruptive at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence, have made things personal with gross WP:Personal attacks, including above in this section, and are not fit to be an administrator. I correctly named your proposals at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. You then came along and acted like I was misrepresenting you; you edited my post. As seen here, here and here, I again noted which proposals are yours. You then responded with the "obnoxious" WP:Personal attack. After that, you removed my comment and essentially called me a WP:Troll. After that, you claimed I was making personal attacks on you and that I was immature. After that, you called the setup "a bogus vote" because I noted which proposals were yours. After that, your buddy The Rambling Man came along and did your dirty work for you. After that, you removed your asinine complaint. After that, you removed the second option, which was indeed your proposal.

I will be reporting your conduct at WP:ANI shortly. No, I'm not incredibly obnoxious and disruptive; I simply don't approve of unfit administrators who haven't a clue about how to write a good article and yet think they own our Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Jehochman and I are hardly buddies. I noted a while ago that we shouldn't be giving undue weight to this specific individual's article when we have a whole article dedicated to the issue. In the meantime, please try to work on your accusatory tone (I have no real dog in this fight, but you couldn't care less about that it would seem), an ANI will certainly result in a boomerang, but that's your call. Your edits have been obnoxious and disruptive, but we've all done that. Problem is, you don't know when to stop it would seem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I couldn't care less if you are or are not Jehochman's buddy. Like I stated at WP:ANI, "Jehochman made that first proposal, and I or someone else should be able to note it in the heading or via text." I disagree with your characterization of me, and, given the overwhelming support for what I've stated at that article talk page, I'm sure those editors would disagree with your characterization as well. Jehochman should work on his almighty tone. And a WP:BOOMERANG, you say? Hmm. I have yet to have one. This will be a first. Let's see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and you should work on your tone full stop. You did call me Jehochman's "buddy", that's completely unnecessary hyperbolic bollocks, you need to get a bit of a grip and calm down, or else your shiny first-ever boomerang will be thwacking across your forehead in next to no time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, my tone is fine. And like I stated, we will see if I get that boomerang. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm telling you it isn't, and that's my (and others') opinion. Next time you make false hyperbolic claims of "buddyism", be prepared to back it up. Right now, you're looking like the idiot. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, the other person who has that opinion is Jehochman, the editor who started the inappropriate tone at that talk page, starting with his absurd threat to block people and ending with his personal attacks against me. Your words are wasted on me, as is your "Right now, you're looking like the idiot." personal attack. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, if you find that sad, it's just the truth. We'll see, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly one of the administrators who thinks he can go around insulting people and escape scot-free. And you wonder why I called you Jehochman's buddy? Tsk. Nothing I have stated about you or Jehochman comes close to your offensive commentary regarding me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I called it as I saw it, as an editor, and a Lawrence aficionado. You need to realise that just because you stamp your feet and claim some kind of "minority" position, we're not all going to run around bowing to your opinion. You'll look back on this in a few years and realise how sad it all looks. The tide is turning back I'm afraid, and you're really not doing anything to help yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

More personal attacks, with complete ignorance regarding the editor who was actually stomping his feet and trying to get his way (as noted by various editors). And WP:Harassment to boot. Wikipedia sure knows how to pick its administrators. Oh, and I'm no "Lawrence aficionado," by the way. I'll watch out for that tide, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, but never mind. You've said enough, you can already see from the responses to your odd RfC attempt and your ANI post that you're missing the point. Good luck, I mean it, I remember some good stuff from you in the past. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RfC...yet. Nor is it odd. It will likely be a WP:RfC soon. And as for the WP:ANI report, which currently only has a few posts, give it time. I know I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, the odd RfC thing is really not going to plan, and the ANI is just going to go south. Best now for you to just move on. As I said, I recall that you were a great contributor. This is most unlike you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll see how things pan out. As for what is or isn't like me, you don't know me or what I go through at this site. If you were as familiar with me as you think you are, you would know that I don't approve of administrators like Jehochman; above on my talk page, I'm also clear about my view of certain administrators. Make no mistake...I will move on from this, but I am unlikely to forget Jehochman's inappropriate conduct. Any respect I had for him is completely gone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure your disapproval makes him shudder with sadness. But in the meantime, just relax and get back to doing what you used to do. This fight is certainly not worth the heat, and you're certainly not going to win it, and you're certainly going to come out of it worse if you continue with such a destructive attitude. The "RfC" is never going to work out in your favour, the ANI, well that's debatable as it's full of twats looking for a fight. I am completely and utterly familiar with you and your contributions here, for the avoidance of doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about winning. But if it were, it's pretty clear that I won the first round on that talk page, with almost all editors agreeing with me. The poll there is still new, and it's too early to state that I haven't won it. As for the WP:ANI case, we'll see. It might end up in a draw; you never know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, in fact, sometimes Wikipedia is about saying "hell, ok, we all went a little stupid there, let's just start again". I think that this is a good case for that. Lawrence will have nothing more than a sentence. The silly multiple choice pseudo-RFC is clearly heading away from you, ANI is not going to help, it'll be "closed as "get over it"", so perhaps time to start with the aforementioned "heh, moving on" thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

How many WP:RfCs, or pseudo-WP:RfCs, have you been involved in? You are making a call on it this early? Wow. And if the WP:ANI thread is closed in the way you state, which I also considered because of certain administrators who like to support one another no matter what, I will consider it to have been an effort to protect Jehochman. You know, there are those "twats looking for a fight" you mentioned. C'omn, I've seen such threads closed to protect administrators from heat time and time again. There isn't anything about Wikipedia and the shady way it often works that I don't know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it's easy to now claim "protection" within admins, that's horseshit here, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good woe is me story. The RFc or whatever will also end against you. Time for you to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You call it horseshit; I call it reality. And I reiterate that we will see about that poll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It already smacks of victimism when you accused me of being Jehochman's buddy. You have the complex. You have the issue. Thing is, acting like that undermines pretty much everything you then try to do. But you know that. Nighty night. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. And I have yet to see the tide you spoke of regarding the poll, but I can be patient. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Folks, ratchet it down here. Looks to me like this is the usual content dispute where women's issues are involved, and discussion should stay over there or at the ANI. Everyone needs to back off of personal attacks and not personalize the issue. Bullying people at their user talk is not solving anything. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see the pointless ANI already closed, almost in record time. Now perhaps time to take some control and create some order: the malformed and badly managed pseudo-RfC is running out of control with no direction at all; it's a mess. Please do something to take control and focus it and its aims before it, like the ANI report, become a stock joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing pointless about that thread, but I'm glad to see that, like I knew would happen, there was no WP:BOOMERANG. If it had closed in record time or almost in record time, then maybe you would have gotten your desired WP:BOOMERANG. I'm also glad to see that there was no tide turning at the aforementioned talk page. In addition, I knew that you would turn up here at my talk page with a half attempt at gloating and more harassment. I know what I'm doing....as always. And the WP:RfC is a success, and will be closed just like I predicted. You see, unlike you, I'm good at predictions. Find something better to do with your time than hound a productive editor on her talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not commented for a while on this whole issue, but once I touched the issue on WP:BLPN I realized it was blowing up out of control, and personally I began to fear that the sin of detraction was at work, vis a vis Lawrence and the scandal, so I have removed myself from the debate. I should probably just unwatch the article because it is really not in my topic area anymore, except for the Hunger Games connection. As for you and Jehochman, you were both way out of line. This became a much bigger deal than it needed to be because you went on the warpath against him. You were both wrong and I hope that you can both see it clear to drop the stick and continue with collegial and WP:CIVIL editing from here on out. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Elizium23, when an editor acts the way Jehochman did, I don't back down. He had no right to mess with my comments like that or assault my eyes with his personal attacks. And one of my comments was indeed restored by a different editor. Other female editors, and editors in general, can accept that type of mess, but I am not them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's just that, in my experience, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. And Wikipedia is built on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Not to mention the Christian principle of turning the other cheek. I just think that you need to ask yourself if this is a hill you are willing to die on. Elizium23 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Elizium23, it's a hill I'm willing to die on; I've been dying on that hill for years at this site. The top of my talk page shows what I've tackled here, and that includes the WP:Child protection area that I often find myself cleaning up. If Jehochman had kept WP:CIVIL in mind, I would not have responded the way that I did. I will not always turn the other cheek; furthermore, turning the other cheek is one of the main things wrong with Wikipedia today. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you really meant "turning the other cheek" instead of "turning a blind eye." I've seen people use the two interchangeably, so I figured you were talking about the latter. There's also the fact that I'm not well-versed in religious matters. Either way, revenge was not my goal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Smugness will get you precisely nowhere. Your edits are and your presence is now on a lot of radars, I just hope you can remember how you used to contribute constructively without the trite and smug and overtly self-assured attitude problem. Good luck, it won't be long I'm sure before we see your name "in lights"! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, move on. You don't get the WP:The last word on my talk page. Your harassment of other editors is on a lot of people's radars. As for me, I've been on a lot of people's radars for years, including the pedophiles' radars. Lately, I'm on the men's rights editors' radars. Nothing new. Unless there is some consensus that I am no longer a constructive Wikipedia editor, which there clearly isn't, especially given what I do on this site day in and day out, any implication that I'm not is just a baseless opinion. And that opinion is even more baseless when made because of some Jennifer Lawrence dispute that a lot of people support me on. We don't all cower in the face of almighty administrators, especially in the face of ones who don't deserve those tools. In the #RfA section above, I stated that I am well-aware of how I am perceived. And I am more than fine with that perception since I am not an administrator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your response is perfect! Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Now move on lest that harassment reputation of yours bites you again. We can keep going and going, of course, but it will continue to make you look bad. Remember, I don't have an administrative image to uphold; if I did, I wouldn't be acting like you are now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

More proof of the poor administrative conduct is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, check out our article on psychopathy in the workplace. Admins don't care and are appointed to their positions because of their psychopathic tendencies. They will ride this thing till the wheels come off and when all hell finally does break loose, they will blame other editors. The best thing that can happen is to eliminate all forms of hierarchical power grabbing, debundle the toolset for those who need it, and focus more on improving content and less on bureaucracy. Have a great day and make sure you take a moment to go outside and smell the flowers every now and then. This place is a cesspool of idiocy and you don't want to get caught up in the insanity of other people. Find the stillness wherever you can and cultivate if. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Take my word of advice Flyer22 Reborn, simply ignoring the people that you do not like is the best way to deal with this. It is not worth the time and effort, a quote from George Bernard Shaw sums it up, I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it..--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops

William Guy Redmond Jr Nicvanschaick (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I have any evidence you need put back the Fly-by-wire

How cryptic all this is. Look it's simpleWilliam Guy Redmond Jr inventor and innovator for over 60 years. Inventions including Fly-by-wire,autothrottle and auxiliary control lever or joystick. His patents numbers. 2,787,746. Auxiliary servo control Re 24,701 servo control

3,060,362 automatic synchronizer 3,289,490 override mechanism 3,302,064 Frenquency monitor 3,307,095 moisture controlled motor system 3,362,661 Autothrottle 1,120,327 German 1,120,327 U.K.

3,386,022 closures closer upon occurrence of precipitation 3,427,522 solid-state synchronizer 3,426,864 multi-phase voltage monitor 3,613,276 chart flipper 3,646,754 multiplex servo pump 3,679,156 Fly-by-wire 3,579,958 Fail-Operate control system 3,735,228 Electrical non Electronic servo 4,006,391 Linearized pulse width. Modulator 4,236,716 Speed Control system w/o Tach Feedback 4,464,661 Fail-Safe Nose Gear Steering System Nicvanschaick (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the implications here and this is not an argument it's the truth that's what is important, to me... who are you to take your time with the facts what about 50 years I have the patent it's in his name, at L.T.V Nicvanschaick (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Edit in Prevalence of sexually experienced 15-year-olds... why?

Hello Flyer,

I made a small edit on the Virginity page, based on the following:

I find the ability to sort that table by the added column valuable, since it gives a quick glance of what countries have lower or higher difference in percentage of people having had sexual relations by the age of 15, by gender, which I believe says a lot about gender equality.

That so, why did you revert the change?

Lainmaster (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a bit of advice

I've seen you link to pages across ANI, well, it's not a problem and it makes your typing look haphazard and your argument seems lesser in gravity. Though, I tend to ignore stuff like that, you have done it across multiple threads. So, I'm here to help! In case of edit conflicts, use {{ec}} (also has a nice number parameter if you get conflicted multiple times) or a simple (ec). People will understand. And in case you say ping, there's no need to write WP:Ping or link to it, just writing a simple "ping" will do. There's also no need to link to pages where the discussion is currently happening, it'll not work and if you want to place a link, place a link, i.e. put the square brackers [[]], naked links are not of much use. I'm not gonna force you to implement this but I'd be happy if you do. Thank you! --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

QEDK, I appreciate the feedback. But since I am far from a WP:Newbie, I know all of that. See User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#Wikilinking policy for what I stated before about my linking style. I understand that my typing "WP:" instead of pipelinking can be annoying, but, again, see the archive link. Another reason that I do it (besides the fact that I commonly talk to newbies and am trying to teach them Wiki's policies and guidelines) is because I wanted my style to be distinguished; this became stronger after my brother (who would copy my writing style after learning the ropes of Wikipedia) started editing and his editing resulted in a lot of drama for me. I had IPs typing like me, but not fully typing like me; it was frustrating to see. I don't understand your problem with me linking to pages across ANI, though, since this is commonly done by editors on WP:ANI and elsewhere on Wikipedia. I also prefer to type "[ WP:Edit conflict ]" instead of use that template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking pages in the sense that you link it using your style (using naked links). Besides, I respect your decision and it's alright, I don't mind. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

QEDK, I'll do better when it comes to pipelinking in the case of significantly experienced Wikipedians; for example, the editors at WP:ANI. Like I stated in the aforementioned discussion, I'm trying to grow out of this style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record

I have never interacted with you outside of what I have observed in you postings on an ANI I was interested in, and what I've seen from your edit history. The concept that I have a 'grudge' against you is hilariously absurd. Do tell, are you one of those insane people who think the world is out to get them? The sad thing is, even without my involvement, you are already going down the path of permanent retirement. You are incredibly toxic, and refuse to see it. Do keep thinking that you are better than everyone else. I'm sure it will suit you well when you are all alone. And don't bother replying to this, I don't want to hear anything further from you. --Tarage (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Tarage, I already stated what I had to state to you at WP:ANI (as seen here and here). And everything I stated in those replies to you, including what I stated about you, is true. You've only further proved it by commenting here on my talk page. What I state next can be attributed to the fact that when I see editors like you, I will not mince words: I know who you are, and what your grudge is; that's not paranoia talking, and you know it. Also keep in mind that just about every editor who has denied that I know who they are has eventually been proven wrong on that matter. Keep trying to get me at WP:ANI, or elsewhere, with your sporadic editing that barely helps this site and only exists to cause drama, and you will fail each time because I am one of the net positives of this site; I don't even have to make a case for myself on that. My work speaks for itself, just like your work... Yeah, it speaks for itself. You are a net negative, and you will not last. Meanwhile, years later, I will still be here, with more support than ever and more WP:Good or WP:Featured articles under my belt.

Oh, and if you didn't want me to reply to you, you wouldn't have bothered to reply on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)