User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

Archive

• Archive 1 (from May 8, 2007 - June 20, 2007)
• Archive 2 (from June 24, 2007 - November 3, 2007
• Archive 3 (from December 20, 2007 - November 4, 2008)
• Archive 4 (from November 10, 2008 - June 6, 2009)
• Archive 5 (from June 10, 2009 - October 9, 2009)
• Archive 6 (from October 9, 2009 - March/April 2010)
• Archive 7 (from April 2, 2010 - January 20, 2011)
• Archive 8 (from January 21, 2011 - July 27, 2011)
• Archive 9 (from July 27, 2011 - March 20, 2012 )
• Archive 10/block cases (from March 21, 2012 - July 24, 2012, for block case 1; December 12, 2012 - December 19, 2012, and to December 24 concerning extra comments, for block case 2)
• Archive 10 in general (April 25, 2012- August 31, 2012)
• Archive 11 (September 4, 2012 - April 3, 2013)
• Archive 12 (April 5, 2013 - September 10, 2013)
• Archive 13 (September 14, 2013 - December 29, 2013)
• Archive 14 (December 30, 2013 - May 5, 2014)

Changes

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

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

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

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring on Human sexuality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   the panda ₯’ 10:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins/DangerousPanda, given our history, you know very well that this block makes you WP:Involved. Like I told you before, "as someone who does not like me (but watches my talk page just waiting for a moment that I will 'act up,' ever since my brother's actions resulted in my blocks, and has clearly expressed their dislike of me on this very talk page, you should not find it surprising that I take any warning you issue me to be dubious." The same goes for this block of yours. Your reply at the time: "I do watch this talkpage to help to ensure that you do not act up again."

So not only should your block be overturned because you are so very much WP:Involved when it comes to me, it should also be overturned for the following reasons: I reverted twice because I disagreed with Mrdthree's edit. As you know, because it's also something you do, editors revert more than once all time with perfectly good reason and with no threat of WP:3RR. I was engaging the editor on the talk page, he was engaging me, and I was about to respond to his latest comments. I did not revert again after he put that ill-advised warning on my user page and then on my talk page (ill-advised because he was essentially warning me not to revert again so that he could WP:Game the system and revert to his version). From what I see, Mrdthree is a significantly less experienced editor than I am, which is also indicated by this message, and I was going to guide him in the right direction as soon as I finished typing up my reply. But then I was hit with your block, a quite unnecessary block that has further stained my block log (but is at least based on my own doing this time). Blocks are supposed to prevent WP:Disruptive editing, such as further WP:Edit warring, and there was no indication that I was going to revert again. As my edit history shows, I had moved on to reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have little recollection of our history, and have not edited the article. We, as far as I know, have only become embroiled in the past through admin action - if there's something else, I honestly don't care because I personally grew out of "grudges" ages ago and it was a rather freeing moment when that happened. Besides, you cannot argue some kind of technical issue - I blocked you and the other edit-warrior for 12 hours - yours should have been longer based on your past, but the intent was to protect the article and thus prevent further issues. If I were to unblock you, I'd be ethically required to do the same unblock to the other editor - which wouldn't be wise without proper proof/promises from them not to continue the panda ₯’ 11:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, your "I have little recollection of our history" (something you've essentially stated in the linked discussion above) does not fly with me, and I'm sure it won't fly with anyone else familiar with our history, such as Herostratus, including your taunting, inappropriate behavior during my other block cases (where you were proved dead wrong). And it is that history that led you to watch my talk page all this time, just waiting for a chance to strike, by your own admittance (linked above). Well, you chose the wrong time to strike, not that any striking could be valid on your part with regard to me anyway, given our history. You are WP:Involved, plain and simple. This block is inappropriate for that reason and for the other reasons I cited above. Your "the intent was to protect the article rationale" does not fly since I am not a WP:Disruptive editor, know what I am doing when it comes to editing Wikipedia, had stopped reverting and was engaging the editor on the talk page. And, no, the block should not have been longer given "my past," since "that past" relates to WP:Sockpuppetry I did not engage in...and not WP:Edit warring. Any other WP:Administrator would have given me a WP:Edit warring warning, if they felt the article needed protecting. But you chose to go right to a block several minutes after I had ceased reverting. I view that as only being a result of you being WP:Involved. Either way, if you think this block will dissuade me from reverting two times, any more than any other very experienced Wikipedia editor, including WP:Administrators, who revert at least twice, you should re-think that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Wait, you blocked on two reverts and no warning? Have I got that right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you have that wrong. The other edit-warrior was "kind" enough to provide the warning. Thanks for your AGF though :-) the panda ₯’ 12:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you just couldn't wait to stain my block log with "WP:Edit warrior," though I suspiciously made it several years on Wikipedia without being afforded that badge. Yes, do what you must Bwilkins/DangerousPanda to "prove" that Wikipedia is a much better place without the terrible Flyer22 running amok on its territory (something you've essentially stated before; all one needs to do to check on your commentary in that regard is look in my block archives; linked higher on my talk page).

Well, if I'm unblocked by a different editor for your faulty block, hopefully, he or she notes the WP:Involved nature of your block. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And once again, I'd already stopped reverting "[t]he other edit-warrior," had moved on for several minutes; besides blocking a very experienced Wikipedia editor on two reverts, that was surely NeilN's point. Even if you had warned me, it would have been futile. Flyer22 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the timestamps, am I right in thinking you got the warning (on the incorrect page) after your second revert and did not revert again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, you're making this a WP:BATTLE that doesn't need to take place. I personally 100% support your edits on this project, and you know that. If we had some dust-up in the past, I've long since forgotten it and it's no longer a part of my working memory, nor does it need to be - bury that hatchet and move on. I have no desire to target you, stain your block log, whatever. Get that into your head that I never was "involved", and nor will I ever be "involved" - repeatedly stating it does not make it so - especially now after so much water under the bridge. You admitted above that you were edit-warring - that's all this is about. I see your acknowledgement of that above, and I see your way-forward. If I see a similar parallel from the other edit-warrior, I'll unblock you both, but I cannot ethically unblock one side the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you've made interaction with me a WP:BATTLE, and this latest block is a continuation of that. As far as I can see, you've screwed up my block log even further than it was already screwed up, even with all of clarifications that are in it, knowing very well that many editors here look at the block log and see "problematic editor" when it has as many blocks/block descriptions as I now have...no matter what is clarified in the blocks. Stop telling me that you don't remember our tempestuous history, tempestuous history that you started with your highly inappropriate taunting, tempestuous history that indeed makes you WP:Involved with regard to this block (as made very clear by the WP:Involved policy). Repeatedly stating that you don't remember our tempestuous history or that you have not carried a grudge against me, even when such claims contrast your own past words concerning me and the fact that you have been watching my talk page for two years since that point, does not make it so. Your block of me is completely unjustified, per my statements above. You and I also have very different definitions of what it means to seriously edit war, a definition that also contrasts the general Wikipedia community's definition, judging by how many well-known editors here revert at least twice day in and day out. And, as I've already noted, you are no stranger to reverting at least twice as well.

Leave me alone, or can you not even do that, just like you refused to leave me alone when you were spouting off about how much better Wikipedia would be without me? No interaction between us is ever good, and yet you continue to watch my talk page and monitor my Wikipedia business and condescend to me. I won't be asking or begging you to unblock me. So you can go away now. Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, this will (I expect) be my final post here, and that saddens me on many levels. The first level being that I will not/cannot post on an editor's page whom I admire (based primarily on the types of articles you end up wading into). Second, I'm a firm believer in forgiveness and relationship repairs - I personally traditionally use the New Year as a date of personal forgiveness, both in real life and on Wikipedia. It therefore saddens me that we have been unable to recover from whatever slights that occurred in the past, even though I'm 100% sure I have apologized for them - I'm sad that you focus on the original actions, and not the sincere apologies and goodwill since. That is unfortunate, but I cannot control that. I recognize that a block is not a good step towards such repairs :-) I am taking the following steps: 1) I will not act on any ANI, AIV, AN3RR report that involves you - I may comment, but will not formally take action; 2) I do not need to un-watchlist this page, as it's been off my watchlist for ages. Although not a formal exchange, I would ask of you the following in return: review my past and current sincere apologies. Whatever I have done in the past - and even this block - were never about you, the person. At some point, I hope that you personally will find the ability to forgive - and when that happens, let me know. That doesn't mean we have to be "friendly", nor does that mean that I will ever need to post here again ... but do find it in your spirit to at least try. I do wish you all the best not just on Wikipedia, but as you go forth off-the-project as well. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have given your "15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)" comment consideration, attempting to weigh whether or not I should heed the WP:Assume good faith guideline and trust your words. I can't trust all (or close to most) of what you state regarding me, however. For example, you stated that my talk page has been "off [your] watchlist for ages." But it was on your watchlist as recently as this discussion in 2013, where we got into a spat again. And the fact that you blocked me relatively fast (even if characterized as 20, 30 or 40 minutes later in different comments) indicates to me that you were, possibly still are, watching my talk page. As usual, I don't accept your explanations concerning me. And because of how upset I am by this block, though I took time to cool down during my several-hour break from Wikipedia, I can't even attempt to be positive regarding your supposed extension of a truce/good-faith. I have never sought you out, but, since 2012, it seems that you have sought to concern yourself with my dealings on Wikipedia. If you truly do admire me, then, yes, it would be best that you cease involvement with me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to escalate this? As far as I'm concerned, this was a pretty bad block and I'm willing to write up something for WP:ANI. You can of course ask for an unblock formally but I think the initial admin action merits a review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Urgh - this became personalized very fast. That aside for a minute, I'm seeing two reverts by both editors and both editors were blocked. Neither went over the 3RR limit yet they were both clearly in conflict. I saw good, clear edit summaries from both editors and further dialog on the talk page. And it's clear that Flyer22 had dropped the issue, at least for the moment, and moved on to other edits before she was blocked. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive - we all know this already - but I'm not seeing much prevention here. And as 'edit wars' go, this would have to qualify as one of the tamest; two reverts, no antagonism of any substance, and ongoing dialog between both editors. And to add to the mix that DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) has previous history with this editor, yet swooped in to block a full 20 minutes after the short dispute? Nope, sorry. Flyer22 had clearly moved on, even if she had been rude and dismissive of the warning message that the other editor posted - Alison ^❤ 16:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note, having seen this brouhaha come across my watchlist: regardless of what else is going on and whether the block was warranted, Flyer22, you seem like you might be slightly misunderstanding edit warring policy by saying that since you'd only reverted twice, you can't have been doing anything wrong. In truth, three reverts is the absolute last straw, not the first sign of a problem. It's not at all uncommon for users to end up in trouble for fewer reverts than that, if their behavior indicates edit warring otherwise. Now, let me hasten to add that I haven't looked at the reverts involved here, just this talk page discussion, so I don't know whether this was that. But it may be worth your while, either for the purposes of requesting unblock or just for your general understanding, to be explicit about whether or not you understand that 3RR isn't an entitlement in a dispute situation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, this block gives the appearance of an admin being able to impose WP:1RR at will. As I alluded to on the Panda's page, what veteran editor won't have two reverts lurking in their history? If editors in good standing are going to be blocked for this, better make that known far and wide. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, that "3RR isn't an entitlement" is explictly stated in the relevant policy. That doesn't mean that any admin can go around blocking willy-nilly for any set of two reverts, but it does mean that "if [an admin] believe[s] a user's behavior constitutes edit warring" (again, policy quote), they can block for fewer than four reverts. It's generally expected that experienced users will be familiar with the boundaries of edit warring policy. So, again, I'm not saying Bwilkins made the right or wrong call here; I'm just saying that the existence of only two reverts doesn't, in and of itself, mean that any block for edit warring would always be wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, I understand WP:Edit warring well. Most very experienced Wikipedia editors such as myself do understand it well, and many of them, including me, have told others that a WP:3RR violation is not needed to violate the WP:Edit warring policy. I didn't state that I believe that I did nothing wrong because I only reverted twice. I called the block unjustified for the reasons that I, NeilN and Alison stated above, and others stated at WP:AN. Like I told Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves above, there was no serious edit war going on, and it is very common and very accepted for very experienced Wikipedia editors, WP:Administrators included, to revert twice on a matter. NeilN does it. Alison does it. Just about all of WP:MED does it. Just about all of the Wikipedia community does it. And it is expected and usually the case that blocks are not issued unless those blocks are truly protecting Wikipedia; there is a reason that WP:3RR exists and is taken more seriously than two reverts or even three reverts. Like Alison stated above, "Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive - we all know this already - but I'm not seeing much prevention here." And that is my problem with Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's block of me in this case, besides his being WP:Involved. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• "has previous history with this editor" -- May we see the evidence please? Jehochman ^Talk 18:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We may get to. I think this would be a good time in Panda's admin career for the community to take the time to discuss his career in detail and assess what role is best for him going forward in helping to build the Wikipedia, and the best way to do this is probably through a reconfirmation RfA. Though rare, these have been run (I've gone through one myself), and they're not complicated, they're like regular RfA's except the subject is already an admin. I've asked Panda to do us the favor of agreeing to this, and I'm confident he'll see his way clear to agree. In case my confidence is misplaced, I urge all interested parties to watch this space for future developments. Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, the aforementioned edit history is at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases (which I pointed to, though didn't link to, above). And other editors (most of whom emailed me about it) were also able to see, from this discussion, that Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves likely does not have a positive view of me in the least, though only one of those editors (who also didn't email me about it) explicitly stated as much in that discussion. Also, in that discussion, and even in the WP:AN discussion about this block, Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves continues to disrespect me by not referring to me by the correct gender pronoun. It has been made repeatedly clear to him that I am female, even by Alison who chatted with me via Skype during my second block case, and yet he continues to play something similar to the pronoun game when it concerns me. Seems that I will need to chat with him via Skype before he ever accepts that I am indeed female. I'm not sure if he thinks I identify as female but am physically male or what, but, yes, Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves, I was born into the world every bit a female; my DNA reads as female, I look and sound female and I identify as female (though, like some girls when very young, ages 3, 4, 5 or 6, I was at one point confused about my gender identity). Similar to you telling me to get something through my head, get it through your head that there is no need for a pronoun game when referring to my sex/gender. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked and commented at ANI. Side note: can you archive your talk page? It takes a bit to load it all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the particular circumstances here but my general impression is that Flyer22 is a helpful contributor to the Wikipedia community, based on my general impressions. Also, I agree with Ed17's idea about setting up archiving.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to go through what I went through a few months ago Flyer22. This was very much an improper block as a result of poor judgement and overreaction on the part of BWilkins/Dangerous Panda/DP/EatsShootsAndLeaves/ES&L. By the way, is there some reason this admin keeps changing names and signatures? It's confusing and possibly a little misleading.- MrX 22:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, The ed17 (Ed). Yes, I know that my talk page needs to be archived; I'll archive it soon. I also thank the others who supported me during this block, including Tomwsulcer and MrX. Your words are very much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ladies and gentlemen, if you have concerns about a pattern of behavior by an admin, you can go straight to arbitration if you have a way to present a compelling case in 500 words or less with a sampling of diffs and links. If things are too diffuse to present that way, you can utilize WP:RFC/U as a means of gathering evidence and opinions from the community. Badgering the admin isn't really a good way forward. (I've been on both ends of that treatment, and it doesn't work out well for anybody.) Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Flyer22, I'm sorry I didn't see this until now. (I found it while reading the archived discussion at AN/I.) I too remember your past interaction with BW/ESL. I remember it partly because of the textbook example of WP:BROTHER and partly because of the way BW seemed oddly eager to throw you under the bus. If I had seen this in a more timely manner I too would have unblocked you, with a note in your block log that probably would have gone a bit further than the very reasonable note that The ed17 left, and I probably would have also unblocked the other user as well. Anyway, I thought I'd drop a note with my condolences. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Flyer22: I not familiar with your past history with the blocking admin, so I can't comment on whether or not it was motivated by revenge. Like others have already done, I can, though, personally vouch for your integrity as a Wikipedian, fair approach towards editing, and valuable contributions overall to the website, including the sexuality pages. My condolences and best wishes, Middayexpress (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late replies, Adjwilley and Middayexpress: Thank you for your support. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting review of EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

re Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda

Well, hmmm, User:DangerousPanda responded to my request that he voluntarily submit to a reconfirmation RfA by erasing it without comment. (It's a little confusing because User:DangerousPanda reverted to the version of the page made by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves; my understanding is that these are the same person, and that User:Bwilkins is also in the mix here; sorting all this out is prone to error, and I hope I have got the players right.)

Anyway, we'll take that as a "no" and and that's fine and so let's move on to the next step, which is to see if there's sufficient demand for an RfA, which would be a "reconfirmation RfA", also called a "recall RfA". To determine this, the approved next step is a petition for recall. Normally this would be posted User talk:DangerousPanda but under the circumstances I think a better place would be my talk page, so it's here: User talk:Herostratus#Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda, where editors are best directed to ask questions and discuss the matter (as well as sign the petition if they want to). Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that there's no such thing as a "petition for reconfirmation RfA". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is, see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. Cases involving admins who haven't specified otherwise devolve to the sample process, I'd have to say. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The only way for an admin to be desysopped against their will is Arbcom. Period. Recall is a wholly voluntary thing; if one chooses not to participate in it, they are not bound to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As Jehochman suggested above it's either arbcom or an WP:RFC/U and I doubt arbcom will take the case without an RFC/U being done first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Enh. I'm not a huge fan of involving ArbCom in stuff like this. They're busy, and we can solve stuff like this ourselves. Nor is an RfC/U required here. What's wanted is an RfA. I know exactly what I'm doing (which is not the same as being certain I'll succeed) so trust me on this. Here's what: sign the petition if you want to, or don't if you don't; I'll take it from there. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You may think you know what you're doing, but what you're doing has no basis in policy whatsoever, so it will never be acted on by the 'crats. Again: the only way to involuntarily desysop someone is through Arbcom. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. A reconfirmation RFA is equivalent to a self-initiated RFC: asking the community for feedback, and then either continuing or resigning based on what's heard. That's a voluntary process that cannot be forced on anybody. If you need enforcement against an unwilling admin, you must use WP:RFC/U and/or WP:RFAR. Trying to force somebody to use our sham recall process will be very divisive (based on my experience), and should be avoided. Use the normal processes with a big dose of civility for best results. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It can't be forced on anybody until it is. If you think that it shouldn't be forced on anybody, that's OK, we can disagree on that. If your point is "If you need enforcement against an unwilling admin, you must use WP:RFC/U and/or WP:RFAR and that works well enough" then that's reasonable position although possibly wrong. If your point is more in the nature of "If you need enforcement against an unwilling admin, you must use WP:RFC/U and/or WP:RFAR simply because those are the bureaucratic processes that we have inherited and thinking beyond that is not useful" that's not very satisfactory. Not sure which of these you are saying.

Yeah the recall process is not entirely satisfactory. Don't know as it's a "sham" though.

Yeah I know Crats are off the table. There're other avenues. They might work or they might not. Who knows? I addressed this in detail on my talk page where the petition resides, and where it'd probably be a good idea to centralize the discussion and give Flyer back her talk page. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

School projects?

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

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

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

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

Use talk pages for talk

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

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

Todd update plus other stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Bieber

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

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

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

Eidetic memory

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

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

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

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

Favor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

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

Rollback Rights

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

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

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

"Rollback

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

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

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

?: Celibacy article

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Celibacy article" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": melissajoanhart.ning.com WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

A cup of coffee for you!

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

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

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

I agree with your comment on the article for deletion Pussy

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Interspecies bias

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

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

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

Slang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor Inquiry

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

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

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

Mail!

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

Narcolepsy caused by fish

Hi Flyer22!

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

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

As per your request

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

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

Why revert my edit? Human skin color article.

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Human skin color article." so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

You Suck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible sock/meat puppetry

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

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

User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristeen Young

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

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

Constructive? Peter Duesberg article.

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Peter Duesberg article." so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Changes to "Bisexuality" page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♣₳d♣

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

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

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

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": List of EastEnders characters (2014)" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:WTA

I'm bold, I don't ask permission before posting good information about writing styles to avoid. Its a fairly straightforward thing, taught in many writing courses, and it is not covered elsewhere on the page, which is why I added it. You reverted, now you own it. Your job to move discussion to Talk. Also, don't use extra edit summaries to plead your case or go into in-depth discussion, that's what Talk pages are for. -- Netoholic @ 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic, yes, you were WP:BOLD. You were WP:BOLD with a guideline that should have WP:Consensus for such a big edit, as reflected by what that guideline states at the top of its page. WP:Consensus is a policy and can be achieved through silence as well. But I was not silent; I reverted you. Being WP:BOLD obviously does not mean that you cannot be reverted, no matter how good you think your information is. Your addition used authoritative language for what is a guideline, and you even suggested that editors should avoid use of the word several, despite it often being quite appropriate to use the word several, such as when avoiding a WP:Linkfarm of names. The WP:BOLD guideline and WP:BRD essay make the following clear: You were reverted, so now it is you who should take the matter to the guideline talk page if you wanted it restored; I don't want it restored, so it's not up to me to take the matter to the guideline talk page. I don't own it at all. I made it very clear why I reverted you. And, yeah, I followed that up with this commentary. That's my right. It's not up to you to tell me not to do that. I'm not going to take a thing to the talk page that I can state just as easily in an edit summary. And, by the way, WP:Dummy edits, which I didn't use in this case, are for the very purpose of stating something in an edit summary that does not need to be taken to the talk page. I also suggest you tone down the inappropriate attitude if you want me to consider any proposal you make to that guideline seriously. Flyer22 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and as I clearly stated in that followup commentary, the "several, some, many, few" topic you added is very much already covered by the WP:Weasel words portion of that guideline. So, if your elaboration on that aspect belongs anywhere on that page, it's in that section. And like Template:Who states: "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the BRD essay is that it doesn't cover an equally valid way to handle things... BDR. You could have asked me questions like "don't you think its covered in WEASEL already (No, it doesn't. WEASEL is about bias, LAZY is about precision. They are closely related and perhaps overlap in some examples, but that's all.) You could have made a post on the talk page asking what others think. You know, sometimes the sky won't fall if a fresh idea sits on the page and stews, allowing many people to get a chance to read it (Hell, you could have marked it with a {{Brainstorming}} tag or something). Deleting it within moments is aggressive, and if you're going to do that, you owe it to the other editors to be the one to raise the issue on the Talk page. ADDED: I also see you haven't mentioned a complaint about the intensifiers "very" and "really" (though, you yourself misuse them very much often)... you could have edited my guideline section to just those, and left the "Several" talk for later. --Netoholic @ 11:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic, unless you want to see how long we can go before one of us wins WP:The last word, we are not going to have this discussion in two different places. And if you try to have it in two different places, I'll likely simply revert you here at my talk page, with an edit summary. Since it's my talk page, I can have WP:The last word. The thing is this: I was completely in the right to revert you, especially regarding a guideline page, and there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline stating that I was in the wrong to revert you. It is your opinion that I was in the wrong to revert you. But the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are supposed to have WP:Consensus. You had no WP:Consensus for that addition, as evidenced by my reverting you because I disagreed with your addition. Not that it's simply a matter of what I state. But to assess what other editors think on such a matter, the matter should be taken to the policy or guideline talk page. It's there now. I stated before that I don't like it when editors come to a policy or guideline looking to impose their view on that policy or guideline because of a recent dispute they had somewhere on Wikipedia or simply because of their personal tastes. Yes, in my opinion, the "several, some, many, few" topic you added is very much covered by WP:WEASEL. Above, you stated that "WEASEL is about bias, LAZY is about precision." But, um, the LAZY bit you added is also about bias; it mentions POV. And POV naturally and often comes with bias in such cases. Deleting a non-WP:Consensus addition to a guideline "within moments" is not aggressive, and I find it odd that any significantly (like my intensifier there?) experienced Wikipedia editor would think so. Not just for a guideline, but for editing in general. Wikipedia editors don't have to let an edit stand because it's polite to do so; we revert when we disagree with something. We are then supposed to discuss the matter if it is worth discussing, instead of repeatedly reverting each other. I don't owe it to you or anyone else to be the one to take a matter to the talk page if I'm not the one intent on including the information. The WP:Burden policy, for example, was created for that type of thing.

As for your grammar lesson: No, keep it to yourself. Almost every "grammar expert" I encounter on Wikipedia needs quite a few grammar lessons before attempting to teach anyone on the topic. I'll use the words very and really the way that I want to in discussion. And contrary to your assertion, I don't use them often. Nor do I use them in Wikipedia articles, unless they are a part of a quote. That, other than not every word you added needing to be mentioned, is why I avoided mentioning them to you -- because I'm not fond of their use, and have been known to remove "very" from Wikipedia articles and reword the matter. I don't see "really" much on Wikipedia; must be our tastes in Wikipedia articles that makes the difference there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)