View source for User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

'''If wanting to discuss an article matter''', use the article talk page (and [[WP:Ping|ping me]] if you think I'm not watching the article), unless it's necessary to leave a message here on my talk page. Email me if you need to talk to me about anything other than editing here, or if it's a matter better discussed off Wikipedia (for example, in cases where editors do not want to call someone a POV-pusher on Wikipedia, I sometimes get emails about POV-pushing edits on a contentious topic, and I sometimes get emails about a personal life issue). It might be days before I check my Wikipedia email, though. '''If you don't see me''' for two or more days, it is because I'm attending to personal or business matters, or because I need those two or more days off from Wikipedia since editing here can be stressful for me and since I've found myself wanting to spend less time here. I, however, may pop up at any time, especially if seeing an edit I feel needs to be attended to right then or because of a concern someone has emailed me about.       
{{collapse top|title=Who I am}} 
[[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past introduction|Past introduction page]] and [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page|past user page]]. 
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=My block log}} 
Short story: Since many here will look at a person's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AFlyer22+Reborn block log] without taking the time to read and comprehend it, or are simply confused by it, [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence&diff=710500183&oldid=710489375 stated], "Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine 'My brother did it' episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22." 

More on the topic is stated at the bottom of [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Sockpuppet watch|this section]]
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=My views on disruptive editors, including [[WP:Socks]], and disgruntled editors}}


During the time that I became known for usually being right about [[WP:Sockpuppetry]] matters, I was labeled a "sockhunter" by some. I am not one, however. I never go looking for returning editors. It's rather that the returning editors either are familiar with me and are silly enough to try to edit alongside me as though I will not recognize them, or they are returning editors I am not familiar with...but clearly are not newbies. [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Sockpuppet watch|I can easily recognize that a person is not a newbie]], even though I likely will not press the person on it unless necessary. Why wouldn't I press it? Well, long-term sockmasters will just return anyway. Sometimes it's best if I keep an eye on a sock instead of reporting them; see what I did in [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 19#Oooohhh...|this case]], for example. Sometimes I don't have enough evidence to report them. There is also the fact that not all returning editors are socks (see [[WP:Clean start]]), although most of them are. I know of the usual excuses for "a newbie" editing like an experienced editor (for example, editing solely as an IP beforehand and/or being a lurker), and these excuses more often than not turn out to be a cover for socking. Wikipedia is a passionate place. It's also a flawed place, as is anything else. It usually is not the case that a person can simply lurk on Wikipedia without getting involved in some dispute or without otherwise editing it. And if you edit as an IP, you get far less respect and privileges, which is why the [[WP:IPs are human too]] essay exists. Years of editing solely as an IP can happen, but it's unlikely.    
      
Contrary to what may be popular belief, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enthusiast01&oldid=767479067#July_2016_3 can be open to a person getting another chance after I've caught them socking]. And, yes, I still see [[User:Cali11298|Cali11298]] around. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298|Reporting him]] will not help unless it's necessary to report him. He will return and return. If he is out of my sight, he is out of my mind. If he is being disruptive at an article I watch, or at a noticeboard, then I shall report him. If he is looking to become an admin (as he has expressed to me before), then I shall report him. If you study his editing style, you should be able to spot him too. For the most part, he edits the same way, except he is now being smarter. 

I [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#It's not needed|have views on administrators who protect the project from disruptive editors]], and acknowledge a [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#Image Placement - left and right|lack respect for those who don't]]. 

There is also a serious harassment issue on Wikipedia; see [[WP:Harassment]]. As some very well know, I have been stalked/harassed on Wikipedia a number of times. Some have been blocked or otherwise restricted because of the harassment. I would list the cases, but that would be [[WP:POLEMIC]], similar to how even listing the traits of indefinitely blocked or banned editors [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#Proposal: That the community ask User:Flyer22 to remove negatively-focussed lists of editors from their user page.|might be seen]] as WP:POLEMIC. You can see some of the cases by searching the [[WP:ANI]] archives via [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Flyer22+harassment&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=ct3opfhqidhlfe5zxj8w33w50 this link]. As can also be seen with that link, it's not unusual for the harasser to claim that I was doing the harassing. Because of my experiences in these cases, I recognize a pattern with some disgruntled editors. If you offend a Wikipedia editor via a significant dispute, and sometimes even a minor dispute, it is likely that the editor will seek to stalk and harass you, or get "payback" in some other way. They will hold that grudge with a vengeance, looking for any opportunity to get payback. I move on, even though I do not forget; these editors do not. It's an unfortunate downside of editing here. The bright side is that not all editors who become embroiled in a passionate or minor dispute act this way.  

Regardless of an editor's intention when following another, [[WP:HOUND]], states, "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. [...] '''The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason.'''" Notice the "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" part? It matters not what your intention is if "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" is the result of your tabs on that editor/following that editor.   
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=My views on Wikipedia in general}} 
I try to avoid Wikipedia as much as possible now and would rather not converse here like I am on some social network. To me, editing here is a job. I do the job and leave, and repeat. While here, I often debate, and often with sources. It's not because I want to, but rather because I often find that I need to when trying to get an editor to understand the [[WP:Due weight]] policy or something else about the topic of the article. If you intend to debate me about what a Wikipedia topic covers, and how much weight to give whatever issue, use sources. [[WP:Reliable|Reliable ones]]. Otherwise, I am unlikely to continue debating you unless it's me trying to get you to understand. Instead, I am likely to seek some form of [[WP:Dispute resolution]]. 

Editing Wikipedia for many years can make a person grumpy, especially if that person edits a lot of contentious topics. I became grumpy like many other Wikipedians; for how that happened, see [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 17#Thank you to all of the supportive comments above, and supportive emails|this section]] and [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 20#Puberty|this discussion]]. To be less grumpy, and resemble the optimistic, better-tempered editor I used to be, I've changed some ways that I edit these days. I was even [[User:Flyer22 Reborn/How I was "reborn"|"reborn"]]. More power to those who have remained relatively the same despite the hostile environment that is Wikipedia.

[[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Neutral/WP:Undue weight|My views]] on the [[WP:Neutral]] policy are commonly clear since [[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 48#Neutral and proportionate point of view|so many editors interpret it wrongly]].

I support the [[WP:Child protection]] policy, which concerns pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Wikipedia; for my views on the matter, see [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Child protection|this section]], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection&diff=694522820&oldid=694522163 this discussion].

As for me considering [[WP:Adminship]], I really do appreciate past posts on my talk page, and emails, supporting me becoming an administrator, but I am unlikely to ever accept a nomination. See [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 21#RfA]] for why. Also, when I see newbies and obvious [[WP:Sockpuppets]] getting elevated to adminship status, it is hard for me not to consider that the process is broken. I very much agree with [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]]'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BU_Rob13&diff=728405467&oldid=728405288 thoughts on adminship]. In other words, selecting administrators based solely on their clean block log, many edits without any regard for how those many edits were acquired, and for seemingly being drama-free is not how we should be doing things here. A clean block log, many edits and a drama-free status can be part of the process of nominating an administrator, but there should be more to it than that.

I used to like this site and defend it, but I now [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia view much of it as corrupt]. For example, a good number of experienced Wikipedians don't even follow the rules right (which, in some cases, is more of an interpretation difference than a bias difference). Editing here can also be a huge time stink. Life is too precious to spend as much of my time here as I used to. And if someone I know reads Wikipedia, I will tell them to definitely check those sources to make sure that the words aren't twisted or fabricated; that is how much my trust in this site has declined.

One more thing: Some people on Wikipedia have viewed me as too strict or stern. Well, I've often had a stern attitude because I was raised in a stern environment. I grew up a lot faster than others my age, which is why, for the longest time, it was odd for me to see people who are age 14 years and older be coddled and treated like little children. At age 14, I was learning how to be an adult. By age 16, I considered myself an adult. So my concept of "[[child]]" was a little different than others'. But any time there was the case of someone significantly older using their experience to manipulate the younger person, my concept of "child" was in line with others' concepts. For example, seeing a 22-year-old take advantage of a 16-year-old's naivete automatically made me protective of the 16-year-old and view the 16-year-old as a child. As I've aged, I've also realized that people in their early 20s can sometimes seem like children to me. And then there are the 16-year-olds who look and act like adults, and the adults who are mentally and emotionally stunted and are essentially children or teenagers. All of this has given me a deeper outlook on assessing a person and deciding if I should be stern with them and how stern. I know that we are supposed to take it easy on [[WP:Newbies|our newbies]], who are like baby Wikipedians, and I do keep that in mind. Same goes for other less experienced Wikipedians. But some of them simply don't seem to get the point the first time around and being stern with them after that can help.          
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=My [[WP:GA]]s and [[WP:FA]]s}}
Not listed since listing them results in unwanted attention from stalkers and disgruntled editors; see what I stated above.
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=Awards and gifts}}
[[User:Flyer22 Reborn/Awards and gifts]]. 
{{collapse bottom}}

== The [[Trypophobia]] article  ==

[[User:Doc James|Doc James]], [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]], [[User:Silver seren/Userpage|Silver seren]], [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]], [[User:Trystan|Trystan]], [[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]], [[User:DESiegel|DESiegel]], [[User:Masem|Masem]], [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], [[User:Yobol|Yobol]], [[User:CFCF|CFCF]], [[User:NeilN|NeilN]] and [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]], I visited that article yesterday (April 5th in real time, not Wikipedia time), and I have to state that it was tough for me reading through that article with that lotus image there. Once I saw the image, I broke out in goosebumps and had the urge to scratch. They were goosebumps, not hives. And that lasted for hours. Seeing such images has caused that reaction in me since I was age 5; I think it first happened when I first saw [[Pinhead (Hellraiser)|Pinhead]]. Although I no longer have such a reaction when viewing Pinhead, I do have the same reaction when seeing patterns like that lotus image. Googling "trypophobia" brought up different unpleasant images for me yesterday, and I went right to the Wikipedia article. I had come across that article before, but I think it was before the image was there. It's been tough getting the image out of my head. Anyway, I saw that you all were a part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&oldid=772665631#RfC_Should_we_include_this_image.3F a debate] about the image. Had I known of the discussion, I would have weighed in because I agree with what [[User:Wongba|Wongba]] stated with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&diff=680315038&oldid=679899857 this commentary] about the reality of this condition. Just because it's not in the DSM or ICD-10 does not mean it's not real. Maybe it shouldn't be called a [[phobia]], but it's certainly a condition, and only those who know have experienced it truly know what it's like. I've never understood how people [[Coulrophobia|are afraid of clowns]], but I don't question that the fear exists. That fear is not in the DSM or ICD-10 either. I'm not so much afraid of images like the lotus image, but the reaction is unpleasant enough that I'd rather avoid them. I'm not arguing that the image should be excluded (although I don't really see that the [[WP:Consensus]] was against removal or collapsing); I just wanted to document my experience with the matter somewhere here on Wikipedia. As someone who has supported maintaining a self-harm lead image at the [[Self-harm]] article, I've now had my first "image triggering" experience on Wikipedia and it has me second-guessing myself about including triggering images. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

:I'm sorry that you were distressed, Flyer.  Thanks for sharing your experience here.  I don't think that we are very good at deciding how to handle that kind of content with compassion for the real effects that real people experience.  If it were a lengthy article, then we would probably move the image down, "below the scroll", but the realistic alternatives are very limited on a one-(desktop-size)-screen article:  either we include it, or we don't.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you, [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]. I very much appreciate what you stated in the debate. Yeah, the fact that it's such a short article made it so that the image was right there in my face the whole time. The same would have been the case if I was just reading the lead too, of course. Like I stated, I immediately got goosebumps and the urge to scratch. After that, the image stayed in my head and I kept having goosebumps on and off, felt a little panicky, and was more sensitive to other images with irregular patterns, even if they weren't holes or bumps. For example, while watching episodes of ''[[Reign (TV series)|Reign]]'', a series that I recently started watching, I kept paying attention to patterns on the nobles' clothing, and, in some cases, I would get goosebumps and think about the triggering lotus image again. I just wanted to stay curled up in bed and forget the image; it was hard to sleep. It's a very strange and unpleasant feeling. Even though Pinhead might have been what first triggered my trypophobia (I imagined my arms being cut into slits like his face/body and it freaked me out), I knew for certain that I felt distress over certain patterns when I would see the molded, papule-like bumps in my elementary school teacher's coffee mugs. She would drink coffee and let the remaining bits mold. Instead of cleaning out the one she had, she would get a new one and the cycle would repeat. The mugs would line the ledge near her window. I remember her being perplexed by (and possibly laughing at) my reaction to one mug that I spotted. Either way, this feeling when seeing images like these is definitely real. Even [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] noted that he had a '''noticeable reaction''' and that it was '''very strange''' when he looked at the lotus image; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&diff=680707981&oldid=680707927 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&diff=680755267&oldid=680754720 here]. I know that Yobol is editing very sparingly these days, but perhaps he will weigh in here on what he experienced when he saw that lotus image. I'll leave this section on my talk page for a few weeks or months. I've also watchlisted the Trypophobia article in case some debate I'm interested in comes up on that article's talk page. 

::I think that the researchers that studied this phobia/condition are on to something  (and, actually, it's not off to call it a phobia when looking at the definition/criteria for "phobia"). I definitely don't see that it's logically explained as social or psychological conditioning. Too many people instinctively have the same reactions to images like these, and often from a very early age, which is something I've seen documented in person [http://www.jordantrudgett.com/all-about-trypophobia/ and on the Internet]. And I'm not talking about a simple disgust reaction, which is a very understandable reaction when seeing a photoshopped image of the lotus pattern on human skin. I'm talking about goosebumps, skin crawling or similar, a somewhat panicked state, and being mentally stuck on the image afterward. I think it is an evolutionary thing, as is the case with tasters and [[supertaster]]s (I'm a supertaster, by the way). And I wonder why some people experience it and some don't. I've yet to see if anyone else in my immediate family has trypophobia, but I think my mom does. I don't want to trigger any of them; so, unless they are open to seeing an image, I'll ask instead of showing an image. But seeing such images is a better indicator of whether one has the condition or not. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
:::Flyers22, thanks for the ping. I had a similar reaction to you - goosebump sensation, vague - but noticeable - nausea/lightheadedness, a sense of what I can only describe as "dread" about the picture, and almost reflexive need to turn away from it yet still weird fixation on it in my head.  Having never heard about this before, it was surprising to me that I had that reaction.  I still believe that the picture should be at the very least collapsed, because many of the people who would be going to that page might have that particular reaction.  It likewise seems prudent that there is no picture of a menacing clown on the [[coulrophobia]] page. [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] ([[User talk:Yobol|talk]]) 21:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

::::[[User:Yobol|Yobol]], thanks for commenting. Yeah, that is exactly the reaction that I am talking about. It's obviously a real reaction. Like Wongba stated, we aren't making this up. I also thought about the fact that there is no clown image on the Coulrophobia article. I looked at the talk page of that article and saw the justification for removal. It seems to me that people feel that the lotus image needs to be there on the Trypophobia article to help people understand the type of images being described. After all, we don't mean any type of holes or bumps. I can make an irregular pattern of holes in my eraser right now, and I would not get the reaction I get when looking at an image like that lotus image. I completely understand how you feel and, like I noted above, I did not see consensus that the image should remain. Sorry if I triggered you again, by the way. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::Yes that image gives many people a feeling of unease. We have a number of options for hiding images[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Options_to_hide_an_image]. We are using a very tame image to illustrate the concern. Many use much much more graphic images. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::[[User:Doc James|Doc James]], it's nice to see you back from your trip. Given my and others' reactions to the lotus image, I'm not sure I'd call it "a very tame" example, but I know that there are worse triggering trypophobia images. I have so far refused to look at YouTube videos about this topic; this is because, in addition to not wanting the effects that come with viewing such images, I don't want such videos popping up in my "suggested videos" feed. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I am not sure if desensitisation is effective for this or not. I imagine it would be. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::[[User:Doc James|Doc James]], some have tried it and it hasn't worked for them. I think the reaction is too instinctual to overcome by desensitization. I'm not willing to try it just yet. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::Fear of heights is also instinctual and can be partly overcome (at least temporarily). Was not suggesting you try it though. Most of the time I imagine it can be avoided easily. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 04:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::[[User:Doc James|Doc James]], I might try desensitization someday. There are so many different types of images that can trigger those who have trypophobia, though, that I don't think I'd be entirely cured of it even if desensitization were to work. But, yeah, such images are usually avoidable. It's rare that I get such a reaction from viewing something. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::If you'll forgive me for intruding, I have to say this is fascinating. I'd never heard of trypophobia before, and the image in question has no effect on me at all. This morning I was in a waiting room, and the chairs had this pattern on them that immediately made me think ''trigger''. I wondered if anyone had experienced problems there and, if so, what they could do about it except try hard not to look. [[User:Rivertorch|<font color="#339933">'''Rivertorch'''</font>]]<small><small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Rivertorch|<font color="#FF0066">FIRE</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Rivertorch|<font color="#0066FF">WATER</font>]]</sub></small></small> 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Rivertorch, c'mon, you know you're not intruding. We've shared matters via email; so I see no restriction when it comes to you sharing matters with me out in the open on my talk page. It's sort of amazing to me that the lotus image and similar images have no effect on some people. This is because the lotus image, for example, immediately causes a reaction in me that I can't control and it seems like it's meant to be that way; it feels so innate. I take it that the image has no effect on [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] and [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] either, unless they'd rather not say. But because my reaction to images like these feel so innate, I'm not even sure I'd want to be "cured" of it. In some cases, we have phobias for valid reasons. I think that [[fear of heights]] (to some degree) and [[fear of snakes]], for just two examples, are for our own good. They are so universal for a reason. When it comes to trypophobia, maybe it is an evolutionary thing that was helpful in the case of dangerous plants or similar. Either way, like I noted above, I think that the researchers who studied it are on to something. As for what you experienced, I take it that you don't mean you were triggered? There are certain patterns that are not holes or bumps that can trigger me a little, but they have to be disease-looking in some way, like how mold can look. Mold grows in bumps in a number of cases, but I mean even mold patterns that look fuzzy instead of bumpy, and especially if they are covered with white, patchy circles or similar such circles. It's not enough to trigger me like the lotus image or the aforementioned coffee mug mold, but it's a trigger. If you Google "trypophobia," and none of those images freak you out in a "I have goosebumps, or crawling skin, or am panicking a bit" way, you don't have trypophobia. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Granted, the "lotus pattern on skin" image naturally freaks people out, more in a mild "that's gross" way. For trypophobes, that image is far worse. It's probably the top trypophobia triggering image. If not the top, it's a close second. I'm sure I saw it at some point, but it's currently vague in my mind. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::::No, it wasn't a trigger for me, but it looked like it might be for you. And, in looking at a variety of trypophobia-inducing images, it occurs to me that these patterns or textures aren't exactly rare either in nature or among everyday objects in the developed world. It's possible that I don't really see what you're seeing, though. Do color and shape factor into it at all? [[User:Rivertorch|<font color="#339933">'''Rivertorch'''</font>]]<small><small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Rivertorch|<font color="#FF0066">FIRE</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Rivertorch|<font color="#0066FF">WATER</font>]]</sub></small></small> 14:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Rivertorch, I don't know how to explain trypophobia other than what I've stated above. I rarely see trypophobia-triggering images. Like WhatamIdoing stated in the aforementioned debate, it's just not common to see them. I guess this applies to trypophobes like me, though. Others might be triggered by more things than me. But it's not simply a matter of irregular patterns. Irregular patterns alone are not the trigger, at least for most trypophobes (going by most of what I've read of others' experiences). Mainly, irregular patterns of holes or bumps, clusters or indentations that are disease-looking or "uneasy-looking" (whatever that means) in some way. That lotus image is disease-looking to me in a way I can't adequately explain to non-trypophobes. And, for me, it's usually the patterns on or from live creatures (such as the lotus plant, the coffee mold case, and when I see the [[Surinam toad]] doing its birthing thing). A piece of paper with such a drawing is unlikely to have a trypophobia-triggering effect on me unless it's realistic-looking. Looking at a [[honeycomb]] image doesn't have much effect on me; I can feel a little something at times. For others, a honeycomb image is definitely trypophobia-triggering. And, contrary to what I told [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] above, some trypophobes have said desensitizing works, "[http://www.jordantrudgett.com/all-about-trypophobia/ depending on how you do it]." (Note: I linked to this article above.) I'm not sure that the trypophobes were completely "cured." Again, there are a number of images that could be trypophobia-triggering. Being repeatedly exposed to Pinhead seems to have desensitized me to his appearance. And maybe I didn't like honeycomb imagery at some point as a child; my memory on that is vague. I had no issue with eating the [[Honeycomb (cereal)|honeycomb cereal]], I know that much (LOL). Regarding non-living things, [[ant bed]] patterns were sometimes triggering for me as a child. I would have the urge to stomp on them, and did in some cases (although I wouldn't do that now). It wasn't so much a matter of goosebumps when looking at ant beds (in some cases, I think anyway), but more so a matter of them somehow annoying me. And, at some point in my life, after one of my brothers would take a bath or shower, the soap would have this irregular bumpy pattern on it that would give me goosebumps (maybe that's too much information). I wondered how that pattern got there, but didn't want to ask. Color doesn't matter. 

:::::::::::::::Regarding what you stated in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=774918337&oldid=774913308 this edit summary], don't be when it comes to my talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

{{outdent}} Update: [[User:Doc James|Doc James]], [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]], [[User:Silver seren/Userpage|Silver seren]], [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]], [[User:Trystan|Trystan]], [[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]], [[User:DESiegel|DESiegel]], [[User:Masem|Masem]], [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], [[User:Yobol|Yobol]], [[User:CFCF|CFCF]], [[User:NeilN|NeilN]] and [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]], this may be interesting to some, but I no longer have the same reaction while looking at the lotus flower image. I saw an image of it on the back of a girl's neck today on a social media site and then came to look at the image on Wikipedia. I still have a reaction to it (goosebumps), but not as severe as before; I think this is because I got desensitized to it after it kept flashing in my head before and because of the aforementioned aftereffects. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
::Interesting. Wikipedia as therapy :-) [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:Doc James|Doc James]], even though less severe, I did have the same aftereffects, though, except this time it was mainly the new image that stayed on my mind. And is still on my mind. I think this is because it's new stimuli. The brain gets bored with old stuff. Also, this new image may last longer in my head because it was a picture of the lotus image merged onto human skin. I keep looking at my arms sometimes seeing the image. It seems that the trypophobia process will start over with every new trypophobia-triggering image. So, all that stated, I'm sure I'll have to deal with trypophobia for the rest of my life. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::And the fact that I have [[intrusive thoughts]] certainly does not help. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

'''Note''': I ended up [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&oldid=807154260#Rearranged_and_expanded_article expanding this article] with what was available in terms of reliability and without going overboard, of course. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 07:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

:::Thanks [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] this article made me check a website I made in 2005 at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden, and it's the same offending plant. My face now itches and I am having diffulty breathing.[http://wlmg.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/weirdplant.jpg.w560h420.jpg]--[[User:Wlmg|Wlmg]] ([[User talk:Wlmg|talk]]) 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
::::Sorry, [[User:Wlmg|Wlmg]]. Stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trypophobia&diff=825434521&oldid=825431354 this] makes me think we should collapse the image. We are doing harm to some of our readers, and I have little patience for those wanting to argue that we aren't doing harm because trypophobia isn't recognized in some manual. The Trypophobia article is clear that people have it, and that it can fall under under [[specific phobia]]. Plus, as was mentioned in the past on the article's talk page, most visiting the article probably have trypophobia. If interested, I also discussed the article with an editor in the [[#Lamprey and trypophobia]] section below. Looking at trypophobic images has helped me, but it seems to have also conditioned me to break out in goose bumps when I see certain bubble patterns. I never used to have an issue with looking at bubbles. So I guess there is something to the "conditioning" argument. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] I do not believe it is phobia. Ever since I was a child I was unsettled by things such as seeded breads or groups of small insects. I said , "they're too many of them". This may very well be hard wired on the sympathy, empathy, aversion pathways of the brain (if such things even exist). Just as we are simultaneously attracted to and repelled from for instance burnt human faces and other deformities. Perhaps trypophobia conferred an evolutionary advantage to those who run from small pox, leprosy, etc.  My ex-friend made me view bot fly images. I think they're scarier than the plant. [http://media.galaxant.com/000/384/659/desktop-1443554081.jpg]--[[User:Wlmg|Wlmg]] ([[User talk:Wlmg|talk]]) 17:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
==Editor of the Week==
{| style="border: 2px solid lightgray; background-color: #fafafa" color:#aaa" 
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Editor of the week barnstar.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of maintaining those "icky" hard to describe articles. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|}
[[User:Herostratus]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
:Flyer22 Reborn is a veteran ten-year editor (come May 5) and has been active that whole time: over 252,000 edits. Wow! She does a lot and has put up with a lot. She is one of the very few editors who watches "icky" articles such as [[Pedophilia]] etc. We still get difficult editors on this and other contentious subjects -- and some of the editors are erudite and have refs and are persistent. Flyer22 Reborn engages these editors and is able to argue with them on equal terms and keep these articles in control. This takes knowledge, persistence, and patience, and it has to be done over and over, and she is ''almost'' the only one doing this important work. But that's just a small part of it -- she also does tons of other stuff too, all over the encyclopedia. Lots of stuff, but I don't keep up with all of it. And not to imply she's just working on talk pages, the great majority of her edits (63%) are in article space and she is an avid user of the edit summary (97%).  She had a bad time here a couple years ago...we ''need'' her so lets show her a little appreciation.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
<pre>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}</pre>
Thanks again for your efforts!  [[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 15:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

:Thank you, [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] and [[User:Buster7|Buster7]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
::Well deserved. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 02:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
:::Thank ''you'', Flyer. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 02:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
::::+1 to this. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 05:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
== Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors! ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
:''please help translate this message into your local language via [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med/The_Cure_Award meta]''
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" |'''The 2016 Cure Award''' 
|-
| style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |In 2016 you were one of the [[W:EN:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2016 (all)|top ~200 medical editors]] across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from [[m:WikiProject_Med|Wiki Project Med Foundation]] for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a [[meta:user group|user group]] whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining '''[[meta:Wiki_Project_Med#People_interested|here]]''', there are no associated costs.
|}

Thanks again :-)  -- [[W:EN:User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] along with the rest of the team at '''[[m:WikiProject_Med|Wiki Project Med Foundation]]''' 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Doc James@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Top_Medical_Editors_2016&oldid=16683386 -->
== Bruce Alan Wallace Page ==

The page for Bruce Alan Wallace is horrible.  It has gone through many iterations.  The current iteration seems to be more about expressing how Novella doesn't agree with his positions.  The changes I made attempted to make the page focus more on the subject matter.  For instance, quantum woo is quoted, but no citation is given, where as quantum mysticism has its own page and might be more appropriate.  It is odd that his view on consciousness, and Novella's views of his view, are listed  at the top of the page. 
[[User:Neuroscientist 221|Neuroscientist 221]] ([[User talk:Neuroscientist 221|talk]]) 16:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines ==

I am not sure how I am supposed to start a discussion in talk page when I don't know why my disputing party opposes me. (That's you, by the way.) Care to elaborate? [[User:FleetCommand|'''<span style="color:#FCC200">Fleet</span>'''<span style="color:#FC00C2">Command</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FleetCommand|<span style="color:#00C2FC">Speak your mind!</span>]])</small> 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:FleetCommand|FleetCommand]], you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=779498173&oldid=779495435 added] what you consider to be two exceptions. It is a substantial change to the guideline. Because it is a substantial, undiscussed change to a guideline, it is something that should be proposed on the guideline's talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

::So, you are saying that your decision to revert was a purely bureaucratic one and you have otherwise no objection to the merit of what I did? Hmmm... Disappointing. [[User:FleetCommand|'''<span style="color:#FCC200">Fleet</span>'''<span style="color:#FC00C2">Command</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FleetCommand|<span style="color:#00C2FC">Speak your mind!</span>]])</small> 12:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:FleetCommand|FleetCommand]]. No, I am stating that, like many other Wikipedians, I feel that substantial changes to our guidelines and policies should be discussed first. This is why these pages have the "edits should have consensus" tag at the top of them. This is not simply a [[WP:BURO]] matter. Substantial changes to our guidelines and policies affect the community as a whole. Because of this, I prefer to hear what others think before such changes are made. You acting like this is not a valid reason for objecting, and that I must analyze your change on my own, is something I disagree with. I repeat: If you want the change made, make your case at the guideline talk page. My talk page is not the place for this. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

== Sneaky ==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Breitbart&type=revision&diff=779971378&oldid=779970888 1] [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 05:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

== ping ==

I see you pinged me but with all the long-winded discussions interrupting the survey section, I cannot find your comment to reply to. Perhaps someone can hat these threads so that the survey is left alone, while still allowing the editors to comment. [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]], you can see the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emmett_Till&diff=781708881&oldid=781704464 here], which shows the first editor to respond to it. And I would hat that bickering, if I was not likely to be reverted on it by the editor I was bickering with. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
::Sorry, I recently had eye surgery for a detached retina and I'm not wading into that mess. [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 20:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]], LOL. Fair enough. Sorry to hear about the surgery, though. All is well, it seems? [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
::::Still a bit blurry and searching through the tiny type of edit mode is still doable but that page is so bad I fear it will undo the surgeon's repair. Lol. [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::Well, I wish you a speedy recovery. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. You can put me down as not seeing any manipulation of the RfC. I thought the question was well formed, etc. You could move this comment there if it will help. [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

== Photogrammetry page ==

Hi, you've sent me a message saying that my recent revision of the Photogrammetry page was promotional. Can you then explain how come these companies got into this page, and why the descrimination? Either delete all of the commercial names from this page, or allow any company which products are defined as "photogrammetry software" to be mentioned in this section:

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry

Applications

A somewhat similar application is the scanning of objects to automatically make 3D models of them. Some programs like RealityCapture, Acute3D's Smart3DCapture, now part of Bentley Systems and renamed ContextCapture, Pix4Dmapper, Photoscan, 123D Catch, Bundler toolkit,[12][13] PIXDIM, and Photosketch[14] have been made to allow people to quickly make 3D models using this photogrammetry method. It should be noted though that the produced model often still contains gaps, so additional cleanup with software like MeshLab, netfabb or MeshMixer is often still necessary.[15]

~~Liel~~ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:62.0.1.22|62.0.1.22]] ([[User talk:62.0.1.22#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/62.0.1.22|contribs]]) </small>

:I've reverted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Photogrammetry&diff=781677948&oldid=781630540 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Photogrammetry&diff=782018773&oldid=781848691 here]. I reverted per [[WP:External linking]] and [[WP:Spam]]. Read those pages. Stop adding such links. You were also reverted by [[User:KH-1|KH-1]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

==[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFlyer22_Reborn%2FPast_user_page&type=revision&diff=782359435&oldid=767484987]==
Flyer,

I wouldn't know whether leaving you a message on an essay page requires an apology or not, but here it is, just in case.

As for the edit that prompted the message, I got my answer, in any case thanks for your patience.

[[Special:Contributions/79.18.123.177|79.18.123.177]] ([[User talk:79.18.123.177|talk]]) 17:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

== Re: POV editing at [[Mary Kay Letourneau]] article ==

''Do not re-add [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=783990116&oldid=783956946 this bit] that I reverted. Stating "romantic relationship" is pure POV and is not at all supported by the [[WP:NPOV]] policy. An editor was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony22&diff=745406160&oldid=745406041 already warned] about adding such wording. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 21:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)''

:Thank you for your feedback. Nevertheless, you have not substantiated your concerns. I looked at the discussion you referenced and found no mention of the phrase "romantic relationship". So I am uncertain what you are referring to. Please be aware that [[WP:NPOV]] is not a vehicle for allowing personal bias into articles. The policy explicitly states a preference for "nonjudgmental language". Perhaps more to the point, [[WP:BLP]] states regarding "Attack pages" that "Pages that are ... negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once ...". No matter how unseemly the subject of an article is, WP must always strive to treat the subject in an unbiased manner. Turning the lead sentence into an attack is not consistent with this philosophy.
:Please restore my edits or offer some constructive alternative.
:-- MC <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:141.131.2.3|141.131.2.3]] ([[User talk:141.131.2.3#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/141.131.2.3|contribs]]) </small>

::Let's see. The previous editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=727251494&oldid=727251385 added] "child lover" and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=727251385&oldid=727251067 added] "the illicit liaison." Both edits were reverted by [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]]. And then I warned the editor. Similarly, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=783990116&oldid=783956946 added] "having a romantic relationship with." And I reverted you,  and then warned you. To most of the public, and when looking at most of the sources about Mary Kay Letourneau, she is known as the woman who committed statutory rape by having sex with her 12-year-old student. It is not usually framed as a romance, but rather as a crime. If is it being biased to frame the matter as a crime first and foremost, then that is only because the literature is mostly biased in this regard. We go by Wikipedia's rules. What was there before you edited the article is not judgmental language; it is reporting the facts. The language you added, which is framing/judging their interaction as romantic, is far more problematic. And I see no need to restore the rest of what you added, but I did restore [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=783991716&oldid=783990406 this bit]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

::'''Note''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau&oldid=784003096#Biased_lead Addressed] on the article talk page as well. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

==Singapore University of Social Sciences==
Why? Why do you think it is vandalism? The current hatnote has no indication as to why [[suss (disambiguation)]] should even be considered for other uses of "[[Singapore University of Social Sciences]]". The reason is that [[SUSS]] redirects there. But that is not indicated in the current hatnote.

So why is this considered vandalism to indicate why some random disambiguation page is indicated in the hatnote if the pagename does not match the disambiguation page?

-- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.169.56|65.94.169.56]] ([[User talk:65.94.169.56|talk]]) 02:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

:I'd already [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.94.169.56&diff=prev&oldid=784032225 reverted myself] on warning you. And I'd already left [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Singapore_University_of_Social_Sciences&diff=prev&oldid=784032125 a note] in the article's edit history that your edit wasn't vandalism. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

::Sorry about the new message. I only got the message of your newer revert after I saved this message. Thanks for reverting yourself -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.169.56|65.94.169.56]] ([[User talk:65.94.169.56|talk]]) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

== Thank you! ==

Please don´t change bio content as we are Official Steve Norman team and don´t like current bio. We are working on a new biography and pics. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Loregraphic|Loregraphic]] ([[User talk:Loregraphic#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Loregraphic|contribs]]) </small>

== Speaking of ==

The edit summary on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=204704185&oldid=204703352 this old edit] might provide an interesting bit of context.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], regarding what I stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill&diff=784620588&oldid=784619704 there], I'm speaking of its recent "supplement" title. Not that long ago, it plainly stated "essay." Because of some type change that has effected essay pages on a mass scale, certain essay tags now state "supplement. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
::The page hasn't changed since 2008; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Supplement&diff=757015157&oldid=743426648 the template has] (again, since that was the problem identified in the 2008 edit summary).  [[User:Moxy]] could tell us the goal.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
:Hello....I am not sure what is being asked here?  Did I change some tag or something? --[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 19:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::Yes, [[User:Moxy|you]] changed the tag back in December, to remove the reference to "essays".  This is probably not unreasonable overall, but it appears that some pages (e.g., BRD) had deliberately chosen the supplement tag because it explicitly defined the page as an essay (i.e., not a guideline/not something even remotely mandatory), and therefore some of the pages are probably wrongly tagged now.  I don't know whether it's better to un-fix the tag or to manually review all the uses (and probably to have a fight about changing the tags on various pages, because there's little agreement on what these various classifications ultimately mean).  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
:::We did review the pages and made changes (more can be done)...if it was not the norm and/or not linked from P/G we added <nowiki>{{|Essay|interprets=}}</nowiki>. We can add the word back but then it will be the same as {{tl|Essay|interprets=}} ....We followed your lead on this WhatamIdoing... [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AInformation_page&type=revision&diff=735667814&oldid=726789812 per this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines&type=revision&diff=735668637&oldid=735202871 and this]. I see that some think some sort of promotion was involved.....thus why we linked [[WP:CONLEVEL]] that clearly states "have no more status than an essay" this is also outlined at {{tl|Supplement}} and [[WP:SUPPLEMENTAL]].--[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Moxy}} when you say "we did...." who are the other editors?  Did the work involve changes other than your 2016 changes to [[Template:Supplement]] and [[Wikipedia:Project namespace]] and related redirects?  Can you point to discussion thread(s) where those changers were agreed/coordinated?  [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 13:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
:::::Going through and tagging  untagged essays and info pages were a few editors - but mostly I was stuck doing it as I am the one aware of all of them.  As for the  [[Template:Supplement]] change it was the only template in [[:Category:Wikipedia information pages]]  linking to the essay page after my edit to link the essay page in the info template was reverted (as linked above).... I agreed with the reasoning behind its removal.  I have zero problem if the link is restored.....as both links explain what the pages are - no change in level of merit was introduced. As for the regurgitated text added to [[Wikipedia:Project namespace]], noting new there .....just consolidation with links of existing P/G info related to project pages - was reviewed by another trusted editor :-).  Since the Project namespace page was brought up.... I agree with WhatamIdoing - wrongly promoted ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing#Wikipedia:Project namespace]]) - this really is just an info page, as there is no "rules" that aren't covered by the pages attributed at [[Wikipedia talk:Project namespace]].  We should go through the [[WP:HISTORICAL]] process for this page.--[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

== The Asexuality article ==

Hi Flyer,

I hope you don't mind, but it seems to me that the [[asexuality]] article may be an article that is as near and dear to you, as it is to myself.   I see you have done a great deal of work in Wikipedia, as have I. I feel that many of the points you used in justifying what I called your "mass-revert" of my work there seemed reasonable to me.  Also, admittedly I felt that some of them were hard for me to understand.  Nobody is perfect, and least of all myself.  I believe that we both have Wikipedia's best interest's at heart, and that by working together, we may both be able to help make that article better than either one of us could have done by ourselves.

Thanks,

[[User:Warrenfrank|Warrenfrank]] ([[User talk:Warrenfrank|talk]]) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

:Hi, [[User:Warrenfrank|Warrenfrank]]. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asexuality&oldid=786037187#Proposed_general_direction_for_upcoming_revisions_to_the_lead replied] on the article talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

== D. L. Hall ==

So where are we suppose to put his full name? [[Special:Contributions/24.162.134.57|24.162.134.57]] ([[User talk:24.162.134.57|talk]]) 09:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

:Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=D._L._Hall&diff=786911545&oldid=786911342 this], I argue that it should be in the lead, especially since I don't see a field for it in the infobox. Also see [[WP:QUOTENAME]]. Maybe the name of the article doesn't need to be in the lead. But then again, I think that not having it there would result in someone changing the article to his full name, which would be in violation of [[WP:Common name]] (going by the sources that use initials for his name). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

== Emmet Till redux ==

Got your ping. In a nutshell, what's wanted at this point? [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 22:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]], well, as I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emmett_Till&oldid=787352465#Structuring_the_rest_of_the_lead_with_regard_to_interest.2Fflirtation_aspect noted] farther down the talk page, the RfC closed with consensus for mentioning the "interest in" aspect in the lead (although not for it being in the lead sentence). Edits have been made since the RfC, but the lead still does not yet specifically mention the "accused of flirting with or whistling" at aspect. We are discussing what is the best wording to use and how to place it in the second paragraph. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
::Got it. Thanks. [[User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] ([[User talk:SW3 5DL|talk]]) 23:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

== Hey, I hope I didn't come across like an asshole ==

...on the sexual ethics talk page. I read through some of your user page and you seem like a really interesting person, and it's also clear that you're a well-seasoned editor. I don't want to alienate myself from a potential mentor over an argument about whether I'm a newbie or a fake newbie. (I AM a longtime Wikipedia lurker and have occasionally made edits in the past, but I haven't previously had an account--does that mean I'm not a newbie? If so, then sure, I'm not a newbie.) I am working on some improvements for the sexual ethics page, and I hope you'll give me advice if I propose some changes. Again, sorry if I came off wrong. Best wishes. [[User:Wandajjune|Wandajjune]] ([[User talk:Wandajjune|talk]]) 02:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Wandajjune|Wandajjune]], no worries. I simply have a difficult time trusting newbie-presenting editors whose editing screams "not new" to me. This is due to my history with returning disruptive and/or disgruntled editors. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

==I actually agree with you==
I am very happy to see how much content was removed from the rape article. I just never have enough nerve to do it. What appears to be a mass reversion of my edits is a good clean-up.
:Best Regards,
::[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<font color="darkred">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</font> 18:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
::ps you broke some references, do you want me to help put them back in?
[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<font color="darkred">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</font> 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]], I didn't mass revert you. I simply reorganized content you added or moved. What references do you think I broke? I didn't see that I broke any. However, when it comes to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=787840600&oldid=787838015#Research this material] that I reorganized days ago, you can see that the "Most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male-female forms of rape." paragraph is not really sourced. At some point, you removed the sources and replaced them with would-be references that look like this: [1] [2]. That content still needs to be sourced. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
::::The content to which you refer was only moved by me, not sourced or unsourced. If it is unsourced, then it should be removed, so feel free. I tried to go over the references and checked most of them out and may have missed checking all the refs.
:::::Best Regards,
::::::[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<font color="darkred">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</font> 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::::[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]], please pay better attention to your edits. This is not the first time that you have stated that I have done something that I have not. Nor is it the first time that you have added or removed content and stated that you did not add it or remove it. I'm not sure how you get tripped up on your edits, but you do. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape&oldid=787186518#Statistics_and_epidemiology This] is what the Statistics and epidemiology section looked like before your June 24 2017 edits. On June 27th, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=787834994&oldid=787834354 removed] the aforementioned "Most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male-female forms of rape." paragraph. In the next edit, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=787835057&oldid=787834994 moved] it to the Research section you created; that move clearly shows that you copied and pasted the outside text instead of the internal text, which is why the sources were removed and replaced with would-be references that look like this: [1] [2]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]], I take full responsibility for any and all edits that I make. But at least in this case, the simple cut, move and paste did not work as planned. These two edits were within one minute of each other with little time for me to make such purposeful, erroneous edits. Something went wrong here on my computer, deep in the guts of WP computers, or most likely of all, with one of the many scripts I use while editing. Chalk it up to carelessness if you wish, but it is rather uncharacteristic of my editing and is obviously an exception. If this is an error, then thank you for catching it. If this is a suggestion that this is not the first time I tripped up, of course you are correct and only need to read my talk page to see how many mistakes I routinely commit. I don't need to be scolded by you. I will no doubt, continue to make mistakes and have accepted this. I correct my mistakes when I find them and you are welcome to do the same. Actually, I have become a better content creator because of your oversight of my work and the interest you show in my editing.
:::::::::Best Regards, [[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<font color="darkred">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</font> 17:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]], thanks for explaining. I was not trying to scold, and I mean that. I prefer us on better terms. I was only asking you to be more careful because you have made this type of mistake before -- adding or removing content and being unaware that you did -- and I'm not sure why it keeps happening. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 

== Vandalism ==

Hi Flyer, you mentioned on my talk page that my IP vandalized a page. This is a home IP, and my family doesn't use wikipedia. Do you think somebody hacked my modem? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:110.20.208.77|110.20.208.77]] ([[User talk:110.20.208.77#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/110.20.208.77|contribs]]) </small>

:IPs can be assigned to different people over the course of their existence. A note of this is made in my warning to you. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Flyer. Just noting that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Laura_Loomer&diff=789238823&oldid=789217498 this edit] is probably not neutral and deserved to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Laura_Loomer&diff=789239187&oldid=789238823 reverted], but it's also not vandalism either. (Loomer ''was'' actually paid to protest.) Dunno if you want to mention something at [[User talk:67.161.91.153]]. {{nw}} --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]], that seems to be a POV-pushing edit to me, and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Laura_Loomer&diff=789239187&oldid=789238823 reverted it] with disruptive editing in mind. [[WP:STIKI]] is for [[WP:Disruptive editing]] in addition to vandalism, but there is no "disruptive editing" button on WP:STIKI. It seems like a POV-pushing [[WP:LABEL]] matter. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
::Fair enough. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 21:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

== When people can't use their perceived physical attractiveness online, etc. ==

Some thoughts for the [[Physical attractiveness]] article: 

* [https://books.google.com/books?id=A6mHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52]. 

But a lot has changed since the Wallace 1999 commentary. Technology has greatly changed since then. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

* [https://books.google.com/books?id=k0Z2-I0zrDgC&pg=PA136] Wallace.

*[https://books.google.com/books?id=LF9ACwAAQBAJ&pg=PT70] Swami.

'''Note''': I might never get around to significantly improving this article because not only is it a lot to work with, and so much of the research is [[WP:Primary]] and/or old (although there are a number of non-primary sources out there for it), but it would be very difficult to maintain due to the subjective/POV aspects and complaints about the research focusing on certain things more than others. I've watched the article for years, and I'm not sure that it will ever be a good article. If it ever does become one, I don't think that it will be because I've fixed it up. We will need to wait for that one person to do the fixing. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

And [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_attractiveness&oldid=794617698 this] was the state of the talk page at the time of my "00:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)" above post. Just look at it -- the issues. Not worth it for me. I've stated it before, but I have enough articles to worry over. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

==IP rant about [[Yaoi]]==


hoi flyer, look - linking something isn't vandalism. Instead of debating what yaoi is and is not, take a look at the bigger picture. wikipedia is supposed to be a complete information resource. instead of trying to block something you don't understand, try looking into it first. Yaoi is a japanese art form in which two males are involved in a romantic relationship. regarding the sexual aspect of anime (also known as hentai, the japanese word for pervert), adding a link to Hentai after referring to said sexual aspect of an anime relationship only makes sense. reverting a simple expansion on information is pure fascism.
also, I refuse to make an account for a simple (see [[hentai]]).. wikipedia is full of knowitall pompous pricks like yourself I dont particularly enjoy dealing with.
if you disagree with the placement of it feel free to move it to another place immediately following the sexual anime reference, but since that's what anime sex IS.. it belongs there. or feel free to replace the link to human sexuality with a link to Hentai. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:76.178.245.58|76.178.245.58]] ([[User talk:76.178.245.58#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/76.178.245.58|contribs]]) </small>

:Call it [[WP:Vandalism]] or [[WP:Disruptive editing]], I do not care. The problem is that your edit is wrong. You are adding a link in a way that gives the impression that yaoi is automatically hentai. Even if you are only focusing on the "sexual" part, sexual activity in yaoi does not automatically make that yaoi hentai. In the context, your edit is unsourced and is [[WP:Original research]]. It seems that you are the one who does not know what you are talking about. If you pay attention to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yaoi&oldid=789589803#History_and_general_terminology History and general terminology] section, you can see that we already state the following: "In the West, the term ''hentai yaoi'' is sometimes used to denote the most explicit titles." Note that it states "In the West" and "most explicit titles." I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yaoi&diff=789589803&oldid=789544401 reverted you again]. The Hentai article itself is clear that the term means "a perverse sexual desire" in Japan. If you are trying to argue something about [[Homosexuality in Japan|how Japan views homosexuality]], your edit is inadequate since many Japanese people do not automatically consider homosexual behavior a perverse sexual desire. It's odd that you added all those "citation needed" tags for content that is already sourced below (well, most of it is sourced below anyway), while it is your unsourced edit that is the problem. The lead does not necessarily need inline citations, if the material is sourced lower in the article; see [[WP:CITELEAD]]. If you keep making your "hentai" edit, I will bring [[WP:Manga]] in on this and/or report you for disruptive editing. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

:Also, if you must know whether or not I'm very familiar with yaoi or Japanese culture in general, I am very familiar with Japanese culture and I have studied/analyzed yaoi, but I have not truly been able to get into yaoi. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice-->

== ANI ==
The ANI thread mentioned above can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#user_abusing_wikipedia_system here]. [[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 20:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

:Thanks, [[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]]. I see that the matter has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=789993508#user_abusing_wikipedia_system resolved]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
:: :-) -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

==[[Tomgirl]]==

Hi Flyer, my contribution has been changed and considered as a vandalism, I can not understand why. I changed something wrong, pejorative, sexist and transphobic ([[User:Tomgirl|Tomgirl]] ([[User talk:Tomgirl|talk]]) 11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

:[[User:Tomgirl|Tomgirl]], you were [[WP:Edit warring]] over the Tomgirl link; the edits were [[WP:Disruptive]]. See [[Talk:Tomboy#Proposed merge with Tomgirl]]. A [[WP:Permalink]] for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tomboy&oldid=790390068#Proposed_merge_with_Tomgirl here]. Make your case there. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

:Well, to be fair, you only reverted once; so I personally wouldn't call that WP:Edit warring. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

== Removals ==

You have made some ingregious removals on the Ambrosusus Aurelianus page as to my editals. I would like to know why as no resson was given.

Thank you kind sir,
[[User:BouledeSuif|BouledeSuif]] ([[User talk:BouledeSuif|talk]]) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) [[User:BouledeSuif|BouledeSuif]] ([[User talk:BouledeSuif|talk]]) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:BouledeSuif|BouledeSuif]], because as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ambrosius_Aurelianus&diff=790944305&oldid=790943680 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ambrosius_Aurelianus&diff=790945922&oldid=790944305 here], you are editing [[WP:Disruptively]]. It matters not if you were that IP correcting your misspellings and squished spellings, there is still the fact you are changing wording throughout to [[Diaeresis (diacritic)|diaeresis]]. 

:And if you want to play [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yaoi&diff=790946829&oldid=790946607 this game], just know that it will not be ending well on your part.

:And I am not a "sir," by the way. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

:Also look at your "well" additions. What in the world are you doing? And changing quotes when the changes are not supported by the sources is another problem. See [[MOS:QUOTE]]. With all the "well" additions and grammar issues, I doubt that your changes are supported by the sources. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

::What do  transfperhapsmed, Uther Pïndragoon, survïvperhapss and "(Uther does marry hïs brother's wïdow, though), well," even mean? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

:::I've posted to the editor's talk page. 350 repetitions of "well", changing quotes, etc. CIR? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

::::Thanks, [[User:Doug Weller|Doug]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::I see they were blocked, made a very literate unblock plea saying they were hacked. Unblock was denied as we don't unblock compromised accounts normally. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

== Invitation to the article's talk page ==

Flyer22, there's an issue on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by [[User talk:TheOldJacobite|TheOldJacobite]] and [[User talk:Deloop82|Deloop82]]. Plus, [[User talk:Masem|Masem]] is not helping solve the problem and is only not getting the clear picture. It is on this section of the [[Talk:Die Hard 2#Character's info in cast section|article's talk page]]. [[User:BattleshipMan|BattleshipMan]] ([[User talk:BattleshipMan|talk]]) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

:That's a lengthy discussion; I will need to read through it before weighing in. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

::Understood. [[User:BattleshipMan|BattleshipMan]] ([[User talk:BattleshipMan|talk]]) 21:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:BattleshipMan|BattleshipMan]], I'll need to get back to this later. I took a break, then got busy with other stuff on Wikipedia, and I'm now taking a break again. Been on this site for many hours. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

== British Columbia population ==

I don't know what you are trying to do but please stop reverting factually incorrect population figures in the British Columbia article. The population of the province is 4 million and change, and certainly not 14 million. That information is available in the very references for the numbers you are trying to revert. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:24.71.137.108|24.71.137.108]] ([[User talk:24.71.137.108#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.71.137.108|contribs]]) </small>

:Sorry about that, IP. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

==[[Medical sexism]]==
Interested? [[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<font color="darkred">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</font> 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]], that is a very intriguing topic. It's important as well. I trust that you'll write an article on it. I've never been much of an article creator; just more of an article improver. And I don't devote as much time to Wikipedia as I once did. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
::I am sorry you aren't able to contribute as much as you have in the past. I will create content and you work your magic on it. You have great skill in finding references. Paste them [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barbara_(WVS)/draft/Medical_sexism here] on the draft page I have begun if you would like. I won't begin for a couple of days so there is no urgency. Thank you very much.
:::Best Regards,
::::[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<font color="darkred">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</font> 11:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

{{Outdent}}

Just a note: Stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaginoplasty&oldid=756792380#WP:Preserve this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaginoplasty&oldid=756792380#Sex_reassignment_surgery_heading_and_similar this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vulva&oldid=791706292#Lead_image this] and now [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nipple&oldid=795196881#Take_to_talk this] indicates that we cannot truly work together. If it's always going to be the case that after you make an edit that is problematic or has some type of issue and I challenge it, showing that I know what I'm talking about with sources, and then you just shrug your shoulders and/or act like I'm overreacting and/or that you are being the good editor who contributes so much while I spend all my time on talk pages not doing a thing for this site, working with you clearly is not an option for me. I mean, do go over [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vulva&oldid=791706292#Lead_image your claim] that the anus is a part of the vulva again; see just how stubborn you sound. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

== RfA ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:New Zealand TW-17.svg|120px]]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">) [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 03:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
|}
:You know that I hold your work here on human sexuality in the very highest regard. I think that you know how aware I am of the harassment you have received over the years, and how deeply I oppose that type of behavior. All of that makes your expression of support for me very precious. Thank you. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 03:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
::Thank you, [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]]. I felt that I may have scared you off a bit with that email about my health, but I realize that it's not an easy thing to respond to. I am glad to see that you are now an admin. You really are one of the best RfA choices I've seen. [[User:NeilN|NeilN]] was another. I would have stated more in your RfA, but others had already stated pretty much everything that I could possibly state. I could have noted your unwavering support of me, but I didn't want to make it about myself, LOL. I'll see you around. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
:::Flyer22 Reborn, I have searched my email archives several times and have no record of an email from you. Please feel free to email me at any time. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 01:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

::::[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=773883532&oldid=773880864 the email exchange was back in April]; it doesn't matter now. It was more so about an article matter. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::Since I've just mentioned you in another discussion, I'd just like to endorse what Cullen328 said above - you have a very impressive corpus of article work and dedication to the project. That you continue to contribute despite a level of grief and harassment I can only ''dream'' of makes it even more remarkable. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

::::::Thank you, [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]]. I miss talking with you. The harassment has become part of the job; I'm numb to it, but I obviously do report some cases. I don't like to be stalked by editors I have a very bad or tempestuous relationship with, for example. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

:::::::I got your ping on [[Talk:Vagina]], but it's not really my area of expertise. I was partly responsible for putting [[Vaginal steaming]] on the main page though, and some of the contributors on that article's talk page may be able to help. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

::::::::[[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]], the editor I'm currently in dispute with was (and still is) questioning neutrality, and the questioning is not supported by anything in the [[WP:Neutral]] policy. Since you are one of the editors who understands WP:Neutrality and is familiar with my work (you used to help at the [[Asexuality]] article, for example), you are one of the editors I pinged. And considering [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vagina&diff=794413316&oldid=794361609 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vagina&diff=794523307&oldid=794515818 this], I knew that pinging some editors would be a good idea. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] is thankfully helping right now. As for the Vaginal steaming article, that is a cultural topic that doesn't have any scientific backing, but I'm glad that the the topic is being taken care of. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

== ? ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG|135px]]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | In what way are my additions "opinionated"? Please further elaborate, as I think my "opinion" is that boi is no longer an actively used term in the LGBTQIA+ community. Thanks <3 [[User:Willboy122|Willboy122]] ([[User talk:Willboy122|talk]]) 00:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Willboy122|Willboy122]], read [[WP:Verifiability]]. What you think does not matter in this case; verifiability does. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
|}

== SRS title change to GCS talk page ==

Hey Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for your comments on the talk page earlier. Did you get a chance to look at my response to your concerns about MERDS and Common.  I quoted info from each of those policy pages in order to clarify why the sources are compliant.  I also added a lot more sources per requests from other users, in order to demonstrate that this is the common nomenclature used around the world. [[User:UigeqHfejn1dn|UigeqHfejn1dn]] ([[User talk:UigeqHfejn1dn|talk]]) 04:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

== Why not [[WP:GOODFAITH]]? [109.206.156.72]  ==

Hi there. <br>
Would be happy to hear some reasons you left behind your revert done to my contribs [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child&oldid=795083589 here]
or see a wiki policy I've presumably violated at least. <br>
Thanks.
[[Special:Contributions/109.206.156.72|109.206.156.72]] ([[User talk:109.206.156.72|talk]]) 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

:I reverted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child&diff=795083589&oldid=795078011 here] because the image you added was an unnecessary addition. The are enough images in the article, ranging from ages 2 to 14. I don't see that your image added anything. Furthermore, there are two IP-hoppers who continue to [[WP:Edit war]] over where the age range should stop. Are you one of the IP hoppers who keeps adding images to that section? I've been thinking of removing the gallery. It's become a problem, just like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blond&oldid=793100470#Too_many_pictures_of_classical_representations the problem] concerning gallery additions at the [[Blond]] article. But displaying the different types of blond hair is more encyclopedic than the children images since children can vary in their look regarding whatever age. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
:: >''because the image you added was an unnecessary addition''
:: Well, it sounds like something unreasonable. 😒
:: I just come across this photo on the wiki commons and then decided to add to the article to make it more friendly when 
:: discovered there some stale and poor quality photos that could be replaced by existing or new ones just like mine.

:: >''Are you one of the IP hoppers who keeps adding images to that section?'' 
:: Surely I'm not. You can check out my contributions by clicking onto my ip address.😑

:: >''I've been thinking of removing the gallery.''
:: I don't think it is necessary. 
:: I would consider to delete captions in that gallery that denote the children's age but
:: anyway when you are going to delete something long-standing it is better to discuss it first.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.206.156.72|109.206.156.72]] ([[User talk:109.206.156.72#top|talk]]) 21:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::IP, do you want me to ask the community, via some form of [[WP:Dispute resolution]], whether an image of a child with mud on their face is beneficial to the article? Because I will. I don't see how the image you want to add improves anything. As for replacing one of the existing images with that image, the current gallery includes children by age. I don't see that the age of the child is included on the image you want to include. If you just want images that include children without listing their ages, you can propose that on the article talk page, but such a setup will lead to an out-of-control image gallery, because the criteria will no longer be one image of a child for every age up to a certain age range. People will be adding all types images of children (doing whatever) just because. As for checking your contributions, notice that I stated "IP-hoppers"? This means editors whose IPs change. It's often the case that a person does not have just one IP. I can be [[WP:Bold]] and remove the entire gallery, especially given what [[WP:Gallery]] states. The only ones who would object are the IPs who are interested in adding images of children to that article. As for what is long-standing, you can go back in history, via the contributions, and see how long that gallery has been there. By the way, I did not revert your edit as not being good-faith. I simply reverted it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:::: >''Because I will. ... Because I will.''
::::No I don't. Just thought that revert was like your out-of-rules self-admitted decision. I'm not gonna challenge it by discussion or try to revert it back anyway.   
::::>''but such a setup will lead to an out-of-control image gallery''
:::: Alright. That's the same thing I wanted to hear. Why didn't you have specified that in the revert message? What a waste of time ...
::::>''I stated "IP-hoppers"? This means editors whose IPs change''
:::: Surely I've noticed and my answer is still the same as above.
::::>''I can be [[WP:Bold]] and remove the entire gallery''
:::: Just because your are bold enough, right? I already heard it somewhere.
::::>''By the way, I did not revert your edit as not being good-faith. I simply reverted it.''
:::: You haven't consulted that [[WP:GOODFAITH]] article before revert right? 
:::: Well it would be good to discuss update of article's existing gallery with new fresh images at least. Wiki commons have many pretty photos out there waiting for their use.
::::Thanks for reply anyway. [[Special:Contributions/109.206.156.72|109.206.156.72]] ([[User talk:109.206.156.72|talk]]) 20:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

:::::My revert was not "out of the rules"; consider what [[WP:Bold]] states. You made a bold edit and I validly reverted. Also see what [[WP:Gallery]] states. A gallery is not mandatory or standard, and the image you added did not improve the article. You have not given a reason showing how it did. As for "IP-hopper," it means an editor's IP that changes naturally or an editor who has gained access to a different IP via some other means. So how am I to know that your IP does not change or that you did not have access to an IP via some other means a month or months ago? Either way, you gave your answer on the IP matter. I think it is you who has not "consulted" the WP:GOODFAITH guideline; it is not an article. If you did "consult" it, you would know that it is not a WP:GOODFAITH violation to revert an edit that does not improve an article. It is not like I reverted you because you are an IP. Your edit did not improve the article, period. If anything, you did not assume good faith for the revert and still have not. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

== Why cant create article on a well known person? ==

Dear 
I do not know more about creating an article on a person named Suratha Pani (Pani Babu). He is a great Bible teacher in Odisha, especially in the District in Gajapati. According to Census 2011, Govt of India, the percentage of Christianity in Gajapati is 38. Christianity (Baptist) in Odisha generally mean Gajapati District.

So, Suratha Pani is the key person with whom the Canadian Baptist missionaries formed the Sammilani (Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani). 

There are books written by the Sammilani on him too. One book also there named “Sammilani Itihas” where his role is elaborated. I have also an unpublished book written on the life and ministry of Suratha Pani. So, there are lots of things which contribute the worthiness of Suratha Pani to be placed in Wikipedia. I tried a few times but received notice of deletion because of unconstructive. Please explain me how to do it constructive? Why should I write in a sand box and why not directly create an article on his life and his role in the Christian community? Please explain me elaborately and help me create the page constructively.

Regards
 [[User:HaronaPani|HaronaPani]] ([[User talk:HaronaPani|talk]]) 05:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

== Reverting moves ==

Hi. I reverted the two undiscussed moves you requested, but I just wanted to let you know that you can probably do them yourself. As long as it's still a simple redirect with no subsequent edits, any editor with move capability can move the article back over the redirect. Just fyi in case it happens again. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 19:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:Station1|Station1]], thanks. I know that I can revert them myself (if there is no cut and paste move, or similar, that requires an administrator), but the editor in question [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squidward_With_Hair&oldid=795669474#Occupation_edits_and_article_moves has not been responsive], except for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Snoop_Dogg&diff=795661858&oldid=795659667 this revert], and I did not want the editor to automatically revert again; I wanted an uninvolved editor to make the mistake clear in the edit history, and I felt that this might drive home the point better to the editor. Although I am sure that the editor is not a newbie (and I see that there is currently a sock investigation on the editor), I do think that the editor is inexperienced as far as Wikipedia protocols go. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

:Note: Apparently, [[User:Jd22292|Jd22292]] notified the editor of a sock investigation without starting one. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
::Check again. The investigation is [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Alvini|here]]. [[User:Jd22292|jd22292]] <span style="background-color:#368ec9">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> ([[User talk:Jd22292|talk]]) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hello dear fellow [[User:Flyer22 Reborn]]: hereby this badge is awarded to you, in recognition of your long-time anti-vandalism contributions. I want to inform you of it that we appreciate it so much. Thanks.  [[user:TheStrayDog|<font color="#99H099">The Stray Dog</font>]] [[user talk:TheStrayDog|<font color="#33A744">Talk Page</font>]] 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
|}

== WikiProject Investment ==

Hey there!
I just re-launched the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment|WikiProject Investment]].

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.


{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
| [[File:A1 Houston Office Oil Traders on Monday.jpg|left|225px]]
I'd like to invite you to join the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment|Investment WikiProject]]. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project  off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! 
|}


Cheers! [[User:WikiEditCrunch|WikiEditCrunch]] ([[User talk:WikiEditCrunch|talk]]) 00:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

== James Dean page ==

Hello there. I got your message on the editing page. Thanks. [[User:Squaredroot|Squaredroot]]  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 05:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Eroto-comatose lucidity ==

You reversed my edit and now there are again just round up lies about Madame Blavatsky, she never used "The Sleep of Siloam" in this context, she used it only as a name for an ancient Egyptian initiation ritual where people where put to sleep for three days and tied on a Tau cross, and awaken by putting them in the sunlight, she refers to Hebrew manuscripts, Siloam was a well for washing feet in Jerusalem. She also never recommended to take drugs or do sexual gymnastics. If its because I said "supposedly" is because the context of the page 251 of my original Blavatsky text reference is all about dreaming and dream state, but Madame Blavatsky did not say that specifically in the by me from Dutch to English translated back sentence. OK its not violating the spirit of the sentence by leaving that "supposedly" part out. That Blavatsky never used sexual gymnastics or drugs excess or recommended it for getting a narcoleptic state, I got this from the search function of The Dutch Theosophical Society which has all Blavatsky's books in Dutch online. So lets make it: [[Helena Blavatsky]] may also have taught the technique, she said for example in [[Isis Unveiled]] that the more exhausted the body is, the more vivid are the impressions coming from the soul. OK? And leave all that bullshit from the others out. OK? galien8 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Johan van der Galien|Johan van der Galien]] ([[User talk:Johan van der Galien#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Johan van der Galien|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:[[User:Johan van der Galien|Johan van der Galien]], I was clear why I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eroto-comatose_lucidity&diff=796732051&oldid=796632671 reverted you]. You engaged in [[WP:Editorializing]] and we go by what the [[WP:Reliable sources]] state. You added, "''However one cannot find mentioning or references, in any of her published books, of use of sexual gymnastics or drugs excess induced sleep deprivation for getting the required exhausted body in order to enter the here so called 'eroto-comatose lucidity' narcoleptic state of mind.''" That is your personal commentary. We don't add our personal commentary in articles. Click on the WP:Reliable sources page to understand what I mean by reliable sources in Wikipedia's terms. Per [[WP:Primary sources]], you can change the material to what she stated, if the source supports it, but that does not mean that other material needs to be removed or that you should add your own personal commentary to the article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

::[[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] Is reasonable! I will say: "[[Helena Blavatsky]] gave the spiritual explanation of the technique, she said for example in [[Isis Unveiled]] that the more exhausted the body is, the more vivid are the impressions coming from the soul." with the reference I gave earlier (from Blavatsky her self, a original source) OK? galien8 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

::[[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ...and we let the rest have there say too! I can live with that. galien8 04:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

:::Okay, then. Go for it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

==Your AN/I report==
{{collapse top|title=Interesting; collapsing for now. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 

Although I support the way I went about my analysis in this section, I now retract my defense of the other editor. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)}}  
I won't be responding there any more -- you are entering bludgeoning territory.  And while I am quite content to let you carry on making an exhibition of yourself, I would suggest that you actually propose a topic-ban or something rather than this endless circling around the same old "issues":  Shit or get off the pot, basically. --[[User:Hillbillyholiday|Hillbillyholiday]] ([[User talk:Hillbillyholiday|talk]]) 17:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Hillbillyholiday|Hillbillyholiday]], on the contrary, this is me building evidence against you. In this way, when a future [[WP:ANI]] case is made against you (and it will be), the case against your disruptive editing will be even stronger. You are doing all the work for me, really. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

::Ah, good ol' [[Steve Bannon|oppo]] -- cornerstone of any collaborative endeavour.  Well, good luck, I suppose. --[[User:Hillbillyholiday|Hillbillyholiday]] ([[User talk:Hillbillyholiday|talk]]) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:Hillbillyholiday|Hillbillyholiday]], if you knew my success rate in cases like these, you wouldn't be wishing me good luck. If I can't get your disruptive behavior stopped now, I will get it stopped later. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a pointer - this user is abusively using different accounts to hide the real level of their editing. See Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Same editing style and operates at different times on the same day.

[[Special:Contributions/92.18.51.228|92.18.51.228]] ([[User talk:92.18.51.228|talk]]) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

::'''Belated comment'''. This IP appears to be yet another appearance by a long-banned sockpuppeteer-abusive editor who I've tangled with, on and off, over quite a few years. He's just trying to drag me into this and make trouble yet again. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  ]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

:<Strike>I don't think that he is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)</Strike>
The edit times (and style) make me suspicious.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.18.51.228|92.18.51.228]] ([[User talk:92.18.51.228#top|talk]]) 15:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Because of my memory, experience with recognizing socks, and knowledge of how humans behave in certain situations, I can easily recognize editing patterns (and that includes the way an editor interacts with others), and changed editing patterns. This is why I recently identified a sock who supports Hillbillyholiday. <Strike>I do not see that Hillbillyholiday and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are the same person. Keep in mind that I have experience with both.</Strike> You can start a [[WP:Sock investigation]] if you have evidence, though. I am open to being wrong. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not up on Wikipedia processes so I won't be pursuing anything - I just caught all the hoo-hah over this user, and it reminded me of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who I felt displayed a very similar edit pattern. Both account have the same "aim" with an obsession with removing alleged gossip. Good cop/bad cop springs to mind, but you seem to have a better grasp on all this.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.18.51.228|92.18.51.228]] ([[User talk:92.18.51.228#top|talk]]) 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The difference is that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes a lot of unsourced, [[WP:SYNTH]], [[WP:Copyvio]] and [[WP:Non-free content criteria]] stuff (commonly stating "fails [[WP:NFCC#8|NFCC#8]]"). This is a broader range than Hillbillyholiday. Yes, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes "briefly dated" stuff. Sometimes he might remove "currently dating" stuff, but he usually leaves in clearly significant personal life material, such as a married couple or a life partner, or other long-term couple, and the fact that they have children. He only cuts the Personal life section when it is a BLP violation (and that includes poorly sourced material) and/or when it only includes "dated in the past" material. Look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lil_Uzi_Vert&diff=prev&oldid=797004576 this bit] he deleted. It was poorly sourced material based on a lot of rumors. Hillbillyholiday edits from an "I don't like it" viewpoint significantly more often than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also more careful with his cutting than Hillbillyholiday is, and has a better understanding of BLP than Hillbillyholiday does. He's not out there complaining about primary sources, or supposed primary sources, and asking or demanding academic sources for celebrity articles, when, like I stated at WP:ANI, "''most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality. For celebrities, the best sources are going to be media sources.''" Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is more willing to listen and engage when challenged. And given that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a significantly more established editor, with support from some editors, one would need to wonder why he would create the Hillbillyholiday account. Sure, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been blocked for disruptive editing before, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&oldid=795459646#Maybe_we_could_back_away_from_the_cliff his tone is different]; I don't see him going out of his way to mock/belittle editors. He can get frustrated and state something less than civil, but he would not have started a section like this one started by Hillbillyholiday. This section was started by Hillbillyholiday because, even though he hoped he was untouchable, he was a little worried and he was frustrated. It was meant to mock. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also focuses on cleaning up the porn actor articles and related articles. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

:Looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lil_Uzi_Vert&diff=797022478&oldid=797004576 this bit] again, which was restored by a different editor, I see that it includes [[AllHipHop]], ''[[The Source]]'' and ''[[Complex (magazine)|Complex]]'' as sources. I think, other than the relationship being a past matter, the issue for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is the allegations of cheating, and maybe being unfamiliar with the first two sources and other sources in the section. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's incredible that you don't think or atleast suspect that they're the same person particularly after they magically turned up during the latest discussion. It must be easy to adopt a (ableit in reality, slightly) different persona per account. At the end of the day - both accounts have the same aim but adopt a slightly different style in terms of edit summaries etc, clearly watch an article after they've removed swathes of text (and that they've never contributed to or edited before) and edit war with anyone that doesn't agree with what they've done.  

Also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norma_Stitz_(3rd_nomination)

I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not and I don't think that's relevant, but this is an article twice nominated for deletion by Hillbillyholiday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has edited that article over a number of years. Coincidence I'm sure.
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.69.114.69|79.69.114.69]] ([[User talk:79.69.114.69#top|talk]]) 14:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::'''Comment'''. Hello, [[User:Magpie1892]]. You're still indeffed, so you know you shouldn't be posting here. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  ]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 18:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

:I've kept that in mind; I always keep slight changes in behavior in mind when it comes to a person being a sock. I've publicly made this aspect of catching socks clear times before. Notice that I stated "and changed editing patterns" above? These two also have different signature styles; Hillbillyholiday uses the two dashes while Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not. One of the biggest ways I've caught socks is their signature style aligning with everything else because it remains consistent. That stated, my suspicion was piqued (from the small "it's possible" level of interest I had before) after Hullaballoo Wolfowitz showed up at WP:ANI, but I considered that he had been alerted to the matter via email (because someone figured it was a sure thing that he would vote "oppose" to any of the proposed sanctions, especially if given a skewed side of the situation), or via watching John's talk page, or because he watches WP:ANI. This is why I briefly questioned how he wound up there. With some sock cases, you need to weigh all the possibilities. You can ask [[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] and/or [[User:AlexEng|AlexEng]] to look further into this. Or do go ahead and request that someone start that sock investigation for you. I also think it may be a good idea for Tenebrae or AlexEng to start an RfC on the [[Michael Michael]] matter. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

:You also need to keep in mind that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz might have looked at Hillbillyholiday's contributions after the second Norma Stitz AfD (which I was aware of and mentioned at WP:ANI as part my case that Hillbillyholiday tries to get rid of anything he does not like). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

'''Note''': The aforementioned editor that I identified as a sock is now being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajax1995]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== [[Flying ointment]] ==

This article is far from perfect. Maybe mentioning it here will help. &#40;&#40;&#40;[[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]]&#41;&#41;&#41; ([[User talk:The Quixotic Potato|talk]])  03:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]], LOL, yes, I guess a person named Flyer22 should know. I'll make some edits to the article to improve it. I won't promise any huge improvements.

:As for anyone watching this page perhaps helping, I do have a decent number of watchers, but, these days, my talk page isn't as active as it used to be. This is partly because of my "Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary" message at the top, which also [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&oldid=788499639 used to start off] by me stating that I'm not interested in social networking here, and because I was removing all new messages, and because I began taking days off from editing Wikipedia. So I really did give off an "I don't want to be bothered" vibe. Once I started allowing messages again, people stopped minding the "Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary" piece. And I plan on removing that piece soon. But I'm not sure that any of my watchers would want to take on the Flying ointment article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you. We potatoes are quite down-to-earth, with some [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/a-potato-flew-around-my-room rare exceptions]. Have you seen [[User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato/Editnotice|my editnotice]]? &#40;&#40;&#40;[[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]]&#41;&#41;&#41; ([[User talk:The Quixotic Potato|talk]])  14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Regarding the edit notice, I just clicked on one to see what would happen. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I should log which ones get clicked the most. I have tried to find appropriate images for each of them, but Wikimedia Commons has a limited supply of "thank you" related images. &#40;&#40;&#40;[[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]]&#41;&#41;&#41; ([[User talk:The Quixotic Potato|talk]])  16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Special Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your recent efforts at ANI. Thank you for fighting for integrity, fairness and basic common sense on Wikipedia. [[User:Wikimandia|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Мандичка'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Wikimandia|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]</sup> 😜 16:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
|}

== Reverts ==

Some advice for you.... If you're reverting someone's edits because you think they're an LTA or otherwise blocked editor, a) mention that in the edit summaries; b) file an SPI instead of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Juelz&diff=797430708&oldid=797429267 accusing them] of being a sock; c) don't revert to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ja_Rule&diff=797431144&oldid=797423328 vandalized version]([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ja_Rule&diff=797431491&oldid=797431357 twice]). Otherwise, it looks like you're HOUNDING the editor and casting ASPERSIONS against them while vandalizing the encyclopaedia. [[User:Ca2james|Ca2james]] ([[User talk:Ca2james|talk]]) 03:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

:Hi, [[User:Ca2james|Ca2james]]. Some editors of those articles are already aware of this particular sock. I thought about manually undoing a number of the edits while stating "[[WP:Sock]]," but that takes longer and I knew that I didn't need to in the case of some of those articles since the editor keeps getting reverted and reported by others. I did mention "WP:Sock" with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lil_Wayne&diff=prev&oldid=797430809 this revert], though. As for [[WP:Vandalism]], it has a very specific meaning. I don't see where I reverted to a vandalized version. I was reverting a sock, though. I reverted per [[WP:EVASION]]; it states, "''Anyone is free to [[Wikipedia:Reverting|revert]] any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and [[WP:NOT3RR|without regard to the three-revert rule]].''" But I will keep what you stated in mind; I've kept that aspect in mind times before. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

::While you were technically in the right to be reverting the LTA the way you were, to those not "in the know" the reverts together with the sock accusation without filing an SPI and reverting to a vandalized version of an article, it looked like you were doing things that weren't totally ok. In other words, the three things taken together could cause a misunderstanding.
::Regarding the vandalism, did you look at the diffs I provided? The version of [[Ja Rule]] you reverted to (twice) included the text {{tq|Before signing with [[Interscope Records]], rapper [[50 Cent]] EMINEM IS BEST with Ja Rule and his label [[Murder Inc. Records]].}} "EMINEM IS BEST" appears to me to be vandalism and had been removed in the edits you reverted. [[User:Ca2james|Ca2james]] ([[User talk:Ca2james|talk]]) 04:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:Ca2james|Ca2james]], yes, I see the vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ja_Rule&diff=797431491&oldid=797431357 here]. [[User:Jd22292|Jd22292]] also [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ja_Rule&diff=797456976&oldid=797431799 restored it] even while noting the editor as a sock. I agree that better attention should be paid to the reverts we are making in these cases. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ja_Rule&diff=prev&oldid=797512205 fixed the vandalism]. Sorry about that and the misunderstanding. I didn't file a SPI because I knew others would and I was busy with other matters at the time. I was focused on stopping the disruption and alerting those "in the know" to the matter so that they would start the investigation (and that includes thanking them via [[WP:Echo]] for the revert of the previous sock account). But the sock kept reverting anyway. I'm also not used to starting a SPI with such little evidence; the ones I start are usually in depth and are not solely based on [[WP:Duck]]. Anyway, like I stated, I will keep your criticism in mind. It's solid criticism. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
::::Hello. I've also been able to get two of the targeted pages semi-protected long-term. {{u|Vanamonde93}} protected [[Ja Rule]] for a year and [[DMX (rapper)]] (the page that made me aware of the vandal) indefinitely. I'd like to recommend similar approaches for the other targeted articles if the socking persists. [[User:Jd22292|jd22292]] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; font-family:Papyrus">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> ([[User talk:Jd22292|talk]]) 15:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

== Jean Fonteneau ==

Your accusations of vandalism are unnecessarily hostile. I revert edited your revert edit.

I provided standard encyclopedia references for every change I made. You should follow wikipedia policy when you make changes. I also added comments to the page's 'talk' section.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.133.151.149|129.133.151.149]] ([[User talk:129.133.151.149#top|talk]]) 22:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:IP, let's look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jean_Alfonse&diff=796804839&oldid=796804010 this revert]. That revert shows that you removed material, including references, with no explanation, and changed the subject's last name to a name that is not the article title. And your comment on the article talk page shows you to be editing from some type of POV. Per [[WP:VANDTYPES]], I believe that my revert and [[WP:STiki]] message you received were justified. But I will comment on the article talk page and alert [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography]] to the matter as the first course of trying to get this matter resolved. The reason for the removal of the content was not readily apparent by examination of the content itself. It looked like POV-editing to me. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

==[[Sexual fetishism]]==

The claim that the illustyration on this article was unnecessary is odd as the article contains no illustration (which most lay people would require) except for a totally unconnected diagram on sexual stimulation... which is not the same as fetishism.
Also despite the reversion of text the correct use of the term is specifically to do with worship of non-living objects... the terminology as been somewhat warped by modern over usage in pornography...the way the article is written it reads that a person can be a breast fetishist... which is certainly not correct... which is why I had edited to read "non-erogenous" as normal erogenous areas cannot be considered a fetish.... the whole point of fetishism is an UNUSUAL pleasure from some object and (by extension only) from some odd body part such as the armpit. Personally I think the illustration did much to illustrate the true meaning pof fetishism--[[User:Stephencdickson|Stephencdickson]] ([[User talk:Stephencdickson|talk]]) 11:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:Stephencdickson|Stephencdickson]], so you think that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sexual_fetishism&oldid=797178067 this image] of a woman licking a high heel is needed to improve readers' understanding of the topic? Per [[WP:GRATUITOUS]], I disagree. The Sexual fetishism article is mainly a medical article, not a sexual activity article. Any boot-licking can go on the [[Shoe fetishism]] article, or the [[Boot fetishism]] article. Furthermore, per [[WP:LEADIMAGE]], I don't really see that the image is too representative, no matter how popular shoe fetishism is. As for how the term ''sexual fetish'' (or ''sexual fetishism'') or ''fetish'' is used, it is used in different ways, and we address that in the Sexual fetishism article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
my point is that the article deserves illustration...as it is NOT easily understood by a lay reader... whether or not the article is "medical"... Wikipedia should be accessible to all levels of reader.. to my opinion the article drifts from the issue of Fetishism in its true meaning--[[User:Stephencdickson|Stephencdickson]] ([[User talk:Stephencdickson|talk]]) nevertheless I will take your suggestion and place the photo on Shoe fetishism as that too is poorly illustrated --[[User:Stephencdickson|Stephencdickson]] ([[User talk:Stephencdickson|talk]]) 15:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:Stephencdickson|Stephencdickson]], I disagree with you on the mater of illustration for the Sexual fetishism article. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, not all articles need a lead image. In fact, some are better off without one. I think that this is such a case. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

== Re: ==

Thank you for the kind words. {{smiley}} I think we're on the same page regarding that last bit, but I don't think it's worthwhile to try to push them to understand our point of view. I tried and failed, so I gave up. [[User:AlexEng|<span style="color:#00C5CD">'''Alex'''</span><span style="color:#9CBA7F">'''Eng'''</span>]]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">([[User_talk:AlexEng|<span style="color:#FF83FA">TALK</span>]])</small></sup> 18:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

== Wow you're fast ==

I hope you're okay with the changes I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link&curid=553687&diff=798419968&oldid=798419061 here]. Let me know if not and I'll redo. Best regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 20:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:TransporterMan|TransporterMan]], LOL, not fast. It's just that I responded while you were typing up the proposal. I'm fine with your slight alteration to my post. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

::It might reduce confusion if you changed your link to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Red_link&diff=798417980&oldid=797342798 this] rather than the one where I removed my draft. Thanks for the support. Best regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link&diff=798421393&oldid=798420583 Done]. I'd considered it initially, but I felt that editors would know what the deal was. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
::[[The Fastest Gun Alive|Fastest hands in the West]]. [[User:AlexEng|<span style="color:#00C5CD">'''Alex'''</span><span style="color:#9CBA7F">'''Eng'''</span>]]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">([[User_talk:AlexEng|<span style="color:#FF83FA">TALK</span>]])</small></sup> 20:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

== A kitten for you! ==

[[File:Iris cat.jpg|left|150px]]
I decided to have a look at Shootingstar's talk page and read through the conflict with that likely mens rights editor. I think it's obvious why they often so aggressively distort academic literature...
I so appreciate that you are dedicated to keeping this easily accessible online encyclopedia intellectually honest and reflecting of the current scientific data. :)

[[User:Jayx80|Jayx80]] ([[User talk:Jayx80|talk]]) 07:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>

:[[User:Jayx80|Jayx80]], thank you. Even if you are [[User:Shootingstar88|Shootingstar88]] (and like I stated on your talk page, you do remind me of that editor), you at least help keep [[WP:Due]] in mind when editing these domestic violence and other gender-related articles. You did some much needed cleanup at the [[Violence against men]] article. You should watch out for [[WP:Copyvio]], however. You already have one warning about that from the same editor who indefinitely blocked Shootingstar88 over repeated WP:Copyvio violations. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

== Formal mediation has been requested ==
{{Ivmbox
| <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Forced Seduction--->The [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Forced Seduction". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. [[Wikipedia:Mediation|Mediation]] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Forced Seduction|request page]], the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy|formal mediation policy]], and the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide|guide to formal mediation]], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 15 September 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br>
<small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 23:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)</small>
}}

== Talk page at Orgasm control ==

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn! I have replied to your (implicite) comment made on reversion edit description at [[Orgasm control]]. Please use that talk page to reply and propose suggestions for improving the phrasing '''to eliminate confusion''' between two '''different notions''' : orgasm and ejaculation. Thanks.--[[Special:Contributions/82.137.10.101|82.137.10.101]] ([[User talk:82.137.10.101|talk]]) 00:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:The article is on my watchlist. I know that you have replied. Sometimes I might not reply right away when someone is responding to me; this is usually because I am busy with other matters. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

== Request for mediation rejected ==
{{Ivmbox
| The [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation|request for formal mediation]] concerning Forced Seduction, to which you were listed as a party, has been [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Rejected requests|declined]]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Forced Seduction|mediation request page]], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Chair|Chairman]] of the Committee, or to the [[User:Mediation Committee|mailing list]]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]].

For the Mediation Committee, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)<br>
<small>(Delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]], [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|on behalf of]] the Mediation Committee.)</small>
}}

==[[Sorted (magazine)]] article==
More copies if Russell Church's four editions of Sorted were published during it's existence than four years of the evangelical Christian mimicked version. ABC audited figures are not available for the Christian version because its appeal is minimal. It was only during the immediate post Leveson Inquiry period that there was a proven circulation increase. Since then the sales and reach has dwindled fast. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DolphinCentre|DolphinCentre]] ([[User talk:DolphinCentre#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DolphinCentre|contribs]]) </small>

== [[Child pornography]] article ==

{{User|NPOVwarriorprincess}}, regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_pornography&diff=801133796&oldid=801018152 this], if there is something you would like to state to me, which I'm sure there is, feel free to state it here on my talk page. After weighing in at the [[I, Pedophile]] article/talk page and not editing Wikipedia for days, and that article remaining on the first page of my latest contributions, I was waiting for one of the child sexual abuse topics to be hit by one of you guys. It's something I can expect if I am absent from Wikipedia for two to four days or longer. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm certain that you are no princess. Trying to imply that you are a she instead of a he, because of the statistics, does not make you seem any more neutral. I'm not sure when you guys will learn that, but it's time to get a clue. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello I have reported you for violations of wikipedia NPOV. Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring opinions that one does not agree with on page's talk section. This goes against wikipedia's transparency and NPOV and hurts the community by disallowing an open and honest discussion of page topics. 

You can fine the case report I have main requesting a temporary ban for your actions here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censoring_of_diverse_points_of_view_on_the_Child_Pornorgraphy_Talk_page


[[User:NPOVwarriorprincess|NPOVwarriorprincess]] ([[User talk:NPOVwarriorprincess|talk]]) 03:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

:LOL. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for becoming involved in the [[Talk:Hentai#Wikipedia_is_not_censored..._but|discussion about Hentai]].  It is not a subject that is near and dear to my heart, but I felt that the other user's response when reverting changes seemed personal.  That got me quite upset - although I <u>tried</u> to ensure my reply was calm and rational.  (I don't deal well with conflict or anxiety.)

For the moment, I think it is best that I hang back and see what happens there.  I would prefer not to be emotionally invested, and right now feel that I am.

Again, thank you for your involvement - whichever way the discussion goes. [[User:Ambiguosity|Ambiguosity]] ([[User talk:Ambiguosity|talk]]) 04:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Ambiguosity|Ambiguosity]], you're welcome. [[Hentai]] is not near and dear to my heart either; it's just one of the many articles on my watchlist. And as many know, I watch a lot of sexual articles since I have a lot of knowledge on a lot of sexual topics. I don't think that the aforementioned discussion is likely to get more participants any time soon unless you alert associated WikiProjects to the topic. But so many editors are focused on [[WP:Not censored]] that they don't keep [[WP:Offensive material]] in mind; this is usually because they either forget about it or didn't know about it at all. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

:This is why I added that WP:Offensive material piece to the WP:Not censored policy page in 2015. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

:But some might still overlook it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

== ANI and your monitoring of critical articles ==

Thanks for standing up against this kind of nonsense, in this and many other instances. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 05:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

== Just get on with it ==

Please stop disrupting guideline pages with [[WP:REVTALK]].  It's a pain in the ass to a large number of watchlisters.  You've been going on and on and on about RfCing the matter so just do it, or drop it, please. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]], I expected you to come here with some type of passive-aggressive post. Before you came along to moan and groan, I, however, was not disrupting a thing in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&action=history the revision history] of [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]. My simple [[WP:Dummy edit]] (seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=799317597&oldid=799014689 here]), which is more than allowed (including for guideline and policy pages), was not disruptive in the least compared to the edit warring. Then, a number of days later (the time gap is 23:47, 6 September 2017‎ to 08:49, 18 September 2017‎), after I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=801153821&oldid=801153711 this comment] on the talk page, you decided to disrupt the guideline with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=801202994&oldid=799317597 a condescending note], which was no doubt meant to get the last word. Hypocritical much? And now you state that I've been going on and on about an RfC, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines&oldid=801301458#RfC.3F I started one section about it], and when most of my comments on this interleaving issue are in that '''small section''', a section where you are the main editor opposing an RfC. I do not like it when the two of us are at each other's throats. Yes, I will be "getting on with it." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
::I don't think you're clear on what [[passive-aggressive]] means.  There's nothing passive about this, nor aggressive. If you {{em|expect}} people to complain about what you're doing, then it's time to change what you're doing.  There is no throat being got at.  Please stop misinterpreting disagreement as an attack.  Many of us are tired of that interminable discussion. It either needs to be allowed to archive, like such train-wrecks usually are, or you can actually do the RfC you demand.  I advise against it, because the very nature of what you and some other people think you want to do isn't even clear among you, nor are the rationales you and they are offering. I see little evidence that anyone in favor of anything like the kind of change you're pushing have thought at all about the consequences of it.  But whatever; I trust the community to collectively do the wiser thing.  <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
:::[[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]], considering that passive-aggressive is one of the behaviors I've studied, I'm quite sure I know what it means. You've displayed passive-aggressive behavior on more than one occasion, as have I. And that you think that your initial post above is not [[aggressive]] (see I can link to Wikipedia articles too) speaks volumes. You have been aggressive. There is no misinterpretation. It's not about me expecting people to complain about what I'm doing, although editors should expect others to complain about their behavior on this site; it happens all the time, regardless of if the complaint is valid or invalid. My expectation that you would come here is about knowing how people are going to behave. I am very good at knowing how people will behave, especially after getting to know that person's real-life or onscreen personality, and Wikipedia is no different. As I've noted before, it's one reason I am so good at identifying [[WP:Socks]]. I didn't demand an RfC; I suggested it. Others agreed. You vehemently protested. Simple as that, really. As for the consequences of ensuring that editors are not breaking up the comments of others by interleaving, I'm sure that the community will be fine. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::No going to argue with you about this stuff on yet another page.  RfC it, or let it die; let's not perpetuate it, or worse yet multiply the drain on productive editing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I don't want butt in, but [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] starting this section was entirely uncalled for (looking through the history) and does indeed appear to be passive-aggressive. SMcCandlish, you really need to move on. --[[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 00:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Then don't butt in.  You weren't part of the "thread that would not die" over there, nor the editwarring behind it, so you lack the context to understand why I'm requesting that Flyer either do the RfC or drop the matter, instead of dragging it out indefinitely. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:In retrospect, this actually was bordering on aggressive, and I apologize for the tone (though it wasn't passive-aggressive!). I forget sometimes that barroom vernacular like "pain in the ass" can seem hostile, even when it's directed at a circumstance or result not at a personality. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

== Your RfC notices ==

You are placing notices of the RfC on talkpage guidelines regarding interleaving replies, on a number of project and policy talk pages having nothing to do with this issue. This is not an appropriate means of publicizing the RfC and you should stop. Thank you, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], huh? I and many others have publicized RfCs in this way a number of times. One of the most recent cases was [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 192#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?|the successful WP:ANDOR RfC I started]]. Are you objecting to me alerting [[WP:Manual of Style]] as well? Do you think I should not be alerting WikiProjects either? [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

:Looking at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC]], it seems that you object to me alerting the talk pages of policies and guidelines that are not closely related. But how can we define "closely related" in this case when the discussion at hand affects all of Wikipedia? "Publicizing an RfC" also states that the "talk pages of relevant WikiProjects" are allowed. All of the WikiProjects are relevant in this particular case. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
::The logic of your position is that you could publicize this RfC on the talkpage of every single wikiproject, policy, and guideline page in all of Wikipedia. That is not reasonable. How many of these notices are you planning to post and how are you selecting the places to post them? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 03:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], every single one is not the goal. Notifying the most prominent policies and guidelines, and then various WikiProjects after that, usually does the trick. Looking at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#Standard lead paragraph length]], you can see that I noted all of the WikiProjects I was going to alert and that "I started to look for WikiProjects based on WP:RfC's Issues by topic area categorization format." At some point, I might have suggested that others alert more. Either way, the turnout was fantastic. I followed that same notification list for the WP:ANDOR RfC, and I noted in that discussion that I would be doing that. For that RfC, I alerted other pages as well. Alerting inactive WikiProjects is one thing to look out for. Anyway, the goal is to get a lot of editors involved for one or more issues that affect or are going to affect Wikipedia on a wide scale. Simply leaving a message at [[WP:Village pump (policy)]] is not enough. In the case of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section&oldid=801337462#Request_for_comment_on_parenthetical_information_in_first_sentence the parenthetical information in first sentence RfC]" (which I did not start), I alerted various WikiProjects as well; this time, I alerted [[WP:Manga]], and [[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] was glad that I did. When we are talking about a matter that affects Wikipedia in general, it is a good idea to alert many WikiProjects. I've also known film editors [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] and [[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] to appreciate such notifications. Same goes for many others that I can ping to this section. If you are going to police me from such notifications, when things like the RfC at hand do not affect any one particular area, but Wikipedia in general, I can safely state that this would be detrimental. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I ask again, (approximately) how many of these notices are you planning? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I've already notified the big policy and guideline pages. As for WikiProjects, I have been following the list that I usually follow (mentioned above) thus far. After that, I planned to alert more. I do not have an approximate number. "Various" and "many" are clear enough, per what I stated above. Those RfCs would not have gotten as many participants had I not advertised as widely as I did. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::Also, one of the good things that happens when I alert so many WikiProjects is that other editors sometimes start alerting more WikiProjects to the RfC I advertised. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for providing your perspective. Please use good judgment in placing only a reasonable number of notices around the project. [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience#RfC:_Should_the_WP:TALK_guideline_discourage_interleaving.3F|This]] is an example of the types of reaction I was concerned we would see to your posting. In any event, it appears that the consensus on the RfC is fairly clear at this time. Regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], given that [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] has never [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience&oldid=801665786#RfC:_Should_the_WP:TALK_guideline_discourage_interleaving.3F asked that question] before, in any of the other RfC alerts I posted there, I wonder why he asked the question now. Perhaps he saw this thread? In any case, I find it to be an odd question since the RfC concerns Wikipedia as a whole and since I have never received such a question about any of my RfC notifications until now, a little after your post here. For example, I am a member of [[WP:Med]]. [[WP:Neuroscience]] is one of our related WikiProjects, and WP:Med members, such as [[User:Doc James|Doc James]], are always appreciative of these notifications; it's why Doc James weighed in on the RfC. So did other WP:Med members. The aforementioned list of WikiProjects were selected with good judgement years ago since they cover a wide range of topics. Not only do I follow that list, but I've made sure to notify other WikiProjects in cases like these as well. For example, [[WP:Women]]. What is important when alerting a number of WikiProjects to an RfC that affects the whole community is trying to get a wide range of views, the WikiProjects that cover topic areas such as science, medicine, math, culture, sports, women's issues and so on. Like you and I noted, contacting every WikiProject should not be the aim. It would be good if there was a more efficient way to alert many WikiProjects to an RfC that affects Wikipedia as a whole; I might have seen this in the past at some point -- a bot-triggered one -- unless my mind is playing tricks on me. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Posting to the most active Wiki Projects IMO is not unreasonable. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 18:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::(I think the way I'm indenting this makes Doc James' comment an interleave, at least in format if not in timing: how appropriate!) Anyway, thanks Brad for bringing the issue up, and what Brad has said goes for me too. One could argue that there are many kinds of RfCs that "concern Wikipedia as a whole", and that is why we have, for example, [[WP:CENT]], and why editors often leave notices at the Village Pump (and we have watchlist notices for the most significant RfCs). It's entirely appropriate in this case to reach out to WikiProjects that are involved in setting policies or guidelines about talk pages or discussions or formatting. But going far beyond that, as was done here, is simply annoying spam. As for [[WT:NEURO]], I watch that very carefully. If I have not objected in the past, it was because I could see a rationale for the RfC being in some way related to the project, rather than because I did not notice it, or it simply felt like no big deal. But I saw this notice on numerous talk pages on my watchlist, and it seemed to me to be getting over-the-top. Example: [[WT:COI]] – do editors with COIs interleave their comments more than other editors do? In any case, being ''perhaps'' of wide concern is insufficient reason for so many messages. It's not the end of the world or anything, but please do not do this any more. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]], I have a lot of talk page watchers. Some of them are people I don't want watching my talk page. I wondered if you saw this thread on my talk page and decided to make a complaint at WP:Neuroscience. Either way, look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience&oldid=801779837 the other RfC notices I posted to WP:Neuroscience]. How are any of those more relevant than this one? How can we judge which WikiProjects are more relevant to the discussion at hand? We cannot. And the same goes for our policies and guidelines, with the exception of [[WP:Manual of Style]], which I also alerted. None of the WikiProjects are any more deserving of receiving a notification about interleaving that affects all Wikipedia editors, and I don't see the "WikiProjects that are involved in setting policies or guidelines" that you speak of. I am aware of WP:CENT. I noted above that I left a notification at [[WP:Village pump (policy)]], but I have found that this is not enough for cases such as these. Such limited notification usually only ends up notifying those who watch that page or are heavily involved in our policy and guideline issues. It leaves out the general Wikipedians. I've seen this complaint -- that there are a limited number of editors shaping our policy and guidelines and not enough general Wikipedians being alerted to the issues -- many times. You are asking me to stop doing something that has proven beneficial for years, that many editors have thanked me for, all because it annoys you via your watchlist. Should you not being annoyed cost so many editors the chance of being alerted to important issues?   

:::::::::Sighs. Seems like I need to start an RfC on this matter as well. But, for now, I'm going to start a thread on this matter at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)]], and leave a note about it at the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC]] talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::No, I am not watching your userpage. I came here only because you pinged me, and I would not even have been aware of the discussion here if you had not (but it was good of you to ping me, please don't get me wrong about that). If I had wanted to do something in response to Brad's post, I would have commented here, not at NEURO. As I said above, I became aware of it after seeing your messages at NEURO and other talk pages. I'm not asking that practices be changed simply because I was annoyed: I asked you a question at NEURO, and then commented after being pinged here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::But you have called the practice annoying spam and asked me to stop without showing that the practice is detrimental or truly disruptive. By contrast, I've shown that the practice is beneficial; it generally produces a bigger turnout, from a wider range of editors, and it has never been cited as an issue until Newyorkbrad started this thread on my talk page. Newyorkbrad has seemed to take the approach that notifying some WikiProjects is fine, but that I should not overdo it. I am not seeing a way to tell which WikiProjects should be notified other than the aforementioned genre/field list. And since I'd rather not be policed or blocked for helping, I am going to ask Village pump (technical) if there can be a way of bringing wider attention to RfCs without manually posting to whatever WikiProject. You know, other than WP:CENT. I'll later later start a discussion on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::It just occurred to me that I ought to come back here and explain that I did not express myself very well when I said that I had been annoyed. That's an overstatement. To whatever degree I might have been what could be called "annoyed", it was only to a very small extent. It would be more accurate to have said that I thought that it was an error of judgment on your part. That's what I think this really all comes down to. It's a matter of judgment. If one manually posts to multiple projects, one has to use judgment as to what is useful and how much goes too far. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And my previous judgements on this matter have proven useful; that is my point. Again, "''I am not seeing a way to tell which WikiProjects should be notified other than the aforementioned genre/field list.''" As for any annoyance the alerts cause, they aren't any more annoying than the message bots (I see from time to time) popping up with the same message across my very big watchlist. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

== Marlon Brando ==

Hello! I just received your message regarding the Marlon Brando page on Wikipedia. I have been a huge Brando fan since I was a kid, I read all his biographies, watched all the documentaries made about him, and whenever I visit his page, I noticed that it's filled with a lot of errors and inaccuracies, especially about his children. He had 8 biological children only : Christian (by Anna Kashfi), Miko and Rebecca (by Movita Castaneda),Teihotu and Cheyenne (by Tarita Teriipaia), Ninna Priscilla, Myles Jonathan and Timothy Gahan (by Maria Cristina Ruiz).He also adopted Petra,(daughter of his former assistant and author James Clavell), Maimiti (daughter of Tarita Teriipaia and Frenchman named Jean Claude) and Raiatua (Teriipaia's niece). Stephen Blackhart has repeatedly denied that he has any relation to Brando, Lisa Brando, Angelique Brando, Dylan Brando and Warren Brando are not related to him. This story that he had 16 children is false.(it's all based on false speculations).When I edited the page, I may have not cited my sources properly but I am convinced that they are 100% reliable and factual. I also spent 2 years researching on him. The reason you read that he had 16 children is because after his passing, some people claimed they were his illegitimate children but his estate does not believe them http://pagesix.com/2008/05/14/brando-daughter-doubted/. This is how the rumor started unfortunately.
In all the books about Brando, they state that he had 8 biological children (5 by his three wives and 3 by his housekeeper) and 3 adopted daughters.

Thank you! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bluhy23|contribs]]) </small>

:[[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]], the issue I have is that your content was all unsourced. That is why I reverted. See [[WP:Verifiability]] and [[WP:Reliable sources]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

:Also, [[Page six]] is a poor source. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again!
I hope I am not bothering you but I need help regarding the sources. What do you mean when you say that a content is unsourced? I cited the new edited information I added to the page. I used sources like google books and People Magazine. (BTW the page six article I provided in the talk page was only an example, I know that the site is not always reliable).

Thank you!

:{{User|Bluhy23}}, yeah, you did use sources; I see them [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marlon_Brando&diff=801335577&oldid=801335168 farther down]. I missed that before. I suggest you take this matter to [[Talk:Marlon Brando]] and see if anyone can validly object to your arguments. Wait a day or two, and then [[WP:BOLD]]LY change the article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

:Also, sign your comments using four tildes. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

== Editing [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations]] ==

Flyer22 Reborn, just so you know for future reference, it is not necessary (or even desirable) to edit the GAN page directly. All you needed to do was to remove the GA nominee template from the article talk page; a bot rebuilds the GAN page every 20 minutes, and the nomination would have disappeared from the page automatically.

Per the [[WP:GANI|GA nomination instructions]] page, editors who wish to nominate articles where they are not regular editors are supposed to consult on the article's talk page with editors who have worked on it, and only if there is agreement that the article is ready for GAN should a nomination be made. So, once there was consensus that it wasn't ready, the removal of the nomination from the talk page was appropriate. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]], I think I knew that already and wanted it removed from the main page so that the link I pointed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MagicatthemovieS&oldid=801778861#Your_GA_review_nominations on MagicatthemovieS's talk page wouldn't show it]. As for WP:GANI, it states at the top, "''Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator.''" By contrast, [[WP:FAC]] states, "''Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it.''" I prefer the latter wording since it is stronger. And as can be seen, [[User:MagicatthemovieS|MagicatthemovieS]] is not taking WP:GANI's wording into consideration. Perhaps he overlooked it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
::I was thinking about the later sentence in GANI, which is virtually identical to your FAC quote: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." That covers it quite explicitly. As for the direct edit of [[WP:GAN]], it truly isn't necessary or appropriate. The page only needs direct editing when something has gone badly awry. Finally, I don't know whether you're aware, but MagicatthemovieS currently has more GAN submissions than any other editor, even with that one nomination reverted: 23 in total. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 22:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:::[[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]], maybe GANI's wording should be changed to be more consistent? Also, is that wording relatively new? Years ago, I remember being concerned that there was not the same standard of "consult the main contributors first" for WP:GA nominations as there is for FA nominations. As for MagicatthemovieS, yes, that is an issue, which is why I am hoping that he listens to what has been stated on the matter. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

== Why did you remove all my link references ==

This is a very good source I listed, and it has even been mentioned in Wikipedia in the past.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Surroy378|Surroy378]] ([[User talk:Surroy378#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Surroy378|contribs]]) 22:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:[[User:Surroy378|Surroy378]], I reverted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sexual_stimulation&diff=prev&oldid=801795951 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Glans_penis&diff=prev&oldid=801796060 here] because you appeared to be [[SPAMMING]]. With my edit summary for the fist revert, I stated, "The reference is [[WebMD]]. Changing the URL without changing the reference is problematic." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

::I deeply apologize for changing the webMD link. Can I kindly list the URL I suggested in the "External Links" section? (I am kindfully asking permission. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Surroy378|Surroy378]] ([[User talk:Surroy378#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Surroy378|contribs]]) </small>

:::See [[WP:SPAM]] and [[WP:External linking]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

== I Like You ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg|120px]]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you [[User:MRmiff.com04|MRmiff.com04]] ([[User talk:MRmiff.com04|talk]]) 15:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
|}

== Precious three years! ==

{{User QAIbox
| title = Precious
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
| image_upright = 0.3
| bold = [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#Flyer22 Reborn|Three years!]]
}}
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

== Talk by 69.248.49.73 ==
No idea what you're talking about nor who you are. Please don't contact me, again. I don't edit pages, especially ones about LeVay. He probably did it while he was over here, since he was using my laptop. I don't find it funny and I do not like contact from strangers or the public at large. Take it up with him and cease contact with me. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:69.248.49.73 |69.248.49.73 ]] ([[User talk:69.248.49.73 #top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.248.49.73 |contribs]]) 05:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)</small>

== Thanks, Flyer22 Reborn ==

I appreciate your welcome! I am new to wikipedia and finding it all quite amazing. More soon. [[Special:Contributions/104.220.67.101|104.220.67.101]] ([[User talk:104.220.67.101|talk]]) 00:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC) emikokoyo (Still confused by the four tilda thing, but hopefully that worked.)

:{{User|Emikokoyo}}, did you mean to post this section while not signed in? [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

== Noticeboard: [[Marlon Brando]] ==

Hello Flyer,

This is simply to let you know that I have yet to receive a response from the noticeboard regarding Stephen Blackehart and the children of Marlon Brando. I was wondering how else I could discuss the matter.


Thank you. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 02:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]], yes, I know. It's why I commented there [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=803953463#Stephen_Blackehart_and_the_children_of_Marlon_Brando days ago]. It's odd that no one has yet weighed in. They no doubt would have if Brando were still alive. I suppose the next step is to start a [[WP:RfC]] on the matter. RfCs are my go-to during disputes after discussion among the involved parties has proven to not be effective at resolving the issue. You can also seek [[WP:Third opinion]]. Read both WP:RfC and WP:Third opinion carefully and thoroughly so that you know what to do. Don't do both at the same time. If you seek an RfC, then WP:Third opinion is not needed. If you seek WP:Third opinion, then you can start an RfC after that. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

== Noticeboard: Parent-Teacher conference ==

[[User:Andres contreras|Andres contreras]], Hello Flyer, 
I apologize for the wrong edit on this article page. Thank you for your notice. As you can see I´m  new here. Im a translator trying to upload an Spanish translation to an existing english article. [[Parent-teacher conference]] I have a word file and prefer to paste in wikipedia format. I contacted several help desks and checked help pages but just can´t catch the steps to do it, too complicated for my lack of skills, but I´ll work on it. If you could advise on where to read proper instructions I´d greatly appreciate it. Submitting translations is all I want to do for now. Thanks again.--[[User:Andres contreras|Andres contreras]] ([[User talk:Andres contreras|talk]]) 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

:Hi, [[User:Andres contreras|Andres contreras]]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Parent-teacher_conference&diff=804109092&oldid=804106341 reverted you] because you were changing an English Wikipedia article into an entirely different language. This is the English Wikipedia; so our articles should be in English. As for help understanding things, you can ask at [[WP:Help desk]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

:As for how to ask for help at WP:Help desk, it's simple. Just click on the link at the top that states "Click here to ask a new question about how to use or edit Wikipedia." Then ask your questions. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

:Also see [[WP:Teahouse]] if you haven't already. I know that [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] would be willing to help you. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
::Hello {{u|Andres contreras}} and Flyer22 Reborn. Here at the English Wikipedia, we have only English language articles. You are welcome to translate articles into Spanish, Andres contreras, but the result of your work belongs on the [[Spanish Wikipedia]]. Please read [[Wikipedia:Translate us]] for complete details. A translation is a derivitive work so you must attribute the source article properly. You are welcome to ask questions at the [[WP:TH|Teahouse]] at any time. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 19:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

[[User:Andres contreras|Andres contreras]]:Hello Flyer and [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] Thanks for your advise, I´m well aware Spanish content belongs on [[Spanish Wikipedia]]. The guide for Spanish translations however, suggests to start translating directly on the original article and then in the Edit Summary describe it is a translation and so on... I guess I misinterpreted. I¨also know that the proper source must be cited. This is the idea! to make an existing important article (this one is) available to a wider audience in another language, respecting its original authors. I just need to fill out the Edit Summary correctly, to link the source to the translation. This is what I have to figure out. I appreciate your patience and time to help mend my steps. I´ll follow your indications as to where to go for help. --[[User:Andres contreras|Andres contreras]] ([[User talk:Andres contreras|talk]]) 22:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

== The RfC on the Children of Marlon Brando ==

Hello Flyer,
The RfC has not been successful. I am not sure how long I should wait for the editors to answer me . I don't how it works. Only one editor (other than you) has commented so far and I don't fully agree with what they said. I don't think we should report the doubtful children since there isn't a single reliable source on the net that verifies this information. It is all based on speculation and hearsay. Why is no one weighing in on the issue? This is a big problem that needs solving. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

:RfCs last for a month. At this point, you need to wait. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
:Ok, thank you. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

== Congratulations from [[WP:STiki]]! ==


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7; width: 100%;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 0px;" | {{#ifeq:Diamond|Diamond|[[File:STiki Barnstar of Merit Diamond.png|60px]]|{{#ifeq:Diamond|Platinum|[[File:STiki Barnstar of Merit Platinum.png|60px]]|{{#ifeq:Diamond|Gold|[[File:STiki Barnstar of Merit Gold.png|60px]]|{{#ifeq:Diamond|Silver|[[File:STiki Barnstar of Merit Silver.png|60px]]|[[File:STiki Barnstar of Merit.png|60px]]}}}}}}}}
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 7.5px;" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 7.5px; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | {{Center|'''The {{#if: Diamond|Diamond|Bronze}} STiki Barnstar of Merit'''}}
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle;" | Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the '''{{#if: 100,000|100,000|5,000}}''' classification threshold using [[WP:STiki|STiki]].

We thank you both for [[Special:Contributions/Flyer22 Reborn|your contributions]] to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. 

We hope you continue your ascent up the [[Wikipedia:STiki/leaderboard|leaderboard]] and stay in touch at the [[Wikipedia_talk:STiki|talk page]]. Thank you and keep up the good work! {{#if: 1||{{noping|West.andrew.g}} (developer) and}} [[User:West.andrew.g|West.andrew.g]] ([[User talk:West.andrew.g|talk]]) 15:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
|}

== IGM ==

Just got the notification that you sent me an e-mail. I have been, and continue to be, under the weather, so I haven't opened it yet, which I will do within the next day or so, but the off-the-top-of-head response is that it seems unlikely.  Still, I look forward to reading your argument & evidence, and will get back to afterwards. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

== Recent sock cases ==

*September 2017: Reverted and called an editor a sock [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_pornography&diff=801133796&oldid=801018152 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_pornography&diff=801174732&oldid=801173909 here]. Sock reported me at [[WP:ANI]]. [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Censoring of diverse points of view on the Child Pornorgraphy Talk page|Was identified at WP:ANI]] and blocked.  

*October 2017: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreskin&oldid=805482897#Reorganization_of_functions_section. Indicated that multiple editors were socks or meatpuppets]. Accounts were [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenod888/Archive|identified as socks days later in an official sock investigation I started]]. 

*October 2017: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SNUGGUMS&oldid=805865530#Your_latest_message_on_my_talk_page. Indicated that the editor was not new and hinted that the editor was a sock]. Editor was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Cartoongamer12&oldid=804383116 blocked as a sock days later].  

*October 2017: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_classification)&diff=805078558&oldid=804907497 Called the editor a sock]. A different editor [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive#14_October_2017|started an official sock investigation]]. The editor I called a sock was blocked as a sock. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_classification)&oldid=805990230#Sockpuppets Currently a sock watch for his socks]. During the sock watch discussion, I noted that a sock might cite [[WP:Assume good faith]] (something that a newbie is not likely to know about) and that it is not unheard for a sock to take me to WP:ANI after I call them a sock. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

*October 2017: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Male_genital_mutilation&diff=806787135&oldid=806763601 Typical denial and same "you will be reported for calling me a sock" stuff]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

== Asking assistance for Wiki editing ==

Could you assist me with some information?

1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee?

2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page?

3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee?

4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor?

5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it?

6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing?

7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content?

8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos?

9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential.

10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories.

11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people?

12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing?
Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page?

13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer?

[[User:Abir Babu|Abir Babu]] ([[User talk:Abir Babu|talk]]) 12:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
:FYI - I've already answered all of his questions on my user talk page. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup>  14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

::Thanks, [[User:Oshwah|Oshwah]]. Per the [[#Recent sock cases]] section above, where I pointed to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreskin&oldid=805482897#Reorganization_of_functions_section. this] sock case, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Male_genital_mutilation&diff=806054518&oldid=806021347 asked] [[User:Abir Babu|Abir Babu]] flat out if he is a sock. You can obviously see the editor's response. I'm leaving the matter at that for now since I have many other things to do and I do not want to spend much time on Wikipedia today (or any day, really). And, Abir Babu, I did not mean to thank you via [[WP:Echo]] minutes ago; my intention was to thank Oshwah. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

== Publicizing the RfC on the children of Marlon Brando ==

Hello Flyer,
I hope I am not bothering you with my questions but I was just wondering if I could publicize the RfC I created on the children of Marlon Brando? Do you think it's a good idea? Should I wait maybe more? I would just like to get more input from editors. It seems to me that not many editors are interested in the topic...
Thank you. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 02:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

:How will you be publicizing it? 

:You could also scrap the current RfC, and I could start one for you. Initially, I thought about starting one for you, but I was being lazy by deciding not to offer to do so. I think that the setup of your current RfC is partly why you are getting a lack of responses. The RfC is titled "RfC: The Children of Marlon Brando." It would help if it were phrased as a question. Not this late in the RfC, but if you were to start a fresh one. In the text you ask, "Should we reduce the number of his children to 11?" So that is the actual question. But I think the question should be phrased the following way instead: "Should people who have denied being Brando's children, and those who have not been proven as his, be listed as his children?" And then, under that, you could state what you did before: "''Should we reduce the number of his children to 11? Stephen Blackehart and Linda Carroll have denied to have any relation to Brando, and there is no proof that Angelique Brando, Lisa Brando, Michael Gilman, Dylan Brando and Warren Brando are his children.''" You can do this. You don't have to wait for me to do it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

::Honestly, I feel a little hesitant about starting a new RfC. I'll think about it. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 04:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

:::Just remember that I am willing to start one for you. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
:: Thank you very much. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
::Should we close the current RfC? Is this the only way to scrap it?[[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 18:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

:::You can simply remove the RfC tag; that will stop the RfC. Since you started it, it is best that you don't close it even if you would be noting that you are simply withdrawing it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::: The question I will be asking in the new RfC is the one you suggested because it's well-phrased: {{tq|Should people who have denied being Brando's children, and those who have not been proven as his , be listed as his children?}} Would that be OK with you? [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 20:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

::::Obviously, yes. But I proposed that for the heading (title) of the RfC. You can use your previous "Should we reduce" wording for the text below the RfC, or new wording. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::: Thank you so much! [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 21:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
::: What do you think about the comments regarding the introduction of the RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marlon_Brando#rfc_98F36F0]? How can I make it clearer for editors who are not familiar with the issue? [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 21:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

::::Bluhy23, [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marlon_Brando&diff=808289962&oldid=808279465 made the comment]. I can't really answer for him, but I think he was talking about your introduction. Although the title of your RfC is clear, your text beneath it should be worded as follows or similar: "Brando has 11 confirmed children. There have been reports originating from unverified sources that he had 16 children. [[Stephen Blackehart]] and [[Linda Carroll]] have both denied being related to Brando, and there is zero evidence that the others are his children. So should the latter bunch be listed as his children?" Something like that. And, of course, after that you can link to previous discussions for further detail. I don't see what else can be done to help your RfC gain traction.  [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::I haven't wanted to spend a bunch of time working out the story. Flyer's wording would be much better, although those words would be interpreted by some as putting a slant on the question. Perhaps phrasing each issue as a question would be better:
:::::#Is it agreed that Brando had 11 confirmed children? (Probably would need to list them for clarity; I see there is a hidden list at [[Marlon Brando#Personal life]].)
:::::#[[Stephen Blackehart]] and [[Linda Carroll]] have both denied being related to Brando; should they be listed as children or possible children? If yes, what sources would provide verification?
:::::#Should other people be listed as children or possible children? If yes, what sources would provide verification?
:::::Another approach would be to start a new section on the article's talk with a proposal to remove mention of Blackehart and Carroll with a brief statement of their denials (where?) and the weakness of sources claiming the contrary (details?). Wait for discussion. If challenged, raise issue at [[WP:RSN]] or [[WP:BLPN]] (not both). Make it brief but give outline from the best sources. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
::: I would like you to take a look at this article from 2004 [https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/brando-leaves-10-children-and-216-million-us/article655394/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&]. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 23:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Me, or Johnuniq? I've already looked at the source. And if reliable sources only confirm 11 children as Brando's, I don't find it as biased to note this in the RfC's introduction, along with the mention that the others either deny being his children or have no solid sources supporting the claim that they are his children. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
::: My apologies! Thanks , Flyer! It's for [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] Could you please take a look at this article ? Would that be enough evidence to list 11 children?[https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/brando-leaves-10-children-and-216-million-us/article655394/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&]  [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 00:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Please start a new section at the article talk where others can express a view. I don't have time to get heavily involved in the issue but you can see my attitude in the comment I left in the RfC, namely that very good sources are required and gossip sources should be discounted. I imagine there are at least a dozen good biographies focused on Brando, and they would normally be regarded as authoritative. The issue is obviously contested, so the very brief mention in the Globe and Mail from 2004 is not adequate because it is just repeating what someone told them. The fact that it says his will identified the living children is very important, if confirmed elsewhere. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

::::Bluhy23, in my opinion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marlon_Brando&diff=808775446&oldid=808765065 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marlon_Brando&diff=808778438&oldid=808775446 this] is overkill. Editors generally will not care about the children's names. And they don't need to know the confirmed children's names unless looking at the sources. All they need to know is that (if whatever sources are correct) 11 children have been confirmed as his and the others have not. And that you are asking them to then judge whether the unconfirmed children should be included as his children. If they want to know the names of the unconfirmed children, they can look at the aforementioned discussion naming them and/or the sources at hand. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:: I apologize for my late reply . I agree with you that naming the children is too much,and I should have not mentioned their names. (But I did not see your post maybe because I was looking at the old version of your talk page.) Should we start a new RfC on this matter or maybe no more RfCs on that? Also , could you please see my  discussions with the editors on the Marlon Brando talk page? There is an editor who keeps telling me that I am doing original search and I know that I am not. In this case, what should I do? [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Another RfC probably won't be any more successful since the first two were not. You need to just wait until this RfC closes and see what the closer states. I've seen the discussion on the talk page, but I don't have anything to add to it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
::: Am I doing original research though? This is what I would like to know. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 20:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

::: Hello Flyer,
::: The closer of the RfC suggested that we should create new RfCs for each dubious child to verify the sources that say they are Marlon Brando's children. Quite frankly, we don't need any more RfCs as they are not going to solve the problem. In my opinion, the issue does not require an RfC but someone who is knowledgeable about Marlon Brando and familiar with him. What would the next step be? How can we fix this problem? I'm sure you are aware of this, but if you look at the article, some of these dubious children are not even referenced, and others have the Data Lounge as a reference source. How has no editor ever noticed that? Since when is the Data Lounge a reliable source? It is a forum that should never be used. What should we do? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 20:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what else should be done, except being [[WP:Bold]] and removing the dubious entries. You might be reverted by the main editor you were in dispute with, but the closer did state the following: "''There is a clear consensus that if no reliable sources say a person is a child of Marlon Brando, then that person should be excluded.''" You can try posting at the [[WP:BLP noticeboard]] about it again and making it clear there that the children are living people (unless any of them are dead, of course), and that [[Stephen Blackehart]] has stated that he's not Brando's child. It would also be best to keep your post there brief and to not add too many URL links. Or you could ask about the matter at [[WP:Editor assistance/Requests]] for guidance. 

::::Oh, and consider turning your user page blue. It might seem trivial, but, during my years here, I've noticed that experienced Wikipedians are a lot more responsive to editors who have blue user pages/talk pages. They are more dismissive of newbie editors. See what I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=815547917&oldid=815544328 stated below] on having a blue user page. When I was a newbie, there was an editor ([[User:Elonka|Elonka]]) who gave me advice about turning my user page blue, and I think it helped, and I've obviously never forgotten about it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

::: I would definitely choose the [[WP:Bold]] option, but you are correct about this editor. I will try posting at [[WP:Editor assistance/Requests]] and see what happens.
Thank you so much for your helpful advice, I really appreciate it. But I was wondering how to turn my user page blue? Again, thank you. [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 23:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
:To turn your page blue, just edit it like you edit any talk page. You can add a little bit about yourself, or simply your username. Or, like [[WP:Sock]]s so often do, you can simply add a dot. But given that socks do that so much, I think going with your username is best if you don't want to add anything about yourself. You can also add one or more [[WP:Userboxes]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
::: Should I just click on my user name , create source and then add my user name? [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
::::Yes, just click on your user page, add what you want and push "Publish page." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

::::There are rules to user pages, though; see [[WP:User pages]]. So you can't really add anything you want. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

::: Perfect! Thank you so much, Flyer! [[User:Bluhy23|Bluhy23]] ([[User talk:Bluhy23|talk]]) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

== Rights to sexual orientation ==

I believe you have something wrong with the sexual orientation of '[[incest]]' if so how is it that [[polysexual]] can be accepted but incest can't as to a sexual interest? Is this an incestophobic move? [[Special:Contributions/101.165.2.225|101.165.2.225]] ([[User talk:101.165.2.225|talk]]) 16:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
:{{tps}} You've got to be kidding me...[[User:TJH2018|<span style="color: orange">TJH2018</span>]][[User talk:TJH2018|<span style="color: blue"><small>talk</small></span>]] 16:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
:Mom? [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 16:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
:: [[List of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre characters|Bubba]]? Is that you? '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">Knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 21:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

== Sorry, new at this ==

You recently left me the following message, "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ... have been undone because they did not appear constructive. ..."

I'm not terribly adept at the editing process and I tried to figure out a different way to do things but basically I was trying to challenge and assertion made in a recent addition to the article that had a source I believe to be dubious. My primary issue with the source was a claim that an admission of guilt was made in a draft consent decree. The issue is that consent decrees by their definition are not admissions of guilt. The article in question treated it as such an admission, which is inappropriate. I tried to find the article's source, i.e. the draft decree, but I have been unable to do so. If I had my intent was to read the decree and update the article with more accurate information. I am sure the decree exists, but I am also sure that it does not include an admission of guilt. Otherwise it would just be an admission of guilt and not a consent decree. Anyways that's what I was getting at. I tried to correct what I saw as a flaw in the article that stems from a flaw in the source material because the author of he source material did not do their due diligence. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yupyouarewrong|Yupyouarewrong]] ([[User talk:Yupyouarewrong#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yupyouarewrong|contribs]]) </small>

== LGBT demographics ==
Hi, do you think it's alright to keep on adding individual studies to the entries about lgbt demographics? I don't think this subject is that closely related to the medical subjects, so different rules might apply. Other entries about social demographics — for example, religious demographics in individual countries — also give high prominence to surveys performed by individual pollsters instead of secondary sources. [[User:Rafe87|Rafe87]] ([[User talk:Rafe87|talk]]) 06:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Rafe87|Rafe87]], what I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_differences_in_intelligence&oldid=806299039#Primary_source_after_primary_source stated to you] at the [[Sex differences in intelligence]] article is not solely about medical articles. It has to do with Wikipedia preferring secondary sources in general; this is made clear at [[WP:Primary sources]]. What it states is why I noted to you that it is not good to build an article on primary source after primary source. For a few scholarly topics where research is limited, most of the sources will be primary, but, if you can locate tertiary or secondary sources to replace primary sources with, you should. Even though [[WP:MEDRS]] concerns health material, it does offer good reasoning for why primary sources are not ideal. Whether it's the [[Demographics of sexual orientation]] article, the [[LGBT demographics of the United States]] article, or something similar, primary sources should not be your go-to sources (meaning the first type of sources you think about using). Like noted to you before, it is often very easy to find tertiary or secondary sources on [[Google Books]]. So [[WP:PAYWALL]] often is not an issue. I'm not going to revert your additions to the Demographics of sexual orientation or LGBT demographics of the United States articles (generally anyway), but I do hope you keep what I've stated in mind and look for tertiary or secondary sources sometimes. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

:Also, [[User:Rafe87|Rafe87]], another thing to keep in mind (and I noted this before) is that primary studies/surveys vary. One survey might state one thing and then another might state something completely opposite of that. In fact, one of the surveys may not be accurate in terms of nationally or internationally representing something (with underreporting being one issue). This is why it is important to rely on secondary sources, like [[review article]]s or similar, in cases such as these. The review article, for example, will note the average percentages given. The average percentages are far more valuable to readers than a bunch of wildly conflicting percentages. The latter doesn't help readers understand a thing. All it does is confuse readers and have them walking away from the article thinking, "Well, that was a waste of time. I still have no clue just how many people are, on average, [so and so]." The type of data that you keep adding to the Demographics of sexual orientation and LGBT demographics of the United States articles can go on and on because there is so much primary data on the demographics of sexual orientation, with much of it conflicting previous data on the subject. And that's just not the way we should be building those articles. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

== Apologies  ==

My apologies, however I have an article that was relevant to depression. Adding it to the references I believe was appropriate since it was relevant but I understand how it would be interpreted as advertising. It is a scholarly contribution nonetheless. 

I created my first Wikipedia today and was wondering if you could look at it. It’s called Nature Exposure Sufficiency (NES) and Nature Exposure Insufficiency (NEI) Continuum. 

Thanks  [[User:Sdurante07|Sdurante07]] ([[User talk:Sdurante07|talk]]) 21:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Sdurante07|Sdurante07]], see [[MOS:LAYOUT]]. If the source is relevant to the article in a non-spam way, you can include it as "further reading." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

== Stonewall edits ==

Hi Flyer- re: [[WP:Advocacy]] on the Stonewall page, I don't think I'm advocating a certain viewpoint... Removing language that's generally considered offensive (like calling people deviants) is moving the page closer to neutrality than anything else. If you're describing facts, you don't have to use historical offensive language to accurately recount them. My edit is the subtle difference between saying that trans people are deviants (biased!), and saying that their behavior was generally considered deviant compared to social norms at the time (accurate and specific!). We don't have to call people transvestites to convey that they either cross-dressed/did drag or were actually transgender. If it's a matter of disagreeing whether this language is offensive, the GLAAD media guide that many popular/respected English publications follow agrees with me: <ref>https://www.glaad.org/reference/style</ref>.

[[User:Laudiacay|Laudiacay]] ([[User talk:Laudiacay|talk]]) 23:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Laudiacay|Laudiacay]], I replied [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stonewall_riots&oldid=808790375#Offensive_language_in_Cafeteria_section on the article talk page]. And like I noted there, I assure you that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transvestism&oldid=797200625#Transvestite_as_an_outdated_and_derogatory_term I am aware of the offensiveness of the term ''transvestite'']. As for use of "deviants," that was obviously not the article's text, but rather me noting the mindset of that time in history. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)  

{{Reflist-talk}}

== Dummy edit ==

Hi Flyer,

Regarding [[Special:Diff/808741594|this self-revert]], you do know you can use a [[WP:DUMMY|dummy edit]] to add a note like this, right?  No need to double-revert. Some examples: [[Special:Permalink/791292172|1]], [[Special:Permalink/790162544|2]], [[Special:Diff/782295870|3]], [[Special:Permalink/798791979|4]].  Cheers, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]], see my history at the [[WP:Dummy edit]] talk page. I often do a number of dummy edits a day when editing; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Justin_Bieber&diff=prev&oldid=808729573 this] is one example. I used to state "[[WP:Dummy edit]]:" in front of an explanation. I did it so often that editors started copying me. In fact, I thought that you picked on this style from me. I usually do not state "WP:Dummy edit" anymore. I state "Comment." I might go back to stating "WP:Dummy edit" at some point. As for the initial diff above, I wanted to revert by manually undoing the edit so that the editor would be aware of my revert. I clearly intended to revert myself after making the statement. It was not meant to be a dummy edit. 

:On a side note: I'm glad that this section is not a complaint about use of dummy edits, which I have gotten in the past.  [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

::Nope, not a complaint at all; was just confused about the reason for the double-revert rather than a dummy edit, but now I get it that it was to generate a user alert without actually reverting content.  I had no idea you're a contributor to the [[WP:DUMMY]] page itself.  And I have no idea who I copied in prefixing "Dummy edit", it could well have been you (not that my swiss-cheese memory would retain information of that sort). Would be handy if one could manually trigger a user alert from ES, that would be more direct and less confusing than a double-revert; maybe an idea for [[WP:VPR]] or [[WP:VPI]]? Would love it if you'd raise that there.  [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

:::I don't do such reverts often. I'm not passionate enough about the matter to seek your suggestion, but others might be very interested in it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

::::I hate the term "dummy edit". (It makes me visualize a ventriloquist's dummy typing away at a computer, and that's vaguely unsettling in a way I can't even begin to explain). I hate it so much that I used the term "null edit" long after learning that that is something quite different, just because I felt I needed to indicate that no content was changed. Over the past year or so, I've resigned myself to using the hated term on the rare occasion that I make such an edit, but now I'm intrigued by the idea of not flagging this type of edit at all. [[User:Rivertorch|<font color="#339933">'''Rivertorch'''</font>]]<small><small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Rivertorch|<font color="#FF0066">FIRE</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Rivertorch|<font color="#0066FF">WATER</font>]]</sub></small></small> 06:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Rivertorch}} Or ''Empty edit''? ''White-space edit''?  Or Flyer's choice of "Comment"? It seems like there's some small value of clueing the history reader in that they don't need to click the diff since nothing has changed and this is just a comment.  I know I appreciate a good, explanatory edit summary, and this seems to help. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 18:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

== Oh my gosh, destroyed! Will you help me again, please? ==

Someone has just gone through and destroyed a lot of work that I just did! I made several corrective edits and thought they fit in the category of minor edits. But will you please clue me in on if they really aren't and why not if not? Anyway, wow, suddenly it looks like they have some sort of vendetta against me or something! Will you please go check out all the recent reversions on articles in my my edit history from today (11/04) and help me figure out where to go from there? I could go RErevert them, but I'd just be edit-warring. I did start discussions on some of them. What else can we do? Will you please support my corrections by adding to the discussions (as you can see "talk..." in my history) and perhaps be part of the consensus that restores those corrections? Thanks! [[User:Thayve Sintar|Thayve Sintar]] ([[User talk:Thayve Sintar|talk]]) 05:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD"]]. [[User:Sro23|Sro23]] ([[User talk:Sro23|talk]]) 05:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

::[[User:Sro23|Sro23]], thanks for handling this. I already knew that Thayve Sintar is a sock; I just didn't know whose sock. And it's sometimes best for me to not indicate that an editor is a sock. One reason is questions like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Male_genital_mutilation&diff=806763601&oldid=806753895 this one]. So I have to just pretend like it's the editor's first account and treat them like others unless I'd rather avoid them because the socking thing is irking me too much. By that, I mean that I don't like acting like I don't know and engaging with an editor who was likely very disruptive in the past and probably has not changed in that respect, but anyway. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

== Interleaving ==

I actually like the interleaving material you just added (not sure how much of it is your wording).  Despite being vociferously opposed to the proposal, what has emerged is (perhaps because of my and Andrewa's insistence) actually accurate even from our (or at least my) side of the issue. It really is true that it generally should not be done, even if you're of the mindset that it can be done when it's genuinely best to do so.  I don't even need to cite IAR to continue to do so in the rare cases it begs to be done, since the wording isn't a prohibition. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
: [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]. Thanks. It's not my wording, though. It was taken straight out of the edit history. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=798842640&oldid=798821772 here], for example. All I did was add a comma, LOL. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

== Rape of males ==

Why did you revert the article? I was trying to replace the old data from here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf with the newer data from here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

The only problem is that I don't know how to cite properly and was hoping whoever edited after me could fix that.

[[Special:Contributions/65.95.240.89|65.95.240.89]] ([[User talk:65.95.240.89|talk]]) 04:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
:{{Ping|65.95.240.89}} Fixed, and integrated new data from that source with the existing 2010 data, among other cleanup [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape_of_males&type=revision&diff=809158061&oldid=809113757]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 13:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

== Socks ==

Hey, I got your email.  I don't know that sockmaster, so it's difficult for me to make any suggestions.  If you file a case at SPI, it will likely be looked at by an SPI clerk.  Unfortunately, checkuser is of no use in this circumstance.  Unless I missed something, all the data went stale long ago.  If you want my uninformed opinion from looking at the behavioral evidence, this looks more likely to be some random POV pusher with similar interests.  But you're always welcome to email me; it's nice to receive a friendly email instead of angry "why did you block me" messages. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 12:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]], I noted in my email to you that I know that the [[WP:CheckUser]] will be stale. What I was stating about WP:CheckUser linking him to his past accounts is that there have been cases where the CheckUser was able to confirm if the accounts were editing from the same location even though the general data was stale. For example, [[User:Amalthea|Amalthea]] and [[User:Alison|Alison]] have done this. One example is [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Someone65/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments|this case]]. In the past, I also read that there have been cases where a CheckUser has kept data on a highly abusive, long-term disruptive editor; I think that Alison has done this in the case of [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 21#Socking / Tisane|an editor I often identify via behavior]]). If I'm wrong on that, and it's against CheckUser protocol, Alison can obviously state so in this section.  

:As for who the sockmaster is in this particular case, you can see from my past reports on him that I am consistently right about who he is. And for others reading this section, I don't mean Tisane. Nor do I mean [[User:Pass a Method|Pass a Method]] (North Atlanticist Usonian). The behavioral evidence and tell-tale typing style is not coincidental, and it never has been. The fact that I'm right this time as well is why he is ignoring my baiting. The ignoring has only further confirmed to me who he is. Because this sock watches my talk page religiously, it was important that I discuss this matter via email before moving forward. The less he knows about what I plan to do regarding him, the better. So, per [[Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser]], I contacted you and two other CheckUsers; the other two were [[User:Berean Hunter|Berean Hunter]] and [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]]. I understand that you may not have wanted me to have your email, but keep in mind that you can email me via Wikipedia so that I never get your email. Euryalus and I, however, have conversed via email (meaning knowing each other's emails) in the past. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

== [[Rape myths]] NORN / NPOVN requests ==

FYI, I've asked both [[WP:NORN]] and [[WP:NPOVN]] for additional input at [[Talk:Rape myths]], since three and only three editors arguing circularly with each other isn't likely to produce anything but irritation. These are not noticeboard reports, but requests for input at the article's talk page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 18:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

== Just want to reiterate ... ==

... that I'm not trying to have an argue-fest over at [[Talk:Rape myth]].  We're just obviously interpreting policy application very, very differently.  It happens. Just going to leave that page be for a while. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 01:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

==Ping!Ping! :)==
Hi Flyer, I tried pinging you over at [[Suspected Cuban sonic attack]] a while ago, but I'm not sure whether you noticed. That page has had several sources flagged/challenged as needing MEDRS and I was hoping you could advise whether that is the case. Not something I know much about but I remembered you do from when we were "on the same page" concerning medical treatment(s) for hysteria.[[User:ZarhanFastfire|ZarhanFastfire]] ([[User talk:ZarhanFastfire|talk]]) 05:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:ZarhanFastfire|ZarhanFastfire]], I didn't get [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suspected_Cuban_sonic_attack&diff=806761644&oldid=806761272 your ping] because a ping only works with a new signature. As for the article in question, I can't really see how [[WP:MEDRS]] applies much there. It's more of a news/media thing. You can ask at [[WP:Med]] about it, but I'm going to have to disagree with any of my fellow WP:Med editors who state that WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are needed for a lot of that. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

== Milo ==

You pinged me there but I have been ill I am afraid so missed it. Can you give me a brief summary? I tried reading the talk page but got lost in wall'o'texts. Cheers. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 10:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

:Hi, [[User:Only in death|Only in death]]. Regarding the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos&oldid=809601261#2017_11_05_Reversions discussion in question], it's about whether or not it should be mentioned that Yiannopoulos is correct about the technical usage of the term ''[[pedophilia]].'' It was also about whether or not it should be noted that the colloquial usage of the term includes the type of "relationships" that Yiannopoulos was speaking of, but a closer review of the sources (the ones that are about Yiannopoulos) shows that they don't mention colloquial usage. So now it's just a matter of mentioning that Yiannopoulos is correct about the technical usage of the term, but also that the "relationships" he was speaking of are illegal. I pinged you because, in [[Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 2#RfC: Should 'the scandal' be referred to as 'allegations of pedarastry' or 'allegations of pedophilia'?|the discussion I linked to at the talk page]], you expressed some concern about using the incorrect meaning in the article. For example, you stated, "Assuming the title 'Accusations of paedophilia' is used (as that is what the sources use) it needs to be made very very clear that it is not the correct term." Right now, there is an RfC going on for the topic. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

== A Wikipedia Barnstar  ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | An award for your ongoing fight against [[vandalism]] on Wikipedia. [[User:ReeceTheHawk|ReeceTheHawk]] ([[User talk:ReeceTheHawk|talk]]) 17:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
|}<!--template:The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar-->

== Lede terms italicized for words-as-words purposes ==

Hi, Flyer 22 Reborn. I noticed you undid my revision on the [[Gay]] article. What is strange to me is that you are the one who told me to ''not'' italicize bold lede terms to begin with. (See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michipedian/Archive_1#Italics_for_article_titles.2C_the_terms_that_are_put_in_WP:BOLDFACE_at_the_beginning_of_articles here].) Please let me know which of the two you think is correct, since you have contradicted yourself and have left me very confused. [[User:Michipedian|Michipedian]] ([[User talk:Michipedian|talk]]) 20:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:Michipedian|Michipedian]], I'd already [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gay&diff=prev&oldid=810361572 reverted myself]. This is because [[WP:WORDASWORDS]] currently states, "If, however, a term is strictly synonymous with the subject of the article (i.e. the likely target of a redirect), then [[#Article title terms|boldface should be used]] in place of italics or quotation marks at such a first occurrence. [...] Use only one of these styles at a time (do not italicize and quote, or quote and boldface, or italicize and boldface) for words-as-words purposes.  Two styles can be used at once for distinct purposes, e.g. a film title is italicized and it is also boldfaced in the lead sentence of the article on that film.  Do not switch back and forth between styles in the same material (e.g., using italics for words as words in one paragraph then quotes in another)."

:As for the 2013 discussion, I was against you using italics and quotation marks, especially quotation marks, for the boldfaced terms. But I listened to what another editor stated. As you can see, one editor stated, "I'll grant you that many articles staring with 'X is a term' do not italicize; but they should, since any term would normally be italiicized in that context." And yet another editor stated, "Wikipedia articles should almost never start 'X is a term/describes/refers to'. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Most articles are about concepts or things, not about words or phrases. [...] When in fact the article is about a word or a phrase (but not the title of a book, movie, etc.), then quotation marks are appropriate." No consensus came from that discussion, except perhaps that you should err on the side of caution and not italicize or use quotation marks. Since then, italicizing bolded words in the introduction for articles that are specifically about the term has become more popular, which is why I reverted you. But, again, I reverted myself soon afterward. Given that we have articles doing different things on this matter, it is probably something we should discuss at the [[WP:Manual of Style]] talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

:: I agree. The rule on this should be both clearer and more concrete. [[User:Michipedian|Michipedian]] ([[User talk:Michipedian|talk]]) 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

== New Page Reviewing ==
{| style="background:#E2E7FF; border:1px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: auto"
|-
|rowspan=2 style="position:relative; right:6px"| [[File:Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg|left|110px]]
|-
|{{large|Hello, Flyer22 Reborn.}}
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <br />
Would you please consider becoming a [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers|New Page Reviewer]]? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but <u>it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines</u>; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol|the tutorial]] before making your decision. Thanks. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]] <sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])</sup></small>''''' 09:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
|}<!-- Template:NPR invite -->

== Lamprey and [[trypophobia]] ==

If you google "lamprey trypophobia" you'll see plenty of hits, including this.[http://www.articlecats.com/index.php/make-uncomfortable-might-trypophobia/] Not everything pictured there gives me the creeps, but some of it does. To me the lamprey, isn't nearly as nerve-rattling as some other things, but it does suggest being sucked into something, as with a maelstrom, or an octopus. I never heard this word until recently. I looked for "trypophobia" in Google Images, and plenty of examples turned up, including lampreys. It's apparently not an "official" phobia, and it's kind of loosely defined. One thing the observers seem to be missing about that lotus flower example is that it looks like lots of "eyes". Anything with more than two eyes is fairly creepy (like spiders). But to each their own phobias! ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 05:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]], so you are a trypophobe like me? I know that not all trypophobes react to the same trypophobic stimuli or in the same exact way to trypophobic stimuli. Lotus imagery is widely recognized as trypophobic imagery, though. I reverted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trypophobia&diff=811636837&oldid=811603697 here] because not only did the image not seem to be supported by the sources as trypophobic, I don't see that it belongs in the Causes section. Some of the sources probably do mention the lamprey; I think I saw it in some articles. As for the lotus image looking like eyes, the topic of eyes in relation to trypophobia has been mentioned by researchers. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trypophobia&oldid=807458299 On the talk page], medical editor Yobol, who also seems to be a trypophobe (if [[#The Trypophobia article]] above is any indication), linked to a "[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27168967 Fear of eyes: triadic relation among social anxiety, trypophobia, and discomfort for eye cluster."] source. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
::Very interesting. I have concluded that I don't really qualify as a trypophobe. I say that because with repeated exposure to the items in Google Images, I experience less anxiety, rather than more anxiety as I might expect if I were seriously trypophobic. As to the article, I only stuck the lamprey picture where I did so that it would fit on the page better. It probably doesn't need to be on the page. But thanks to your revert and this discussion, I've gained new insight into this phobia or phenomenon. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
:::[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]], repeated exposure has helped me as well. I noted this on the article's talk page and on the Wiktionary talk page about trypophobia. As seen in the discussion above on my talk page about it, that lotus image hit me hard. The "eyes" were a part of the anxiety, but not solely. It just looked so...so...unsettling. I mean, I can look at a bunch of eyes arranged in an irregular pattern and not have the response I had to that lotus image. Anyway, it doesn't hit me nearly as hard anymore. I still get goosebumps when looking at it, though I think not always. I also get goosebumps when I look at some other trypophobic images, but the panicking is mostly absent and the imagery does not stay in my head as long as before. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
::::I was wondering if it would be better to hide that image in a section that the reader has to deliberately open, rather than being forced to look at it? I could do that for you if your want. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]], nah. As mentioned in the other trypophobia section on my talk page, there was [[Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 2#RfC Should we include this image?|an RfC]] on that image. The closer closed it as being consensus for inclusion. Personally, I think it was more of a "no consensus" matter. Anyway, "inclusion" seems to have translated into "don't collapse" as well (although the closer stated that "there is no consensus" on whether or not to collapse the image). And technical issues with collapsing were noted. Anyway, I repeat that the image does not bother me much anymore. I'd rather not look at it, but it's not a horrible thing for me to visit the article anymore. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::Someone else might. Maybe the picture could be shrunk a bit, though I don't know if that works within an infobox. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::::[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]], there is no doubt that someone else will be very distressed by the image. But, per the previous RfC, I don't see what can be done about that. There will always be a divide when it comes to editors who feel that the image should be included and those who argue that it should not be included. Furthermore, despite so many people noting that they have trypophobia, and the fact that researchers have begun studying it and are clear that it exists, some people who have not experienced trypophobia will either argue that it does not exist or that it's not harmful simply because it's not recognized by name as a mental disorder or officially/medically as a phobia. Some arguments in that RfC very much annoy me. Like [https://books.google.com/books?id=1BfYBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA402 this] scholarly book source I included in the article notes, trypophobia can certainly fall under [[specific phobia]] (just like a [[fear of clowns]], which also is not officially/medically recognized as a phobia, does). Additionally, there will always be those who state that we should not collapse images per technical issues. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::::I am divided on whether or not the image should be included. Although I sympathize with those who will be distressed by the image, including it is one of the best ways (if not the best way) to show what is meant by the type of patterns that induce trypophobia. We don't mean any ole pattern of holes (or bumps). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Taking another look at it, at least it's small enough to not be "in your face" so much as the full-size image is. And given my initial reaction to the Google Images pics, a lone one may be creepy but a lot of them could be overwhelming. I suppose a "true" phobia inhibits one's ability to thrive in the world, and maybe that's why the so-called experts don't take these fears seriously. But for them to dismiss them as "all in your head" is patronizing and offensive. The one about clowns is interesting. I used to watch Clarabelle and Bozo on TV, and they didn't scare me. But Gacey's clown getup was creepy, even if you didn't know he was a serial killer. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::I think there's some way to suppress pictures from showing up on one's screen. I don't know what the method is. But I know it was discussed in reference to the Muhammad article, which has a number of medieval depictions of Muhammad which are now considered to be blasphemous, at least within some branches of Islam. The idea is that someone offended by the images could suppress their display on the given user's device. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]], look at what the [[Phobia]] and [[Specific phobia]] articles state. A phobia is not necessarily something that inhibits one's ability to thrive in the world. Many people have a [[fear of spiders]] and/or a [[fear of snakes]]. These are officially recognized phobias, but they usually don't inhibit one's ability to thrive in the world. The fear of snakes has been argued as innate (although there is also a counterargument to that). Personally, I don't remember ever not fearing snakes. As for experts, like I mentioned, researchers studying trypophobia are clear that it exists. They believe that it's an innate/biological reaction. I can't force the goosebumps I get from seeing some trypophobic images; it's a biological reaction. Some of the researchers are not clear on whether trypophobia should be classified as a phobia, however. Phobias really are all in our heads anyway, though; it's a mental thing, even if biological instead of social. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, yes, all phobias are "in our heads". I was being funny, or trying to be. I wonder what it takes for a phobia to be officially recognized. These things do seem to be a matter of degree and of circumstance. I've had occasions when I was close to a panic attack at a crowded store, or at least really, really wanting to get out of there. Yet I've never felt that way at a full sports stadium. Snakes don't bother me (as long as I'm sure they're not venomous) but spiders of almost any type give me the shivers. The exception are the ones that spin these large circular webs, and are colorful. The others I don't much like - especially those whose webs have kind of a "funnel" - which takes us back to things like whirlpools and lampreys! ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]], I understood what you meant by "all in our heads"; you meant the offensive thought process on that -- people who state that "it's not real" or "doesn't exist." As for a phobia being officially recognized, the Trypophobia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trypophobia&oldid=811762524#Classification currently states] that "professionals who study and treat phobias tend not to use all the Latin and Greek names that get tossed around on message boards and in the press." Many phobias do not have an official entry, but rather fall under the category of "specific phobia" if the fear is excessive, persistent, and associated with significant distress or impairment. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Johnny Carson used to say he had "nictophobia", which he claimed was the fear of being naked and backing into a cold doorknob. That might have been a joke. If I read you right, it's not that the experts deny that the phobia exists, they just don't necessarily give it an "official" name. "If the fear is excessive, persistent, and associated with significant distress or impairment." Plenty of wiggle room in those descriptions. I have somewhat of a fear of heights. For example, if I'm in a tall building, I tend to stand a "safe" distance away from the windows. So that's a degree of distress, but easily avoided and doesn't occupy my thoughts very much. If I spent the entire meeting worried about that window on the other side of the conference room, that would qualify as impairment. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::::::[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]], trypophobia has not been studied enough to be officially recognized (as in by name). As for experts, I am stating that they acknowledge that people can have a phobia of anything, but also that not all phobias get official recognition. It's why so many phobias that are not officially recognized fall under the broad "specific phobia" category. I am also stating that even though experts state that trypophobic reactions exist/are real, not all of them are sure that it should be categorized as a phobia. 

::::::::::::::[[Fear of heights]] is a common phobia that has also, when defined broadly, been argued as innate. People are usually afraid of heights to some degree, but they also usually do not have to encounter heights on a daily or almost daily basis. So it's something that can give them significant distress when faced with it, but it usually does not significantly impair one's life. Then again, the Fear of heights article does currently state, "''Most people experience a degree of natural fear when exposed to heights, known as the [[fear of falling]]. On the other hand, those who have little fear of such exposure are said to have a [[head for heights]]. A head for heights is advantageous for those hiking or climbing in mountainous terrain and also in certain jobs e.g. steeplejacks or wind turbine mechanics.''" So the Fear of heights article is distinguishing "an extreme or irrational" fear of heights from "a normal" fear of heights. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Original Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for participating in [[Scarlett Johansson]]'s FAC. You were of tremendous help there. Thanks to your help, it is now a featured article. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 14:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
|}

== Please monitor and protect the [[Mangalore]] article from Vandalism ==
I request you to give protection to the [[Mangalore]] article and monitor it, regarding vandalism.<br>
No Administrator is protecting this article and it could be delisted (removed) from the list of Featured Articles.<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Mangalore
[[Special:Contributions/223.186.38.187|223.186.38.187]] ([[User talk:223.186.38.187|talk]]) 08:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

== It's about my edit ==

Hello, I'm FM'S.Y who edited article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebidan) two days ago. I just noticed that I get notification that my edit has been removed because of vandalism? I'm so sorry, maybe there was a mistake. I put "EDAMAME BEANS" in Lineup → Music groups since there was no those name when it should be there.
Because it's my first, what should I do before edit the article in order to "removal notification" do not go to me for the next time? Also, may I add "EDAMAME BEANS" again?

Thank you. :)
(Sorry for my bad English) [[User:FM&#39;S.Y|FM&#39;S.Y]] ([[User talk:FM&#39;S.Y|talk]]) 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
== Cambridge Scholars Publishing listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Cambridge Scholars Publishing]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Cambridge Scholars Publishing'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 3#Cambridge Scholars Publishing|the redirect discussion]] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 17:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Flyer22 Reborn. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2017|2017 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/400|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=813406758 -->

==[[STI]]==
I was adding content and refs to the STI article and was shocked to find that it has been filled with unsourced essay-like content. It didn't used to be that way. Please take a look. Thanks. Best Regards, [[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<span style="color: darkred;">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</span> 17:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]], I obviously watch that article ([[Sexually transmitted infection]]), but I don't heavily edit it. I often have not paid close attention to it. [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] also watches it, and he edits it more than I do. I'm guessing that he overlooked content like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sexually_transmitted_infection&diff=813671901&oldid=813671588 this]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
::It takes continual efforts to keep out essay like stuff. Thanks for removing that bit Barbara. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
:::Thanks for taking a look. Best Regards, [[User:Barbara (WVS)|Barbara (WVS)]]&nbsp;<span style="color: darkred;">[[User talk:Barbara (WVS)|✐]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Barbara (WVS)|✉]]</span> 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

== HTML note ==

The {{tag|strike}} element has been deprecated for many years.  The element you want is {{tag|del}}; there's also {{tag|s}} kept for legacy reasons, but it represents "pure style" strikethrough without a semantic meaning of deleted/redacted/retracted. If you keep using {{tag|strike}}, you'll trigger HTML "lint" errors that others have to clean up later as we move to HTML5. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 01:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]], I know that editors usually don't use {{tag|strike}} anymore, but I've seen a number of editors still using {{tag|s}}. I've used {{tag|s}} before, but I usually use {{tag|strike}}. I just like the word being spelled out for some reason. I don't think I'll being using {{tag|del}}. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

:As we move on, I'll be sure to stick with {{tag|s}}. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
::Using {{tag|s|o}} won't trigger errors, but for most uses, {{tag|del|o}} is the one you want since it actually means something. :-)  The {{tag|strike}} element simply isn't valid markup, and has been deprecated since 1999 ({{tag|s|o}} was, too, but has been "rescued" in HTML5, while {{tag|strike|o}} has not). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 02:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:::[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]], okay then. I won't use {{tag|strike}} anymore. While using it at the [[MOS:BIO]] talk page, I did ask myself why I wasn't going with the simpler {{tag|s}}. I almost used {{tag|s}}. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
::::A lot of people don't keep track of the specs, and the fact that the Web is designed to not explode upon encountering simple errors means that people have little incentive to clean up their code. :-)  It will matter more and more in the future though for automation and [[WP:REUSE]] purposes. Various tools that may do something smart with WP content when it's coded right are not likely to be as smart as MediaWiki when it comes to transmogrifying deprecated markup into valid modern code. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] &gt;<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>&lt; </span> 03:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

== Re:Latest revision as of 01:07, 8 December 2017 ==

Good Day, I am posting this with regards to the section of the old city seal of Cagayan de Oro, I have noticed that the caption is too long that it needs to be placed in a separate section in the article, that is the reason why I had to shorten the caption and let whoever made the photo and caption transfer it to a section in the article.

--[[Special:Contributions/49.149.58.158|49.149.58.158]] ([[User talk:49.149.58.158|talk]]) 01:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

== Trivia ==

It's not a trivia section, it's a well-sourced, well-written prose section about something that has been covered by multiple news sources. It's not like there is some other section I could have added it to. Stop edit warring over this. I'm not going to bother with a template. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 09:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Seraphim System|Seraphim System]], do not bring stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Bieber&diff=814854661&oldid=814841672 this] to my talk page. Leave it at the article's talk page, where it belongs. And [[WP:Don't template the regulars|if you had templated me]], I would have reverted you on the spot. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
::Well you should know better then to edit war then. Yes it is edit warring when I am trying to explain why I think something is important on a talk page and you revert with some bullshit edit summary about how its trivia and don't even reply on the talk page. Then I go and look up [[WP:TRIVIA]] and find out that it is about lists, not prose, and also not a guideline about exclusion/inclusion. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 09:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
:::[[User:Seraphim System|Seraphim System]], I will revert twice when I see fit. Also see [[WP:ONUS]]. Two editors have disputed your content. It is up to you to convince us. We do not have to let your content remain while you make your case. And WP:TRIVIA is not simply about lists. Either way, I didn't state that what you added is trivia; I stated that "it comes across as pure trivia," which is why the other editor tagged it as trivia.

:::On a side note: I've been trying to figure out what past editor you are. I even wondered if you were are {{User|Shane Cyrus}}. I don't suppose you will tell me? [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
::::This is the only name I've ever edited under. Moxy never said he agreed with you, he told me that there were some problems with the sourcing, which I improved based on that discussion before restoring it. You jumped in and reverted that also, without ever commenting on the talk page. That does not really fill me with confidence about you judgment about when it is fit to revert. Add to that Moxy tagged it for trivia, so I removed some of the quotes and other things that were mentioned on talk. You and only you reverted the entire thing, and did so a second time without even attempting to discuss, which is rude.[[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 09:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::If you want to claim that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=748091529 this] was your very first edit to Wikipedia and that you never had a previous registered account, so be it. Doesn't mean I have to believe you. As for [[User:Moxy|Moxy]], Moxy tagged your content as trivia and clearly objects to the section. The tag suggested that the content be reduced. I also noted that it should be reduced. Sounds like Moxy and I are in agreement, except that it may be that Moxy would prefer that your content not be included at all. As for reverting without commenting on the talk page, I reverted you and then commented on the talk page soon after the revert. There is nothing that states that I need to comment on the talk page before reverting you. Again, read WP:ONUS. You restored your content without justifying your material, which is rude. Either way, you still are not listening. And now you have made it so that the discussion is going on here and at my talk page and at the article's talk page. You are wasting my time. And because you are, and because I do not like wasting my time debating on Wikipedia, I am likely to head for a [[WP:RfC]] to settle this. As some editors know, I do turn to it when I want a matter over and do not want to debate. And you will have to adhere to the [[WP:Consensus]] of that RfC if the votes do not go your way. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::Yup that was my first edit, if you want to check for sockpuppetry, look at when I first post on ANI (it was during AE), or review talk page discussions where I first learned about policies. Or just check out how many hard won barnstars I have. Not just "Oh she used the word anecdotal in her first edit summary, so she must have edited Wikipedia before" or whatever it is you are trying to imply is suspicious about my first edit. You don't have to believe me, but without evidence you do have to stop making vague accusations of sockpuppetry. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 13:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Can you tell me what exact about {{User|Shane Cyrus}}{{'}}s edit history made you think this was a sound accusation to make? [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 14:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Why are you here trying to convince me that you just began editing Wikipedia in 2016 when you already know that I don't believe you? Maybe you should look at what I stated at the top of my talk page about socking. It is not your first edit that indicates to me that you edited Wikipedia before making that aforementioned "first" edit. It is your early edits that do. I pointed to that first edit because I wanted to ask if you stand by that being your first edit to Wikipedia. Clearly, you do. As for Shane Cyrus, I stated, "''I even wondered if you were  are Shane Cyrus''." Wondering for me in cases like these does not mean "Yep, I'm sure that person is Shane Cyrus." But I will state this: If you don't want me looking any further, you should cease and desist from commenting on my talk page about this. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

== Acrophobia ==

Just FYI, I started getting sweaty palms as soon as I saw the picture with this article about a daredevil falling 62 stories to his death, even though the picture was not from his accident.[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42308791] ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

== Keratinization ==

It looks like the issue is resolved. Would you like any other input from me about the article? [[User:Axl|<b style="color:#808000">Axl</b>]] <span style="color:#3CB371">¤</span> [[User talk:Axl|<small style="color:#808000">[Talk]</small>]] 13:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Axl|Axl]], thanks for weighing in. Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vagina&oldid=815218100#Keratinized that], I don't mean for there to be drama, but it is always like that between Barbara and me. As you can tell, I am frustrated. I always am when trying to work with her. And she knows it, which is just as frustrating given our history (under both of her Wikipedia accounts). I mean, how do your work with someone who is often so stubborn when you try to correct them on their mistakes, and who constantly gets defensive and dismissive when you address these mistakes, and who seems to consider talk page discussion a chore, and who is prone to making more mistakes that need cleanup in the course of all of that? 

:If you don't mind looking over the Microanatomy section for mistakes and things that need to be tweaked, please do since [[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] has not yet commented. If you have input on anything else, please feel free to comment as well. It is never good when it's just Barbara and me engaging with each other. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

:: *sigh* Yes, I shall look at the Microanatomy section. [[User:Axl|<b style="color:#808000">Axl</b>]] <span style="color:#3CB371">¤</span> [[User talk:Axl|<small style="color:#808000">[Talk]</small>]] 19:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
:::Sorry {{u|Axl}} and {{u|Flyer22}}. I am very busy in real life at the moment and don't have time to go through the section with a fine tooth and contribute to the discussion afterwards as I usually would. I had a quick skim and couldn't identify any major issues but it is the discussion afterwards that I know I will have to allocate some time which I don't have to. My apologies. --[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 22:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

'''Note''': If anyone reading my talk page thinks that I am making a big deal out of nothing regarding my common frustration with Barbara, it might be enlightening to review [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Some sort of editing restriction between Flyer22 and Bfpage|the history between us]]. There's that and stuff like the aforementioned linked discussion above. And despite our rocky history, I have tried to work with her. I know editors who would not have tried after such a rocky start. Anyway, work on the article is at least being done and other editors are now helping with it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

== FYI ==

Hello. Would you please comment on, if the issue interests you[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#See_also_section(s)]. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/66.226.107.42|66.226.107.42]] ([[User talk:66.226.107.42|talk]]) 07:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

== I'm thinking about requesting an administrator after your latest derogatory attack on me on the Talk page for ''Titanic''==
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice-->
Just thought you outta know.[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 17:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

:Anyone is free to read [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)&oldid=815410062#National_Film_Registry_material_in_the_lead? that discussion] and see who had a major "I must attack" issue. Certainly was not me. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::Doesn't change the fact that I tried to play nice and you said "It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia." FUCK. YOU. I've been doing this since I was 15.[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:::And you are still acting like you are 15. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::::We'll let the admin decide. I sure hope your big long explanation on your talk page about why you were banned the second time is as riveting as the one you wrote about the first time.[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
*{{tpw}}  Aaaand- they did; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=815411852&oldid=815411060 closed] seven minutes later. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''' >SerialNumber'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''54129'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<sup>...speculates</sup>]] 17:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Oh, my bad, I meant the third. Jeez, who do you think knows less about Wikipedia: me (of whom you've said "It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia") or someone who has been blocked twice already...? This is a pattern of behavior, and if I was an admin, I would seriously consider revoking your editing privileges completely. You are the embodiment of everything wrong with this website.[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::Wow, that was a quick close by an admin. {{u|Fireflyfanboy}}, that should tell you something. As another admin, here was my post: "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATitanic_%281997_film%29&type=revision&diff=815409011&oldid=815392171 This is your request]. I don't think Flyer22 is the one actively trying to antagonize editors. Working out issues takes time and often reams and reams of talk page posts." Regarding the above post... drop it - now.  --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 18:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::: I was very insulted by their "It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia" quote. Do you honestly not have a problem with that kind of rhetoric? I apologized for some of my earlier indiscretions in this discussion, only to have this user say things like that to me. Are you telling me the blame completely on my side?[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::No, but you've played the major part is escalating this dispute. What needs to be done now is going back to discussing '''content'''. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 18:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Consensus has been met on the Talk Page, discussion appears to be wrapping up. Can you please get [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] to apologize to me. I'm incredibly insulted and offended.[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 18:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::::And you're kind of on track to be incredibly blocked. [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], please. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 18:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} Thanks for that, [[User:Serial Number 54129|Serial Number 54129]]. And, Fireflyfanboy, I was never banned. [[WP:Ban]] is different than [[WP:Block]]. And if you cannot understand that my block log has unjustified blocks, despite the explanations that have been verified by administrators, you should not be commenting on it. Right now, you are doing the harassing. And if you do not cease and desist, you will find yourself blocked. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I demand an apology for the ""It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia" quote.[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I don't like the idea of apologizing on demand, but I recognize that some of my language was inflammatory and I apologize for offending you. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for your apology.[[User:Fireflyfanboy|Fireflyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Fireflyfanboy|talk]]) 18:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} for goodness sake somebody block the little toerag for being a toerag. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' Zalophus californianus.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''barcus''']] 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:<small>Excuse me. I think [[User:Roxy the dog|you]] should apologise for that :p  [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''' >SerialNumber'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''54129'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<sup>...speculates</sup>]] 18:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC) </small>
:<small>Ah, to be young, and sensitive to comments on the internet, again. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane]] ([[User talk:Blackmane|talk]]) 00:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)</small>

== User:Swingoswingo ==

Hi Flyer22, thank you for your comment at [[User talk:Swingoswingo]]. I was not about to report Swingoswingo at [[WP:ANI|ANI]]; but the comment they made in response to my concern somehow made me report there. You can have a look there.

You were right about his unusual account creation. The account was created on 03:59, 3 April 2014, and within just one minute (04:00, 3 April 2014), the user activated the account on another 11 wiki-projects as [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Swingoswingo evident here]. This is virtually impossible for a truly new user.

Anyway, will you mind if I just call you Flyer22 ? -[[User:AsceticRose|<font color="dimgray"><b>Ascetic</b></font>]][[User talk: AsceticRose|<font color="orangered"><b>Rosé</b></font>]]  13:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:AsceticRose|AsceticRose]], regarding what was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swingoswingo&oldid=815542203#My_concern_about_your_edits stated] on his talk page, I'm just saying that not only is he problematic, the Swingoswingo account is not his first account. It is highly unusual for new Wikipedia editors to create a user page for their first edit (it is one of the dead giveaways that an editor is not new), and it is even more unusual for a new editor to create a user page with simply a dot or, in this case, the word ''bingo.'' Every editor I have seen who created an account with a dot or similar has turned out to either be a sock or returning user who simply discarded their own account in a [[WP:Clean start]] way. But they are usually socks. Basically, experienced Wikipedians usually cannot stand to have a red user page. Some can, but they are in the significant minority. Having a red user page usually signals to experienced editors that the account is new; such accounts stand out like a sore thumb, which is why socks are so concerned with turning that user page blue.

:As for the global accounts in this case, I think that is an automatic thing. I have global accounts as well. It happened with the new system that was put in place. 

:Yes, you can call me Flyer. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
:: I see user Swingoswingo has been blocked indefinitely. -[[User:AsceticRose|<font color="dimgray"><b>Ascetic</b></font>]][[User talk: AsceticRose|<font color="orangered"><b>Rosé</b></font>]]  01:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

== QPL ==

That article does absolutely nothing but shit on the QPL because it's a permissive license, it needs to be rewritten to be unbiased. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:2601:405:4200:d8a1:97d:cb07:916e:8351|2601:405:4200:d8a1:97d:cb07:916e:8351]] ([[User talk:2601:405:4200:d8a1:97d:cb07:916e:8351#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/2601:405:4200:d8a1:97d:cb07:916e:8351|contribs]]) </small>. 

:Look at how [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Q_Public_License&diff=815724449&oldid=815723344 you gut the article], including leaving the lead incomplete. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

== Triple talaq in India ==

I think wiki should correct it or have a look over it because triple talaq is just a way of divorce in Islam. But in page of Triple Talaq in India it is more focused on or explained about  Instant Triple Talaq with the removal of word instant . [[User:Atique028|Atique028]] ([[User talk:Atique028|talk]]) 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

:[[User:Atique028|Atique028]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Triple_talaq_in_India&diff=816199887&oldid=816197377 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Triple_talaq_in_India&diff=816199989&oldid=816199887 this], you can't just add in whatever you want without sources. You can't be [[WP:Editorializing]] in the article. See [[WP:Verifiability]]. I'm not sure what your use of "instant" is supposed to mean. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

== Continued from WhatamIdoing's talk page...  ==

[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=816545643 good]. It was the predictable and childish response I was expecting. My response is still in the edit history either way. I'm done with you defending an editor who can't take the time to research thoroughly before defending her asinine arguments, and who stands by them even when they are proven to be asinine. One who also can't take the time to proofread before pressing that "Publish changes" button, leaving cleaning and corrections for others to deal with. It's good that you think the fact that I'm involved in such heavy debates means that I'm difficult to work with. And, yes, that is what you meant, since you've implied as much before (seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=630193261&diff=prev here] with my response seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=630200025&diff=prev here]). It just shows that you haven't a clue what editors (like me) who work in very contentious areas on Wikipedia go through. Get back to me when you actually know what it's like to be stalked, and especially stalked in the creepy-tastic way that Barbara stalked me. Get back to me when an editor continuously goes out of his or her way to vaguely refer to you and it's like an inside joke (rather an insult and/or annoyance) between the two of you unless others are in the know. Get back to me when you have to consistently deal with a fake, sweet persona laced with passive-aggressiveness, sarcasm and/or loathing. Then talk to me about being paranoid and self-centered. Or, you know, simply stick to your sporadic guideline and policy editing. 

And since we're being childish, do not feel free to continue the discussion here. You will be reverted. Anyone defending Barbara here on my talk page without being thoroughly familiar with my history with her and her editing personality will be reverted.

On a side note: Given our past emails, WhatamIdoing, don't think that I don't know what you joining a discussion to specifically disagree with me these days (even on merging matters when you were always one of the main proponents of merging) is about. Yeah, I'm just not as conservative as you are. Deal with it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

==[[Adultery]] and [[User:Al-Andalus |Al-Andalus]]==
I've taken it to the talk page rather than 3RR.  You might want to have a look in. [[User:pepperbeast|<strong><span style="font-family: 'Segoe Script';"><span style="color: #a10;">Pepper</span><span style="color: #0c1;">Beast</span></span></strong>]] [[User talk:pepperbeast|<span style="color: #200">(talk)</span>]] 06:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
:[[User:Pepperbeast|Pepperbeast]], despite Al-Andalus having an account since 2004, the editor does not appear to be experienced when it comes to Wikipedia rules or communicating on Wikipedia. Certainly no skill in Wikipedia debating. The editor's block log also shows that the editor is prone to edit warring. It does not appear that discussion with Al-Andalus will help. From what I can see, this is a [[WP:Competence]] issue. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 06:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
::That seems like a fair cop. [[User:pepperbeast|<strong><span style="font-family: 'Segoe Script';"><span style="color: #a10;">Pepper</span><span style="color: #0c1;">Beast</span></span></strong>]] [[User talk:pepperbeast|<span style="color: #200">(talk)</span>]] 06:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

== Adultery ==

Instead of deleting sources and content, how about fixing it up? 

[[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalus|talk]]) 06:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC) [[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalus|talk]]) 06:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

== New Wiki ==

Thank you for your advice, Flyer22 Reborn. I am new to Wikipedia and hope to be a local contributor.

In regards to Fresh Slice, I am trying to add updated information, with citations. I thought I had added comments on what changes were made. If these did not show up, I apologize. If there are online lessons on how to update, feel free to point me in the right direction. I will try again once I gain the experience.
Pique.

== Season's Greetings ==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; {{border-radius|1em}} {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}}<!--
-->;" class="plainlinks">[[File:Happy Holidays (2135831016).jpg|206px|left]][[File:Arbuckle Bros. (3093003361).jpg|177px|right]][[File:Season's Greetings, Christmas Card from 320 Ranch.jpg|205px|left]]{{Center|[[File:Happy Holidays text.png|301px]]}}
'''Hello Flyer22 Reborn:''' Enjoy the '''[[Christmas and holiday season|holiday season]]''', and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand [[Wikipedia]]. Cheers, [[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 17:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
[[File:A book of country clouds and sunshine (1897), cropped.jpg|center|500px]]{{paragraph break}}{{-}}
</div>
{{paragraph break}}
:<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings1}} to send this message}}''</div>{{-}}
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[image:Christmas_tree_sxc_hu.jpg|70px|left]]


[[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) is wishing you a [[Mary Poppins|Merry]] [[Christmas]]! This greeting (and season) promotes [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a [[Christmas|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!   <br /> 

''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''
</div>

== Thank you ==

Thank you for catching that error I made in the Gwen Graham article, I completely forgot to cite that.[[User:Metro north|Metro north]] ([[User talk:Metro north|talk]]) 17:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

==Merry Christmas!==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-radius: 32px; border-color:#009600; background: #FFFBC4; border-width:8px; text-align:center; padding:7px; height:210px;" class="plainlinks">[[File:Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg|155px|left]][[File:Christmas is here, Yerevan (10) (cropped).jpg|325px|right]]
{{font|text=''' Merry Christmas {{BASEPAGENAME}}!!'''|size=30px}}<br /><br /><br />{{font|size=17px|text=Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,<br />
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! {{smiley}},<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;–[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:#C4061C;">'''2010'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">Merry Xmas</span> / <span style="color:#C4061C;">Happy New Year</span>]]</sup> 13:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)}}
</div>

==Sarmiento Edition in Let It Be==
Hi dude. I think my contribution in the page was correct because, despite the LP MMT of the Beatles was not released in the UK, it was released in the US and, for the number of the iconic song that it has, I think is appropiate to mention it as information, cause it's clearly indicated that it's not a UK album specifically. what do you think about? greetings--[[User:Sarmiento 007|Sarmiento 007]] ([[User talk:Sarmiento 007|talk]]) 23:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

<br>
== Seasons' Greetings ==

[[File:The Great White North.jpg|100px|left]]
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! [[User:Bzuk|FWiW  Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 16:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

==Merry Xmas==
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | [[File:Wikipedia Happy New Year.png|211px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Flyer22 Reborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this [[Christmas and holiday season|seasonal occasion]]. Spread the [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]] and a [[New Year|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 2018. <br>
Happy editing,<br>
[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}

== [[Beaumont children disappearance]] ==

Hi. I'm asking around whether people can do a grammar check/proofread/NPOV check on [[Beaumont children disappearance]]. If you could go over the article it would be good. [[User:Paul Benjamin Austin|Paul Benjamin Austin]] ([[User talk:Paul Benjamin Austin|talk]]) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

== HNY ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; horizontal-align: left; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Mexico_City_New_Years_2013!_(8333128248).jpg|100px]]
| style="padding: 5px; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; height: 1.1em; width: 100%;" | <span style="font-size: x-large; color: #505050;">'''Happy New Year!'''</span><hr><br><span style="font-size: medium; color: black;">Best wishes for 2018, —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 01:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
|}<!-- Template:Useraward -->

== Thank you, and Happy New Year! ==

Dear Flyer22 Reborn, Thank you for your hard work on improving the article Antisperm antibodies. I would also like to use this opportunity to wish you Happy and Prosperous New Year 2018. [[User:Alexey Karetnikov|Alexey Karetnikov]] ([[User talk:Alexey Karetnikov|talk]]) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

== Barbara ==

Barbara seems nice, I have pointed out things like accidental use of predatory journals and she has been really good about it. I think if you dial it back a bit and explore the roots of your disagreement, it will all be fine in the end. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:JzG|JzG]], I have tried to work with her. I really have. And I know that she seems nice; that is a part of the issue. She can be very snippy, pointy and passive-aggressive, but some editors perhaps do not see this because she covers it with what they perceive as sweetness. For example, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Some sort of editing restriction between Flyer22 and Bfpage|in my second ANI case against her]], [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] stated, "''Greg, the links are extensively documented above. Please check them out, especially the ANI under which Bfpage was warned - behavior that Bfpage never acknowledged. Kevin sees the pattern, I see it, Winkelvi sees it, Flyer sees it. I know it is hard to reconcile this ugly behavior with '''Bfpage's otherwise sweet persona''', but it is there, very clearly.''"

:[[User:Doc James|Doc James]] has also seen it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vagina&diff=818192266&oldid=818191899 recently] called one of her comments pointy. She has behaved in such ways with all three of us, but especially with me. When she stalked me in 2015 as Bfpage, editors stated that it was some of the creepiest stalking they'd ever seen. And I got a lot of emails about how disturbing some found it. Barbara (WVS) also never truly took responsibility for it or apologized for it and when she refers to the matter, she makes it out like it was not a big deal or was just some delusional editors ganging up on her, which is why when referring to her involvement, she uses distancing emphasis; she states '[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)&diff=815733484&oldid=815733157 my past]' and '[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vagina&diff=818187536&oldid=818173819 history].' In that second WP:ANI case, [[User:Winkelvi|Winkelvi]], who has also been stalked, stated, "''I've never seen anything like the planned and deliberate stalking by Bfpage. In addition, neither have I seen the kind of '''denial''', '''lack of personal responsibility''', and '''manipulation''' exhibited by Bfpage.''" So, yeah, it is not easy working with a past stalker, and especially one like Barbara (WVS). My frustration is made clear in the [[#Continued from WhatamIdoing's talk page...]] section above. A mutual [[WP:Interaction ban]] would not work because there will no doubt be cases where I need to revert Barbara (WVS)'s errors, and she already had sort of a one-way interaction ban, but things are still tense between us. Any time I revert her and explain myself -- why she was in error -- one can be sure that I will get a defensive and/or dismissive response and/or stubbornness in return. I can point to different cases showing just that. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Barbara (WVS) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)&oldid=818512375#Third_opinion stated], "''You will never find me bringing up any old quarrels, ever. I have moved on and learned from an event that happened years ago. You won't find any clue or inkling of a response from me related to any past quarrels. Even if you go back to view my entire editing history, you probably won't find any quarrels, I'm just not like that. [...] I don't take revenge and I like to work with editors and not against them. [...] As an addendum you might want to read the post entitled Vagina on this page where I apologize for a lot of things and try to address issues with F22 RB.''" 

The above response is the disingenuous thing that others and I have noted. Of course, Barbara (WVS) has no need to bring up the stalking since she was not the one who was stalked, and since it reflects badly on her, and since she never admitted to it (despite the fact that, back in 2015, she made it very clear that she followed me and would continue following me). I only bring it up when aspects of it -- such as the defensiveness, dismissive behavior and stubbornness -- resurface due to her attitude towards me. The Vagina disputes are recent examples of this since she can be dismissive of what I state and it takes other editors weighing in just to get her to listen and/or change her mind, and/or back off. The claims that her edit history will show no quarrels is obviously inaccurate (if defining "quarrels" as disputes), especially if including her Bfpage account. The claim that she doesn't take revenge and likes to work with editors and not against them is obviously not completely accurate; the WP:ANI links are right there above for everyone to see. And her supposed apology is inaccurate. Although she "apologize[d] for treating [me] dismissively [at [[Talk:Nipple]] ]" and stated she does "feel badly that [I] still feel badly about past clashes" (notice the lack of the word "our"), she [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)&oldid=818512375#Vagina_article still did not apologize for the stalking], and it's safe to state that she never will. Anyway, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vagina&oldid=818534227#Possibly_Useless_Comments I noted] elsewhere, I will be trying harder to not let our history affect our future interactions, and that includes preventing spillover on article talk pages. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

==Demographics of sexual orientation in past societies==
Fly, today I happened upon a peer-reviewed article which contains a table informing the prevalence of homosexuality in a few societies from the recent and not-so-recent past. The table is a review of past research, so I think that means that the paper counts as a secondary source. What do you think of posting that information on the [[Demographics of sexual orientation]]? [[User:Rafe87|Rafe87]] ([[User talk:Rafe87|talk]]) 23:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
: What's the source? I'm skeptical that anything "not so recent" can be reliably sourced - you don't have to go far back before our modern understanding of homosexuality & sexual orientation loses meaning, quite apart from being quantifiable. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 00:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
:: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a824/a2048a7edf20449831498ee9ec169f1b7cb9.pdf [[User:Rafe87|Rafe87]] ([[User talk:Rafe87|talk]]) 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
:Rafe87, per what I stated in the [[#LGBT demographics]] section above, you already know that I think that the Demographics of sexual orientation article is a mess. I mean, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=818414031&oldid=818306310 the recent edit] to a section at [[WP:MEDMOS]], which talks about "miscellaneous and unorganized dumps of random studies, with over-emphasis on the names of the people who conducted the studies, their research institutions etc." It goes on to state "Wikipedia is [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|not a place to gather random studies]]." That is what I argued in the previous discussion above. I don't see how you adding the source you want to add will affect the article much, unless you plan to give it [[WP:Undue weight]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
::FWIW, I don't think an article about such a subject can be anything other than a collection of random studies, because of the great disparity in results that there's between studies depending on the country they were performed or, perhaps even more importantly, their data collection method, with studies high in anonymity presenting very different figures from those that are low. Plus, there's also the fact that, in countries that are relatively accepting of homosexuality, younger people have become more and more willing to identify as LGBT, and as a result thereof, even in the same society and in works by the same pollster, one can find disparate results depending on which age category a given poll is focusing on. In sum, numbers will differ depending on culture, time, values in vogue, the social segment being studied, and social desirability. Therefore, we shouldn't expect from that entry the same degree of uniformity that we'd expect from a more experimental topic of medical science. In fact, I'd not class demographics of sexual orientation as a medicine-related topic at all.[[User:Rafe87|Rafe87]] ([[User talk:Rafe87|talk]]) 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
:::I stated before that this is not simply about how we format medical articles (although, disregarding demographics, the topic of sexual orientation does fall under the biomedical field, which is why the [[Biology of sexual orientation]] article exists). It's about the setup of the Demographics of sexual orientation article being a setup we shouldn't use. The article does not need to be a collection of random studies at all. This is per my explanation in the previous discussion. I reiterate that per that explanation, the way the article currently is does not help readers at all. There is a way to create a good article for that topic based solely or mostly on tertiary and secondary sources. I just don't have the time or patience to do that for the article. In my earlier Wikipedia editing years, that might have been a different story. I do not have the same enthusiasm for Wikipedia editing that I once had. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

== You've got mail! ==

{{ygm}}--[[User:Mssemantics|Mssemantics]] ([[User talk:Mssemantics|talk]]) 17:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

==Proposed merge: Lipstick Lesbian and Femme into Butch and Femme==
I was going to suggest a merge from [[Lipstick lesbian]] to [[Femme]] for content forking; that LL has been used as another term for "high" [[femme]]s, or particularly[[Femininity|feminine]] lesbians; as well as a term used to describe femme lesbians who are only interested in other femme lesbians (re: all related directly to the article Femme and it's not really necessary for LL to have it's own article). But then I found your comment on the [[Talk:Femme|talk]] page and realized that both LL and Femme should be merged into Butch and femme. I'll be proposing it on [[Talk:Butch and femme#Merge Lipstick lesbian and Femme here]] and would be interested in what you have to say about it. [[User:Woodsy lesfem|Woodsy lesfem]] ([[User talk:Woodsy lesfem|talk]]) 21:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

== Surgical lubricants ==
[[WP:ANI#User:Jim1138]] also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tide_rolls#Trying_to_undo_vandalism  Took the anon three weeks to complain. Cheers [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 08:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
:Thread is now gone. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_lubricant&oldid=819894771#Surgical_lubricants replied] to the disruptive/annoying IP at [[Talk:Personal lubricant]]. On a side note: I have never seen WP:ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=819894887 with such few threads]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

:Also, if he is User:Leprof 7272 (the IP did not deny it when I suggested it at Talk:Personal lubricant), he is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leprof_7272&oldid=779693410#Topic_banned topic banned from adding such tags] because he got carried away with tagging. His silly overtagging very much drained the community. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

== Echo ==

Do not ping me again. Thank you. [[User:Sebastian James|Sebastian James]] ([[User talk:Sebastian James|talk]]) 17:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

:[[User:Sebastian James|Sebastian James]], at the risk of subjecting myself to your wrath by pinging you again, I will state the following: [[WP:Pings]] are used for communication and collaboration and that includes [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Star_Wars_Last_Jedi_audience_response&diff=819674993&oldid=819655233 explaining] why you were reverted on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Star_Wars_Last_Jedi_audience_response&diff=819673718&oldid=819618192 this] matter. They can save one having to go to an editor's talk page, prevent miscommunication and [[WP:Edit warring]]. If you do not want to be pinged, I suggest you disable your WP:Ping option. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

::I explained in edit summary, and I know what WP:Pings is. I just don't want to be pinged by you. I'm warning you again for this continuing discomfort. If you continue to do, I will notify this incident to an admin. [[User:Sebastian James|Sebastian James]] ([[User talk:Sebastian James|talk]]) 18:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

:::[[User:Sebastian James|Sebastian James]], all you explained in the edit summary is why you made the edit. So what? That does not mean that your edit should remain. Please do go alert an admin about me pinging you for discussion after you made an edit I contested on a draft that people (including me) are working on and after you posted a section here on my talk page. I haven't done a thing to you except revert you, unless, of course, you edited Wikipedia as a different account and I offended you in that way. So stating that I alone should not ping you here on my talk page, in a section you posted, or when contesting an edit you make to an article is ridiculous...unless you do not plan to contest my reverts of any edit you make. If you ever do, discussion will be needed. We would not continue reverting back and forth. I would not take the matter to your talk page, where I see you are very unwelcoming of others. I would take the mater to the article's talk page and I would ping you there. Otherwise, unless I see that you are a regular contributor to the article, I would have no idea that you are aware of the discussion section. I would ping you once. If you were not to show up after that, I would not ping you again. But, yes, go ahead and complain to an admin. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

:[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]].
:Thank you for not letting me use my "preferences" the way I want. No one wanted explanation messages from you. You still reply for nothing. I am unwelcoming of users like you who doesn't listen to other users and accuses them for something bad ("...unless, of course, you edited Wikipedia as a different account and I offended you in that way. etc.") I am now sure that even an admin won't bother to do anything on this issue because of a user like you. Mind your own business. [[User:Sebastian James|Sebastian James]] ([[User talk:Sebastian James|talk]]) 20:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::[[User:Sebastian James|Sebastian James]], do go report your silliness. Your "''No one wanted explanation messages from you.''" claim is contradicted by replies on the draft's talk page. You wanted no explanation from me. So what? You got one. This is Wikipedia, where reverts will be made and explanations for them will be given. There is no "mind your own business" when editing a Wikipedia draft meant for a Wikipedia article or when editing a Wikipedia article. If you do not like that, then move the hell on. From the beginning, no admin would have taken your case seriously. From the beginning, all you had to do was move the hell on. All you are doing right now is harassing, and it will be you who will be reprimanded if you take the matter to [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]. So go ahead and do so. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

They started an ANI thread as they said they would above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Flyer22_Reborn
Really, if someone asks you not to ping them, don't ping them. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
:I explained the matter above and will explain more at WP:ANI. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter WHAT your explanation is. If someone asks you not to ping them, you stop pinging them. Period. It's the same civility you would show someone who asks you not to post on their talk page. Stop being petty. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 21:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Tarage, let's be real here: What I have stated above is correct, and you are posting here with a silly complaint because of past issues. You have made your dislike for me well known, and I couldn't care less. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My encounter with "Tarage" was when s/he told me that if another user tells me what he thinks is wrong with an article I created, then it is wrong for me to reply that the objections to the article are based only on factually incorrect information.
: 
Looking at some of Tarage's postings later, I get the impression that Tarage dislikes almost everyone.
: 
One circumstance in which someone might ask you not to ping them is when they owe you something. I think I've seen that a few times, although people asking me not to ping them is rare. I'm not sure I've seen any other instances besides debtors making that request to creditors. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

== Star Wars ==

Saw your comment on Erik's page I think. If you need me, you can post on my talk page. I'll see it when I login. [[User:Starship.paint|'''starship''']][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|'''.paint ~''']] '''<span style="border:2px solid black">[[User talk:Starship.paint|<span style="color:white;background:black;">KO</span>]]</span>''' 02:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

== Last Jedi Audience response ==

I was going to move the talk back to the draft area. Not sure how to proceed. It seemed like it had stabilized. Maybe we need an admin's help. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k|talk]]) 16:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]], yeah, if you can't move it yourself, take it to [[WP:Requested moves]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
:: I've done that. Hopefully it will be quickly moved back. I do hope the minor changing can be resolved. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k|talk]]) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

==  [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]]

The article [[:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>Appears to be [[WP:OR]]. Already covered in [[Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Reception]].</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:reddogsix|<span style="color:red;">red</span><b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i>]] ([[User talk:reddogsix#top|talk]]) 16:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Reddogsix|Reddogsix]], not WP:OR. See above. And not covered in the main article. It's being discussed. An editor moved the draft and that is how the error happened. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

:: I think you can ask for [[Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response‎]] to be deleted now. I think everything is back the way it was now. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k|talk]]) 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

:::[[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]], I did. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard&diff=prev&oldid=820419343#The_Last_Jedi asked] [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
::::This should be deleted but in the meantime, I've moved it out of mainspace and into your userspace [[User:Flyer22 Reborn/Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response]]. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 05:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

== Why? ==

Why are you and others reverting my edits to ''[[The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie]]'''s plot section?  You might as well just lock the article if you don't like improved usage of commas, reduction of wordiness, and proper subject-verb agreement.

You're all going to need a more constructive argument than the reiteration of the one-word statement: "Rollback."

Oh, and [[Thomas F. Wilson]] was in the movie's cast.  Just look at his page's filmography!

[[Special:Contributions/2601:646:C401:8162:4DA5:C7D6:33D4:FF6A|2601:646:C401:8162:4DA5:C7D6:33D4:FF6A]] ([[User talk:2601:646:C401:8162:4DA5:C7D6:33D4:FF6A|talk]]) 05:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

== Dankie ==
Kan jy asseblief ophou om my veranderinge terug te keer op die Coloured bladsy.
[[User:LadyBee|LadyBee]] ([[User talk:LadyBee|talk]]) 17:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:LadyBee|LadyBee]], what I stated at [[Talk:Coloureds]] stands. You are the one who should stop. You cannot simply add what you want. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jy moet ophou [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]], jy is nie van Suid Africa nie, jou profiel se so. Jy is nie Coloured nie, nie Khoikhoi nie, nie San nie, nie Khoisan nie, so u opinie is nie geldig nie.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LadyBee|LadyBee]] ([[User talk:LadyBee#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LadyBee|contribs]]) 18:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Politicization of Candy Making Article ==


I respectfully dispute inclusion of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs under the History section. They violate the NPOV principles pertaining to balance in that they give undue weight to  the topic of Gender Discrimination in an article about Candy Making. Gender Discrimination is a fine topic on its own but is not of significant importance to be included an article about Candy Making.  
[[User:MrKiffy|MrKiffy]] ([[User talk:MrKiffy|talk]]) 19:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
<ref>
In the late 19th century and especially the early 20th century, industrial candy making was almost exclusively a masculine affair, and home-based candy making was a feminine affair.[1] Candy was considered sweet and dainty, so making it at home, giving it away to friends, and perhaps selling small amounts in the local area, conformed with the Western gender roles for women of the time. Most women making and selling candy did so only seasonally or for a little extra money; they rarely earned enough to support themselves or their families. Despite several large brands being named after women or otherwise capitalizing on wholesome, feminine, and maternal images, very few were owned or operated by women. Gender segregation also affected candy workers in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.[1] Men and boys were employed for cooking or operating machinery. Women were mostly employed for wrapping and putting candies in packages or for hand-dipping candies in chocolate. The best-paid women were chocolate dippers, yet the wages of these skilled and experienced female workers were almost always lower than that of the worst-paid male machine operators.

</ref>

These paragraphs have to deal with gender discrimination issues. They only tangentially have anything to do with the actual topic of Candy Making. I request that they be removed and placed in an article about gender discrimination. Let's keep the lens through which we view every topic a more neutral one. Surely whatever message the author of these paragraphs might want to convey about gender discrimination can be properly addressed elsewhere. It alienates many readers to turn even the remotest topic on Wiki into a political platform. There is enough criticism of Wiki bias as it is.

MrKiffy — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKiffy (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

:[[User:MrKiffy|MrKiffy]], before [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Candy_making&diff=821633129&oldid=821632775 I reverted you], an editor similarly [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Candy_making&diff=751209467&oldid=749258341 reverted an IP]. And since I reverted you, you have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Candy_making&diff=821635858&oldid=821635608 reverted] by [[User:Samf4u|Samf4u]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Candy_making&diff=821649875&oldid=821649220 by] [[User:Dorsetonian|Dorsetonian]]. I stand by my revert. Since editors disagree with you, this is something you need to discuss at [[Talk:Candy making]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)   
  
==Baby You're a Rich Man==
If you look at my talk page you undid one of my edits for Baby You're a Rich Man. It may not have appeared constructive because I put a joke about Boulder being the headiest city in America. However I would like to put it back for the following reasons. The cover is extremely notable because Bela Fleck plays banjo. Bela Fleck is such a good musician that it makes the cover notable. The band Umphrey's Mcgee wouldn't be enough as it is, but Bela Fleck playing on it truly makes it a notable cover. Now who says it's notable besides me - I don't have a source for that. However I'm a musician, I've studied and played every genre you can play on the guitar except Flamenco. There is superb musicianship on this cover and it is extremely notable.


I would like to be advised if I should include this cover under Cover Versions or Notable Covers. 

Bela Fleck is truly an exceptional musician and I feel strongly that this cover should be listed in some form on the Baby You're a Rich Man page. I'm learning towards Cover Versions. 

Please respond on my talk page. [[User:Burnedfaceless|Burnedfaceless]] ([[User talk:Burnedfaceless|talk]]) 14:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}

== Pisanosaurus taxonomy ==
Didn't you hear? Pisanosaurus is now found to be a basal near-relative of true dinosaurs. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:71.255.155.181|71.255.155.181]] ([[User talk:71.255.155.181#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.255.155.181|contribs]]) </small>

:I certainly intended to go back and look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Herrerasaurus&diff=prev&oldid=822317767 this] revert before deciding to log off for some hours or for the day. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

== Darkie Ellis ==

Just curious why you reverted sourced data in the infobox a few moments ago.   The cited source says he died on Saturday, 14 December 1946.   You have changed that to 30 September, 1950.   Again, the source says he died at Beverley Army base, Yorkshire and you have changed that to Texas.   Where are you getting your information from? [[Special:Contributions/82.43.223.32|82.43.223.32]] ([[User talk:82.43.223.32|talk]]) 18:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see you mention "lulu.com" as being an unreliable source.   I see no reference to that self-publishing outfit in the article. [[Special:Contributions/82.43.223.32|82.43.223.32]] ([[User talk:82.43.223.32|talk]]) 18:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

:Hi, IP. Yeah, because I checked the quality of the source, I reverted you. [[Lulu.com]] is a self-publishing source. And per [[WP:Self-publishing]], it's not a source that Wikipedia welcomes. I've used Lulu.com before on this site, but that was before I learned that I shouldn't. It's always good to check the publishing aspect of any source you are thinking to add. As for whether or not Lulu.com is a [[WP:Reliable source]], see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Lulu.com&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=7ox1bxhwxtrx5l2uwq9yfrz5j the archives] at the [[WP:Reliable sources noticeboard]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
::Then how does lulu.com come into it?   It's an American publisher (Lulu Press Inc.) with ISBNs beginning 978-140xxxxxxx.   The source I used was Lodge Books, of Bridlington, Yorkshire with a completely different ISBN - 978-1-326-xxxxx. [[Special:Contributions/82.43.223.32|82.43.223.32]] ([[User talk:82.43.223.32|talk]]) 18:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
:::I clicked on [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9ER8DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA146 the URL link]. I read the content. I then clicked on the "[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9ER8DgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s About this book]" option. It shows the publisher as Lulu.com, 2016. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

== Reverted edits==
Hello Mr.Flyer22Reborn, you reverted my edits in Mediterranean cuisine. I put sources along with the edits, what was wrong with the edits?. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheeMichealEvans|TheeMichealEvans]] ([[User talk:TheeMichealEvans#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheeMichealEvans|contribs]]) </small>

== You have a brand-new, baby shortcut! ==

Just a heads-up: announcing the birth of shortcut [[WP:NOTLEAD]] ==R==> [[Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs]].  I can never remember where I saw the "WP follows, it doesn't lead," principle when I need it, because all the shortcuts were non- intuitive for that principle, all of them being based on the RGW section title.  So, I finally created a shortcut we can (hopefully) remember, for this part of it.  

What finally tipped me over into creating [[WP:NOTLEAD]], was that I bumped into you [[Talk:Transgender#Merge transsexual into transgender|twice]] [[WP:AT#Splitting LGB and T and renaming LGB articles Sexual Orientation rights|lately]], where that very phrase was a propos. You don't seem to have any trouble finding the RGW-style shortcuts when you need them, but I do, and hopefully this one will be even easier to remember, for the follow-not-lead idea in the section. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 05:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

:Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)  

== Barnstar ==

{| style="width: 95%; height: 128px; border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|[[File:Peace Barnstar Hires.png|120px]]|[[File:Peace Barnstar 6.png|120px]]}}

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.7em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for maintaining a calm demeanour under difficult circumstances. [[User:Axl|<b style="color:#808000">Axl</b>]] <span style="color:#3CB371">¤</span> [[User talk:Axl|<small style="color:#808000">[Talk]</small>]] 14:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks, [[User:Axl|Axl]], although I don't think I've been too calm with the latest matters at [[Talk:Vagina]]. Your help with that article and especially at that talk page is so very much appreciated by me. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

==Move discussion for [[Internal conflict in Bangladesh]]==
An article that you have been involved in editing—[[Internal conflict in Bangladesh]] —has been proposed to be renamed and moved. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.[[User:Vinegarymass911|Vinegarymass911]] ([[User talk:Vinegarymass911|talk]]) 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

== Are you sure about this? ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Raai_Laxmi&diff=822827306&oldid=822812820]  Looking at the first reference of the article, I think 1989 is correct. [[User:Philip Trueman|Philip Trueman]] ([[User talk:Philip Trueman|talk]]) 12:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Philip Trueman|Philip Trueman]], there is a back and forth at that article for that woman's birth year, and I was tempted to remove the birth date altogether and place a [[WP:Hidden note]] there that the birth date should not be added without a reliable source supporting it, like I often do in these cases. I had checked the sources and did not see that they support a birth date. I also checked the bottom of the article to see what birth date category she is in, since those are usually correct and indicate to me if the current listing at the top has been randomly changed. She is not even in a birth year category. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

:Correction: Although the first two sources at the top (which are the same source) don't give a birth date, [https://starsfact.com/lakshmi-rai/ this] one (in the infobox) does. And I see that she is in the 1989 birth year category. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

::Quite.  It was the starsfact reference I meant when I said "the first reference of the article", that is, the one numbered "1".  If starsfact isn't a reliable source, it shouldn't be referenced at all.  If it is, I think it should be respected. [[User:Philip Trueman|Philip Trueman]] ([[User talk:Philip Trueman|talk]]) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

:::[[User:Philip Trueman|Philip Trueman]], not sure about that source. As you saw, there is also the following, though: "Birth date validated at {{OTRS ticket|9165267|2016051310004058}}." I did remember seeing that, but I wasn't sure what date it was supporting. I overlooked the starsfact.com source. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

== Issue on Ultraman article ==

Hey there, I've noticed you've edited on the [[Ultraman]] page before. [[Talk:Ultraman#HD_Non-Free_Images|There is an issue on the talk page]] that requires your two cents on the matter. Long story short: I've uploaded images (an upgraded version of the show's title card from the Blu-ray) which met Wiki guidelines but another editor disagreed, undid my edits simply because I removed an image he uploaded, and he started an edit war. Your two cents would be greatly appreciated and it would bring a fresh perspective on the issue and contribute to what benefits the article. Cheers! [[User:Armegon|Armegon]] ([[User talk:Armegon|talk]]) 06:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

== Question ==

Hello Flyer22_Reborn, do you see any similarities between [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.163.148.25 this user] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:New_Media_Theorist&action=history this one]. I certainly do, aside from the fact that the user's first post (in both accounts) was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and that mixed media (or new media) artists are often the target of the user's deletion requests. You may recall the latter from [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:New_Media_Theorist&action=history these deleted exchanges]. [[User:Coldcreation|Coldcreation]] ([[User talk:Coldcreation|talk]]) 09:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

== Yu Na Kim article ==

As you can see I included links and quotes so my information is neutral and unbiased.   I am not even a big fan of hers, I edited other skaters pages already, I am just noting things that were commonly said at the time with evidence provided by quotes and links.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Angrykitty|Angrykitty]] ([[User talk:Angrykitty#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Angrykitty|contribs]]) 18:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:[[User:Angrykitty|Angrykitty]], look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yuna_Kim&diff=825124909&oldid=825122846 this] unsourced "speculated" stuff you added. Not the way Wikipedia works. Do familiarize yourself with our policies. As for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yuna_Kim&diff=825125297&oldid=825124909 this], I'm not even going to analyze it. I'll leave the matter to others to deal with it. But when it comes to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Evgenia_Medvedeva&diff=825133572&oldid=825080318 this], I will point you to [[WP:PEACOCK]] right now. "Her spectacular short program"? No, go back and remove "spectacular." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it was a spectacular skate.  That is how the CBC commentators where I live, the BBC and NBC commentators all referred to it.   So what else should I say.  Her successful short program.   I need to describe it with some degree of accuracy.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Angrykitty|Angrykitty]] ([[User talk:Angrykitty#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Angrykitty|contribs]]) 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[User:Angrykitty|Angrykitty]], clearly, you aren't interested in how Wikipedia works. I would attribute that to you being new. But when I was new, I was interested in learning the rules, which is why I do not understand those who insist on doing things their way and I am not convinced that mentoring such editors is usually a good use of my time. All I will say to you now is that if you keep adding stuff like "spectacular" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yuna_Kim&diff=825125297&oldid=825124909 disaesterous skates by others]," you are likely to be [[WP:Blocked]]. Your choice. "Disaesterous" is a misspelling, by the way. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
::Not so much "new" as "uninterested in how Wikipedia works". Blocked as a sock.--[[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 20:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

== Clarify ==

Flyyer, why did you rollback my recent edits? [[User:Sharif Uddin|Sharif Uddin]] ([[User talk:Sharif Uddin|talk]]) 09:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Sharif Uddin|Sharif Uddin]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sharif_Uddin&oldid=826299450#Template:Human_sexuality_and_Template:Sex_again the reason is obvious]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

:If you were not trying to get rid of one of the templates and were truly trying to improve the articles, I wouldn't be as concerned. Some of the articles may very well be more compatible with one template over the other, but you have shown time again that you are more interested in getting rid of one of the templates when it comes to these two templates. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

== YE HAI MOHABBTEIN ==

I have written about popular show . Yes it is true that yhm is one of the most popular show. It is in top 10 shows on BARC  TRP rating for a long time and it is also a time slot leader on television at 7:30 pm. So this information is sufficient to include show in most popular serials
 [[User:Agarjubal|Agarjubal]] ([[User talk:Agarjubal|talk]]) 05:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

== Comment on my talk page ==

I replied to your comment on your talk page. You can access it and reply me there [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]] ([[User talk:PrinceofFrancia|talk]]) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I replied again. All future convos just leave on my talk page thanks [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]] ([[User talk:PrinceofFrancia|talk]]) 22:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

== Why did you revert my edits? ==

IPV against men article. Please explain.  [[User:Rousse|Rousse]] ([[User talk:Rousse|talk]]) 21:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits improved the readability of the text. And you just wiped them away. What right do you claim to do that? [[User:Rousse|Rousse]] ([[User talk:Rousse|talk]]) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The frustration you mentioned with the site in one very long piece on your Talk page, I am now experiencing thanks to your unexplained reversion. Thanks for making it a worse place for this user.  [[User:Rousse|Rousse]] ([[User talk:Rousse|talk]]) 22:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

:[[User:Rousse|Rousse]], when it comes to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence_against_men&diff=827980780&oldid=827980083 your edits], you do not appear to have read the sources for the piece you added a "citation needed" tag for. The rest was just you changing text to your preferred wording. How is "because male violence causes statistically greater levels of fear" better than "due to male violence causing significantly more fear," for example? And in the future, take matters such as these to the article talk page so that other article watches can readily weigh in. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am ready to bet you’ve never worked as a professional editor (as I have) if you think mine isn’t an improvement in clarity. Avoid the passive voice wherever possible. “Due to” is weak wording. I didn’t change those things just on a whim, but to make it sound less like high school writing. I think someone has an axe to grind. [[User:Rousse|Rousse]] ([[User talk:Rousse|talk]]) 18:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Rousse|Rousse]], in my opinion, your edits were not an improvement. A different editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence_against_men&diff=828309273&oldid=827981552 made some changes] based on both of our concerns. And, as you can see, I have not reverted that editor. Not sure what axe you think I have to grind. As for grammar, I do have a grammar friend named [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]], who can look at the different versions and weigh in here on my talk page if he's up to it once he's back online. On a side note: Remember to sign your posts. I had to sign your latest post for you above. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
::Since you asked...the changes you reverted did not constitute a net improvement. None of them was unreasonable, and one or two of the wording changes may have enhanced readability slightly, but they also introduced parenthetical statements, which break up the flow and thus ''detract'' from readability. They also made some sentences wordier without improving clarity, and I see at least one instance where the meaning was subtly changed. Most glaring, of course, was that "citation needed"—not in template form but in full-sized, boldface text set on the baseline, typographically ugly and contrary to Wikipedia style.
::The real concern here, as I see it, is the failure to understand how Wikipedia works that is evident in the complaints made above. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia where anyone's edits necessarily stick; there's supposed to be give and take, and reverting absolutely should not spark sarcastic outbursts and accusations of axes to grind. [[User:Rivertorch|<b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>]]<small><small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Rivertorch|<span style="color: #F06;">FIRE</span>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Rivertorch|<span style="color: #06F">WATER</span>]]</sub></small></small> 07:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

== Tomboy ==

I've done a short protection on [[Tomboy]]. If I could trouble you, would you also review the following articles this class has been editing? This is based just off the ones that touched Tomboy, pretty sure there's a couple more mixed in.

* [[LGBT culture in Hong Kong]]
* [[Feminist movement]]
* [[Gong nui]]
* [[Amsterdam Gay Pride]]
* [[Gender inequality in China]]
* [[Objectification]]
* [[Gender inequality]]
* [[Women in government]]

If you feel any of these others (or others you find) need protection let me know. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 23:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks, [[User:Ferret|ferret]]. I left a message at [[Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Tomboy article]] about the class. Permalink [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard&oldid=827967874#Tomboy_article here]. I don't know who is directing this class, but they are doing an awful job of it. Doesn't appear that they are directing the class at all, except for telling them what articles to edit. I've been meaning to examine their other content (had a quick look at the [[Objectification]] article the other day and saw that an editor didn't seem concerned about their edits), but I will examine the articles more closely tomorrow. Like the Objectification article, [[Gender inequality]] is on my watchlist, but I haven't yet looked at the latest edits there. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

== Accepting recent changes ==

Issues noted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red_Jay&oldid=828979016#Accepting_recent_changes here]. Just one editor, but there's no doubt that some others are like this. The editor didn't really appear to listen. Was simply defensive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red_Jay&diff=829032682&oldid=828979016 Removed] entire discussion afterward; didn't even archive it. Some people cannot take criticism, but they should in cases like these. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

== Help recover deleted images ==

Hello, all the images was deleted for the wikipedia page I've helped managing:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsi_Nami
3/24/14, The artist/actor sent the permission department an email giving me full rights to add pictures.

A month ago, pictures were removed and the actor/artist sent yet another email and permission that all pictures have free use to be published and requested 
the pictures to be restored. Haven't gotten any response and no pictures have been restored.
Would really appreciate your help
If emailing is easier please email me at s.zamani34@yahoo.com

Thank you  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Easyheartforyou|Easyheartforyou]] ([[User talk:Easyheartforyou#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Easyheartforyou|contribs]]) 05:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== About some recent comments ==

Hello there. Just be informed that I wrote to the admin and introduced him about the last statement of the User Путеец on article's Talk page ([[User talk:NeilN#User:Путеец]]). I think admin will take this into consideration while analyzing farther actions by the mentioned User. Regards. [[User:Миша Карелин|M.Karelin]] ([[User talk:Миша Карелин|talk]]) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
:I hope that at least someone will appreciate your {{u|Миша Карелин}} contribution and behavior. --[[User:Путеец|Путеец]] ([[User talk:Путеец|talk]]) 22:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
::Absolutely, don't worry about that. [[User:Миша Карелин|M.Karelin]] ([[User talk:Миша Карелин|talk]]) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

{{u|Flyer22 Reborn}} I want to ask you for help. As you can see, I have biological knowledge, I have all the sources that are used in the article. I can improve it. I began to supplement sections on insects, orangutans, Laysan albatross and other sections. I found an error in an article that exists since 2007 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=next&oldid=144853765]. The author of this error recognized her [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHomosexual_behavior_in_animals&type=revision&diff=829223515&oldid=829092603]. My opponent, he does not have sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=827797424&oldid=827797097][][], he argued, my wrongfulness without reliance on sources and was not right. He completely blocks the work on the article. He suggested creating a section about mice, but does not do it. Please look at its edits, arguments, questions and behavior on all themes. Please. I hope to work. 

Please consider his accusation in fraud. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=827799562&oldid=827799277]. Another user, not I, made a statement to administrators in RuWiki [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B_%D0%BA_%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC#%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%9F:%D0%9D%D0%9E,_%D0%BE%D1%84%D1%84%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5]. "An attempt to discredit a participant outside the Ruwiks by distributing diffs from Ruwiki with a distortion of the meaning of the said in these diffs to create a negative image of the opponent." In the cited references, there is no charge of fraud. I said that the '''organizers of the exhibition''' had '''juggling values''' the number of species of animals (indicated 1500 instead of 450). This not  mean fraud. It can affect my reputation, and the reputation of {{u|Petter Bøckman}}. If it requires a call to administrators, tell me where to turn.

=== Sample stop working ===
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=827555613&oldid=827555530] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=827555808&oldid=827555613] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=827316076&oldid=827315840] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=827368436&oldid=827361268] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&curid=547826&diff=827563773&oldid=827563083] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=828335355&oldid=828328230] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=829278670&oldid=829261914] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=829281230&oldid=829278670][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&diff=829719819&oldid=829716905]

Characteristic behavior. Stop work without argumentation and reading sources. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#So_lets_continue]


--[[User:Путеец|Путеец]] ([[User talk:Путеец|talk]]) 22:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
::::''Please look at its edits, arguments, questions and behavior on all themes'' - well, that was the best part of your words. Everyone have seen your edits, arguments and behavior, and '''especially''' your statements [[File:Teeth.png|20px]]. [[User:Миша Карелин|M.Karelin]] ([[User talk:Миша Карелин|talk]]) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, have you seen this - [[Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals#Talk (Fox on Orangutan behaviour)]].  [[User:Миша Карелин|M.Karelin]] ([[User talk:Миша Карелин|talk]]) 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

== Your doubt was correct ==

Hi Flyer22, probably you remember [[User_talk:Swingoswingo|Swingoswingo]] whom I reported to ANI and who was banned then. Your doubt that Swingoswingo was not a new user when they made their first edit proved correct.

After Swingoswingo was banned, the user created many subsequent accounts (socks) whom I detected, reported, and had them blocked. Then Swingoswingo started using its older account ([[User:Hometech]], created on 27 April 2009) which was eventually detected by CheckUser and was blocked.

But now I doubt that even Hometech was not the first account of the user.  Hometech made its first edit on 30 April 2009, and during the middle of that year, the user passed a GA review which is highly unusual for a new user. -[[User:AsceticRose|<b style="color: dimgray;">Ascetic</b>]][[User talk: AsceticRose|<b style="color: orangered;">Rosé</b>]] <small> 15:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)</small><br />

==Augustin Barruel's page==
Hey, the article on the french revolution on Augustin_Barruel's page that you re-edited is most definately fine if you're okay with revised history being accepted as fact.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:8880:110:1CE4:4E5:766C:7BB4|2607:FEA8:8880:110:1CE4:4E5:766C:7BB4]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:8880:110:1CE4:4E5:766C:7BB4#top|talk]]) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== [Titanic] article ==

Thanks for your comment.  The original citation was at the end of the sentence, but wasn’t supported by the reference, so I added a citation for what i could find and asked for a new citation for the end of the sentence. I agree that the later quote should cover, so you or I can remove the citation request now. [[User:Postguard64|Postguard64]] ([[User talk:Postguard64|talk]]) 11:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Postguard64|Postguard64]], see the article's edit history. The matter was already taken care of. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

==[[Adult]]==
The entry about Germinal is pertinent because it is an accountof a girl who reaches puberty very late in her teens because of poor nutition. Zola has a reputation for fastidious social accurancy in his depiction, so, although Germinal is a novel it is a reliable source for the effects of environment and nutrition on the onset of puberty. Findng good sources for this is very difficult, but this from a socially reaaistic and greatly admired writer is one. If you have not read the book, it is worth finding the time to do so. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;[[User:Velella|Velella]]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 03:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
:Hi, [[User:Velella|Velella]]. I don't see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adult&diff=prev&oldid=831541805 this] novel material fits in that section. It's not really on-topic even though the text is about puberty. And, for that paragraph, it's poor writing to all of a sudden go into what a character (fictional or not) from a novel went through. There are a number of better sources going over how nutrition can affect puberty. As seen at [[Talk:Adult#Puberty material]] (permalink [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adult&oldid=831505219#Puberty_material here]), I'm already dealing with an editor (who I'm sure is a [[WP:Sock]] I've dealt with before at puberty, adolescence and development pages) injecting inaccuracies and [[WP:Synthesis]] into the article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Sex#Which_lead_sentence_should_we_go_with?]] ==

Hi Flyer22 Reborn.  Just a quick note to let you know I've closed a discussion you initiated, at [[Talk:Sex#Which_lead_sentence_should_we_go_with?]], as per the request to do so at [[WP:RFCL|requests for closure]].  Cheers, <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">[[User:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish</u>]]+[[User_talk:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate</u>]]</u> 11:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

== You've got mail ==

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=[[User:Human10.0|Human10.0]] ([[User talk:Human10.0|talk]]) 18:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)}}


==Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban==
Sandstein has closed the [[User:Barbara (WVS)]] ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban ([[User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers]]), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, {{User|Barbara (WVS)}}, also editing as {{user|Bfpage}}, is '''topic-banned ([[WP:TBAN]]) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed''', and is also banned from interacting with {{user|Flyer22}} ([[WP:IBAN]])."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban]] to give your views. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

== Socking? ==
*{{userlinks|Hillbillyholiday}}

I'm looking at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dimadick_reported_by_User:2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6_(Result:_)]]. Any thoughts? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:781C:A200:79E2:1043:7D78:C0BC] --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:Yeah, [[User:NeilN|NeilN]], it's Hillbillyholiday, as I'm sure [[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]], [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]], [[User:Krimuk2.0|Krimuk2.0]], [[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]], [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]], [[User:Mandruss|Mandruss]], [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]] and [[User:Wikimandia|Wikimandia]] can also attest to. And I see that [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] has identified the IPs as him when blocking the IPs and semi-protecting the articles. In my opinion, this is something that should be noted on Hillbillyholiday's talk page since he is not adhering to his block. He said before that he would sock, and he wasn't lying. I don't see why we should go easier on him simply because the IPs are not registered accounts. Furthermore, it perhaps will not be long before he actually does use registered accounts. He won't get as far by using IPs since editors do not have the same trust in or thought process when it comes to IPs, which is why [[WP:IPs are human too]] exists. I see that [[User:Davey2010|Davey2010]], [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] and [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] have reverted one or more of his IPs, and Dimadick had an edit summary exchange with him [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tom_Wopat&diff=832527850&oldid=832527370 here], where  Hillbillyholiday's reasoning is partly based on the fact that he never heard of the guy before. "Never heard of the subject before" is just the type of reasoning that [[WP:Primary topic]] discourages with its [[WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT]] subsection; so I don't see why he would think it's okay in a [[WP:BLP]] context. As you know, Hillbillyholiday does remove material that should be removed, but he also removes material that shouldn't be. He throws the baby out with the bathwater. And he removes material simply because he doesn't like it. Apologies ahead of time if you, FlightTime, would still rather not be pinged regarding matters involving Hillbillyholiday. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

*Thanks for the ping - Comparing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hillbillyholiday HBs edits] with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.118.53.218 this IP] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6 this IP] (specifically the removals) I would say the IP ''is'' HB, But as I said I'm no genius so don't take my word on it, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 19:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks,  [[User:Davey2010|Davey2010]]. Their writing and signature style (green text, quoting, sometimes starting off with "firstly," and the two dashes in the front of the signature) are also the same. Compare [[Talk:Reese Witherspoon/Archive 1#2013 arrest|this]] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=832543436#Kirsty_Gallacher this], for example. I was also suspicious of an IP who [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Hillbillyholiday and BLP articles again|closed]] the latest Hillbillyholiday ANI thread, but I left it alone. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
:::No worries, Ah well spotted!, I can't say anything but this is indeed them, I'd be more than happy to email any admin to say ''why'' but for obvious reasons I can't say on wiki, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 20:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
::::For the benefit of any TPS, the AN3 report mentioned by Neil is closed as of 26 March; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=832727391#User:Dimadick_reported_by_User:2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6_(Result:_Filer_blocked_for_evasion) this permanent link]. The discussion about HBH on my talk page is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Guy_you_just_blocked_edit_warring_with_a_new_IP_address_already here]. At this moment there is [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hillbillyholiday/Archive|an old SPI for HBH]] containing some implausible charges about named accounts, but nothing about his recent IP activity. His two recent IPv6 addresses have been from Sky Broadband in the UK. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::Wow. Just ... wow. Kudos to my colleagues for their detective work regarding that problematic editor.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 21:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

== [[The Headless Woman (2008 film)]] ==

I'm having difficulty in following the rationale behind the recent editing history of this article. Why is there extensive text on Reception in the lead, rather than under Reception? Why is an incomplete and very personal rather than objective plot summary in the lead, and no Plot section? Why have all the Argentine actors unknown in English-speaking countries been redlinked? Unless you think these are all improvements, how about rolling them all back? 
[[User:Clifford Mill|Clifford Mill]] ([[User talk:Clifford Mill|talk]]) 17:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Clifford Mill|Clifford Mill]], an IP messed things up with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Headless_Woman_(2008_film)&diff=812396109&oldid=806454644 this] edit. And I didn't help things when I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Headless_Woman_(2008_film)&diff=829817718&oldid=829814090 this] edit. A few minutes ago, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Headless_Woman_(2008_film)&diff=833140536&oldid=829817718 restored] plot material that a different IP added, but someone might prefer the previous plot summary. As for reception in the lead, reception should be summarized in the lead per [[WP:Lead]]. If it's too detailed, it can be trimmed. In the future, when you see a problem with an article, consider being [[WP:Bold]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

== @ beauty queen's kidnap of the Mormon case... ==

the alternate name with a touch of description not controversial, after all. I'll wait 72 hours, I guess.--[[User:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|talk]]) 05:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormon_sex_in_chains_case&oldid=835278569#Requested_move_7_April_2018 this] at [[Talk:Mormon sex in chains case]], it is not up to you to wait 72 hours. That is not how [[WP:Requested moves]] works. WP:Requested moves states, "''Requests are generally processed after seven days. If a consensus is reached after this time, a mover will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or be as 'no consensus'.''" You need to wait until others weigh in, period. I don't know what alternative name you are suggesting other than than the one you proposed on the talk page, but you should wait for others to weigh in. This can and often does take more than 72 hours. And you should stop adding on more and more text unless you are going to put all of that in a [[Template:Collapse]] box. I state this because [[WP:Too long; didn't read]] is a thing. Just Googling the matter shows that there are a lot of sources that refer to the case as the "Mormon sex in chains case" (or something similar to that). The goal is to determine which titl e is more prevalent in [[WP:Reliable sources]] or which one is more appropriate if both names or more than one name have about the same prevalence in reliable sources. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks. If it turns out nobody will care enough to respond after a listing or two (as you mention), the guidelines would nonetheless seem to support a unilateral move per wp:Bold, since it would demonstrably be non-controversial(?). By the way, what u googled to weren't old-fashioned print publications but a handful of creative new-media folks who I wouldn't want to disparage by calling them bloggers, with most of these same few writers likely <s>mirroring</s>inspired by the choice that's currently used on Wikipedia, ironically. Anyway, I put [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormon_sex_in_chains_case&diff=prev&oldid=835317155 Diff] my list two dozen bigger-cities' MSM on talk into a scroll-up box, per your suggestion. Again, thanks. <small>Maybe it'll be that not too many folks get worked up over which of two shorthands are more appropriate for an affair popularized in Brit tabloids so I think it might help a lot if you ''yourself'' were to chime in with your two cents on the matter. Whadya think? Then, hmm---if it turns out you've disagree with my choice and no-one else strolls along unbidden, we could send in a request on Wikipedia's third-party editorial help-line........</small> --[[User:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|talk]]) 23:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
::I believe that the silence of your argument speaks volumes w rgd '''''non'''''controversiality (per [[wp:TITLE]] and preponderance of sourcing for the topic) of the proposed move to the both better-known and less-offensive title.--[[User:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|talk]]) 06:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]], my Google searches show some [[WP:Reliable sources]] (reliable by Wikipedia's standards) calling the case "Mormon sex in chains case" or similar. Even [http://entertainment.time.com/2011/07/14/errol-morris-tabloid-review/ this] 2011 ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine source by [[Richard Corliss]], when reviewing a documentary on the subject, notes that British tabloids called the incident "The Case of the Manacled Mormon" and "The Mormon Sex-in-Chains Case." Whether I search "Mormon sex in chains case" or "Manacled Mormon case," I see the same sources pop up. And, yes, many of them are poor. I haven't weighed in, other than to request (including on your talk page) that you stop always moving articles to your preferred wording, because I have enough matters I'm involved in on Wikipedia and I want to see what others state. There's also personal matters in my [[real life]] I am attending to, which is one thing that makes me want to spend less time on Wikipedia instead of logging onto this site and spending four to seven hours on it every day, a matter that mainly involves me catching up on my watchlist. In fact, I intend to remove a number of Wikipedia articles from my gigantic watchlist today. My supposed silence does not support your stance. If you hadn't added on to the move request in the way you did, I'm sure others would have weighed in by now. Editors often just want to quickly assess a matter and judge it, not read through an essay. But I might drop in with a vote in a day or two. As for "less-offensive title," you haven't demonstrated that the current title is offensive. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
*Really? You don't find the description of forced sex as sex in chains offensive to assault victims? (By the way: Discouraging reflex-!voting is a not a bug, of providing research to a topic, it's a feature.) Thanks, though, in advance for your, futurely, maybe, I hope, weighing in, though.</p><p>Just because [[Fleet Street]] got into a its freeforall,  sucked en-mass into Joyce's vortex, there in Sept. of '77, soon after the dawn of the [[sexual revolution]], doesn't mean Wikipedia can't exercise tertiary responsibilities with four-decades-hence hindsight. The San Fran. Chronie's [[Casey Burchby]] interviewed 2-time Oscar-winning docu helmer [[Errol Morris]], who had come across period footage, by award-winning 'underground' cult-status director [[Trent Harris]], that fully captured the full hex of Joyce McKinney's then-persona's mystique of an innocent-fairylike earthchild godess. Burchby describes this footage--the original of which is now in Harris's section of Univ. of Utah's Marriott Library, where Harris instructs in film (when he's not gallavanting worldwide as a helmsman for Nat'l Geographic and PBS docs, most written by colleagues and which have embarrisingly garnered Harris a greater slew of awards than his straight-on, 'cult' aurteur work)--[https://archives.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2011/07/19/errol-morris-talks-about-tabloid-and-the-joyce-mckinney-mormon-sex-in-chains-case this way]: "These soft-focus clips show a much youngerkoi McKinney dressed almost like a fairy princess, in the woods. How did that footage come to be? It looks almost promotional." - Morris: It was shot by a Utah filmmaker, Trent Harris [...]. it's amazing, actually. [... ] you look at that piece of filmmaking from the early '80s and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's McKinney reading from this unfinished manuscript -- and predicting the next 30 years of her life...."</p><p>Wikipedia is not an authority, but article sections such as [[wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse:Positions of power]] seem right on, to me. McKinney was convicted in absentia of sexual assault. That is not ''sex-in-chains'' because it was not "sex," full stop (as those Brits call a ''period''). She admits she was on a mission to reprogram Kirk Peterson, whom she'd been stalking [and continued to do even years later, becoming arrested for stalking him again in 1984, a half-decade after her and then-accomplice Keith May's absconsion back to America]. So she her dominatrix-"submissive" of hers, Keith (soon to be co-charged with the kidnapping) lure Kirk to his car, chloroform him, bring Kirk to the secluded Devon rental cottage and manacle him to a bed, for fairy-princess Joyce to then enter the chamber accompanied by soft music she'd brought along, armed with scented massage oil, her still gravity-defying Liz Hurleyesque velumptuosity wrapped in a negligee. She disrobed Kirk by ripping from him his p.j.'s and---- Kirk said later, he did ''not'' want Joyce's fellating and nor her eventually succeeding in enabling her penetration "by" him. He did come to play along, though, the second and third days of his alleged (by then) captivity. Kirk was no longer in chains but something akin Stockholm syndrome had set in. Kirk said he'd decided to play along at that juncture as a ruse so he could cleanly get away. He then had authorities capture Joyce and Keith in a sting. You'd have to turn in your feminism card to call ''any'' of that "sex," though.--[[User:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|talk]]) 23:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Hodgdon's secret garden|Hodgdon's secret garden]], without yet reading all or most of your latest post, I'll just state that I'm not interested in continuing this discussion at my talk page. If you didn't notice, the top of my talk page states, "''If wanting to discuss an article matter, use the article talk page (and ping me if you think I'm not watching the article), unless it's necessary to leave a message here on my talk page.''" This doesn't mean that I want you to ping me at the article talk page and continue this discussion there either. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

== Murray Gilmour ==

Two hints:
A> You probably should actually look at what you're editing
B> You *really* should look at what you're editing before throwing shade at other people.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.45.205.105|121.45.205.105]] ([[User talk:121.45.205.105#top|talk]]) 01:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors! ==
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
:''please help translate this message into your local language via [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med/The_Cure_Award meta]''
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" |'''The 2017 Cure Award''' 
|-
| style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |In 2017 you were one of the [[W:EN:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2017 (all)|top ~250 medical editors]] across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from [[m:WikiProject_Med|Wiki Project Med Foundation]] for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a [[meta:user group|user group]] whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining '''[[meta:Wiki_Project_Med#People_interested|here]]''', there are no associated costs.
|}

Thanks again :-)  -- [[W:EN:User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] along with the rest of the team at '''[[m:WikiProject_Med|Wiki Project Med Foundation]] 03:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)'''
</div>

== Spoken Word ==

When you reverted my edit to the [[Spoken Word]] article, I was in the process of copying the link of my reference, which justifies the changes I made.
[[User:DangleSnipeCelly1|DangleSnipeCelly]] ([[User talk:DangleSnipeCelly1|talk]]) 05:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1
:[[User:DangleSnipeCelly1|DangleSnipeCelly]], I reverted because you removed sourced material (including the source) and replaced it with unsouced material. As long as you add a [[WP:Reliable source]] for your wording, it's fine. That stated, your wording wasn't that different than what was there. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

== Breast pump ==

Hey. I am working with this new editor in person, at an event. Can you please just remove the piece that you disagree with/are looking for a citation for by hand, rather than reverting the whole edit? I'm going through piece by piece to fix any problems and am instructing the editor to save changes piece by piece, but a wholesale reversion is discouraging. Most of their edit is fine and uncontroversial. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] / <small>([[user_talk:phoebe|talk to me]])</small> 22:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

== List of YouTubers ==

There is another deletion discussion on [[List of YouTubers]].  If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination)|here]].  <span style="background:red"><span style="color:white">Mr. C.C.</span><sup>[[User talk:Fishhead2100|<span style="color:white">Hey yo!</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Fishhead2100|<span style="color:white">I didn't do it!</span>]]</sub></span> 05:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


{{You've got mail}}

== Max Wright ==

Hi! You undid my recent edit on the article [[Max Wright]]. Can you please come and explain why on the Discussion page? --[[User:CaptainNtheGameMaster|CaptainNtheGameMaster]] ([[User talk:CaptainNtheGameMaster|talk]]) 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

== [[Rape culture]] ==

Hello-I see that you were also trying to help the rape culture article today. Your first objection---" weasel words" (your quote) "in some cultures"-(mine) vs " the statement "Women have historically" ---(meaning as I saw it ALL women everywhere throughout history).............so that is why I weaseled there. I just didn't like that incorrect statement. And yes if there is or was any culture that elevated or had parity for women, that statement is technically false. So I STILL do not like it the way it is and could we seek/collaborate something correct that is not as weasally?

'''Women have historically been considered second-class citizens who were thought undeserving of being afforded the same rights as their male counterparts''' (as it is now). That whole part about "male counterparts"---yeah I took that out. It didn't seem to make much sense. What male counterparts? Raped men? Did male rape victims "historically" have more rights than female rape victims? I still want to delete that unless it can be explained better because it was just puzzling to me. 
'''"Women have historically been considered [[second-class citizens]] who were not thought to deserve the same rights as their male counterparts."''' is how I found the opening statement, and I changed it around a couple times. I ended up with "'''In some cultures women have historically been considered [[second-class citizens]] who were denied [[Agency (sociology) agency]] and civil rights'''". (which you changed back more close to the previous version).

Okay so my main problem there is I don't like "who were thought" (by who?) undeserving... I just don't like giving authority to "thoughts" or generalizing "what was thought", when there is/was a civil rights/legal problem that denied independent agency for all people. And I put that there to refer back to and validate the "2nd class citizen" statement that was there.  In doing that I answered my own question, "who thought that females were not deserving rights not to be raped or to punish rapists?" (The laws and those who denied independent agency for females). If the statement were to stay as-is, I would add a "by who?" there.

Also, because of the way throughout the article there are multiple refs without pg numbers, I was too lazy to hunt down where the references agreed with our text or not. I had that problem with most of the article the way the refs are stacked up, so I was hesitant to stray from the meaning of what our text says and just tried to edit more for readability. 

I am going to give the refs a closer look now to see if there is some way to work with those statements and I am looking forward to any suggestions you have about agreeing on something that we both can accept there?[[User:TeeVeeed|TeeVeeed]] ([[User talk:TeeVeeed|talk]]) 00:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay so I've looked at it some more. And I am putting this here to illustrate that you yourself may be in a very slow-moving edit war here? [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=760998923]. So this lede sentence of the "History" section has been disputed before. Also, to answer your edit comment upon my undoing, I would reply with [[Women's rights]] which gives historical examples that I personally think is framed better than the [[Sexisim]] article that you referenced there. That being said, I fundamentally AGREE that suffrage and Civil rights are key issues, but grammatically the subject does not agree with the predicate is I guess what my problem mainly is there. And I feel that letting it be in that way ---our sentence--is unencyclopedic AND diminutive to women in general. I DID read all 3 of the refs there and actually Susan Brownmiller does NOT say that at all haha. She mentions "counterparts" as men who were lynched and then castrated, which just derails this although it could be good elsewhere in article.

After examining the article, I liked much earlier versions of it better. I was initially drawn to the topic because I was looking for "tagged" articles, and although I do not believe the current tag/ "personal essay-like" fits, it probably does need a tag and in my opinion a bold rewrite. (I do not like the breakout by country sections, for example, they could be subsectioned as "International" or something). But that would be something for the talk page. Thanks![[User:TeeVeeed|TeeVeeed]] ([[User talk:TeeVeeed|talk]]) 16:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

:[[User:TeeVeeed|TeeVeeed]], this belongs on the article talk page instead of mine. I think "were thought" clearly points to "were thought by men." Either way, I removed it. I changed "male counterparts," which isn't at all confusing to me, to "men."  [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&diff=840509985&oldid=840382758 This] edit by you was wrong since you added in "some cultures." Sources do not state "In some cultures women have historically been considered [[second-class citizen]]s." They state "women have historically been considered second-class citizens," or they state something similar to it. There is nothing "unencyclopedic AND diminutive to women in general" about it. What you added -- "some cultures" -- might be argued as "unencyclopedic AND diminutive to women in general." It makes it sound as though only some women were oppressed, which is untrue. And what is mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sexism&oldid=840731283#Ancient_world here] in a section at the Sexism article doesn't at all negate that women have historically been considered second-class citizens. That section also states, ''"Evidence, however, is lacking to support the idea that many pre-agricultural societies afforded women a higher status than women today.''" And it's supported by two references. Your "some cultures" wording is unsourced. It's [[WP:Weasel wording]]. And it's [[WP:Editorializing]]. No, I am not involved in any slow-moving edit war. The instance you cited [[Talk:Rape culture/Archive 6#Using WP:In-text attribution properly|was resolved after much arguing. And I argued with sources and Wikipedia rules.]] Regardless of what Brownmiller states or doesn't state, there are various reliable sources noting that women have historically been second-class citizens. If you are going to add in your own personal viewpoint to matters such as these when editing, then I am uncomfortable with you boldly rewriting the article. You should contact associated WikiProjects (at the top of that article's talk page) to help. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

::Thank you for the responses. No way would I be able to bold rewrite the article. I will bring my ideas about that on the TP. I hope I am not bringing a personal viewpoint to my edits, but I do think that there is room for editorial choices that do not have to be so rigidly monitored. I really did not see that bit about "women historically" adequately conform to the three references, and it still seems like it does not belong there to me. I would probably choose something about the history of the concept of "rape culture", especially if starting-off with the Brownmiller citation, but I do appreciate your time in considering-thanks[[User:TeeVeeed|TeeVeeed]] ([[User talk:TeeVeeed|talk]]) 22:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:TeeVeeed|TeeVeeed]], "women have historically been considered second-class citizens," or "women have historically been treated as second-class citizens," or "women have historically been second-class citizens" is clearly supported in the article. It's clearly supported by numerous reliable sources. I do not understand your reason for challenging this. But, if you continue to do so, I will list numerous reliable sources to challenge you on the matter and start an RfC on it. I am very busy, and I am not interested in debating something as factual as this. I am not interested in compromising on something as factual as this. The most I would be able to go with is stating "most" instead of "some," but only if supported by a number of reliable sources. There is no room for editorializing. We follow what the preponderance of reliable sources -- the literature -- state. This is per [[WP:Due weight]]. We do not add our personal doubt to articles. Furthermore, there are a lot of cases on Wikipedia where not stating "some" or "most" does not mean "all." Common sense should let readers know that we don't mean "all" when talking about certain medical issues where we simply state "people" instead of "most people" or "some people," for example. In the particular "women have historically been considered second-class citizens" case, though, what happened to women is so widespread that it makes challenging not adding "some" silly. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

::::It is improved at this point in my opinion so I don't plan to change it now and I did find the long discussion which explains how the refs were stacked-up there and even lost some of their content at that point. I don't like using weasels either unless they are directly supported by citation or quote. And maybe that is what I got stuck on there. I do NOT disagree with the statement. I don't like the placement very much just because it is not about the rape culture concept per se and,

::::if "someone" is "considering" something about someone(s) I want to know who it is, and to reply to the "historical" aspect I think it is safe to say that those "someones" historically would be the people making and enforcing the laws and electing the lawmakers. I kind of take "considered" and "thought" (again unless it is plainly a quote)----as weasels. Like we have some kind of mind-reading capability to say that. Maybe a lot or most or some or none of the "people" "think" or "consider" that rape culture sucks, but we usually can't really know what people are thinking unless they articulate it. I just don't like making assumptions about what "everybody" thinks. it wasn't about disagreeing with the facts that civil rights make a huge difference in whose considerations are validated but that when women are denied civil rights and patriarchy is legislated historically, that women have no real power to have their considerations counted so why would we continue to deny those who considered that women were NOT "less"?[[User:TeeVeeed|TeeVeeed]] ([[User talk:TeeVeeed|talk]]) 00:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

::::<small><small>{{tps}} [[WP:INDENT|Indentation]] fix in post of 00:10, 12 May 2018; per good-faith [[WP:TPO|TPO]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 12:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)</small></small>

== Biology and Gender ==

First of all, I'd like to remind you to mind both manners and tone when you write on Wikipedia: you're not a teacher.
Second, You have to get a grip on biology. I do not know any serious study in biology which supports social constructionism, unless done for political purposes by feminists. If you deny the influence of biology on gender, you deny the basic structure of the evolutionistic sexual selection. So I will get on and revert my editing.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aristotele1982|Aristotele1982]] ([[User talk:Aristotele1982#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aristotele1982|contribs]]) 20:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[User:Aristotele1982|Aristotele1982]], my [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aristotele1982&oldid=840603839#WP:Synthesis tone] was correct. Perhaps you should evaluate why you were warned by me and have been warned about your edits by others in the past before going on an unfounded rant. I didn't deny anything. I did, however, revert your [[WP:Synthesis]] and adjust the text properly. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

:And for the record, I am not sure what you mean by "serious study in biology which supports social constructionism" considering that many scholars who note the influence of biology (especially testosterone) on gender behavior are also clear that societal conditioning contributes to gender behavior as well. Of course it does. So much of gender is socially constructed. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hi, just wanted to thank you for your efforts to getting some balance into the "The Last Jedi" page. I was very pleased to find -- at last -- some mention of the negative audience responses in the Wiki page.

It took way too long, AFAIC, but thanks to people like you, it finally happened.  [[User:ClassA42|ClassA42]] ([[User talk:ClassA42|talk]]) 11:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
|}
:Thanks, [[User:ClassA42|ClassA42]]. And you're welcome. Leaving out the fan discontent was not in accordance with the way this site is supposed to work. And when seeing some editors seemingly putting their love for the film and/or franchise as a whole ahead of following something as important as [[WP:Due weight]], well, I couldn't stand let it stand. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

==Your reversion==
Do a search on gloryholes and you'll find many videos of women partaking.

[[User:EoGuy|EoGuy]] ([[User talk:EoGuy|talk]]) 23:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:[[User:EoGuy|EoGuy]], not interested in watching such videos. I know enough about the topic, including that it's mainly a gay/bisexual male thing. Regardless of what we personally know, we follow what the sources state per [[WP:Verifiability]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

== Emails about  [[User:Nathan Larson]]/[[User:Tisane]]/[[User:Leucosticte]]  ==

To those emailing about this, yes, I am aware of [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824 this]. And to any of the interview requests that are legit and are not Larson and/or his ilk trolling me, I don't think I'm interested in doing any interviews concerning my interactions with this person. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

== Vagina ==

{{User Good Article|Vagina}}. All finished. Well done! [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 10:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
:Kudos for getting such a major sexuality topic promoted! [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 04:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

== My reverted edit ==

Hi Flyer,

I edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=844595625&oldid=843776001

You reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=844776247&oldid=844752173

The point of my edit was to order the information from general to specific.  The version you restored puts US jurisprudence into the general introduction to what rape is.  This is a global topic and it's neither exclusively modern nor exclusively a legal issue.  In this light, was my edit not an improvement?  Is there something similar you could suggest? [[User:Great floors|Great floors]] ([[User talk:Great floors|talk]]) 19:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
:Hi, [[User:Great floors|Great floors]]. I reverted you because not only did you change a solid first sentence that is not solely about the United States, you created an unnecessary and [[WP:Undue weight]] section called "Definition of rape in the United States." Why would the United States need to be singled out like that? It doesn't. And such a heading, which was also awkward in its one subsection design (a design aspect that is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film&oldid=844921822#To_be_or_not_to_be_a_subsection being debated] right now at [[MOS:FILM]]) can lead editors to want to create a section for each country, which is not ideal. We already have the [[Laws regarding rape]] article. Your section consisted of one tiny paragraph and one decent-sized paragraph. Now it's just one paragraph in the section it was already in. It does not need to be broken out into its own section. Also, the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC), which you'd left in the general section, is a public health institute of the United States. I see no issue with the level of U.S. detail currently in that section, especially given the wide influence of the U.S. when it comes to legal or health issues. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
::I made a section with USA in the title to correctly label that info about being about the USA, not about the world or the topic as a whole.  I would hope that in the future there would be the same amount of info about how courts/people/etc. have treated the topic in other regions.  But more importantly, rape shouldn't be portrayed as a controversy that arose somewhere and was greatly modified by some court case.  The current content is completely US-centric, as if the topic of rape within marriage was a topic that started or ended with a US court case. [[User:Great floors|Great floors]] ([[User talk:Great floors|talk]]) 09:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
::(But I'm not going to pursue it.  I just hope it gets fixed eventually.) [[User:Great floors|Great floors]] ([[User talk:Great floors|talk]]) 02:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

== The Wiggles ==

Hey pal, saw your revert on [[Sam Moran]].  To be honest, you are the last person I would've expected to make an edit on a [[The Wiggles]]-related article.  But it means that you're risking the ire of the kiddos who like to vandalize them!  Can't be any worse that the ire you're elicited for some of the other articles you edit, though. ;) But thanks, and welcome to the kids entertainment WP world. [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 03:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

== Scott reversion of edits because they were not verified? ==

Considering I quoted 1st hand accounts from 2 members of the expedition I fail to understand how you can say my material doesn't have a verifiable source.

Considering how many of the citations on this subject simply link to newspaper articles that discuss a source rather than linking to the source itself, it seems that Wikipedia editors are more concerned with maintaining a  scant regard for accurate material as long as it fits a certain criteria than actually caring about the accuracy of published information.

Please stop undoing my work without any thought.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.165.179.113|86.165.179.113]] ([[User talk:86.165.179.113#top|talk]]) 12:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Verifyable sourcees:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18129/pg18129-images.html South With Scott. Written by the 2nd in Command of the Expedition


http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14363/14363-h/14363-h.htm#CHAPTER_IX. The Worst Journey in the World Written by the member of the expedition that was sent out as the final support party to meet Scott.

What more do you want? Another half-assed story in the Daily Telegraph reporting a half-assed story that someone at the Scott Polar Institute actually got around to reading one of the  above books 80 years after it was published.

The truth according to Wikipeadia.... what a joke.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.165.179.113|86.165.179.113]] ([[User talk:86.165.179.113#top|talk]]) 12:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I reverted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Terra_Nova_Expedition&diff=845375574&oldid=845371980 here] because you added "Cherry-Garrard noted that the dogs had made heavy weather of the return journey and it made taken longer than expected." without a source for that piece. But as for truth, read [[WP:Verifiability, not truth]]. Seems you are already aware of our [[WP:Verifiability]] policy, but you don't think much of it. Also read [[WP:Due weight]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I was actually adding to that when you reverted it rendering everything I had written unsusable.

You also deleted the notation that Scott had given the instruction that Meares (or others) should not wait beyond the time that they can safely return on back depots.

This section "contravery regarding Scott's orders for the dogs" is a complete mess of contemporary revisionist and  counter revisionst speculation that does not relate to any verifiable sources at all." Ay actual source material has to be added in as incidental detail to the opinions of personalities such as Roald Huntford and Karen May (who'se own material is not veried or sourced. Only newspaper articles stating a background to her work are quoted) I would dearly like to attempt a rewrite of the entire section and would happily submit it to you for approval. Even my own edits over time have proved to be questionable due to the differing accounts of Edward Evans and Aspley Cherry-Garrard.

If you would be willing to review an edit of the piece  would happily  write one but I find it to be a frustrating waste of time to make tiny edits and have them reversed simply because they don't match something that has previously been written from a different point of view.

The essence of this issue is that Roald Huntford wrote a scathing account of Scott and other have reacted from the perspective of defending his reputation, in some cases trying to lay the blame on others by inferring they were incompetent. Quoting certain passages of Scott's orders to Meares and then ignoring other passages that don't support the context in which they have been used is a prime example of this. It is stated that Karen May claimed Atkinson invented Scott's order that the dogs were not to be risked. Yet there s no reference to this in any source listed in the notes. The only reference is to a newspaper article that states she wrote a piece about the subject without giving an details. That in itself is an unverifiable source. The result is that rather than discussing Scott's order for the dogs the arcticle has becoe an argument by proxxy about Huntford's account and that of more contemporary counter revisionists, with no regard to what they are saying being factually supported. Merely that they have said it. The full letter of Scott's instructions clears up many issues but it seems ridiculous that the very passage of Evans's book that Karen May was quoting from could be considered "original unverified material" as opposed to her own opinion that was briefly mentioned in the press.

What I would like to attempt is to write down the sequence of events as explained by the 2 published accounts that of Evans and that of Cherry-Garrard. They do contradict each other in small details, which adds to the controversy but I feel that a full explanation of the material facts avoids a lot of the biased finger pointing of of previous published work, or at least, puts it into perspective. This is particularly relevant to the choices made by Atkinson. So if you would allow me to attempt rewrite and submit it to you here when I will willingy do so. Please let me know so I don't waste my time.
 otherwise I will continue to submit small contradictary edits to the "official" view of reality.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.165.179.113|86.165.179.113]] ([[User talk:86.165.179.113#top|talk]]) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This is not a case I am particularly interested in. I simply saw you via [[WP:Huggle]]. I'll leave that article content up to others. But, again, do keep our [[WP:Due weight]] policy in mind. It's a policy I strongly abide by on this site. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

== RE: June 2018 ==

Heck yeah! :-) I fully expected my comment to be reverted. I mean, we can't have too much truth on Wikipedia now can we! That would make too much sense! So consider me the Abby Huntsman of Wikipedia. Take care! [[User:Luc Donald Vélour|Luc Donald Vélour]] ([[User talk:Luc Donald Vélour|talk]]) 15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Luc Donald Vélour|Luc Donald Vélour]], read [[WP:Not a forum]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
::Ok, look. Here's the deal. I made a hasty edit in an impulsive moment, and I regret it. I'm sorry. Thanks and have a good day.[[User:Luc Donald Vélour|Luc Donald Vélour]] ([[User talk:Luc Donald Vélour|talk]]) 15:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

== Whats your issue dude ==

I added more content and you say it's not constructive? Huh?  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2405:7F00:AA02:F400:81C5:5397:E661:5458|2405:7F00:AA02:F400:81C5:5397:E661:5458]] ([[User talk:2405:7F00:AA02:F400:81C5:5397:E661:5458#top|talk]]) 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You edits do not adhere to Wikipedia's policy of a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Moreover, you added a new section in the article [[Web brigades]] without citing any reliable sources. [[User:JackintheBox|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">JackintheBox</span>]] • <sup>[[User_talk:JackintheBox|{{#if:TALK
|<span style="font-size:70%;">TALK</span>
|<span style="font-size:90%;">70%</span>
}}]]</sup> 05:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

== IM SORRRRRYEEEEEEEEEE ==

I just hate the Metoo scandals and I'm sorry for da edits. can you please not block me, I'm too young for dis! [[User:Emilyiship&#39;05|Emilyiship&#39;05]] ([[User talk:Emilyiship&#39;05|talk]]) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Special Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for all your edits! I hope and pray you succeed greatly in your life. [[User:Surge elec|Surge_Elec]] ([[User talk:Surge elec|talk]]) 21:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
|}

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Surreal Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Surreal Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for all your edits! I hope and pray you succeed greatly in your life. [[User:Surge elec|Surge_Elec]] ([[User talk:Surge elec|talk]]) 21:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
|}

== Reply ==
Hi Flyer22 Reborn,

Regarding the edits to the sexual orientation articles: the edits were made as the current language in the articles don't accurate summarize the evolving body of scientific evidence on the matter. Firstly, the articles say that "[s]cientists do not know" what determines sexual orientation, but, while it's true that the exact cause is unknown, there is a significant body of scientific evidence which point to genetics, epigenetics, and pre-natal hormones as having an impact on human sexual orientation. Secondly, the articles use the verbiage "believe", which places scientific theory on par with anti-scientific religious beliefs on the matter, which is problematic. Thirdly, the articles mention "environmental influences", but the only "environmental" factors which scientists ever lend any credence to is what occurs in the early uterine environment, with scientific research consistently refuting the notion that post-natal environmental factors have any effect on sexual orientation. Fourthly, scientific evidence indicates that there are biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but that important fact is not mentioned in the leads of these articles whatsoever. 

How can these issues be addressed in manner that is agreeable to you?

Hope you are having a nice day. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, --[[User:Justthefacts9|Justthefacts9]] ([[User talk:Justthefacts9|talk]]) 10:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

:Hi, Justthefacts9. Let me ask you this first: Are you [[User:Scientiom|Scientiom]]? I'm not sure why I'm asking you since I don't expect you to be honest about the matter. Scientiom did, after all, use different accounts to sock, but was never reported (except for alerting Alison to the matter) because I was lenient. But if you are, then you know [[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 12#WP:OWN: Homosexuality and Sexual orientation articles|I've discussed this kind of thing with you before]] years ago. As for why I objected to your edits, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justthefacts9&oldid=846860767 explained] on your talk page, although I meant "no longer than four paragraphs" for the lead. 

:You stated "''while it's true that the exact cause is unknown, there is a significant body of scientific evidence which point to genetics, epigenetics, and pre-natal hormones as having an impact on human sexual orientation''" and "''the articles use the verbiage 'believe', which places scientific theory on par with anti-scientific religious beliefs on the matter, which is problematic.''" I see nothing wrong with stating that they don't know, especially when authorities like the [[American Psychological Association]] make it clear that [https://web.archive.org/web/20130808032050/http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx they don't.] It's not like we state or indicate that they know in the [[Biology and sexual orientation]]  and [[Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation]] articles either. Whether we state "theorize" or "believe," it's the same. And I have no issue with using "theorize" instead. It's all a bunch of theories. Even with regard to epigenetics, the article is titled "[[Epigenetic theories of homosexuality]]." I told Scientiom years ago (as the linked discussion shows) that even "some biological models include social aspects." But let's look at some sourcing. The American Psychological Association quote you altered [https://books.google.com/books?id=fofaAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82 states], "''The reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established  – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that '''a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality.''' The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that '''sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age'''...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.''" They also [https://web.archive.org/web/20130808032050/http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx state], "'''''Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.'''''" By "many," it seems they are referring to scientists. And [https://books.google.com/books?id=ivALBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA502 this] 2014 "Principles and Practice of Psychiatric Nursing" source, from [[Elsevier Health Sciences]], page 502, which is also used in the article, states, "''No conclusive evidence supports any one specific cause of homosexuality; however, '''most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation.'''''" If sources only meant prenatal hormones when talking about environmental factors, then it's questionable that they would state things like "biological, genetic and environmental factors" since prenatal hormones hormones fall under "biological factors/influences" as well. "Genetics" also fall under "biological," but that's beside the point. Like the [[Environment and sexual orientation]] article notes, "''Some researchers distinguish environmental influences from hormonal influences, while others include biological influences such as prenatal hormones as part of environmental influences.''" And these Wikipedia articles are already clear that we don't mean parenting when stating "environmental." Some sources do state "non-social environmental factors," though, to get across the point that things like parenting or societal pressure are not what they mean by "environmental factors."

:One source that uses "non-social environmental factors" is [http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616637616 this] 2016 review of the literature, titled "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science." The authors state that although biological factors appear to influence sexual orientation, and these factors include specific genetic profiles and prenatal hormones, they are not the only causes because evidence suggests environmental factors come into play as well. And, yeah, I know that [[J. Michael Bailey]], one of the authors, is controversial, but he obviously isn't stating anything that other researchers haven't stated with regard to that aspect. And LGBT scholar [[Lisa M. Diamond]] is also one of the authors. Anyway, they state, "''Because all behavior requires participation of the brain and body, and such participation is at least in principle measurable, all behavior is 'biological' (Greenberg & Bailey, 1993). Thus, the word denotes nothing unique about any trait or behavior. Although 'biological' is often used synonymously with other words in the 'Nature' column of Table 2, that practice should stop, and more accurate and precise words should be used instead. The extent to which a trait is 'genetic' or 'environmental' is a conceptually meaningful and precise question, although it may often be practically difficult to provide a precise answer. The extent to which people differ in a trait as a result of genetic or environmental differences among them can be estimated as heritability, which is expressed as a proportion ranging from 0 (only environmental differences matter) to 1 (only genetic differences matter), using methodology including twin and adoption studies. '''Based on the evidence from twin studies, we believe that we can already provide a qualified answer to the question 'Is sexual orientation genetic?' That answer is: 'Probably somewhat genetic, but not mostly so.' On the one hand, that answer is not surprising, given the evolutionary pressure against genes that diminish reproduction, as genes for homosexuality likely do, especially in males (Vasey, Parker, & VanderLaan, 2014). On the other hand, we expect many people will find the conclusion surprising, mainly because they have misconstrued the meanings of 'genetic' and 'environmental.' There can be little doubt that sexual orientation is environmentally influenced. However, to acknowledge this does not imply that the social environment shapes sexual orientation. There is a social environment, but there is also a vast and largely unexplored nonsocial environment. Thus, the conclusion that sexual orientation is socially influenced requires evidence in addition to that produced by twin studies.'''''" They soon note examples of "nonsocial environment." For example, the [[fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation]] effect is given as an example. And when looking at the social environment, they state, among other things, that "''MZ twin differences generally signal environmental influence, but '''the environment causing the differences need not comprise social influence. That is, MZ twins may differ in their sexual orientation not because of different social experiences but because of nonsocial differences, including those that took effect before they were born.''' In other words, environment '''can be part of''' what is generally understood to be 'nature' rather than solely of 'nurture.' ''" They don't completely rule out the social aspect; they simply believe that "nonsocial rather than social influences" is the much stronger argument. By stating "but if one disagrees," they even show that they are open to other views on the matter. And importantly, they note that "'''''the hypothesis that causal influences on sexual orientation are nonsocial rather than social is better supported for male than for female sexual orientation. [...] Although it would also be less surprising to us (and to others; see Baumeister, 2000) to discover that social environment affects female sexual orientation and related behavior, that possibility must be scientifically supported rather than assumed.'''''" Basically, male sexual orientation is significantly better understood than female sexual orientation, and there's a better chance that social environment plays a part in affecting female sexual orientation than it does in affecting male sexual orientation.        

:As for "biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals," that is covered in the Biology and sexual orientation article. My point about you adding it to the lead of the Sexual orientation article is that it must first be covered lower in the article, and you went into [[WP:Undue weight]] aspects on that in the lead. It should have also [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sourcing, meaning sourcing not relying solely on [[WP:Primary sources]], given the slow and controversial research on that matter and that some of it conflicts. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

::Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. Certainly have edited Wikipedia in the past (approximately 9 years ago), but not that editor.

::So here's where there is agreement: the term "theorize" can be utilized instead of the term "believe" (the former being far more appropriate terminology when it comes to the statements of scientists), biology-based models are virtually unanimously favored by scientists, scientific research does not support the notion that the post-natal social environment has any impact on sexual orientation (with scientists generally rejecting the notion that the post-natal social environment has any impact on male sexual orientation whatsoever), and science shows that there are biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

::Would you like to edit the leads of these articles in order to reflect these points of agreement by: replacing "believe" with "theorize", emphasizing the fact that biology-based models are virtually unanimously favored by scientists (and stating that prominently and firstly rather than towards the end), stating clearly that scientific research does not support the notion that the post-natal social environment has any impact on sexual orientation, and including a statement regarding the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (with more detail in the bodies of these articles)?

::Hope you have a nice day! Looking forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, --[[User:Justthefacts9|Justthefacts9]] ([[User talk:Justthefacts9|talk]]) 10:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
:::I reserve the right to suspect or believe that you are Scientiom. That you took so long to reply on that strengthened my suspicion. As others can attest to, I recognize editors all the time, especially if I have significantly debated against them, even if it's been years. And certain behaviors they have, such as edit summary and signature style, is most helpful in recognizing them. Nothing new. 

:::Again, scientists have not completely ruled out a post-natal social environment impact. The review I pointed to above shows that. A number of scientists have stated a likely complex interaction with biology and the post-natal social environment, which is also often considered a biology-based theory. The social aspect, if involved ("if," as scientists state), is not considered to have much impact. And the post-natal environmental aspect doesn't always have to mean direct interaction with other people. There is also the fact that, as some studies have noted (including those suspecting a social factor influence), "determine sexual orientation" is not the same thing as "influence sexual orientation." Besides, we can't ignore tertiary and secondary sources stating that "most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation," or similar. Per [[WP:PSTS]], tertiary and secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. But I will change "believe" to "theorize" in the leads of the Sexual orientation, Environment and sexual orientation, and Homosexuality articles. The Biology and sexual orientation article states "hypothesize." I'll change it to "theorize." Like the [[Theory]] and [[Hypothesis]] articles make clear, whether to use "theorize" or "hypothesize" can be an issue. I've seen people (including academics) disagree on which to use, which is why use of "believe" can be better in some cases. That biology-based models are favored by scientists is already in the leads of these articles. I'm not going to change that to "virtually unanimously favored," especially with no source stating that. With the review above, I will also add that hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation is weak, especially for men. I object to "a statement regarding the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals" in the lead. Such content should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, not random primary sources. There have already been complaints about the Biology and sexual orientation article, which does go over such reported differences, relying so heavily on primary sources. I have pointed to [[WP:MEDDATE]]'s statement of "''These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published.''" in the case of that article and the Sexual orientation article including primary sources, since research on sexual orientation lags behind many other areas of research. But those sources should be replaced with tertiary or secondary sources if possible. If such a "differences" section, which should first be proposed on the article talk page, given the contentious nature of it, is added to the Sexual orientation article, it should be supported by tertiary and secondary sources. And then a sentence or two can be added to the lead on that. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

:::And going back to "theory" vs. "hypothesis," the aforementioned review does state, "''We refer to these as the 'nonsocial' and 'social' hypotheses, respectively. '''Both hypotheses require direct scientific support; neither can claim confirmation solely because support for the other is weak.''' No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test.''" It does obviously go on to note that "there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes," though. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

:::Per your latest edits, involving me reverting your wording, I'm further convinced that you are Scientiom. I can't really start a sock investigation on you since the Scientiom ‎account was abandoned rather than indefinitely blocked, but I can look for any additional accounts you may have. Pinging [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] on that so that FreeKnowledgeCreator is very aware of my feelings on the matter. I will revert any POV wording for the sexual orientation topics, especially wording that implies that scientists are sure about the causes ("causes," not "cause") of sexual orientation. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)‎   ‎

::::I have read the discussion above, which is rather long and complicated. I am not interested in entering into a debate about the causes of sexual orientation, and I do not think it either necessary or appropriate to have such a debate. Nonetheless, I have a few comments. Justthefacts9, you seem to be overly concerned with advancing one particular view of the issue. I suggest that you should be more willing to take the views of other editors into account and more aware of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge about any subject, including sexual orientation. I do not myself believe that it is wrong to use words such as "believe" when describing the views of scientists, or that "theorize" is necessarily better. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for taking the time to read all of that, [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]], and for weighing in. For me, it's more so about going over what the literature states than debating. It's about [[WP:Due]]. What we personally think about sexual orientation shouldn't matter when it comes to presenting what the literature states, after all. Anyway, I agree with your take. What you stated about scientific knowledge is similar to the quote I included in my "14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)" post above. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::The delay in replying was due to a lack of time to reply comprehensibly, but you can believe what you want. Could the statement that biology-based models are favored by scientists be moved to the front of each section regarding the cause of sexual orientation in each of these articles? Furthermore, from where is the language "Scientists do not know..." coming from? This language is not found in any credible source and does a great disservice to both readers (who will be left with the impression that there are no scientific studies which give insight into the cause of sexual orientation whatsoever) and the scientific community (who are made to appear completely clueless). --[[User:Justthefacts9|Justthefacts9]] ([[User talk:Justthefacts9|talk]]) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
::::::I suppose it's clear that you won't being stating that you are Scientiom. My viewpoint on it is this: You admit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Justthefacts9&oldid=817735568 on your user page] and above that you are a previous experienced editor who has returned. You focus on the same topics as Scientiom and in the same way (though not all topics since it has been years and television shows, and other things, come and go). You sign your user name just like Scientiom did (with the two dashes in the front, which, yes, helped me to identify Scientiom's socking in the past and gave Alison further reason to look into my suspicions that he was socking). And you take your time to respond when after confrontation (semi-heated or otherwise) or when accused of something, just like Scientiom did. Plus, I interacted with Scientiom enough to know when I'm in the presence of Scientiom. But your response is "believe what you want"? Fine. I am not always 100% on socks, but my batting average is very high with regard to identifying them. I have only interacted with one editor the way that I am interacting with you now, and that editor was Scientiom. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that these articles have not had this type of editing (what you've been employing) since Scientiom has been gone (presumably gone for all these years anyway), but have suddenly been subjected to such edits since your return. I was hoping that I would never have to interact with Scientiom again. But we obviously can't always get what we wish for. I at least I had a years break. We can move on from the Scientiom thing. Again, I can't do anything about Scientiom editing again anyway.  

::::::I don't think that "scientists favor biologically-based theories," should come before stating that scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation. I fail to see how that is good flow. It makes much more sense to note that they do not know the exact causes, and to then go into what they believe/what their research indicates. 

::::::As for "scientists do not know," that wording is supported by things such as the American Psychological Association stating, "''There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.''" It's supported by the aforementioned review article making clear that scientists are dealing with theories/hypotheses and that while some evidence is stronger than others, "''No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test.''" This is not like the [[Big Bang]], which is a theory but is accepted as fact. Scientists state time and time again that there is no conclusive evidence to support any one specific cause of sexual orientation, but that they have views on what the causes '''likely''' are based on the available evidence. In other words, all of it is the same thing as stating "scientists do not know." Synonymous wording is not [[WP:OR]]. And per [[WP:Copyvio]], we should typically use our own wording that gets across the same meaning. Your claim that "''This language is not found in any credible source and does a great disservice to both readers (who will be left with the impression that there are no scientific studies which give insight into the cause of sexual orientation whatsoever) and the scientific community (who are made to appear completely clueless).''" is perplexing, but not surprising coming from you. Like [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] stated above, "you seem to be overly concerned with advancing one particular view of the issue." The lead does not state or imply "that there are no scientific studies which give insight into the cause of sexual orientation." Anyone with a bit of common sense will know that if we are stating that scientists do not know the causes of sexual orientation but have theories/hypotheses on the matter, then scientists have looked into/studied the matter. Plus, the lead of the Sexual orientation article states, "Research over several decades." Stating that scientists favor "biology-based models" but have not concluded exactly what causes sexual orientation does not mean or imply that they are completely clueless. If I were to add "the research on what causes sexual orientation is inclusive," I don't see how this is any different or better than clearly stating "scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation." Even the word ''exact'' in there helps show "not completely clueless." And the exact wording of "scientists do not know" or similar (such as "researchers do not know" or "scientists are unsure" or "researchers are unsure") about what causes sexual orientation are in some credible sources; I've read enough to know that. From what I can see, your wording of "while a singular determinant cause for sexual orientation has not been identified" originated on Wikipedia (the Biology and sexual orientation article). Given the research, I wouldn't call it WP:OR, but that wording can suggest that scientists know of some causes but not others, which is not what they say. Believing in something is not the same thing as knowing something. It's not like these articles are suggesting that scientists don't know that sexual orientation is not a choice. The articles are clear that the scientific consensus is that it's not a choice. It's not like the articles are stating that biology isn't a likely cause of sexual orientation. But to what degree biology plays a part and other things concerning the causes of sexual orientation are debatable.            

::::::Like FreeKnowledgeCreator stated when you replied on FreeKnowledgeCreator's talk page, suggestions like these should be made on the article talk pages. This is so that others are aware of the discussion and will be likelier to weigh in. But, per [[WP:TALKCENT]], the discussion should take place on one talk page (preferably the Sexual orientation talk page), with a notification on the related talk pages, so that the same discussion is not had across multiple talk pages. And, obviously, I stand by everything I've stated above. So I'd be repeating myself regardless. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 11:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Two dashes? Those two dashes are automatically inserted when you press on the signature button. Good grief.

:::::::There is a difference, however subtle, between "scientists do not know" and "there is no consensus among scientists". The former may leave readers with an impression of cluelessness on the part of the scientific community, while latter simply states that there is no agreement as of yet. It's a distinction with a difference. --[[User:Justthefacts9|Justthefacts9]] ([[User talk:Justthefacts9|talk]]) 13:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, those two dashes. And here's why: Despite those "two dashes [being] automatically inserted when you press on the signature button," the vast majority of editors do not use those two dashes and those two dashes have helped me catch various socks (including Scientiom) since the minority of editors use them and they are just '''additional evidence'''. When taken together with all the other behavioral characteristics, they help to equate to one editor. You know, like the fact that many or most editors (such as myself) do not state "ce" in their edit summaries. Or some, like Scientiom/you, use the variation of "c/e," as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=515610009 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Andi_Mack_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=849919973 here]. I could ping each and every editor, including [[WP:CheckUser|CheckUsers]], who can verify just how many socks I've identified on edit summary and signature style (two dashes included) in part if you like. But do not continue to sit here and deny that you are Scientiom. Every time you reply, it's a confirmation. Not that I need any more confirmation on the matter. I am not someone who forgets an editor I've interacted with before. It feels like 2012 and 2013 all over again because of you. I do not like feeling like I'm going backwards. 

::::::::As for the rest, I am not debating this any further with you on this talk page. I was very clear that I disagree with you on "scientists do not know." I was clear that "''If I were to add 'the research on what causes sexual orientation is inclusive,' I don't see how this is any different or better than clearly stating 'scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation.' ''" I've thoroughly addressed your cluelessness argument. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] and I obviously disagree with your approaches and reasoning. I've pointed you to what you should do next if you want to pursue this. [[User:Pepperbeast|Pepperbeast]] also watches the Sexual orientation article and probably would be willing to discuss. FreeKnowledgeCreator and I have emphasized what should be done in cases like these. If [[WP:Consensus]] does not go your way, then you move on. Unless, of course, you want an [[WP:Edit war]] to ensue. Of course, I could also use a source that uses the exact words "scientists do not know," "researchers do not know," "scientists are unsure" or "researchers are unsure," or even the APA's wording of "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors," which can also be argued as cluelessness going by your reasoning (and would probably need quotation marks and [[WP:In-text attribution]] so that people will know who is stating it), but I'd rather not; it's unnecessary. Besides, per WP:In-text attribution, using WP:In-text attribution for a matter such as this can give the impression that only the APA has stated it, when, in fact, various reliable sources are clear that scientists do not know the exact causes of sexual orientation. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

== Vandalism ==
Hi FLyer22 Reborn,

I just got your message on my talk page, and I believe there's been a mistake, as I have not been editing WP:ENGVAR, nor indeed any Wikipedia page. This is my home IP address, used only by myself and my parents, and I'm certain neither of them would vandalise a Wikipedia page either. I was going to say that I believe you have the wrong IP address, but I checked User Contributions for this address and found that in 2006 and 2015, someone used our IP address to make a bunch of salacious edits to [[Intake ramp]], [[Areola]] and [[Uri Geller]]. How is it possible for someone else to access our IIP address, and is it possible to safeguard against such intrusions? I'm a little concerned by all of this.

Thank you for your time. [[Special:Contributions/86.137.203.148|86.137.203.148]] ([[User talk:86.137.203.148|talk]]) 06:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
:There's no problem! I just removed the old message and replaced it with a welcome at your talk. It's extremely likely that someone else had the IP in 2015 when the issue arose. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

== "Vandalism" ==

I find it strange that you have accused me of "vandalism", for restoring an image to a wikipedia article. The image having file having been incorrectly edited so that it read Hegazi rather than Hegazy, and whilst Hegazi is a more accurate translation of the surname, the image file was posted under the former and thus no longer appeared in the article when this correction was made. Perhaps next time you should be more careful with your accusations and conduct proper research into the issue.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.26.148.137|86.26.148.137]] ([[User talk:86.26.148.137#top|talk]]) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:As the edit history shows, soon after reverting you, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Hegazi_(footballer)&diff=847617195&oldid=847617043 restored] the article back to how it was. I then warned the culprit. I neglected to remove my warning from your talk page and will do that now. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

==Quotes and copyright==
Hi. :) I got your email. As a general rule, it's probably best to use existing noticeboards to draw attention to issues that need repair, but I'm happy to try to explain a little better the intersection between quotations and the copyright policy.

While this is far too complicated to boil down into a simple formula, the short answer is that overuse of quotations ''may'' be a copyright violation. It likely ''is'' a problem under [[WP:NFC]] (if the source is copyrighted, of course) and is probably going to be not the best writing per [[WP:LONGQUOTE]]. The more of quoting from one source there is and the more substantial that quotation is in comparison to the original piece or the new piece, the more likely a copyright problem is to exist. So, quoting three lines from a four line poem might be an issue. Quoting three sentences from a 500 page book probably won't. Quoting three sentences from a 500 page book ''might'' be a problem, though, if the article that quotes it is four sentences long. In the latter case, the question is, are you building something new from the copyrighted content? Or are you just using it? If you're just using it, you're edging towards copyright problems. You need to think about whether what you're taking is too much of the source (or the most critical part of it) and whether it's too much of the final article.

Using short quotes from dozens of sources may actually be safer from a copyright perspective, because you are building something new. An individual quote may ''still'' take too much from a single source, but if the sources are substantial, probably not. In that case, the overuse of quotations is probably not going to be a concern to address through copyright processes, even if it is overuse under [[WP:NFC]].

To me, close paraphrasing is a copyright issue of more concern than over-quotation. In the case of over-quotation, non-free content is plainly marked. It's not encyclopedic, but it can be addressed by a skillful writer. Overly close paraphrasing can mask when content follows a source too closely, which can be an issue of plagiarism or copyright, if there is "comprehensive non-literal similarity" between the works. That occurs when somebody follows something so closely that even if there is not literal copying, it's obvious that they duplicated the source. This is the biggest issue that I encounter when people who aren't skilled at paraphrasing try to rely too much on a single source. They will often try to rewrite it sentence by sentence, instead of reading the whole thing, stepping away, and creating their own summary. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks, [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]]. As you know, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa&oldid=846786876#My_email_about_the_Sexual_consent_article questioned] the current state of the [[Sexual consent]] article. The article's creator has stated on the talk page that they've toned down the quoting. I know that you are busy, but do you think you might have time in the future to analyze any possible copyright (including close paraphrasing) concern with the article? To me, it is like the editor just keeps adding quote after quote from whatever author or organization and is not properly summarizing matters. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

== You've got mail ==

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=[[User:Lolifan|Lolifan]] ([[User talk:Lolifan|talk]]) 18:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)}}

The e-mail's about a sockpuppet and who it's ran by. [[User:Lolifan|Lolifan]] ([[User talk:Lolifan|talk]]) 18:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

==KODA==
Thank you for reverting the garbage at KODA, unfortunately, it seems to be back & with a vengeance. I think it could be all be the same person doing this, but using different IP accounts. Thanks again for your edit earlier![[User:Stereorock|Stereorock]] ([[User talk:Stereorock|talk]]) 23:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Stereorock|Stereorock]], you should ask at [[WP:Requests for protection]] that the article be semi-protected. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
::I will, if it happens again. I was seeing similar activity at [[WDRV]], but an admin refused to grant it and said it was a "content dispute"; eventually it got protection.[[User:Stereorock|Stereorock]] ([[User talk:Stereorock|talk]]) 23:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
::Update-I asked for RPP. Thanks again![[User:Stereorock|Stereorock]] ([[User talk:Stereorock|talk]]) 23:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

==Recent reverted edit to article about S.S. Ste. Claire==

I would like to know why you reverted my recent edit to the historic S.S. Ste. Claire Boblo Island steamboat. Was it because I did not originally source the statement? I simply and accurately stated that the owners are vowing to rebuild it after a recent and devastating fire destroyed it. They even started up a $500,000 fundraiser to help cover the cost too. Here is a valid link to what I am referring to. 
[[https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/07/10/boblo-boat-ste-claire-fundraising/772463002/]]

Thank you for your time, 

[[User:jmcd88|jmcd88]] ([[User talk:jmcd88|talk]]) 11:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:jmcd88|jmcd88]], as explained in my followup edit, it was because the addition was unsourced. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to explain. 

[[User:jmcd88|jmcd88]] ([[User talk:jmcd88|talk]]) 12:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

== Huggle message ==

Hello. I just want to let you know that in the coming version of Huggle (3.4.5), there will be a new feature of editing pages directly inside Huggle using an edit form. The edit form functions same as the web one. The default shortcut for this is E and the shortcut for "Edit page in browser" (which previously was E) has changed to Alt+E. If you want more non-automated edits or you prefer editing pages in the browser, you can swap the shortcuts of the above. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or {{u|Petrb}}. Thank you. <nowiki>~</nowiki> [[User:Abelmoschus Esculentus|<span style="background:#008000; color:white; padding:2px;">'''Abelmoschus Esculentus'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus|talk to me]]) 01:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

== Re:Reviewing pages ==

Ok then that is fine enough on that area. I wasn't quite sure as checking through I try and avoid those sort of articles but now I know what to look for then. [[User:Matt294069|Animation]] [[User talk:Matt294069|is developing]] 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

== Preadolescence ==

I’m not going by personal beliefs. Most organizations define early childhood as “0-8 years old” or “0-9 years old”. Just search up the word “early childhood” or “early childhood education” to see [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]] ([[User talk:PrinceofFrancia|talk]]) 10:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Plus, by very definition adolescence means “to grow up”, which denotes the time from puberty to adulthood. So preadolescence, by definition, is before adolescence and puberty and shouldn’t be part of the category puberty. Some precocious developers may have puberty between 9-12 but this is a general article that gives generalized ages.  [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]] ([[User talk:PrinceofFrancia|talk]]) 10:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

:Hi, [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]]. I know I came across as stern on your talk page, but this is because I keep seeing you add unsourced content (including as IPs -- what I presume are your IPs), some of which conflicts with what [[WP:Reliable sources]] state. We must go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with [[WP:Due weight]]. Per [[WP:Verifiability]], when reliable sources disagree, we give each side their due weight...except for tiny minority views. The majority view (or views), such as dictionaries giving an age range of 10-13, get most of the weight. In some cases, even small (rather than tiny) minority views do not deserve a mention. This is per WP:Due weight. Also, per [[MOS:QUOTE]], changing quotes to something they do not mean is a no. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 

== Adulthood ==

I’ll give sources regarding the young adulthood article. But most I’ve seen would divide it into three parts roughly being 20-39,40-64 and 65 plus; namely young middle and late adulthood respectively [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]] ([[User talk:PrinceofFrancia|talk]]) 10:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ve checked a couple of sources such as the book Economic Foundations for Creative Ageing Policy: Volume I Context and Considerations, among others. Most say young adulthood is 20-39 [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]] ([[User talk:PrinceofFrancia|talk]]) 13:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t we just put rough ages there and say it can vary. Ie, old age can begin anywhere from 55-65, so it’s around 60 years on average [[User:PrinceofFrancia|PrinceofFrancia]] ([[User talk:PrinceofFrancia|talk]]) 13:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

:See what I stated above. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

:And for the record, being vague on something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Young_adult_(psychology)&diff=850182264&oldid=850059171 this] at the [[Young adult (psychology)]] article is due to the fact that the [[age of majority]] (legal adulthood) is age 18 in most of the world and so we get editors wanting to change the text to 18 when they see something like 20 instead. The current wording for when one becomes an adult has helped stop editors from adding what age they believe to be correct. If meaning "psychologically an adult," then the wording would need to make that clear. Sources too. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 
== Apology ==

I would like to extend a belated apology for being such a prick, then and what seems like now. I read back through my recent comments and it encapsulates antagonistic, and I've wanted to stray far away from that kind of behaviour. I do wish for a better image, and I will not force it in should I find one worthy of usage, I will bring it to the talk page. Apologies again, and any further discussion between us will be more civil from my end.  [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 23:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
:Thank you, [[User:Rusted AutoParts|Rusted AutoParts]]. I will do what I can to not inflame matters either. We all have different opinions  on what is the best lead image for articles, not just in the case of the [[Scarlett Johansson]] article, and we shouldn't let that send us into turmoil. They are just images. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

== ScratchMarshall ==

[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tyciol]]. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

== Regarding the most recent attack on violence against women ==

Flyer22, I just don't know how you manage to hold up what with the repeated attacks on our women's violence articles.  I keep tabs on our medical articles and have found that the med group (whatever it's called) recently immediately jumped in to defend additions to a med-related addition to a political-related article.  And then there are several women-related groups as well. Can't these controversies be posted to one or more WP support groups?  [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 19:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]], I do it because someone has to. And, yes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence&oldid=851104079#Am_I_the_only_one_a_bit_disturbed_by_the_way_this_article_seems_to_be_defending_women_who_abuse_men_or_use_violence_against_them? the title of that section and post by that first poster] boggled my mind. It's like calling someone who attacks me with a knife the victim because I defended myself. I should have archived that section before someone else could respond a month later. As for help, I alerted [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] and [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] via email to keep a lookout. [[WP:Med]] has helped with domestic violence disputes before. For example, [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] and [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] have helped. Jytdog in particular has helped fend off [[men's rights]] POV-pushers and their ilk. But domestic violence disputes usually aren't of pressing concern for WP:Med. I don't think contacting [[WP:Women]] would be much, if any, help. But per [[WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict]] (GamerGate), the domestic violence articles are still under discretionary sanctions. Recently, though, I've had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayx80&oldid=847169123#One_account_and_other_stuff concern myself with a POV-pusher on the opposite side]. So it's not just men's rights editors who are prone to POV-push. Anyway, the "women aren't the main victims," "it's equal" and similar POV claims that always plague the Domestic violence article similarly plague the [[Sexism]] article; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexism&oldid=848878331#This_sentence_needs_to_be_reworded... this] recent discussion, for example. All in a day's work. 

:On a side note: We should keep a lookout for Charlotte135, who was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charlotte135&oldid=846720740#June_2018 recently indefinitely blocked] for stalking/harassing me/socking. I'm commonly aware of suspicious accounts, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mig21Bis this one], and the suspicious accounts usually don't know it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

::Flyer, it is so good to have a few words with you.  Actually I really do just love women, in a sisterly sort of way, and there are a handful of women here at WP that I hold in really high esteem - you are one of them and a couple of others are WAID and Slim.  Highly intelligent, very focused, down to earth, and...so on...  OK, as for Charlotte, I hope to god that "she" (which I always doubted) never returns but one can assume that "she" will - though that does not sound like Charlotte to me.  As for our WP women's group, it does not surprise me at all that they may not be much help.  As for Doc James, yes very helpful and understanding and as for Jytdog, highly intelligent and helpful as well.  As for you, it must be a good feeling since you've been around the block so many times to know that you are pretty much in control of any situation that may present.  People like me that remain on the outskirts must really appreciate that, at least I sure do.  [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]], not really on the "good feeling" aspect since I always dread these discussions and it often takes the assistance of others; not something I can always take care of myself. Anyway, thank you for the high compliments. I've started an RfC on the matter and included sources. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

== OASIS Criticism section reversion ==

I believe the ''Criticism'' section of the [[OASIS (organization)|OASIS]] article should remark that [[Office Open XML|OOXML]] is a highly controversial standard by itself (a fact highlighted in its own article), so since Microsoft's criticism obviously lacks of a neutral point of view, this important detail should be mentioned. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/2601:602:9C01:C923:1A5E:FFF:FE14:B135|2601:602:9C01:C923:1A5E:FFF:FE14:B135]] ([[User talk:2601:602:9C01:C923:1A5E:FFF:FE14:B135|talk]]) 18:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
:See [[WP:LABEL]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

==In appreciation...==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Barnstar_of_Diligence.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I hope you will accept this token of editorial respect for: 1) your appropriate decision to resolve the debate at [[Talk:Domestic violence]] with a proper community process for establishing consensus, followed by an extremely well-considered, neutral, and concise description of the competing views, a feature which is by no means a given when you arrive at an RfC these days, and 2) the skill with which you pivoted to make an effectual and sound advocacy for the appropriate reading of the sources and application of our policies.  I actually supplied my own !vote before taking the time to read yours, but if I had, I would have seen I needn't have bothered with repeating what you had already fully observed, and might have just joined the others saying "what Flyer said"; normally I find that a bit lazy and problematic in a content dispute, but I get it here.  But it's not just that you conformed your opinion to what I think is the appropriate policy reading here that gets you the shiny, but more the way you went about both the necessary open community discussion and crafting your argument about the appropriate focus of that deeply important article. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b>]] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 08:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
|}<!--Template:The Barnstar of Diligence-->

:Thank you, [[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]]. And thank you for commenting there with such thorough detail. I don't always get RfCs right (as [[Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 4#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement."|you've seen before]], and as my RfC at [[Talk:Trypophobia]] shows), but I try. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 11:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

::As chance would have it, I actually saw that [[Talk:Trypophobia]] discussion as well, because I was checking out the WikiProject Psychology talk page a couple of days ago and saw the notice there.  But my time is so sparse right now, I didn't want to wade into such a complicated MEDRS analysis without sufficient time to catch up on the material.  Funny how you can run into the same person in multiple disparate areas over such a short period of time; I was just commenting on that to another editor, actually.  In any event, RfC (particularly the part of trying to faithfully represent arguments you may disagree with as faithfully and effectively as possible) is complicated and it's easy to make a misstep--but I think you nailed it with regard to the DV discussion. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b>]] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 18:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Snow Rise|Snow Rise]], yeah, after replying to you above, I looked at your contributions and saw that you had recently been active at WikiProject Psychology and probably saw the trypophobia stuff already. WikiProject Psychology is on my watchlist, but I don't pay much attention to it. Even with WP:Med, which is also on my watchlist, I don't check in often to see what is being discussed there. When coming back to Wikipedia every day or every couple or few days, I'm mainly concerned with catching up on my watchlist and addressing any issues that need to be addressed (either at one of the articles I'm watching or at one of the articles I come across when patrolling). After that, I'm ready to log off. I don't have much time for significantly improving Wikipedia articles these days. My latest substantial effort was the [[Vagina]] article and bringing that to GA. As for the trypophobia disputes, they mainly concern interpretations of copyright, plagiarism, extensive quoting from a source even when there is no legal plagiarism or copyright issue, and different interpretations of WP:Verifiability. 

:::Anyway, thanks again. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

== About ''Dog Treat'' ==

In [[zh:中国动画列表]](Chinese animation list), the author of  ''Dog Treat'' is Huang Wennong(黄文农). This is my cause. But Chinese Wikipedia didn't have a good citation about ''Dog Treat'', so I leave this uncited. I'll find a better citation later. [[User:Clayblockmc|Clayblockmc]] ([[User talk:Clayblockmc|talk]]) 15:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

==metallurgical assay==

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Potassium_pyrosulfate&type=revision&diff=852925195&oldid=852925171

Why did you revert this, am I wrong maybe? I just don't find any information on fusion in "analytical chemistry" so I don't think the link is very good. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:2a02:1812:142a:3300:d476:4b4a:5a88:aa7f|2a02:1812:142a:3300:d476:4b4a:5a88:aa7f]] ([[User talk:2a02:1812:142a:3300:d476:4b4a:5a88:aa7f#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/2a02:1812:142a:3300:d476:4b4a:5a88:aa7f|contribs]]) </small>
:Feel free to revert me on that. I leave it to others to handle. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

== Doležal wiki page ==

You recently changed the spelling of Dolezal to Doležal to keep consistency; I'm just letting you know that you missed a few on that page, also the spelling on her bothers page would also need to be changed to keep consistency.
I haven't made the alterations myself as I don't know which spelling it should be and its not my decision.
Personally I'd go with whatever spelling of her surname that the press always use but like I said it's not my decision and I don't wanna get into an argument with anyone over it so I've not made the alterations and I'm just letting you know what I noticed. [[User:HardeeHar|HardeeHar]] ([[User talk:HardeeHar|talk]]) 11:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:HardeeHar|HardeeHar]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Dolezal&diff=853526493&oldid=853491478 that], I decided against checking for further spelling inconsistencies. I was annoyed that someone had changed the wording to the form that is not the common one, and I figured someone else would take the hint via my edit and pick one spelling or the other. I'm not a big contributor to that article, and I'm leaving that matter up to others unless it's addressed on the talk page. If it's addressed on the talk page, I will state that we should use the form that the reliable sources usually use. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
==========
Alexander von Benckendorff as a Decembrist
Николай Троицкий. Декабристы: Становление // Троицкий Н. А. Россия в XIX веке: Курс лекций. — М.: Высш. шк., 1997. — 431 с.; scepsis.ru

== Heads up ==

Thanks for the heads up concerning the discussion. I presume a belated sense of the inappropriateness of 'going behind my back' kicked in at some point. [[User:Urselius|Urselius]] ([[User talk:Urselius|talk]]) 18:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Urselius|Urselius]], there was no "going behind your back." I told you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eye_color&oldid=854020644#Physical_and_psychological_variation_associated_with_iris_color_section from the very beginning] that I was going to alert to alert [[WP:Med]] to the matter. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

== Alene Duerk ==

I’m curious. I edited the [[Alene Duerk]] article a few days ago and have my settings set to auto-add articles I’ve edited to my watch list. A day or two later, someone (IP address) added a Personal Info section with a line about how she never married or had kids. I don’t care one way or the other, but you then reverted that statement. Considering it is true, I left it alone when it was added. Why did you feel the need to revert? I’m just trying to understand. [[User:TadgStirkland401|'''TadgStirkland'''<sup>401</sup>]] [[User talk:TadgStirkland401|''(Tadg<sup>Talk</sup>)'']] 15:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:TadgStirkland401|TadgStirkland401]], I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alene_Duerk&diff=853000286&oldid=852991435 reverted] because it was unsourced. Besides that, I don't see a need for a "Personal life" section just to note that she was unmarried and without children. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 11:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Flyer22}} Fair enough, I suppose. I’ve only recently returned to editing Wikipedia, so I’m trying to relearn common practices. I understand the need to cite statements of fact, especially if there is any question or contention about that fact. But in this case, it’s commonly accepted that she never married or had kids. Does every statement in an article require citation? If so, Wikipedia is far less cited than it needs to be. I’m not going to change the article, but it does seem like a small thing to delete. [[User:TadgStirkland401|'''TadgStirkland'''<sup>401</sup>]] [[User talk:TadgStirkland401|''(Tadg<sup>Talk</sup>)'']] 02:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Flyer22 Reborn}} My apologies. I'm not sure if you saw my note above in response because I didn't use your correct userID in the reply-to tag. Sorry about that... I'm not sure why, but a user called JC7V7DC5768 got involved in this discussion by making a comment on MY Talk page instead of here. He/she sent a citable source that does say specifically that she was neither married or had any kids. At this point, I don't honestly care. Here is the link to the source if you should want to put that info back into the bio. [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-alene-duerk-navy-admiral-20180725-story.html Orlando Sentinel article]. I'll keep the article on my watch list to see if you edit it to re-add the info. [[User:TadgStirkland401|'''TadgStirkland'''<sup>401</sup>]] [[User talk:TadgStirkland401|''(Tadg<sup>Talk</sup>)'']] 00:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::::[[User:TadgStirkland401|TadgStirkland401]], I didn't respond to your "02:42, 12 August 2018" post because I didn't see that I needed to state anything else. I removed the aforementioned material for a valid reason, and I do not see a need to state that she was unmarried and childless. If you want to add the material with a reliable source, you are free to do so. As for questions like "Does every statement in an article require citation?", [[WP:Verifiability]] has the answer for that. It's more so that statements that are likely to be challenged require a source. As indicated by [[WP:The sky is blue]], editors don't feel a need to source everything. But most things should be sourced. Many people are not familiar with Alene Duerk. As for pinging me, there is no need to ping me on my talk page since it's my talk page; I will get alerted simply by the fact that you posted on my talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
:::: Thanks. [[User:TadgStirkland401|'''TadgStirkland'''<sup>401</sup>]] [[User talk:TadgStirkland401|''(Tadg<sup>Talk</sup>)'']] 18:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

== Forgot ping ==

I forgot to ping you, but I replied to [[Talk:Love]]. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 21:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I see you're still here keeping the encyclopedia primed with content and keeping disruptive editors in check. Somebody should give you one of these.  [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 00:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
|}

== Up-to-date information ==

The inclusion of up-to-date information is not being debated at [[Catholic Church sexual abuse cases]].  Everything added to the lead was already also in the article body except for the recent discoveries in Pennsylvania, which I have now included in the body).  

I hope you don't have anything against the article being up-to-date?? [[User:Clean Copy|<span style="color:Navy">Cl</span><span style="color:Purple">ea</span><span style="color:Crimson">n </span><span style="color:Orange">Co</span><span style="color:Green">py</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Clean Copy|talk]]</sup> 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Clean Copy|Clean Copy]], I ask that you keep article stuff at the article talk page. I am obviously watching the article. As for what I am against, I am against [[WP:Undue weight]] and [[WP:Recentism]] additions, as I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases&diff=prev&oldid=855780118 explained]. I am also against an article about child sexual abuse being hijacked with material about abuse of nuns or other women, as if the literature on Catholic Church sexual abuse is anywhere close to being as much about the latter (nuns/other women). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

== U.S. versus United States ==

Hello and thanks for your curiosity about the whole '''U.S. versus United States''' Manual of Style policy.
In the particular instance you cited, I spelled out U.S. because it's used as a noun. If it were used as an adjective&mdash;e.g., ''U.S.-led coalition''&mdash;I would have let it stand as an acronym for ''United States'' because that would be a perfectly acceptable use under Wikipedia's Manual of Style rules.
I routinely encounter this common mistake on WP pages, so apparently this rule confuses many editors. Recently WP asked us to vote on proposals to make editing easier for newbies, so I gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to a copyediting test/'''grammar boot camp''' idea&mdash;because frankly I get tired of fixing the same mistakes over and over.
Thanks again for your question, and thanks for helping improve this project. Cheers! [[User:Kinkyturnip|Kinkyturnip]] ([[User talk:Kinkyturnip|talk]]) 18:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Kinkyturnip|Kinkyturnip]], thanks for your reply about the [[MOS:US]] guideline. I expected you to reply on your talk page and probably should have stated that I would have checked back there for a reply. But my "centralized discussion" preference aside, it's obviously fine that you replied here. As for the text in question, it was copied from the lead of the [[Cunt]] article. So, for consistency, I take it that the Cunt article should spell it out as well? [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

:Ah, I see that article spells it now as well. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

:[[User:Kinkyturnip|Kinkyturnip]], the reason I asked is because MOS:US states, "''When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal, especially at the first mention or as a noun instead of an adjective.''" But there are no other countries mentioned in the paragraph. The paragraph does mention [[British English]], though. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The '''US''' issue is a constant problem for editors like ourselves who want to get it right, yet the policy has several exceptions.

One example: '''U.S.''' or '''UK''' is acceptable as a noun in infoboxes where space is limited. Sorta gives new meaning to the slogan '''all the news that fits.'''

Likewise the policy is confusing on pages where '''U.S.''' and '''UK''' are both used (though the policy is clear on avoiding the mistake I just made here: avoid using countries' acronyms with '''and''' without periods in the same article).

So, what to do? Use your best judgment in following the policy and don't fret about being wrong: somebody will eventually correct unintentional mistakes (though it's best to avoid them in the first place).

Now I'm going to watch "Bart On The Road", ''The Simpsons'' episode about a '''grammar rodeo''' and fantasize about hog-tying writers who make constant grammar mistakes (joking!) [[User:Kinkyturnip|Kinkyturnip]] 21:15, 23 August 2018‎ (UTC)
:[[User:Kinkyturnip|Kinkyturnip]], I just want to make clear that MOS:US is [[WP:Policies and guidelines|a guideline, not a policy]. I subtly stated this above. But since you have continued to state "policy," I felt I should be more direct. You haven't explained why it was wrong to use "U.S." in the aforementioned case, and I don't see that the guideline states that the use is wrong. It's why I pointed out the line I did. It's why I asked you about this matter in the first place. I could ask at the MOS talk page, but I'd rather just move on. However, if you are going to insist that usages like the aforementioned one is a mistake, maybe I should take the matter to the MOS page for clarification. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

== Osceola and Renegade ==

Osceola and Renegade are symbols, not mascots. To label them as such insults them. (Also, the link to your talk page instead goes to [[User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus]].) [[Special:Contributions/67.8.212.22|67.8.212.22]] ([[User talk:67.8.212.22|talk]]) 08:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:I reverted you per the [[WP:Hidden note]]. Why are you disregarding it and not taking the matter to the talk page for discussion? As for Abelmoschus Esculentus, I'm not sure what you mean. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

== paedophile causes section ==

suggest you insert subsections as it is not helpful to readers in current form [[User:JCJC777|JCJC777]] ([[User talk:JCJC777|talk]]) 21:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:JCJC777|JCJC777]], the section is small. It doesn't really need subsections. We don't add subsections simply because a section has four paragraphs or six small paragraphs. But I will keep subsections in mind after I am finished with the update of [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sourcing that I mentioned. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

== Reg Thirumurugan Gandhi ==

Please refrain from making changes to articles about which you have less knowledge about.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bhavya1333|Bhavya1333]] ([[User talk:Bhavya1333#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bhavya1333|contribs]]) 11:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[User:Bhavya1333|Bhavya1333]], if you keep making unsourced, POV edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thirumurugan_Gandhi&diff=857063112&oldid=857002263 this], you will continue to be reverted. No one needs to be familiar with that topic to know what Wikipedia's rules are and to follow them. And if you keep adding such material to a [[WP:BLP]] article, you can expect to be [[WP:Blocked]]. I see that [[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] has already had to [[WP:Semi-protect]] the article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

==OANN==
Be careful about the reverts. There are others watching the page who can revert any silliness, so there's no need to risk a trip to [[WP:ANEW]]. It's easy to get caught up in these things inadvertently. [[User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris]], I mainly revert vandalism and other unconstructive edits. What reverts are you referring to? I highly doubt I need to worry about WP:ANEW. In any case, I am well aware of the rules on this site and how to handle revert situations. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:From what I can tell, you mean my revers at {{Article|One America News Network}}. Well, yes, I was not planning on revering that editor again. I can tell from the edit history that others are likely to handle that editor. And for good measure, I thanked two via [[WP:Echo]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

== Mleiha ==

Okay, here we go. Why are you reverting - with no reason - perfectly valid additions to an article? The objects were found at Faya-1, Faya is at Mleiha - in Sharjah - and they're displayed there and explained there. And the find has been C14 dated to 125,000 years ago. This is all in the link. So why the silent reverts? [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]], I stand by what I stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans&diff=857688336&oldid=857688257 here]. Make your case on the article talk page. Explain there why you think it's better to remove "100,000." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

:Oh, and the second revert I meant to do manually...with an edit summary. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And as it happens the source says 125k as does my cite on the talk page. You didn't have to be so bitey, BTW... [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]], I don't see that my tone was any more inappropriate than yours. It's the Internet; sometimes I sound bitey or bitier when I don't mean to be. I have different versions of the article in my head (which can confuse matters when I look at the current version), I have looked at a number of sources in the article, and you didn't explain why you were removing "100,000." If it was a matter of it being unsourced, why wouldn't you simply state that? [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 11:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

== Biology and sexual orientation ==

Thanks for your last edition on [[Biology and sexual orientation]] article. I understand the topic is not relevant with it. But in the research where researchers used algorithm,  it supports the [[Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation|Prenatal hormones]] theory. I think I can add the info on the '''Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation''' article, can't I? [[User:Fahim fanatic|Fahim fanatic]] ([[User talk:Fahim fanatic|talk]]) 18:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Fahim fanatic|Fahim fanatic]], no. That would be [[WP:OR]]. Read WP:OR, including its [[WP:Synthesis]] section. The source must explicitly tie the matter to the prenatal hormonal theory. But even then, it is a [[WP:Primary source]], is [[WP:Fringe]], and should not be added. I've been over sourcing with you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fahim_fanatic&oldid=856474238 on your talk page]. And you got [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=858012869#Reference a similar reply] at [[WP:Med]]. Are you not understanding [[WP:MEDRS]]? [[WP:PSTS|WP:Secondary and tertiary sources]] are preferred. Primary sources are strongly discouraged. There is also a matter of [[WP:Weight]]. All of that is why I reverted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Biology_and_sexual_orientation&diff=857831992&oldid=857820986 here] (with a followup note [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Biology_and_sexual_orientation&diff=857832695&oldid=857831992 here]). I know that understanding this site's rules is not always easy, but you must first try. You do that by first reading the pages you are pointed to. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

:Okay, I see that the source mentions the prenatal hormonal theory, but what I stated about the type of sourcing that is preferred, WP:Fringe, and WP:Weight still stands. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

== Sexual identity - a comment ==

Hi Flyer.

I disagree (but not aggressively so) with your statement of "To be fair, couples are called "heterosexual couples" if one is male and the other is female and they are in a romantic and/or sexual relationship (or simply engaging in sexual activity with each other), regardless of how they personally identify their sexual orientation"

I thought I'd comment here, as it has no real relevance on the discussion where it originated, and would only clutter up the focus there.

A persons (or couples) sexual label should be defined by their sexual orientation, surely.  In the bluntest form what you suggest is that if couple "A" are male/female and have sexual relationships they are heterosexual, but if male "A" goes and subsequently has sex with male "B" he is now homosexual.  By logical extension a person can only be defined as Bisexual if they are having a threesome (or moresome) with both male and female partner at the same time - and indeed only at that time.  If a person is not having sex with anybody, what sexual orientation do they have?

I appreciate that you may have been referring to image descriptions, but this is still the case - if the same person is depicted in an image, then the above cannot hold true.

This is why I believe the better option (in the case of image descriptions, which is what started this all off) is to simply ignore any preference label, unless it is inherent or relevant to the topic.

I'm not starting a fight or argument, I'd just be interested in your reasoning, in case I've misunderstood it.  [[User:Curved Space|Curved Space]] ([[User talk:Curved Space|talk]]) 08:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Curved Space|Curved Space]], when I first saw this heading, I thought maybe there was trouble at the [[Sexual identity]] article. Anyway, as for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Captions&oldid=859478306#Image_credit_in_caption this], I was referring not only to how couples are labeled in sexuality research, but also by society in general. It seems you are using "heterosexual" and "homosexual" strictly. Like I've stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation&oldid=835910467#Bearman_&_Bruckner's_study at this talk page], the term ''[[homosexuality]]'' does not only refer to sexual orientation, but also to sexual behavior and sexual identity as well. Yes, when the term ''homosexual'' (rather than the term ''homosexuality'') is used, scholars and the general public are usually referring to the sexual orientation aspect, but it is also at times used to refer to sexual behavior, as in "homosexual behavior" or "a homosexual couple." Similar goes for "heterosexual behavior" or "a heterosexual couple." When researchers state "heterosexual couple" or "lesbian couple," or "gay couple" (to mean two men in a romantic and/or sexual relationship), they usually are not referring to the couple's sexual orientation. They are usually basing the description on the behavior; this is because when studying such couples, it's the behavior and domestic aspect that researchers are usually focused on. Take [[lesbian sexual practices]] or [[domestic violence in lesbian relationships]], for example. When studying such practices or the couples, the women are usually referred to as lesbian couples, even if one or more identify as bisexual or one is a self-identified heterosexual, or one or both don't personally label their sexual orientation at all. As you can see in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&oldid=859342313#Sexuality_and_lesbian_identity this section] of the [[Lesbian]] article, the term ''lesbian'' isn't even consistently applied by researchers and self-identified lesbians. It may be used by them to "describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction)." Like I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships&oldid=858180215#Inaccurate_title stated] at [[Talk:Domestic violence in lesbian relationships]] about the article title, "'Lesbian' is the standard term for same-sex romantic/sexual attraction between human females." I know that language such as "heterosexual couple," "lesbian couple," and "gay couple" can create [[bisexual erasure]], which is why I mentioned that at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions]], but it is the way that research is usually conducted and it's the way that society beyond researchers generally refers to couples. When do you ever hear or see researchers or the general public state "bisexual couple"? In my experience, it's infrequent. I was not implying anything about a couple's sexual orientation when I made the comment I made. I am well aware that, for example, a man having sex with a woman does not make him heterosexual or bisexual; I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Myra_or_someone&oldid=856822115#WP:Verifiability stated as much] to an editor who was recently being disruptive. If I didn't know this, I would question my own competence with regard to editing sexuality articles. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
::Sorry, I was writing in a bit of a hurry and didn't link as much as I should have.  Your explanation is pretty much what I figured.  The term "heterosexual" etc refers to behaviour, not orientation.  [[User:Curved Space|Curved Space]] ([[User talk:Curved Space|talk]]) 08:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Curved Space|Curved Space]], thanks. And, of course, as you know, the terms ''[[men who have sex with men]]'' (MSM) and ''[[women who have sex with women]]'' (WSW) exist to get past sexual identity or label issues that might hamper research. There's also research on [[mixed-orientation marriage]]s, but it's specifically about differing sexual orientations, while a term such as ''[[same-sex marriage]]'' is not. I noted before that some people advise avoiding the term ''gay marriage'' since it can imply the sexual orientation or sexual identity of the spouses. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

== Tropical cyclone page. ==

I was trying to indicate a missing scale, but apparently I didn't know how. [[Special:Contributions/108.160.124.180|108.160.124.180]] ([[User talk:108.160.124.180|talk]]) 20:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

== Mariam-uz-Zamani ==

its not nice of u to undo my edits [[User:Mariam uz Zamani Jodha Begum|Mariam uz Zamani Jodha Begum]] ([[User talk:Mariam uz Zamani Jodha Begum|talk]]) 14:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
:I noted on your talk page why I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mariam-uz-Zamani&diff=861190706&oldid=861168944 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mariam-uz-Zamani&diff=861190762&oldid=861190706 this]. Being nice or rude has nothing to do with it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

== Gay penguin couple steal chick from neglecting straight parents at Denmark zoo  ==

Interesting article - [https://attitude.co.uk/article/gay-penguin-couple-steal-chick-from-neglecting-straight-parents-at-denmark-zoo-1/19206/], and here - [https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2018/9/26/hot-chick-gay-zoo-penguins-steal-baby-neglectful-straight-parents]. Regards. [[User:Миша Карелин|M.Karelin]] ([[User talk:Миша Карелин|talk]]) 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

== Tom O'Carroll RFC ==

Sorry to bother you with more of this stuff, I don't know if you are aware of this discussion or care to jump in, or if Snow said everything already, but due to your past work in the area I thought you might like to know [[Talk:Tom_O%27Carroll#rfc_D3BCBE7|this discussion]] was going on. Thanks for your time, <sup>Thanks, </sup>[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|<small>◊distænt write◊</small>]] 16:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

== Perhaps you might already feel sick of my "contributions" by now, but ==

here have another one:

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedia,_a_quatertiary_source.]]

I can't guess how you'd react to this proposal if not opposed. 

Then again, I can't much imagine what you'd say even if opposed.

(believe me or not, I don't make these posts to create wiki drama) 

Still, I'd appreciate a more thoughtful response than just "you're wrong".

Hence why I'm asking you to respond : D

[[User:Eaterjolly|Eaterjolly]] ([[User talk:Eaterjolly|talk]]) 21:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

::I'd appreciate if you could vouch for me.
::[[User_talk:Eaterjolly#cut it out]]
::[[User:Eaterjolly|Eaterjolly]] ([[User talk:Eaterjolly|talk]]) 22:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Eaterjolly, perhaps you feel comfortable with me because of our discussions at [[Talk:Macrophilia]], which is where you mostly stayed before recently branching out. But I don't see what I can state to you that others haven't. Yes, I could state more than "you're wrong," but I don't see the point. I know that you think that [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]]'s statement on your talk page was harsh, but you have been editing in ways and proposing things that don't align with the way Wikipedia works. I understand that there are a lot of rules here to learn, but when you have a number of experienced Wikipedians telling you that you are wrong (and some noting why), you should listen. To change things around here, [[WP:Village pump]] is a start; so I see that you at least tried that. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::I believe I have a solid grasp of the policies, rather the conventions seem different. 
:::::For obvious reasons, conventions and guidelines seem inconsistently applied. 
:::::I guess I'd appreciate criticism, if anyone responded to my claims. 
:::::-
:::::Speedy discarding without reply appears like fear over what might happen if anyone agreed with me. 
:::::If no one answered my proposal, then oh well sadface. Why collapse the discussion too? Even in the archive...
:::::Perhaps, I shouldn't respond to everyone who responds to me on wikipedia. 
:::::I notice not very many discussions involve back-and-forth on wiki. 
:::::I'm not sure if that contributes to the neutrality or just focuses the mob rule // majority rule aspect.
:::::I do think that WP:Fringe gets abused to try to minimalize and marginalize views the majority disagrees with.
:::::-
:::::To me [[WP:NOTTRUTH]] and [[WP:OUTRAGE]] directly contradict with how most editors interpret fringe. 
:::::Someone in the administrators noticeboard compared my VP to [[WP:PEREN]] 1.7, which I at first thought weird, because <s>I never once mention the words reliable or unreliable in my proposal</s>. I guess the comparison makes sense, because my proposal kinda throws out reliability assuming honesty and caring more about what sources might likely make mistakes about on a case-by-case basis with explicit guidelines. This feels like a novel approach to me and worth discussion, perhaps I just think I'm a snowflake. [[User:Eaterjolly|Eaterjolly]] ([[User talk:Eaterjolly|talk]]) 00:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::The worst non-sense including not citing film or animation credits for the staff. [[User:Eaterjolly|Eaterjolly]] ([[User talk:Eaterjolly|talk]]) 13:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, upon further examination, I did say reliable/unreliable. 

I shouldn't have talked about reliability, since I didn't mean to talk about reliability. 

I meant to talk about oversight. That Perennial seems even more odd now, since the guidelines do explain criteria for reliability, mostly in that relibility requires editorial oversight, which to me sounds rather unambiguous. We could say accountability instead, but accountability to anyone with strict principles. I don't know: I view investigating claims as happening frequently in a wikipedia context, so I can't determine in what way my proposal deviated from the established norm, besides suggesting sources with a platform instead of oversight should get endorsed for inclusion on wikipedia assuming corroboration without contradiction. 

[[User:Eaterjolly|Eaterjolly]] ([[User talk:Eaterjolly|talk]]) 17:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

== Gesaffelstein ==

Hello. Thanks for the explanation on [[Gesaffelstein]]. Is there a policy regarding DOB that it must be explicitly stated in the source? It seems common sense to me that if RS state an individual turns a certain age on a specific date you can work backwards, in this case subtracting 31 from 2018 or 30 from 2017. Unfortunately those are the best sources I can find; [[:fr:Gesaffelstein|fr-wiki]] also repeats the 1985 claim without reference. [[User:Hrodvarsson|Hrodvarsson]] ([[User talk:Hrodvarsson|talk]]) 00:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Hrodvarsson|Hrodvarsson]], I was simply [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gesaffelstein&diff=861921095&oldid=861920417 explaining] why I removed any mention of the birth date. I'm not interested in discussing this further. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

== Brad Pitt ==

And now [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brad_Pitt&curid=44849&diff=861930600&oldid=861920170 you are denying] that Brad Pitt is a sexy MF? Come on... [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

== Rape culture, part 2 ==

Thanks for the comments at [[rape culture]]. Copyvio is maybe the wrong word, but basically copied and pasted from the source.

I would appreciate any help in clearing the article up. I'm struggling to wade through every source to check if the statements are actually supported, and to make sense of all the synthesis. --[[User:Hippo43|hippo43]] ([[User talk:Hippo43|talk]]) 04:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Hippo43|Hippo43]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&diff=862075833&oldid=862072491 that], it wasn't word for word. It's [[WP:Close paraphrasing]], but the [[WP:LIMITED]] section of WP:Close paraphrasing is clear that close paraphrasing is permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing.

:As for the article in question, it has been subject to a lot of [[WP:Student editing]]. There have been a lot of problems with the article, and [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] has dealt with most of them. I'm not heavily involved with the article. I watch it, but I don't edit it much. There are going to be editors who want to add the type of historical material [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&diff=862076386&oldid=862075833 you removed] because of the definition of rape culture that is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&oldid=862102038 currently] seen in the lead of the article. They will argue that society was historically a rape culture. It's similar to what I've had to deal with at the [[Slut-shaming]] article; see [[Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?]]. They will have a point in how society traditionally treated rape, just like editors have had a point in how society has traditionally slut-shamed women. But these terms are not as old and the concepts have been framed in a way that we should stick to [[WP:Reliable sources]] defining whatever as being an aspect of rape culture or slut-shaming. If an editor adds reliably sourced material tying rape culture back to ancient times or other older times, for example, then that is obviously an okay addition. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::Yes, agreed. I hope we can avoid a discussion/RfC like that. There should be enough RSs covering the topic specifically to avoid having to manufacture a section like the one I removed. Thanks. --[[User:Hippo43|hippo43]] ([[User talk:Hippo43|talk]]) 06:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Hippo43|Hippo43]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&curid=2298034&diff=862115277&oldid=862115053 this], keep in mind that the ''[[Huff Post]]'' has been the subject of a number of discussions at the [[WP:Reliable sources noticeboard]]. It is used on Wikipedia as a reliable source in some cases; [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|context matters]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I'm aware. In my judgment it is not a reliable secondary source in this case, given the nature of the article and the authors. It's not necessary to include the Huff Post when there are plenty of better sources covering essentially the same stuff. Let me know if you think differently. --[[User:Hippo43|hippo43]] ([[User talk:Hippo43|talk]]) 08:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

== Image relevance question at [[Ron Stallworth]] ==

Flyer22, could you possibly look at the image question at [[Talk:Ron Stallworth]]? It needs more eyes. Thanks. [[User:Amsgearing|Amsgearing]] ([[User talk:Amsgearing|talk]]) 18:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Amsgearing|Amsgearing]], I meant to reply earlier, but I don't see why you contacted me to weigh in. It seems like you all are working it out. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
:: It just needed more people to look at it. There's an RfC on it now, if you care to weigh in. Thanks. [[User:Amsgearing|Amsgearing]] ([[User talk:Amsgearing|talk]]) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:Amsgearing|Amsgearing]], I'm saying that it seems you randomly contacted me. I don't see that I've interacted with you before, unless you used some other account and we interacted that way, and I don't see that I've been involved with the article. Someone might accuse you of [[WP:Canvassing]] even though your request was neutral. Anyway, I'll leave the aforementioned article up to you and others to deal with. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
:::: Understood. No, I haven't ever had contact with you before. I simply saw that you have weighed in on other image discussion before, and you seemed likea good, neutral, experienced editor to contact. [[User:Amsgearing|Amsgearing]] ([[User talk:Amsgearing|talk]]) 10:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

==Sexual Misconduct List==
Can you do a list of sexual assault victims.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:197:C180:13A5:F519:B011:D10C:7C46|2601:197:C180:13A5:F519:B011:D10C:7C46]] ([[User talk:2601:197:C180:13A5:F519:B011:D10C:7C46#top|talk]]) 23:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Progressive trypo gif feedback requested ==
Hi Flyer, regarding the [[Talk:Trypophobia#rfc_573378E|Trypo image Rfc]], I could use your help: I've been trying to come up with an alternate solution that would simultaneously avoid any distress among trypophobes, while at the same time not demoting the image from its position at the top of the page.  With the excellent collaboration of the Wikipedia Graphic labs folks, a new, animated image is available based on the lotus image from the article: it starts out all blurry in the center, so you can't see the holes but over a period of about 15 seconds, it gets less and less blurry, until it ends up with the same, focused image as seen on the article page.  The point being, that folks would have plenty of time to scroll or tab away from the blurred image, before any acute distress sets in.  That's the theory, at least, but I need a tester who can give valid feedback from the PoV of someone who does not like such images.  Are you wiling to be the guinea pig for this test?  If so, if you go to the Discussion section of the Rfc, there's a copy of the image there, same size (200px) and position (right-floated). Your feedback at the [[Talk:Trypophobia#Discussion|Rfc discussion section]] would be invaluable. If not, no worries!  [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 10:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
:I would like to help as well since it seems that I have a mild reaction, even though my reaction includes most of the emotional feelings that the links have discussed as related to the phobia, namely disgust, fear, dread, and such.  I have none of the emotional disturbances, GAD, MMD, I think were mentioned (if I got those letters right...). My main reaction was related to a memory of a similar feeling to a rather horrid sight I saw when I was young (something also mentioned as a trigger in the study that is mentioned in the article). [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 20:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

==Flyer22==
How is [[Special:Contributions/Flyer22|this]] possible? <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black">[[User:Flooded with them hundreds|<u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded </u>]]<u style="color:#bfa6d8"><small>with them </small></u>[[User_talk:Flooded with them hundreds|<u style="color:#7f2ed1">'''hundreds'''</u>]]</u> 18:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
:Not sure what happened there. Maybe [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] knows. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
::My guess is that User:Flyer22 was renamed to User:Flyer22_Reborn in October 2015. That would (I think) involve running a script on the server which inspects every contribution by the first editor (Flyer22) and replaces the first editor's ID with the second editor's ID. That overhead is why a user with a very large number of contributions will not be renamed. Due to whatever reason (server load, lagging of distributed database, ...) one contribution was missed. Apparently the code which handles [[Special:Contributions/Flyer22]] is able to simultaneously say that "Flyer22" is not registered and list the one missed contribution from March 2014. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

== Health of Michael Jackson ==
Flyer I know you don't want me to write here or ping you. I have always respected that, unfortunately I did not get the same respect by you as your recent post on my Talkpage shows. I think this is just a thing between you and me, so I don't want to address it on the Article's page. Last year when I started deleting large parts of the article you asked me to write summaries for you because you didn't have Taraborelli's book. I doubt you find a lot of other users who would do that. How can you decide if a source is cited without knowing the source? I could have easily thrown mud at you but I didn't. You agreed with some of my edits (e.g. where to place the lupus piece), I made a suggestion where to place the parts about Jackson's weight. You didn't react to it untill I finally did it and you said it's fine. You did not agree to change the structure more and didn't do it. You didn't react to others at all. You could have discussed it, that's why I wrote all that stuff. I did not want to act on my own. And now you present yourself somebody suffering because of me. Well, it worked in  at least one case (see survey).  Congratulations. As far as help is concerned I refer you to your comment on the Talk Page of the Vitiligo article. I think you were asking for help and you finally got it. Nobody reacted the way you did. We had a discussion in August. I asked for more information and you simply reffered me to ther members of your project. I asked somebody else as you suggested and you started blaming me for doing so. I don't want to start that discussion again I just want to talk about your reaction.   Did anybody ever blame you for pinging anybody else? I don't think so. There's no doubt you are the experienced wikipedian and I profited from your knowledge, but at times you are also very condescending towards me. Actually I didn't want to write this but I finally did owing to the recent developments. I did not write this to fuel the trouble, but you crossed a line and I don't accept that. I think you should think about some things and I hope you will. [[User:Quaffel|Quaffel]] ([[User talk:Quaffel|talk]]) 13:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
: I stand by what I stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&oldid=866613755#Category here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quaffel&oldid=865200037#Your_disruptive_editing here]. I am not interested in your misrepresentations of our history or much of anything else you have to state. I have repeatedly tried to help you. You don't help yourself because you have chosen to be a [[WP:Single-purpose account]] with little knowledge of the rules. You have had years to familiarize yourself with the site's rules. When you chose to edit war with me over the category matter that currently has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson&oldid=866613755#Should_the_disability_categories_be_retained? silly RfC], that was enough. Pretty much the last straw. I don't have anything else to state in that RfC. And I did not state that I am suffering because of your editing. I was clear that your editing has often been problematic at that article (in one way or another) and I have had to deal with it since 2013. If [[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]] sees me as suffering there, that is Isaidnoway's view. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Quaffel|Quaffel]] - I've looked at your contribution history and in the five years you've been editing here at WP, you've edited two articles in mainspace, [[Health and appearance of Michael Jackson]] and [[Cultural impact of Michael Jackson]], with over 95% of your edits to the health and appearance article. In those five years of researching sources and adding content to the health article, ''at the very least'' you should be able to provide just ''one'' source that complies with [[WP:MEDRS]] stating Jackson had a disability. You should also be able to provide at least ''one'' [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that can [[WP:V|verify]] Jackson was examined by a Doctor who stated he had a disability, and if those sources aren't available, at the bare minimum, you should be able to provide at least a couple [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that specifically ''describe'' Jackson as having a disability. Can you do that? If you can't, then why on earth are you advocating for Jackson to be placed in those categories, and if you can provide those sources, then why on earth haven't you done so on the talk page to support your argument that Jackson be in those categories? And I'm not interested in your speculation or personal opinion or other sources that don't specifically mention Jackson as having a disability, because categorization of articles must be supported by reliable sources that [[WP:V|verify]] information in the article in order for it to be placed in a particular and/or specific category.

:In addition, if you were to look at the list of people in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_with_vitiligo Category:People with vitiligo], you'll find that not a single one is in any particular disability category (like actor/musician with a disability or sportspeople with a disability). And the reason why is because they haven't been described in reliable sources as their vitiligo being a disability in relation to them, which you '''must''' have per [[WP:CATV]]. Just because the People with vitiligo category is a sub-category of People with disabilities doesn't mean those people have a disability, it only means they have vitiligo. The reason it is a sub-category is because it is possible that a Physician can diagnose vitiligo as being a disability for some people, but they won't be placed in a particular disability category (like I mentioned above) unless they have been specifically described in reliable sources that their vitiligo is a disability to them.  And you can't put the health and appearance article in Category:Disability articles needing attention, because that category is reserved for articles that have already been placed in a disability category, which the health and appearance article has not. Do you understand [[WP:Categorization]] and [[WP:CATV]] and how we categorize articles on WP? Do you understand that we must have reliable sources describing Jackson as having a disability and/or any reliable sources that specifically describe him and his vitiligo as being a disability to him.? Can you answer those questions please?  

:And I also saw [https://www.va.gov/vetapp11/files1/1106105.txt this source] you posted on the talk page. You do realize that a physician diagnosed his vitiligo as being a disability, right? In order for you to get disability benefits from the VA or the SSA, you must have a physician diagnose your vitiligo, or any condition for that matter, as being a disability. You can't just walk into the VA or SSA and claim your vitiligo or any other condition is a disability, you must have a physicians diagnosis in order for you to qualify for disability benefits. Do you understand that? Do you have any sources whatsoever where a physician has diagnosed Jackson as having a disability because of his vitiligo? If this soldier, described in that source, was notable enough for an article on WP, then he could be placed in disability categories because he has been diagnosed by a physician as having a disability because of his vitiligo. Do you get that? And finally, the reason I made that comment to Flyer22 Reborn is because I looked at the talk page and the previous discussions she has had with you and her exasperation in dealing with you.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 03:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

==My contribution==
I improved the article and added more content based on the sources attached to it. So in what sense was my contribution not constructive? [[Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:ECC:EE00:C47B:A17:737C:66A6|2001:16A2:ECC:EE00:C47B:A17:737C:66A6]] ([[User talk:2001:16A2:ECC:EE00:C47B:A17:737C:66A6|talk]]) 01:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

== hello ==

Hello

You reverted my edit over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectal_prolapse#Pornography
I`m really sorry if I do anything wrong and sorry for my grammar (english is my second language). How ever this information what You revert and are actually on official wikipedia pages are fake.
This are mistype, fake definition and also repeat after full of incorect messages article.

I already did wrote to VICE to they suspend this article but I not think this happend.

I read twice informations about resources but or my english fail there or I not really undersand this.
What I know is that since 2005 I produced over 2000 movies for plenty of sites and in all of them I use rosebutt word and I was one of 3 persons on planet who use it in porn. Then one guy mistype this, VICE article repeat and this is in wikipedia... Also prolapse is not rosebutt.

From this what I see commercial sites can not be resources yes? If not then all this site I put on talk has reference with corect meaning. I can provide screenshots if need of this parts of sites where this is wrote correct way.
Another reference is community of 120.000 persons - rosebuttboard but as I understand communities can not be source too.

I really kindly please You to help since wikipedia is source of informations for people who look for answers and this way fake informations are spread.

[[User:Alexthornxxx|Alexthornxxx]] ([[User talk:Alexthornxxx|talk]]) 23:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
:I responded to you when reverting you and at the talk page. I do not see what more I should state, except point you to more rules. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

== MEDRS ==

Hello Flyer22 Reborn,
please would you give your view concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_abuse&diff=868914298&oldid=863311884 this criticism] of your recent revert, for which you had indicated the reason MEDRS. In my view, as set out in the criticism, the revert was not necessary and not helpful. You may want to reconsider, or explain your view on that discussion page. Thanks. --[[User:Chris Howard|Chris Howard]] ([[User talk:Chris Howard|talk]]) 17:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:Hello Flyer22 Reborn, you have had the opportunity to give a reply, and it is surprising that you actually seem to explicitly refuse to give a valid reason for the revert, by just replying on the discussion page: "Ask about the source/content" at the portal [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_abuse&diff=869216336&oldid=869033553]. If you are aware of any good reasons for your revert, please state them on the discussion page. The comment that you had made with the revwert "MEDRS" is not sufficient because the edit which you reverted was sourced by a PubMed review article. --[[User:Chris Howard|Chris Howard]] ([[User talk:Chris Howard|talk]]) 18:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
::[[User:Chris Howard|Chris Howard]], since you don't want to ask about the matter a [[WP:Med]], I will. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Flyer22 Reborn. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2018|2018 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/710|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=866998073 -->

== A note ==

Hi, F22R,

Since I was the one whose actions/comments (probably) led to the block of Jim1138 and his regrettable retirement, I feel it might be prudential to dwell upon a few points of your comment, over his t/p:-)

{{tq|''Surely, his reverting was justified. He's a patroller.''}} is quite untrue and Hugglers/RC Patrollers are '''not''' exempt to the usual BRD principles and/or edit-warring. 

{{tq|''[[WP:3RR]] does have exemptions.''}} Can you kindly clarify, which criterion of NOT3RR did justify Jim's reverts?

The newbie was constantly mentioning a perfectly reliable source in his edit-summary (post the first of Jim's reverts) and was quite correct, in his edits. And what Jim was doing was to rollback blindly, past 3RR, without any minimal attempt at discussion over the article-t/p and decorating the talk of the newbie with a series of boilerplate-templates that more or less read like ''Hey, newbie! This Wikipedia-game ain't for you. Kindly fuck-off.....'', in that situation. And, particularly pathetic, was the reply he gave to the newbie over [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim1138&oldid=869947697#M%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng_T%C3%A8_District_edits here], when contacted by the newbie. In short, he was edit-warring, with the rollback tool, to remove valid content and communicating in a nonsensical manner. 

That's 4 errors combined in one.

Obviously, it's regrettable that he chose to retire and I do hope that he returns back but I hope something much better from folks, who have been here for long-enough. We need to retain new editors, who are well-meaning.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">&#x222F;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] 06:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim1138&oldid=870147595 at Jim's talk page], I was inquiring about why he was blocked, as well as giving my opinion on Jim. I didn't look into the matter. I was ready to log off Wikipedia at that point and did so soon afterward. I see that one editor stated that Jim "was only 'removing unsourced content' and the new user kept testing his patience" and I also see commentary from the unblocking admin about giving newbies more of a chance and that the newbie in question "[ended up] providing a source in their edit summary." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

::{{tps}} I've done the occasional "boomerang block" at AIV ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive937#Hello71_3RR_block_review|other example here]]). I don't particularly ''like'' doing these, but [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:3RR]] exist and "oh, it was Huggle's fault" is a lame excuse. In this instance, the other guy had been blocked for going over 3RR, and I suggested that if he was blocked, Jim really had to be blocked as well to avoid giving the impression that experienced editors can get away with things newcomers can't. I'd have rather that ''neither'' editor was blocked, but by the time the situation addressed itself on my talk page, there had already been one block. I recall blocking Jim about a year ago for the same thing ''and'' unblocking him when he realised he'd made a mistake. The basic point is you can't revert vandalism in a vacuum; if you make a mistake and forget to assume good faith, consequences may catch up with you. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
:::If Huggle acts up and contributes to the matter, I consider that a strong excuse. As for blocking, as long as a block is used with common sense and is [[WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE|not punitive]], I have no problem with a block. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
==ANI 2==
Your edit here [[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=870555415&oldid=870555072]] appears to have been made after the case was closed, that is generally considered unacceptable, I would suggest you undo it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
:I suggest Flyer does not as there is nothing wrong with completing a comment such a short time after the close and particularly since it is inside the close. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

:Slatersteven, when I made that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=870555415&oldid=870555072 comment], it was three minutes after [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]]'s close. I was in the process of typing when Floquenbeam closed. I didn't become aware of the close until after I made that comment. Such instances happen all the time. Yes, I saw the close when tweaking the post, but that's not the same as knowingly posting after the close. If Floquenbeam minded my edit, Floquenbeam would have reverted. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
::Let me make this clear, I was concerned it might be used against you. I felt for you own safety it might have been a good idea not to give opponents ammunition.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
:::I appreciate that, Slatersteven. But there was no ammunition in this case. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)    
== Just started using Huggle ==

Hi, I've just started using Huggle. Could you please tell me what "'''Meta information - ORES Goodfaith:''' 364 '''Bot score:''' 48 '''ORES Score:''' -272" means? Thank you. [[User:JackintheBox|J<small><small>ACKINTHE</small></small>B<small><small>OX</small></small>]] • <sup><small>[[User talk:JackintheBox|TALK]]</small></sup> 14:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
:This is where I call on [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]]. You can also query Huggle matters at [[Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback]]. I'm more of a [[WP:STiki]] person, but STiki has not been working for me lately; I think that is due to this computer. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
:I don't know anything useful about Huggle and a quick look around finds nothing. Try asking at the feedback link mentioned by Flyer. However the general idea is that a tool like Huggle uses other tools that provide a score that attempts to rate the likelihood that a particular edit is vandalism. I think a high ORES number means an edit is more likely to be vandalism—see [[toollabs:ores]]. Be careful because tools are only guessing and good-faith edits must not be reverted without a good reason and a suitable edit summary to explain the revert. Definitely do not imply that an edit is vandalism if there is any doubt—see [[WP:VAND]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for the info! [[User:JackintheBox|J<small><small>ACKINTHE</small></small>B<small><small>OX</small></small>]] • <sup><small>[[User talk:JackintheBox|TALK]]</small></sup> 02:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

== Some clarification, advice, and an apology / peace offering ==

Firstly, while I agreed with [[User:Floquenbeam]]'s ANI close, and on CT's talk page seconded the advice Floq gave that CT should respect your wishes that he not check your contribs if it makes you uncomfortable, I would not have agreed if Floq had said what you attributed to him [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&curid=75321&diff=870772551&oldid=870764445 here]. The behaviour was not inherently problematic ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curly_Turkey&oldid=870791953#Editing_my_userspace_drafts he does it to me and I don't mind]), and would have only become problematic if he had kept doing it after you asked him to stop.

On a related note, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way: in the future it might be better if you tried politely requesting that editors don't do X, as it makes you uncomfortable. I've found CT to be very accommodating of such requests in the past, and it's always been my interpretation of AGF that we are supposed to assume everyone will be accommodating, at least off the bat. Jumping to ANI was never going to solve anything without first aggravating the situation further and leaving everyone frustrated and/or distressed.

On an ''unrelated'' note, I would like to formally apologize for any misgivings we have had in the past. When you and I first interacted on [[WT:V]], I was coming at the problem from a completely different place to you, and I did a piss poor job of explaining my position. I do not think we agree on the definition of [[WP:HOUND]], but Wikipedia would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed with me on everything, and a pretty unpleasant place if no one could agree to disagree or to set aside their disagreements if they get in the way of building the encyclopedia. [[User:Jytdog]], an editor whom I respect and trust, has informed me (more through implication than direct statement, hence the ping) that you are often on what I would take to be the right side of history when it comes to actual content (which neither I nor TTBOMK CT has ever interacted with you on) and seen some serious shit from legitimate scum ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui&diff=prev&oldid=801307656 believe me, I sympathize]<small> [just so it's clear without the context, that's not just a random troll but a Korean nationalist and racist, who was convinced I was Chinese; see also {{user|Juzumaru}}, the Japanese nationalist who hounded me for about a half-year because he thought I was Korean</small>), and so ... yeah, I can see where you are coming from a bit more clearly than before, and can assure you that I'm "with you" about as far as possible on that front.

Anyway, I hope that will be the end of the bad blood between us. Cheers, and happy editing!

[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
:Hijiri88, I have asked editors to stop following me in the past, but they either denied that they were following me and/or kept doing it.  This is where you see the ANI cases showing the community agreeing with me. We won't agree on Curly Turkey, but I perhaps should not have immediately taken the matter to ANI.     

:At ANI, when I stated that you were talking out of your ass, I was not referring to your personal experiences. I meant with regard to my experiences when you questioned how much I had been stalked and harassed in the past. I would never question or belittle your personal experiences of harassment.

:I think we agree on WP:HOUND with regard to intent. What we disagreed on was Curly Turkey's intent.      

:I appreciate you taking the time to explain and extend a peace offering. I accept. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

:I also want to go ahead and note that, as I've stated before, I don't mind when some editors follow me. There are certain editors who follow me to articles and I don't mind them. They aren't doing it to annoy and they often don't weigh in on a talk page matter or edit the article soon after I have done so. They sometimes do, but it's usually not often. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)    

== When is it socking, and when is it unannounced retirement ==

Hi Flyer, I'm fairly certain I've discovered an active account that is a sock of a prior one, based on timing, behavior, topic interest areas and various things.  Account 1 stopped editing in May, account 2 picked up a month later. There seems to be no overlap in time, and no malicious intent that I can see. Is there any reason to follow this anywhere, such as SPI, or asking Account 2 if they edited before as Account 1?  Should I tell them to place a {{tl|Retired}} template at User:Account 1, and link to it from Account 2?  Should I just forget the whole thing? Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 12:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:Hmm, well per [[WP:Clean start]], the editor shouldn't be editing the same areas they edited before under a new account. Well, not unless it's a valid [[WP:LEGITSOCK]] case. But as long as you don't see that the editor is trying to avoid scrutiny or is using both accounts in a deceptive way, you should probably let it go. You can delicately ask about the matter on the editor's talk page, though, including suggesting use of the "retired" tag. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Humour Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | me llamo jeff
 [[User:Chazza3420|Chazza3420]] ([[User talk:Chazza3420|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
|}

== Latest Edit on Yaoi ==

Hi Flyer22 Reborn,

Thanks for your message. I believe that my edit has been removed because it was deemed "poorly sourced." May I confirm with you which one of the sources are not considered appropriate for Wikipedia? Most of my sources are either from academic publications or reputable newspaper/magazine archive (except for one video of Chinese news broadcast). I would appreciate if you could point out which of my sources are regarded as subpar so I could either remove them or find better ones. [[User:ReducedBrightness99|ReducedBrightness99]] ([[User talk:ReducedBrightness99|talk]]) 10:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:Seems I went overboard with the revert. I looked at the [https://twitter.com/yaoipress? twitter.com/yaoipress] source, which is a poor source (see [[WP:Reliable sources]]), but didn't pay good attention to the other sources. Feel free to re-add the other material, but without [[WP:Editorializing]] such as "surprisingly." And do not violate [[WP:Synthesis]] either. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

== Where? ==

Where is the exact discussion that the actual online film ratings themselves were let in despite MOS:FILM being against it? [[User:Erik|Erik]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Erik|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 14:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
:Taken to [[Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 15:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

== Edit on "Feminist views on transgender topics" ==

Please consider commenting on the [[Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#de_Beauvoir_Quote|"Feminist views on transgender topics" Talk Page]] concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics&oldid=872148673 your recent edit] to the main article. Thanks. --[[User:Mox La Push|Mox La Push]] ([[User talk:Mox La Push|talk]]) 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

== Happy new year ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | [[File:Wikipedia Happy New Year.png|211px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2019!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hi {{{user|{{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}}}}, Sending you a warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. See you in Huggle. Cheers.[[User:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>]]<sup>([[User talk:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>]])</sup> 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}<noinclude>

==You undid me minutes ago==
So I make connection between two sections of the article (minor, but connection) and you think that is not constructive. I know there is not a criteria for wiki admins, but you would hope they are not s*****  . You and alike are the reason more people don't work on wiki and sure make me work less and less. Have fun. [[Special:Contributions/213.149.61.3|213.149.61.3]] ([[User talk:213.149.61.3|talk]]) 17:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
:Show me where [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Team_classification_in_the_Tour_de_France&diff=873871419&oldid=853158990 this] is standard on Wikipedia, and I will see your point. Editors like you don't make Wikipedia editing fun either. Obviously, since you felt the need to shit on my talk page. See there? I cursed. Don't censor yourself on my talk page. Feel free to curse if you are going to come here and bitch and moan. Anyway, I'm not here for fun. I'm no administrator, and I have no desire to be an administrator. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

== talk page comments as null edit summaries ==

Please do not continue this practice: {{oldid2|873889809}}. If you want to communicate with an editor, do so through a talk page, where it is easy and convenient to reply.

Best regards, [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 11:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
:[[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], read [[WP:Dummy edit]]. That was a dummy edit, not a null edit. Like WP:Dummy edit states, "''By contrast, a [[Help:Null edit|null edit]] does not modify the wikitext and does not allow you to leave an edit summary.''" It also lists the following as one purpose of the dummy edit: "''Sending messages regarding editing issues (however, dummy edits should not be used to hold extensive content discussions; that should be done through [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]]). Sending a message via the edit summary ('[[SMS]]') is one way of communicating with other editors where it appears there is no need to create a new talk page thread for the message. Such '[[text messages]]' in a page's history may also be seen by users who otherwise would not be informed. For example, users who do not have accounts may edit from a [[IP address#Uses of dynamic address assignment|dynamic IP address]], and thus communication through the IP's talk page may not be well suited to reach that person. Such messages may also be useful to reach an editor who might not see a talk page thread, if a discussion was opened there. When raising some issue in the edit summary, it may be useful to provide a link in that message to the talk page and state that further discussion is or should take place there. Each edit summary can hold 250 bytes.''" There was no need to mention what I mentioned on the talk page, yours on the policy's talk page. I use dummy edits to leave a message all the time; and so do many others. If you want the practice changed, I suggest you discuss it at [[Help talk:Dummy edit]]. But it has already been discussed there times before. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
:: Then please don't communicate with me through dummy edits. ''Especially'' don't make snide remarks that infer any wrongdoing on my part in ways where I can't easily defend myself. Thinking that particular comment was neutral or suitable for a dummy edit is way off, as should be clear as day, when your response to me reposting it, is an attack out of the blue on me. In general - if you feel you can't be bothered to talk to someone through a talk page, maybe your message isn't worth mentioning at all, eh? Other than that, see ya at [[Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Comment]] [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
:::[[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], I made no side remark. There is no attack. You made an assertion in your edit summary that needed challenging. That dummy edit was for others more than you since you had taken the matter to the [[WP:MOS]] talk page. If editors want to leave a note in the edit history without taking the matter to the talk page, they can. If you notice any harshness in my tone to you now, then it is because I do not appreciate warnings on Wikipedia or reprimands. I am not a newbie or anywhere close to one. So do not treat me like one. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
:::: And I issued no warnings or reprimands to you. My exact words were "Please do not continue this practice".  It occurs to me that making challenges (of any kind) is an especially bad fit for dummy edits, since they are by their very nature likely to elicit a response. As a fellow experienced editor, I'm sure you will agree. Thank you [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 23:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::[[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], your initial tone was clear; it was clearly suggesting that I had violated some protocol or done something wrong. I did not. You also specifically told me what to do by stating, "''If you want to communicate with an editor, do so through a talk page, where it is easy and convenient to reply.''" I already noted above that it is not always necessary to take a matter to the talk page. You made a claim in the edit summary that indicated that the editor was wrong. I pointed editors to past discussions and a current discussion via an edit summary so that they could see for themselves. So, no, I do not agree with you. Do stop debating this on my talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

==Merry Merry==
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | [[File:Christmas tableau.jpg|250px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Happy Christmas!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Hello Flyer22 Reborn,<br>
Early in ''[[A Child's Christmas in Wales]]'' the young  [[Dylan Thomas|Dylan]] and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that <blockquote>Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"</blockquote> My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]&#124;[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
|}

==Merry X-mas==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | [[File:Wikipedia Happy New Year.png|211px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Flyer22 Reborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this [[Christmas and holiday season|seasonal occasion]]. Spread the [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]] and a [[New Year|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 2019. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 04:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}

== Seasonal Greetings! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | [[File:Wikipedia Happy New Year.png|211px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Flyer22 Reborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this [[Christmas and holiday season|seasonal occasion]]. Spread the [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]] and a [[New Year|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 2019. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
[[User:&#42;Treker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|talk]]) 09:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}

{{-}}
==Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year==
{| style="background-color: #FFFBC4; border: 6px solid #009600;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Season's Greetings, Christmas Card from 320 Ranch.jpg|220px]]
|style="padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" |<div style="text-align: center;">'''{{font|size=30px|Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year}}'''</div>
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |<div style="text-align: center;">
{{font|size=17px|Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas}}<br />
{{font|size=17px|and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,}}<br />
{{font|size=17px|Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,}}<br />
{{font|size=17px|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;–[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:#C4061C;">'''2010'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">Merry Christmas</span> / <span style="color:#C4061C;">Happy New Year</span>]]</sup> 14:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)}}</div>
|}
{{-}}
==[[Kelaniya]]==
Flyer, greetings.

I wonder if I can bother you for a spot of advice. <strike>[[Kelaniya|this article]] has one lone reference, so the template <nowiki>{{References}}</nowiki> is not quite the correct one.</strike> I also wonder if the article actually meets notability, but since it's been around for more than a decade, perhaps an european like me is not the right person to challenge it. Should you have a bit of free time, could you please point me to the pages with the correct templates? I'm afraid that they're not the easiest ones to navigate.

Thank you, [[Special:Contributions/87.18.126.187|87.18.126.187]] ([[User talk:87.18.126.187|talk]]) 17:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

:I've found the "refimprove" template, so this particular problem has been solved. But, if it's not too much of a bother to you, I'll appreciate if you could indicate where to get help about the article's notability. Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/87.18.126.187|87.18.126.187]] ([[User talk:87.18.126.187|talk]]) 17:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
::You could start a notability query (a section) on the article's talk page, and leave a note about it at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability]] asking editors to weigh in. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

== WPMEDRS listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[WPMEDRS]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''WPMEDRS'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 28#WPMEDRS|the redirect discussion]] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #2F4F4F;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

== Village pump (proposals)#Reduce number of vandalism warning levels ==

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, Greetings to you. There is a proposal at Village pump(proposal) regarding [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Reduce number of vandalism warning levels|Reduce number of vandalism warning levels]] which you might be interested to join the discussion. cheers. [[User:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>]]<sup>([[User talk:CASSIOPEIA|<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>]])</sup> 22:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

== Happy New Year ==

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding: 0.2em 0.4em; height: 185px; {{border-radius|1em}} {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}}<!--
-->" class="plainlinks">
[[File:Fuochi d'artificio.gif|left|x173px]][[File:Happy new year 01.svg|x173px|right]]
{{center|{{huge|'''''[[New Year|Happy New Year]]!'''''}}}}
'''Flyer22 Reborn''',<br />
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable [[New Year]], and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.<br />
[[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 04:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
</div>
<small>Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.</small>

== Happy New Year, Flyer22 Reborn! ==
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;{{border-radius|1em}} {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}}<!--
-->" class="plainlinks">[[File:Fuochi d'artificio.gif|left|x173px]][[File:Happy new year 01.svg|x173px|right]]
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''[[New Year|Happy New Year]]!'''''}}}}
'''Flyer22 Reborn''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable [[New Year]], and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
<br />[[User:Rubbish computer|''Rubbish computer'']] ([[User talk:Rubbish computer|''Talk'']]: [[Special:Contributions/Rubbish computer|''Contribs'']]) 08:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)<br /><br />
</div>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}}


== How is this vandalism? ==

Please explain [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yo-Yo_Ma&diff=876381738&diffmode=source] [[User:Zingarese|Zingarese]] [[User talk:Zingarese#top|<small>talk</small>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Zingarese|<small>contribs</small>]] 01:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Zingarese|Zingarese]], and where [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.130.36.234&oldid=876384311 on the IP's user talk page] does the template call the edit vandalism? [[WP:Huggle]] is for other unconstructive edits as well. Not just vandalism. As seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yo-Yo_Ma&diff=876384310&oldid=876381738 here], the IP changed text that appears sourced. I can't read the source since the URL doesn't take me to a page within the book, but that person is in one or more categories that indicate that he is Chinese-American. What of French-American categories? I do see that he's in [[:Category:French emigrants to the United States]], though. I went on the safe side and reverted the IP as unconstructive. The template clearly instructs the IP what to do if the IP thinks I made a mistake. If you think I made a mistake, then provide sources that show otherwise. Even if you have such sources, it doesn't mean that "French-American" should be there if other sources state "Chinese-American." It would then be a matter of [[WP:Due weight]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yo-Yo_Ma&diff=876388070&oldid=876384310 Here] I see you re-added the "French-born" piece that was recently there. "French-born" is not what I reverted. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

:And [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yo-Yo_Ma&diff=875501851&oldid=873950732 here], I see that it was [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] (an editor I'm familiar with) who removed "French-born." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
::For the record, I removed this as per [[WP:ETHNICITY]]: "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
::Oh yeah, and because the next sentence begins "He was born in Paris". So... [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 02:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Popcornduff}} I understand now; thank you for re-removing. {{ping|Flyer22 Reborn}} I'm sorry but you did revert the edit as vandalism and warned the anonymous user with the Uw-vandalism1 template.Where in your warning does it instruct the user to write to you if you made a mistake? Yes, I use huggle frequently for anti-vandalism purposes as well and have rolled back various types of disruptive edits that aren't within the scope of vandalism.. [[User:Zingarese|Zingarese]] [[User talk:Zingarese#top|<small>talk</small>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Zingarese|<small>contribs</small>]] 04:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
::::[[User:Zingarese|Zingarese]], I reverted the IP as '''unconstructive'''. And I have yet to see that the edit was constructive. If I see an unsourced change when patrolling, and the edit has not been made by an experienced editor who is likely to source it later on, I am likely to revert the edit as unconstructive. This is especially the case for birth date changes, which I see all the time when patrolling. Well, I usually revert unsourced material without the use of a WP:Huggle notification and I then add an "unsourced" message using [[WP:Twinkle]]. I might also revert with no message at all, but a message is likelier to deter the editor from making the edit again. So I have to ask: In what way do you think you are being helpful with this complaint on my talk page?  Looking at WP:Huggle, how would you have preferred I reverted the IP? In your opinion, what would have been the better template, considering that WP:Huggle is for both vandalism and other types of unconstructive edits and that '''the template I chose does not tell the IP that the IP committed vandalism'''? Or would you have preferred I use no template at all and query the IP manually? The edit summary for the revert also doesn't even call the edit vandalism. [[WP:BLP]]s should be edited with more caution than other types of articles. I realized after I commented that "''The template clearly instructs the IP what to do if the IP thinks I made a mistake.''"...that the template doesn't state the IP can contact me on my talk page for questions; I confused it with a different template in that regard. But it does state, "''If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the [[WP:HD|Help Desk]].''" Personally, I prefer to use [[WP:STiki]], but STiki has not been working for me lately with this computer. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate that your intention was to revert the ip as unconstructive, but that is not what you did; you reverted them as clear-cut vandalism.  Huggle has more than 20 different options to roll back an unhelpful edit. IN this case, definitely "unsourced: blp" is appropriate, if not "disruptive editing".  [[User:Zingarese|Zingarese]] [[User talk:Zingarese#top|<small>talk</small>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Zingarese|<small>contribs</small>]] 04:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Zingarese|Zingarese]], and I appreciate that you interpret it that way. But since neither the edit summary nor the IP's talk page classifies the edit as vandalism, I do not see the issue. I am not perfect when patrolling, and I'm sure you are not either. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

==Revision Notification==
First, Please learn to first discuss with others before summarily reversing edits, otherwise your edits may be interpreted by others to have abusive intent. Also, with respect to the article "Circle Jerk", Wikipedia is required by the Lanham Act to reasonably prevent misuse of a term in a manner that constitutes trademark infringement, which includes making people reasonably aware that a United States trademark exists. Otherwise, there may be potential for what is known as "contributory trademark infringement" if an infringement were to occur due to failure to reasonably prevent another from infringing or continuing to infringe, and Wikipedia's domain name register could get involved if the trademark owner complains to them (contributory trademark infringement is a violation of the domain register's TOS agreement with Wikipedia). This is not a legal threat as I am not the trademark owner and don't have capacity to act, However it is a theoretical legal potential if the Trademark owner were to act, presuming the right set of circumstances. Consequently, your edit was reversed as being a potential grave danger to the entire Wikipedia project. [[Special:Contributions/108.178.78.26|108.178.78.26]] ([[User talk:108.178.78.26|talk]]) 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:I kept it short [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circle_jerk&oldid=876441989#Trademark_Issues here] because I did not see any reason to state more. Since then, you have been reverted by another editor, and a different editor has commented on your addition. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

== Hi ==

I need to ask a Q [[User:Kgm2019|Kgm2019]] ([[User talk:Kgm2019|talk]]) 22:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

== Kneejerk reversions -- [[Zombieland]] article  ==

I have also reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zombieland&diff=877303077&oldid=877023389 here], and would appreciate if you could refrain from such kneejerk reactions as reverting an entire edit for the sake of a few dates in a different order. The dates were changed to make them consistent throughtout, change what you don't like, not the entire edit. [[User:My Favourite Account|<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;font-size:85%;color:darkred;font-family:Segoe Script">My&nbsp;Favourite&nbsp;Account</span>]]'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:My Favourite Account|<sup>😊</sup>]] 21:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:My Favourite Account|My Favourite Account]], and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zombieland&diff=877309392&oldid=877303077 reverted again]. You were [[WP:BOLD]], and I reverted for a valid reason. See [[WP:Bold, revert, discuss]]. I clearly told you, "''Article uses [[Template:Use mdy dates]]. See [[WP:ENGVAR]] and [[MOS:DATEVAR]].''" That was not a kneejerk reversion. It was a reversion based on the MOS:DATEVAR rule. Did you even read MOS:DATEVAR? The article began with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zombieland&oldid=275289513 a mixed style], but it evolved to mainly use Template:Use mdy dates. That is the style I use since I am American. You told me, "''[Your] edit was to make them all consistent. Don't revert the entire edit, just change what you're unhappy with.''" I can state the same to you. Don't revert the entire edit; change the dates so that they all use mdy style. Why are you expecting me to take time out of my day and do that? I am busy enough as it is. The last thing I want to concern myself with is date style. You are the one showing up to this article, an article you have not worked on (except for these latest changes), forcing your style change on it. You should at least take the time to use the mdy style throughout. You should not expect me to do that for you. If you revert again, use the style I've pointed to. If you do not, I will eventually revert your edit again. It could be a month from now, but it will be reverted. And if you decide to watch this article just to revert to your style, engage in a slow [[WP:Edit war]], I will escalate the matter from there. It will only be a waste of time. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

::Rollback editors... "I clearly told you"... "since I am American"... "expecting me to take time out of my day", yet you decide it "evolved to mainly use"? It was a fairly random mix of styles throughout, so of course, I must have been "forcing my style". Revert, revert, revert. What do you actually contribute? Nothing. Well done you, another feather in your cap. [[User:My Favourite Account|<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;font-size:85%;color:darkred;font-family:Segoe Script">My&nbsp;Favourite&nbsp;Account</span>]]'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:My Favourite Account|<sup>😊</sup>]] 23:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
:::[[User:My Favourite Account|My Favourite Account]], what I stated above has nothing to do with me being a [[WP:Rollbacker]]. It does, however, have to do with you not being able to follow the rules and getting upset when someone expects you to follow them. If the article had not evolved to use mdy style, it would not use mdy style more than it uses any other style and the mdy style tag would not be there. Not only did you change the date style in the references, you changed the date style in the regular text, which violated WP:ENGVAR. The WP:ENGVAR usage in that article is consistent throughout. WP:ENGVAR states, "''The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other. These varieties (for example [[American English]] or [[British English]]) differ in vocabulary ('elevator' vs. 'lift'), spelling ('center' vs. 'centre'), date formatting ('April 13, 2018' vs. '13 April 2018'), and occasionally grammar {{crossref|(see {{section link||Plurals}}, below)}}.''" In the [[MOS:CONSISTENCY]] subsection, the following is stated, "''{{em|Within a given article}} the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.''" It lists exceptions. Your edit had no exceptions.  

:::As for what I've done to help the article, I contributed to parts of it in my earlier years. That is why it's on my watchlist. As many know, I am not just a rollbacker/patroller. I actually write parts of articles or entire articles. Just not as much these days. It's not like changing dates is truly writing anything. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

== Edit summary: Nathan Larson ==

Hi. Edit summaries are for explaining the contents of edits, not for expressing our personal opinions on a subject or attacking that subject. I've deleted the edit summary of your recent edit to [[Nathan Larson (politician)]] after a concern was raised with the oversight team. Please keep your edit summaries on-topic in future. Thanks, [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 19:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

'''Outing concern'''

Letting you know that I asked for one of your edit summaries to be revision deleted because it mentioned someone's (former) Wikipedia accounts. The admin used the "purely disruptive" criterion in their edit summary for the revision deletion, which I think is unfortunate wording under the circumstances; I didn't want you to see that and believe there was anything else objectionable about the edit. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 19:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
* Can someone please go over the rationale as to ''why'' this needed revision deletion? I fail to see how this is 'outing' given the subject openly owned those accounts in his RL name - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color: #FF7C0A;">l<span style="color: #FFB550;">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 20:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
**I didn't consider it outing (hence revision deletion, not suppression), but it's not a proper or helpful use of the edit summary field. See one section up. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 23:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

::[[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] and [[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]], I can't see the issue. It's well known among certain Wikipedians (and not all of them administrators) that Nathan Larson has edited Wikipedia and will continue pop up to edit Wikipedia. It's also known that I am one of his usual targets. See [[#Emails about User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte]] above where I responded to those emailing me about him earlier in 2018. But did I attack him in my edit summary? No. Yes, I pointed to his Sarsaparilla and Tisane accounts in my edit summary, but that was only while stating that I was surprised that he hadn't talked about his Wikipedia editing in the sources that have gotten him media attention. [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824 He talked about] his pseudonyms Leucosticte and Lysander, and frequently participating in conversations on his own message boards and other message boards, but hadn't mentioned Wikipedia. Yes, I also noted that I was changing the "[[pedophilia]]" link for the "[[child sexual abuse]]" link in the lead of his Wikipedia article because pedophilia (a psychological issue) is not a crime (while child sexual abuse and [[statutory rape]] are crimes) and Larson is all about [[age of consent reform]], as he's told me via email. But so what? It's mentioned in Larson's Wikipedia article that he is all about child rape. He's told me times before that he is all about child rape. How is it harm to mention this in the edit summary when it's in his very Wikipedia article?  I know what edit summaries are for. I've been editing here since 2007. Nothing I stated in my edit summary is worse than what is stated at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (political candidate)]], where editors call Larson an awful person. He is not a part of this community, and for good reason. I can somewhat excuse Yngvadottir since he apparently was unaware of my history with Larson and Larson's Wikipedia editing (although it makes my stomach churn to see anyone wanting to protect Larson), but HJ Mitchell is aware of my dealings with pedophiles and pro-child sexual abusers. I don't feel that I have been disruptive for naming two of Larson's accounts in the edit summary. As far as I'm concerned, people should know that he's edited Wikipedia, and that is partly why I connected him to Wikipedia editing in the edit summary. I would do so on his Wikipedia talk page too without a second thought about it. Like Alison, I do not see why the edit summary needed deleting or what protection Larson needed. Edit summaries on this site are not always "professional." We can see that with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2008_Virginia%27s_1st_congressional_district_election&diff=prev&oldid=844042202 this] edit summary by Alison about Larson at the [[2008 Virginia's 1st congressional district election]] article. What this edit summary deletion has done is brought unnecessary Larson attention (yes, "Larson attention") to my talk page and has no doubt given him something else to jump for glee over regarding me. When I made that edit to his Wikipedia article, I was expecting him to see it and to likely ease his way back into my orbit yet again, which would lead to me recognizing and reporting him sooner or later. But now I should be on the lookout even more. He always shows up in some way when he gets attention from me or when someone brings him to my attention. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:::You used the edit summary to make a snarky remark about a living person and article subject, one that wasn't directly relevant to the edit at hand. That's why I deleted it. You also allude to information that is not entirely public. The whole thing contributes nothing to the encyclopaedia, and the only purpose it's likely to serve is to goad Larson into returning to Wikipedia to get the last word. All I asked was that you confine your use of edit summaries to summarising your edits for everyone's sake. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 13:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Late {{ec}} regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=877562840&oldid=877562687 this] because I had to attend to something off Wikipedia. [[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]], he watches my talk page. Going by that fact and the fact that, although you didn't mention him by name in the above title, you pointed to his Wikipedia article, I went ahead and made the title of this section clear. When I start archiving again, it'll make finding the section easier. As for my edit summary, it was not snarky. It was not intended to be snarky. I made a simple on-topic statement about linking, and a statement about Larson's Wikipedia editing. Anyone who looks at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nathan_Larson~enwiki the Nathan Larson block log], the Nathan Larson sock archive and/or [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles|this]] ANI thread knows that he has been publicly tied to both the Sarsaparilla and Tisane accounts. They can see that it's also public that he emailed me. As for goading Larson, my presence is enough to goad him. I did not make that comment to get him to edit Wikipedia again. It's not like I enjoy him being on Wikipedia. For all I know, he is editing it as we speak. He can never stay away from Wikipedia. I don't regret the edit summary and I feel that editors should know that Larson edited Wikipedia, but I understand where you are coming from on wanting to be more conservative with edit summaries when it comes to someone like Larson and/or not going into detail that's not necessary for the edit being made. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 13:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC) [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 13:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:::::No, I didn't know (or had forgotten) that you were a target of his. In fact I wasn't aware when I wrote the article and defended it at AfD that he was a former, now WMF-banned Wikipedia editor. (I found that out from the one newspaper article that I read later, and then from Wikipedia criticism sites; after reading the latter I had a dim memory of reading about his case a while ago, probably from my haunting of AN/I). I didn't see your edit summary as snarky, hence my heads-up/apology, which appears to have edit conflicted with HJ Mitchell's post. I let your change stand because I was assuming good faith about the legal point, although I have qualms about the OR aspect of it, and the sources unanimously use the word "pedophilia". But I am absolutely against weakening or making exceptions to either our NPOV/BLP rules or our rule against outing editors for any reason of ideology or even legality of ideology. (I had serious qualms about whether a NPOV article could be written about Larson, and although people said nice things about the job I did, it was a difficult task, and I'm constantly scared I will either let it become a hit piece against a BLP or get a reputation around here for politics based on having created and edited such articles.) But those user names are not publicly associated on-wiki with the off-wiki political candidate; material such as the previous article on him and who edited it has been deleted, and for all I know user pages have, too. Those who were involved in past conflicts (such as you; and as I say I was either unaware of that or had forgotten, and I am so sorry you have been harassed) or noticeboard discussions, especially admins, who can see deleted material, may see his name and associate it with his on-wiki activity, but readers and the general body of editors who might look at the history have no reason to be aware of it unless they've read that particular newspaper article, discussions and exposés on the criticism sites, or, I am now aware, things on your talk page. (The former editor can't speak to whether they want to have the user names associated with their real-life identity; they're banned; and other than the one polemical newspaper article, reliable sources have not associated the Wikipedia accounts, as opposed to the same-named forum posters, with the person, so yes, I personally think connecting the dots in article space here, or on criticism sites, is outing.) I would previously have asked an admin friend whether they believed the edit summary deserved revision deletion for the mention of the user names, but that's no longer available to me. So I e-mailed Oversight with my concerns and saying I believed it fell short of being oversightable but that for the user names, I thought it should be revision deleted, and placed the decision in their hands.({{ping|HJ Mitchell}} you have my permission to publicly share the text of my e-mail or confirm what I wrote if you deem it necessary.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 16:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]], the change in text is not [[WP:OR]]. It's stated lower in Larson's Wikipedia article and in sources on him that he endorses child rape. As has been stated times before in Wikipedia discussions, Wikipedia is not obligated to use the exact wording of a source, especially considering that we are usually supposed to put text in our own words. And if a source's wording is a mistake and/or is inaccurate, using accurate wording is better. This goes for misspellings, misuse of terminology and the like. It's why [[MOS:QUOTE]], states, "''Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example replacing pronouns with nouns that aren't identified in the quote: {{xt|'Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate'}} instead of {{!xt|'Ocyrhoe told him his fate'}}). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use {{mxt|<nowiki>&#91;''[[</nowiki>[[sic]]<nowiki>]]''</nowiki>&#93;}} or the template {{tlx|sic}} (produces a note like [''[[sic]]'']&thinsp;) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. <!-- IF EDITING THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, PLEASE UPDATE THE DOCUMENTATION AT [[Template:Sic/doc]] ACCORDINGLY --> However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct {{!xt|basicly}} to {{xt|basically}} and {{!xt|harasssment}} to {{xt|harassment}}), unless the slip is contextually important.''" It's why, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megan_Fox&oldid=864249753 a discussion] at [[Talk:Megan Fox]], an editor went along with an IP's request to use the word "[[asocial]]" in place of "[[anti-social behavior]]" even though Fox used the word "anti-social." In terms of [[WP:BLP]], should one let readers think that "anti-social behavior" is correct, given the aspects associated with it, or should they change the text to the correct term? Should they use "sic"? It's an editorial decision. These are made all the time on Wikipedia. The two terms in that case are often confused. Similarly, "child sexual abuse" and "pedophilia" are often confused. Yes, people often use the term "pedophilia" broadly to cover child sexual abuse, but it's a fact that one cannot decriminalize pedophilia since pedophilia, in the accurate sense, is not a crime. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/01/pedophile-white-supremacist-congressional-candidate/663215002/ This] ''[[USA Today]]'' source says Larson advocates pedophilia, but it does not state that he advocates for decriminalizing pedophilia. It does state that he "has also advocated for the legalization of incest and child pornography." I've gone ahead and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Larson_(politician)&diff=877789123&oldid=877455856 re-clarified] why I made the edit I made, and so that it's clear that my edit summary was not egregious.

::::::You stated, "''But those user names are not publicly associated on-wiki with the off-wiki political candidate.''" I disagree. They are publicly associated with Nathan Larson, as made clear by Alison and myself above. That Nathan Larson was a political candidate does not change that fact. It is not like it is some coincidence that the Wikipedia Nathan Larson has the same views on pedophilia and child sexual abuse that the off-wiki political candidate Nathan Larson has and that the Wikipedia Nathan Larson used some or all of the names that the off-wiki political candidate Nathan Larson used, such as Leucosticte and Lysander. I'm not sure what you mean by "''material such as the previous article on him and who edited it has been deleted, and for all I know user pages have, too.''" What previous article on him? Either way, it's been noted above that what I did was not outing. And personally, I do not believe that someone like Larson should get protection from Wikipedia. That's how I feel, and my lack empathy or sympathy regarding Larson is understandable to most. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

:::::::On "child sexual abuse", seemy edit summary following your edit; I'm sorry to have put you to the trouble of making a dummy edit. The OR perception concerned a mention of e-mail correspondence. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 04:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
::::::::What I stated about the email correspondence, even if it were untrue (which it isn't), is not a WP:OR issue either. It's not like I edited the article based on that email correspondence. I wasn't adding anything to the article based on that email correspondence.  The email correspondence aspect was just bonus mention of Larson's pro-child sexual abuse and pro-age of consent reform view. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Also on "correspondence," I want to go ahead and make it clear that I never responded via email to Larson. He wasn't getting any of my email accounts. And even responding to him with a disposable email account was out of the question. Trying to debate Larson's views with Larson is futile. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

== "the literal definition of hounding" ==

Hey, I thought given our shared history of being hounded you might get a larf out of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Defenders_(miniseries)/GA1&diff=877483283&oldid=877333034 this]. Not sure if it's more or less ridiculous without the context; I suspect the former, but if you want to know what on earth he's talking about I'll explain. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 10:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

==Recent [[Biology and sexual orientation]] edit by an editor==

Please, check this out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/878030625  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:AB04:3C6:6D00:B5B3:CB2E:57E1:ED56|2A02:AB04:3C6:6D00:B5B3:CB2E:57E1:ED56]] ([[User talk:2A02:AB04:3C6:6D00:B5B3:CB2E:57E1:ED56#top|talk]]) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Yes, I saw that while logged off (when looking at the edit histories of articles I keep an eye on more closely than others and deciding if I needed to cut my Wikipedia break short and log back on to Wikipedia). Commented [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Biology_and_sexual_orientation&diff=prev&oldid=878487071 here]. I would have reverted. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

:I didn't feel the need to log back on immediately after seeing that edit, but, yeah, I would have reverted once back online. It's good that you reverted. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

==[[Human sexuality]] article. No progress?==
A long time ago, you were in an extended discussion with a prof. You two looked at all the refs in the Human Sexuality article. Someone pointed out hundreds of refs to college textbooks without page numbers. I was back looking at that article today. The King book pops, in the refs. It goes through the whole alphabet and starts again. It still has no page numbers! Maybe someone can find and paste your old list of problems back in, here. Seems that people forget things needing fixing they can't see.  [[Special:Contributions/2601:246:CA80:3CB5:A087:1932:A94B:6CB4|2601:246:CA80:3CB5:A087:1932:A94B:6CB4]] ([[User talk:2601:246:CA80:3CB5:A087:1932:A94B:6CB4|talk]]) 16:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
:If you are that editor who went about trying to fix up the article in a disruptive way, I point you to the following previous discussions: [[Talk:Human sexuality/Archive 1#Citation analysis consistent with the critique of the IP editor]], [[Talk:Human sexuality/Archive 1#Tags placed, since no community response to citation issues]] and [[Talk:Human sexuality/Archive 1#Tag-bombing accusation and rebuttal]]. If you not that editor...but are an editor who follows me around (like a number of editors do), then I still point you to those discussions. This is a volunteer site. Like I stated before, I am only one person. It is not my obligation to fix up any article. If I feel like fixing it up, I will. But these days, I usually do not like being on Wikipedia for long. I check in, and I check out as soon as I can unless I'm motivated to tweak or fix up an article, and/or am involved in some debate I'd rather not be involved in (since it takes up hours of my day or week and I often have to pull out sources to make my case). I know that you guys cannot go to many editors to look after and/or fix up these sexual topic and sexology articles, but that's just the way it is. And it's been that way for years. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

== Stephen Curry paragraphs ==

Hey. Great additions to [[Stephen Curry]] – keep it up! However, just keep in mind when breaking up paragraphs or creating new ones, to be mindful about not leaving behind white space at the end of the paragraph, as per [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Curry&diff=879058830&oldid=878862051 GünniX's edits] as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Curry&diff=879118451&oldid=879088124 mine]. Just something to consider. Cheers. [[User:DaHuzyBru|DaHuzyBru]] ([[User talk:DaHuzyBru|talk]]) 04:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks, [[User:DaHuzyBru|DaHuzyBru]]. I'm looking to improve the article but not go overboard with detail. Definitely don't want it to come across as a fan page, even though I am a big Curry fan. I'm supposed to be off Wikipedia now so that I can give my full attention to the latest Warriors game. Anyway, I've been looking at the [[Michael Jordan]], [[LeBron James]] and [[Kevin Durant]] articles as examples of good or great Wikipedia NBA articles. I'm making sure that I cover all of the important or otherwise significant points and am deciding on which sections they fit best in. And then I trim a little if necessary. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

== Email: [[Pervasive refusal syndrome]]==

Hi, I failed to locate your email address and was wondering if you could provide it so I can begin a conversation with you please?

Many thanks. [[User:Adamrichards1078|Adamrichards1078]] ([[User talk:Adamrichards1078|talk]]) 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

:[[User:Adamrichards1078|Adamrichards1078]], the option to email editors is on the left side of the screen when you click on their user name. You can also use [[Talk:Pervasive refusal syndrome]] to discuss the matter. I'd rather use the article's talk page than email. I did bring up your edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=879382528&oldid=879353969 here] on another editor's talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

==Penile articles== 
Hi, thanks for checking my edit pages on penile anatomy. I have updated the anatomy edits with disclosure statements. There's some conflict of interest, but I would really like to see the information published on Wiki.... It's been in existence for at least a decade, and it was recently published in an encyclopedia from the Academic Press. The Wiki page still uses the Gray's. Thanks for welcoming me! I am just beginning my Wiki voyage! [[User:Orangelioncat|Orangelioncat]] ([[User talk:Orangelioncat|talk]]) 12:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Orangelioncat|Orangelioncat]], one thing I want to bring up is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Human_penis&diff=878873661&oldid=878872425 this] edit you made. You changed "as it has no [[baculum]], or erectile bone, and instead relies entirely on engorgement with blood to reach its [[Erection|erect state]]" to "as it has an os analog -the distal ligament that is a buttress of the entire glans penis and equivalent to [[baculum]] in other species, or erectile bone, and mostly relies entirely on engorgement with blood to reach its [[Erection|erect state]]." The 2018 "Encyclopedia of Reproduction" source, from [[Academic Press]], page 369, [https://books.google.com/books?id=m4RlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA369&lpg=PA369 states], "''Human males lack an os penis but instead possess an os analog -- the distal ligament located within the glans penis.''" But I'm not seeing any sources other than those tied to [[Geng Long Hsu]] stating that the human penis possesses an os analog. And what sources state "mostly relies on"? As you know, newer research can conflict with older research. It can also be incorrect. I'm not stating that the os analog statement is incorrect, but I'm stating that it's not typically reported in anatomical research. So this is where [[WP:Due weight]] comes in. In cases where the anatomical research is in conflict or is inconsistent, we report both or all sides...unless the other side or one of the sides is too much of a minority view to mention. For example, we give different reports on the urogenital diaphragm in the [[Urogenital diaphragm]] article because the literature is not consistent on it. We mention the dispute regarding the limbic system in the [[Limbic system]] article. I am concerned that you will prioritize Long Hsu's and his colleagues' work over what the literature generally states. Anyway, the Human penis article needs to be clearer that that the human penis has no baculum. 

:All that stated, at least you are giving some attention to these articles. As I've [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 11#Working on male reproductive system/genitalia articles|noted before]], "''I don't see as much attention being given to male reproductive system/genitalia articles as is given to female reproductive system/genitalia articles. And that's despite the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedians (as shown by research) are male.''" [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

::[[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]], I do very much respect the community rule, but putting other things aside, the change only added more detail to the original statement. What it states is basically that there is some degree of hardness in the structure of the human penis that contributes to the rigidity associated to erection. The "analog" just came from a study comparing the penis of dog to that of man. I reversed the edit as I agreed that most sources are now tied to Long's research. But it is a fascinating concept! Think of the classical diagram comparing the homologous radius's and ulnas' across mammals, as a demonstration for evolution. Would it not be nice to see a comparison on the penile structures across different mammals. It was proposed, but it's laughed at. I'm sure related studies were done elsewhere, but it requires someone to gather them, and, of course, to write the available information down here to enrich Wiki. Community does have an unique sensation toward this topic, as you must be aware. I do not know the reason for the lack of attention on the topic, but Long is the right holder for several important aspects of the anatomy. [[User:Orangelioncat|Orangelioncat]] ([[User talk:Orangelioncat|talk]]) 12:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
:::[[User:Orangelioncat|Orangelioncat]], I understand what it was stating. Still, I wanted to point out that the "os analog" aspect typically isn't mentioned in the human penis literature. I wanted to point out that anatomy literature can differ and we need to take care in such cases. When something is only or mostly being stated by one researcher, it is likely best to use [[WP:In-text attribution]] and note that it's that researcher (or that researcher and his group) stating that. It's that case for other subjects as well, not just anatomy. This is where the WP:Due weight policy is useful. I appreciate you making [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Human_penis&diff=prev&oldid=879791426 this] latest edit. I wouldn't object to you adding that Long Hsu (or someone else) states so and so about the os analog. I'm not sure what you meant by "It was proposed, but it's laughed at." As for Long Hsu's expertise, I do see that in the Wikipedia article you created on him, it states that he claimed to "know the penis more than anyone else in the world." He can claim that, but we shouldn't just go by his word on penile matters. The rest of the literature should be in agreement with him if we are to take everything he states as fact. Otherwise, if he states something that conflicts with the rest of the literature, we should give the matter in-text attribution. I don't like going by single studies for anything. Studies with results that that have been replicated are more reliable. If you haven't read [[WP:MEDRS]] yet, please do. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

== FYI ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:73.173.218.150#January_2019  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/73.173.218.150|73.173.218.150]] ([[User talk:73.173.218.150#top|talk]]) 01:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" |'''The 2018 Cure Award''' 
|-
| style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |In 2018 you were one of the [[W:EN:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2018 (all)|top ~250 medical editors]] across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from [[m:WikiProject_Med|Wiki Project Med Foundation]] for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a [[meta:user group|user group]] whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining '''[[meta:Wiki_Project_Med#People_interested|here]]''', there are no associated costs.
|}

Thanks again :-)  -- [[W:EN:User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] along with the rest of the team at '''[[m:WikiProject_Med|Wiki Project Med Foundation]]''' 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Doc James@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Top_Medical_Editors_2018/en&oldid=18822343 -->

==[[Trial of Michael Jackson]]==
Could I talk you into doing some work on this? It was in an appalling state (including one citation leading to a forum post by someone called "Poop Dog"), so I've rewritten it from scratch, taking a slash-and-burn approach, but it still needs lots and lots more work. I'm kind of sick of it, and I think your experience of MJ topics and also sensitive legal/sexual stuff might be invaluable. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 11:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I make no claims that the article is well written or even makes a huge amount of sense yet... [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 11:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
:Popcornduff, I actually haven't edited Jackson topics much. Yes, I have the Michael Jackson article and contentious Jackson articles on my watchlist, but that is because I saw sketchy and other problematic editing at these articles, mainly from obvious Jackson fans. I'm not stating that an editor can't be a Jackson fan and edit neutrally. Growing up, I was a Jackson fan. So many people were. But I'm not a Jackson fan now. If I was, I would still try to edit Jackson topics neutrally. And Jackson haters can also be a problem at these articles. But with regard to Jackson fans, I have, for example, seen them try to keep out any material that Jackson may have bleached his skin and that his light appearance likely was not solely due to [[vitiligo]] or solely due to makeup and vitiligo. They have tried to downplay the child sexual abuse allegation material, twisted it in some [[WP:BLP]]-violating way, or tried to make Jackson look more innocent than sources allow. As you have likely noticed, Awardmaniac is a Jackson fan. And it's edits like some of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trial_of_Michael_Jackson&diff=881033826&oldid=880981156 these] from Awardmaniac that you reverted and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=881108814&oldid=881095300 this] one from Awardmaniac that concern me. It's good that you are at the Michael Jackson article to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson&diff=881109126&oldid=881108814 combat] stuff like that latter edit. I know that [[User:Synthwave.94|Synthwave.94]] and [[User:SNUGGUMS|SNUGGUMS]] have done solid editing at that article as well. I've seen your hash and slash work on the Trial of Michael Jackson article, and I thank you for taking it on. Since Awardmaniac is now at that article, it's even more important that you are watching that article. I will continue watching it and will help if I think I should. But I'm not motivated to take on heavy editing of that article, or any article at this time. Well, there might be one article I'm interested in significantly editing these days. Anyway, I appreciate you looking to me to help fix up a topic like that. Synthwave.94 and/or SNUGGUMS might be willing to help. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

::Sorry, but I don't have the time or patience to go through that page. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

:::I certainly don't blame either of you for not having the energy to approach the page. Flyer, I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on any disputes I might have with Awardmaniac on the page, because dealing with that sort of thing alone can be tough. (But hey, let's stay optimistic.) [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 23:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
::::I will certainly keep a lookout for such disputes. It's why I noted that I will continue watching it and will help if I think I should. I always think I should help if the dispute concerns problematic issues at an article I'm watching. That is, if it's not already handled by others and I feel I have nothing to offer in terms of help. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

== Please reconsider this revert ==

I'm talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Larson_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=881374039 this one].  I can see where you are coming from about the child sexual abuse issue, but that is not a good reason to revert everything there.  In particular, you have reverted the links to Internet Archive which are incredibly valuable for later readers, given how many sources are going behind paywalls and deleting or making old content inaccessible to non-subscribers. This isn't okay.  As importantly, this issue is currently being discussed on the talk page, and you should be participating in the discussion rather than imposing your own version on the article without consensus.  Please self-revert.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 04:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Risker|Risker]], I responded [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathan_Larson_(politician)&diff=881379442&oldid=881331755 on the talk page] and pinged you and others there. I didn't think of it as imposing my version, but I did feel that the reverting editor, who also created the article, was trying to impose his version and for odd reasons. I was going by accuracy and what reliable sources have stated. I'll restore the Internet Archive links. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
::Thank you for restoring those links. Please remember that edit summaries are not considered sufficient communication when reverting disputed information - regardless of who is right; the talk page should have been your first stop after making that edit.  I know you know this...it's just a reminder.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 05:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, [[User:Risker|Risker]]. And the talk page was my first stop after making that edit. I was in the process of posting to the talk page when you commented on my talk page. I know that I didn't reply quickly (because it can take me some time to gather my thoughts or because I might get temporarily sidetracked with something off Wikipedia), but I wasn't going to just revert and not reply on the talk page. I never do that when a dispute is taking place unless others are handling the dispute (including sometimes making arguments I would make). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

== Mythology vs. Tradition - World Egg article ==

Whether or not 'tradition' is the best synonym to use in these cases, 'mythology' is most certainly a worse one. In matters of polytheism, of which this article mostly consists of, it is considered a slur, no matter its technical definition. Do not revert to it.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:246:100:9EC9:F9C2:E540:D810:52EB|2601:246:100:9EC9:F9C2:E540:D810:52EB]] ([[User talk:2601:246:100:9EC9:F9C2:E540:D810:52EB#top|talk]]) 01:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Taken to the article's talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

== Possibility of getting your input on this article about a Micronesian president ==

Hey there. I'm assuming you know about as much about the [[Marshall Islands]]&nbsp;as I do, but I wanted to ask you for your opinion about [[Amata Kabua|this article]] since you've also reverted something there from doing RecentChanges patrol.

So apparently [[Amata Kabua]] was the president of the Marhall Islands and since their "society is highly stratified based on one's hereditary relationship to land tenure"<sup><span class="plainlinks">[https://books.google.is/books?id=cZRNDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT154&lpg=PT154&dq=Tarjikit+of+the+Eastern&source=bl&ots=eS5bu2_QZh&sig=ACfU3U396ld0azAdLs8jB6bp70X01_kuxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipttXOkbbgAhWmwMQBHXOtA0cQ6AEwC3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Tarjikit%20of%20the%20Eastern&f=false]</span></sup> editors are attempting to present this controversial president as being or not being part of this or that clan. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amata_Kabua&oldid=882432823 This long standing version] looks to me like unencyclopedic squabble (including inheritance rights, racism speculations, incest, commoners in burial traditions), this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amata_Kabua&oldid=882813993 other unsourced version] is also deriding the guy but in a different manner. I reverted the latter one at first for being unsourced, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralikrak692&diff=882820589&oldid=882819138&diffmode=source response I got was] ''"if anybody gets killed because of the faulty information on this page it will be on you"''. 

My [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amata_Kabua&oldid=882961093 attempt] at presenting this article in a neutral manner has now been repeatedly reverted.

Maybe you'd be interested in having a look at the article? I'm not sure how best to resolve this. 

Thank you. – [[User:Þjarkur|'''''Þjarkur''''']] ''[[User talk:Þjarkur|(talk)]]'' 02:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
: [[User:Þjarkur|'''''Þjarkur''''']], I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amata_Kabua&diff=883123542&oldid=883061127 reverted] again. The IP ranting in the article obviously does not belong. You will likely need to request page protection at [[WP:Requests for page protection]]. The matter might also need to go to the <s>[[WP:BLP noticeboard]]</s> [[WP:Neutral noticeboard]] If the IP reverts again, I would try page protection first. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

:Struck through "WP:BLP noticeboard" since he's deceased. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

== Re: Bret Saberhagen photo ==

In retrospect, you're right. I thought the man in the photo was Bret Saberhagen because I believe Saberhagen was among the group of Royals visitors on that tour ''and'' the photographed man appears to be wearing a Royals jersey with Saberhagen's number 18. In retrospect, that number 18 might've just been because of the year 2018 in which that photo was taken. I assumed the Joel Goldberg guy referred to in the caption was one of the two men in that conversation with obscured faces. I googled Joel Goldberg though and confirmed that it's him. I requested that the file be renamed on the Commons. --[[User:Denniscabrams|Dennis C. Abrams]] ([[User talk:Denniscabrams|talk]]) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

== Kim Kardashian ==
Would it be fine if I talk out the part with her enemies list? The sources are in my opinion legit for the subject since Harpers Baazar and Vogue are good resources for celebrities. It is not like Kim Kardashian is a politician and the Economist or Reuters talks about her extensively.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Liselanora|Liselanora]] ([[User talk:Liselanora#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Liselanora|contribs]]) 07:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[User:Liselanora|Liselanora]], there are other issues with your addition. See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kim Kardashian]] (a [[WP:Permalink]] for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=884357737#Kim_Kardashian here]). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for the overwatch on a certain BLP page [[User:P. Pradeep Rao|P. Pradeep Rao]] ([[User talk:P. Pradeep Rao|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
|}

== A kitten for you! ==

[[File:Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg|left|150px]]
I was origionally Frogger 48, I want to start off fresh from my past mistakes.

[[User:ABCD5798|ABCD5798]] ([[User talk:ABCD5798|talk]]) 05:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>

== A kitten for you! ==

[[File:Red Kitten 01.jpg|left|150px]]
I just saw that I called something in an article ridiculous without verifying it. You fixed it and pointed me to the Talk page, which I didn't know existed. Anyways I felt guilty so thanks!
{{clear|left}}

== Quotations ==

I'd like to ask, please, that you not italicize quotations. That's not really "a thing". No style guides recommend it, including [[MOS:QUOTE]] and [[MOS:ITALICS]].  When you do it on talk pages (where MOS technically doesn't apply) it makes the text harder to read, both visually and psychologically (it looks like screaming for sentence after sentence to browbeat a point). Also makes useful application of italics (for emphasis, properly done with {{tag|em}} or the {{tlx|em}} wrapper, for non-English terms, for titles of major works, etc.) no longer stand out as intended.  As far as I can determine, the very idea of ever italicizing quotes just because they are quotes exists, to the extent it does for anyone at all, only because one particular early blogging/CMS package had that as the default style applied to {{tag|blockquote}} in the CSS it shipped with as a demo, and some people didn't change it. I'm unaware of any that still do so, nor do major publishers in any mediums or genres italicize quotes as a general rule. [An occasional exception would be [[pull quote]]s, which are stylized in fanciful ways that vary all over the place according to [[house style]] (big and green, turned at an angle, wrapped in giant quotation marks, put in a sidebar box, overlaid in translucent grey, etc., etc.), so surely a few have chosen italics for it. But it's not how they treat quoted material in running prose.] <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
: [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]], and I don't italicize quotations in articles. We can see with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Genital_piercing&diff=871109665&oldid=871108418 this] 2018 edit to the [[Genital piercing]] article that I stated "No italics with quotes." Given that so many editors have their own style of writing on talk pages, and that a lot of those styles are not perfect or standard use of grammar, I do not see that my use of italics for quotes on talk pages should be much of a concern, if any, or that you should be [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rose_McGowan&diff=885133502&oldid=885133337 altering my comments in this regard]. Yes, you stated that "it makes the text harder to read, both visually and psychologically (it looks like screaming for sentence after sentence to browbeat a point)," but I have never seen that, and no one except you (hours ago) has stated that. In fact, a couple or few editors have stated that it's a cleaner look because they see the quotes a lot easier in my posts, which can be long (like yours), than without the italics use. I am not the only one on Wikipedia who types like this, and Wikipedia is the place I picked this style up from. In other words, Wikipedia typing culture is what led me to use this style. If you haven't seen others on this site use it, I don't know what to state to that. It might have been more prevalent at one point in time on this site than it currently is, but when I kept seeing it, it stuck with me. I use the italics for longer quotes more than I do for smaller quotes (which is inconsistent in a way, but whatever). I don't type like this in other places on the Internet or in professional settings. All that stated, as I often do, I have taken what you've stated into consideration. I'd been thinking of ceasing the style, but it's such a habit now and really does seem to help people recognize the quotes easier. Some people hate use of the green text for quotes or unnecessary block quotes (and neither are my style when typing on talk pages). And a number of editors hate bolding to emphasize. I do bold occasionally, but the bolding usually is not to highlight quotes. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:: (Talk-stalker comment) As a copyeditor by trade, and a collector of style guides, I personally dislike italics for quotes. Quotation marks do the job just fine, and italics only make the text harder to read. For talk page discussion I think the {{tq|talk quote markup}} is quite handy. But God forbid anyone judge my writing ability by my writing on talk pages. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 02:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Yes, if you want to make a quotation look different in user talk, we already have that template, and its block variant.  No, you (Flyer22) are not the only user using weird italics style for quotations. They'll all be getting requests like this, any time I see it and it appears habitual, because it's non-standard style even for talk pages, and noobs have a strong tendency to make assumptions about "Wikipedia style" from what they see in talk pages then wrongly import their assumptionis into article text (e.g. abuse of [[MOS:DLIST|description list markup]] for doing indentation and boldfacing, and various other bad habits. PS: Users who state that italicizing quotes "is a cleaner look" are people with no professional background in typography, Web usability, accessibility, and other related matters; they don't know what they're talking about. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::::[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]], I think the "cleaner look" rationale is partly based on the "it signifies the past" thought process. By this, I mean when the italics are used because editors are highlighting something that was previously stated by another editor or by themselves. Off Wikipedia, I've seen the argument that because some people who write fiction use italics to indicate the past, italics for quotes to indicate the past should be fine. Again, italics with quotes is not something I've done off Wikipedia. Sometimes I wonder about writing styles that have stuck with me on Wikipedia versus other areas of my life. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 06:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::I challenge anyone to find any reliable source on English usage and typography suggesting such a notion as "italics signify the past" (in any genre).  Italics are used (for entire passages) in fiction primarily to signify a character's thoughts, or the observations of an omniscient narrator, including block introductory material and other asides. Fictional characters' thoughts, and those of framing narration, often enough being about the past is probably where such an "it's for the past" confusion could arise. But I don't think it's a real confusion, out there in the world, among a large number of people. I seriously doubt there is any widely claimed connection between some individuals' strange habit of quote-italicizing and this "do it because it means ''the past'' in fiction", a confusion compounded on top of a confusion.  Someone somewhere may have come up with this rationalization, but it's idiosyncratic (akin to [[folk etymology]], but a semantic level higher up), not common wisdom.  "I do {{var|X}} because some random dude on the Internet said to do it" isn't a good rationale for anything on Wikipedia.  :-)  Besides, how to write fiction and how to write an encyclopedia are completely unrelated matters.  And if you don't use this style off WP, then why use and defend it, against editor requests and site-wide guidelines to not use it, on WP?  Can we agree it's not needed here? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]], I never stated or implied that "I do {{var|X}} because some random dude on the Internet said to do it." I was clear that I picked this style up from this site, and that it is '''a habit''' (which is why I do it). People do not always use good or proper grammar on Wikipedia talk pages. Obviously. Above, Popcornduff stated, "God forbid anyone judge my writing ability by my writing on talk pages." You were clear that you haven't seen this style only from me on this site; you've seen it from others. I noted that I don't use this style in Wikipedia articles, and I pointed to an example showing that I don't. I was clear that I only type like this on Wikipedia talk pages. I relayed, "All that stated, as I often do, I have taken what you've stated into consideration." In my recent posts, I dropped use of italics within quotes. But do I think that this style is something to make a big deal about with regard to Wikipedia talk pages? No. I've seen worse styles, such as an editor copying my or others' entire post, without the green markup, to reply. In those cases, yes, they add in their responses beside the quotes, but such a style looks like my comments repeated back at me...except that foreign text has been inserted. It is not an easy read. It can look like big blocks of text. And it can make the thread much longer. If I commonly received complaints about the italics within quotes style then, yeah, I would see it as a big deal. But like I stated, this is the first time I have received any complaint about it, and some editors have appreciated the style when reading my posts. They didn't care what is proper; they cared about what is easier to read. To you, the style is harder to read. To them, it wasn't. In the future, I'll be more inclined to keep my off-Wikipedia experiences to myself. I'm already pretty mindful to not discuss my off-Wikipedia life/experiences on this site anyway. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Holy cow.  Flyer works on some pretty difficult articles and as such gets more than her fair share of criticism but I thought that at least our talk pages would be free of what seems to me to be nit picking.  If there is anything unusual about her it is that she manages to state her positions so well, unlike editors like me who tend to jumble my thoughts up and use the willy nilly method of punctuation. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 15:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:Ease dropping here...but to me there's a difference between an article main page and the talk page. What happens on a talk page, so long as it doesn't corrupt coding somewhere, or specifically violate a talk page guideline, should be fine. I frequently use italics with quotes ON THE TALK PAGE just to make it easier to discern what I'm quoting from my generally lengthy responses. When you're reading a rather verbose statement, it's easy to overlook quoted text. Are there other ways to do it? Yes. I'm sure. But when I'm typing I don't want to have to be bothered to go find some template or remember the code when I can just continue typing with the quote marks and double apostrophe symbol for italics. It's easier. This seems more like it just offends your sensibilities than it being a real problem. Altering someone's comments because you just don't like the style in which they wrote it is far more egregious than putting italics in quotes. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:#800000;color:#FFD700"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]]  [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 16:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Blah blah blah.  "Works on difficult articles" doesn't mean "magically immune to requests to not do weird stylistic stuff that's an impediment to readability".  I don't know what it is about people that makes them think along these lines. It's the equivalent "So-and-so does great accounting work, so they should be exempt from mowing their lawn", or "It's okay that you ran over my dog, because you sing karaoke well." <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 17:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
::::There is no reason to insult me by calling my comments just "blah blah blah".  You are making a mountain out of a ant hill.  Flyer's edits are not using weird stuff.  I can understand them just fine and if you're having a problem with them it seems to me that that is your problem not something that Flyer is responsible for. It's time to walk away rather than drag this out forever. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 18:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

::::Your analogies are both hilarious and completely disproportionate to what was said. Here's a better analogy of what you're arguing..."I don't like the way you mow your lawn. It gets mowed, but not in a style that conforms with my personal beliefs. I ''prefer'' you mowed in horizontal/vertical strips and not the diagonal ones you did because diagonal ones hurt my eyes and make me feel like your lawn is screaming at me." Flyer and everyone else are not arguing that putting italics in quotations should be done in articles. The point everyone is making to you is that on a talk page, "professional writing ability" is irrelevant. It's a talk page. It's meant for discussing things about the article. It's not meant to pass an FAC review. Take a step back, take a deep breath and really ask yourself is this something that is a serious problem for you? If it is...maybe there's some self-evaluation that needs to takes place. [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:#800000;color:#FFD700"> &nbsp;BIGNOLE&nbsp;</span>'''</small>]]  [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

==Question==
Curious, do you know of any active editors here with expertise in endocrinology or gynecology? [[User:I enjoy sandwiches|I enjoy sandwiches]] ([[User talk:I enjoy sandwiches|talk]])  15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:I enjoy sandwiches|I enjoy sandwiches]], you can ask about this at [[WP:Med]]. Some WP:Med editors (and other types of editors), though, like myself, would rather not note what our professions are. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 06:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
::Great, thank you. [[User:I enjoy sandwiches|I enjoy sandwiches]] ([[User talk:I enjoy sandwiches|talk]])  19:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

== Barnstar for you ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Purple Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:Purple Star.png|100px]]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Purple Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Props for keeping your cool (even if you ever got frustrated) at [[Talk:Michael Jackson]] with all the disputes and major changes lately. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 17:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|}
On another note, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&diff=887473326&oldid=887457768 nice to have reaffirmation that you respect me] (and I definitely respect you) whether we end up agreeing or disagreeing on content matters. I'm also quite honored you consider me an expert at what is or isn't FA and GA material. Believe it or not, nobody else I know of has called me that before! [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 17:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

:[[User:SNUGGUMS|SNUGGUMS]], thanks. But I wouldn't state that I kept my cool. If I was an admin, I would have. But as I've noted before, I have more freedom as a non-admin. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: To be fair, that barnstar was left before things escalated further, and what I really meant by that is you didn't just lose your mind and go berserk there. [[User:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b>]] ([[User talk:SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">talk</b>]] / [[Special:Contributions/SNUGGUMS|<b style="color:#009900">edits</b>]]) 12:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::[[User:SNUGGUMS|SNUGGUMS]], regarding things escalating further, I just meant that there was already [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&oldid=888151750#Potential_perception_of_canvassing_by_editor_Flyer22_Reborn_on_this_page this] section and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&diff=887479087&oldid=887478938 this] exchange. Some might state that I kept my cool to a degree, given that "canvassing" section, but that other exchange was more heated. 

:::Anyway, thanks again. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 

== [[Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)]]  ==
Might I ask what was wrong with my edit? The category of sources I used there (Lumiere) is usually accepted by Wikipedia. Also, you can look yourself at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219827/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co that the Indian company "Reliance" is credited as "Presents" as well as the American ones. Why does it not qualify?
[[Special:Contributions/77.119.128.162|77.119.128.162]] ([[User talk:77.119.128.162|talk]]) 20:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:Ask at [[WP:Film]]. I don't think we do [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ghost_in_the_Shell_(2017_film)&diff=887598422&oldid=886966540 this] type of thing. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Ygm}}

== Nomination of [[:Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria]] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].

The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> [[User:Safrolic|Safrolic]] ([[User talk:Safrolic|talk]]) 09:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

==Heteronormativity==
Hey Flyer. My edit on [[Heteronormativity]] was in good faith and in an effort to restore a neutral POV, not undermine it. I think you're overreacting to what you think appears to be POV-pushing. I understand why you did it, but I don't think it was justified. But what is harder to justify to me is filling [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmvajda&oldid=888884093 my user page] with the equivalent to a canned response regarding Wikipedia standards and the page you are reverting. I care about WikiPedia and its standards; I also care about reacting swiftly to [[WP:Disruptive editing]]. I don't need a lecture on POV, nor some stranger messing up my public-facing user page.--[[User:Jmvajda|Jmvajda]] ([[User talk:Jmvajda|talk]]) 01:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
:Hi, [[User:Jmvajda|Jmvajda]]. You barely have any edits to your username. Your user talk page was red before I left the [[WP:NPOV]] message on it. And you made an edit that is out of step with [[WP:Verifiability]] and WP:NPOV. So why shouldn't I have left that message for an editor who appeared (and still appears) to be a [[WP:Newbie]] or otherwise inexperienced? I know that some have criticized the automated messages for feeling impersonal, but I'm not going to create a personalized message most times in cases like that. The automated messages exist for a reason. I don't feel that I overreacted by reverting you and/or leaving you that message. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 01:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

== FYI2 ==

[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RealScienceGeek]] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
==Please provide your input on urination at Human Penis==
Hi! You reverted me a couple of times, as did 2 other editors, so I have opened a discussion. Please contribute! Thank you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_penis#Link_to_commons_category%7CHuman_male_urination_commons_category%7CHuman_female_urination[[User:L'Origine du monde|<span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC;font-size:15px; text-shadow: 0 0 .2"><b><font color="red">♥ L'Origine du monde ♥]]</font></b></span> <sup><font color="blue">♥ [[User talk:L'Origine du monde|Talk]]♥ </font></sup> 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:I see that you have been blocked for a month by [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]. Thank you, Bishonen. I was just about to take this editor to [[WP:ANI]]. I was first going to have to type up a thorough report, clearly outlining the past behavioral problems and why, as seen in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#User:L'Origine du monde|this September 2013 ANI thread]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#User:L'Origine du monde|this other September 2013 ANI thread]],  [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#Block appeal from L'Origine du monde|this September 2013 block appeal]] thread and   [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Block appeal from L'Origine du monde|this November 2013 block appeal]] thread, most editors wanted to keep this user blocked. I was also going to note that the editor downplayed his disruptive behavior in his [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=842451481#Unblock_request_from_L'Origine_du_monde 2018 block appeal.] Regardless of whatever initial block or block mistake, many editors found him disruptive. They wanted to keep him blocked. And the editor's latest antics show why. The user drains the community, and I did not want to have log onto Wikipedia every day just to deal with this user because of how often (and usually in other cases) I am the only editor keeping the sex articles intact, or as intact as they can be. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
::Second the thanks for the block. A new one to me, but  my [[WP:AGF]] is already done. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 21:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Hi, it occurred to me to let you know that your ping to this topic somewhere did work, but by the time I got there it was all done and dusted. all the best -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 18:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

== [[Nocturnal penile tumescence]] ==

Thank you for your revert on this page. Your action and reference to [[WP:MEDRS]] has explained the expected standards well.
I will update the talk page in reference to this here [[talk:Nocturnal penile tumescence#No_Evidence_of_Beneficial_Effects]]
[[User:Danmux|Danmux]] ([[User talk:Danmux|talk]]) 09:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

==Italian Guatemalans==
I want to pinpoint that all I wrote is OK. I just added notes with references. Cheers. D.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.142.28.245|68.142.28.245]] ([[User talk:68.142.28.245#top|talk]]) 03:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==[[Economy of Afghanistan]]==
I spent nearly a week on verifying the content and updating facts and you come out of no where to revert all my edits. It is an important article of a nation and it must have accurate up to date information.--[[Special:Contributions/39.40.119.9|39.40.119.9]] ([[User talk:39.40.119.9|talk]]) 03:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
:Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:39.40.119.9&diff=prev&oldid=890246655 this], feel free to revert me if it's the official YouTube accounts of those organizations, and they are [[WP:Reliable]], and you are presenting the information accurately. I looked at a few of the YouTube accounts after reverting you. I appreciate the work you've put into updating the page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

:I see that you already reverted. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'll also leave a comment for all editors on the talk page of that article.--[[Special:Contributions/39.40.119.9|39.40.119.9]] ([[User talk:39.40.119.9|talk]]) 04:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

== Per cent/percent ==

Hi,

I could be wrong of course, but my reading of [[MOS:PERCENT]] is that we should use the two-word spelling in British English articles (which [[Discrimination against asexual people]] is). Although I have seen it spelt as one word in British English, the two-word spelling is much more common there. Yes, I am from the UK. [[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]] ([[User talk:Adam9007|talk]]) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:[[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Discrimination_against_asexual_people&diff=891977293&oldid=891753708 this], I meant that if the article is going to use British spelling, which it does, I understand being consistent on the matter. It is only a "British English article" in terms of [[WP:ENGVAR]]. After all, discrimination against asexual people happens in America and other parts of the world as well. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

== Of interest re article you're editing ==
I'm staying out of that hornet's nest you dipped your toe in, but this just made news and, unless you already know about it, thought it may be of interest to you and your editing:
:[http://news.trust.org//item/20190412100802-6md1q/ Lesbians need to get the L out of the LGBT+ community], Angela Wild, 12 April 2019, Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Which includes link to [http://www.gettheloutuk.com/blog/category/research/lesbians-at-ground-zero.html Lesbians at Ground Zero] report pdfs. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#830303">yak</span>]] 12:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Pyxis Solitary|Pyxis Solitary]], while I have heard of "get the L out" and saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics&diff=891287219&oldid=891281233 this] edit by an IP, I hadn't seen that piece. But, as you saw at the article's talk page (and I indicated to you before), I'm very much aware of the tension and debate regarding trans women who identify as lesbians. It's a very contentious topic to work on, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics&oldid=892398405#Recent_changes_to_the_lead_and_drafting I'm going to see what I can do]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 07:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
::There just aint's enough sage to burn and cleanse with. But there's certainly [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8  Revolution 9] for ambiance. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#830303">yak</span>]] 08:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

:And I fully expect there to be a lot of contentious editing on this topic at the [[The L Word]] article when the reboot of ''The L Word'' debuts. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
::I've seen only one episode and that's because I was invited to an L Word party in 2009. I kid you not. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #8a0707; color: yellow">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#830303">yak</span>]] 08:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

'''Update''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics&diff=895688436&oldid=895658235 Off my watchlist]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 22:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks Flyer22 for taking the time to assist my student KaitTip on the [[One Tree Hill (TV series)]] edits. You're right--she shouldn't have pushed the deadline. As an advanced editing course primarily intended to teach them about editing conventions and workflow, the more important thing was handling the interaction with you and Joeyconnick with intelligence and awareness of Wikipedia conventions. Thanks for taking the time and being so patient with newcomers. [[User:Etherfire|Etherfire]] ([[User talk:Etherfire|talk]]) 04:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Etherfire|Etherfire]], thank you. Although, when interacting with student editors, I always inform them of the rules and what they are doing wrong if they are doing anything wrong, I don't always handle the matter as well as I should. And I'm glad that my interaction with KaitTip was one of my better interactions with a student editor. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 07:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

==Sock==
It's not marked, but do you suspect that [[User:Griddlecheese]] is a sock of GTA5Player?  I wondered about that when a reverted the edit on [[Child abuse]] after notice the dumb adult-related categories they were creating.  Feel free to ping me anytime if you're looking for a quick block of a sock or need page protection for one of his article targets. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 14:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

== Should all instances of 'tbd' in this article be changed to 'TBD'? ==

Hi, in the article [[List of aircraft carriers in service]], the abbreviation 'tbd' is always used with all lowercase letters, instead of 'TBD' in all caps. They can be seen in the [[List of aircraft carriers in service#Carriers ordered|Carriers ordered]] and [[List of aircraft carriers in service#Other planned carriers|Other planned carriers]] sections. I propose changing them all to 'TBD' as this form is much more commonly used and is widely considered the correct format. <b>[[User:JackintheBox|J<small><small>ACKINTHE</small></small>B<small><small>OX</small></small>]]</b> • <i><b><sup><small>[[User talk:JackintheBox|<span style="color:#006400">TALK</span>]]</small></sup></b></i> 13:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:Never mind, it's resolved now. Cheers <b>[[User:JackintheBox|J<small><small>ACKINTHE</small></small>B<small><small>OX</small></small>]]</b> • <i><b><sup><small>[[User talk:JackintheBox|<span style="color:#006400">TALK</span>]]</small></sup></b></i> 00:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

== Supposed Edits ==
Good day. 

Recently I received a message stating that I made a promotional edit to the 'sex dolls' article and also added a joke to the article on the number 24. This is strange to me as I definitely have not even attempted to edit these pages, and I do not think I have viewed them. I think the only edit I have ever tried to make on Wikipedia was some years ago a grammar mistake on an article about a Boer War general. I also made an account only today to post here. Is it possible that there was made some sort of mistake, or that somehow my IP address is compromised? Your elaboration would be greatly appreciated, and if this is not the right method to pursue this problem I do apologise, I am not a usual contributor. [[User:NelsonM4t|NelsonM4t]] ([[User talk:NelsonM4t|talk]]) 19:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|NelsonM4t}} IP addresses can change from time to time. What I expect happened is that you've recently been assigned one that someone else used to use for unconstructive editing. In any case, no worries—please feel free to delete the warnings, since they have nothing to do with you. Cheers, [[User:Genericusername57|gnu]][[User talk:Genericusername57|<span style="color:#ff7000">57</span>]] 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

== uw-vandalism1 post to IP editor's talk page ==

Hi Flyer22 Reborn,

I noticed that you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_Faulkner_(cricketer)&diff=894796621&oldid=894780262 this edit] to the [[James Faulkner (cricketer)]] article and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2405:205:2408:C749:AC95:CDB:FFAA:38E1&oldid=894796686 posted a vandalism] warning to the IP editor involved.  I understand how you would see a "this person is gay" edit to a BLP and immediately suspect it to be vandalism or someone posting a hunch or rumour given the lack of sourcing, and I note the edit was tagged "possible BLP issue or vandalism", but in this case it was neither.  Faulkner [https://web.archive.org/web/20190429225758/https://twitter.com/JamesFaulkner44/status/1122805416679751680 posted to twitter] and also instagram today with a post referring to his "boyfriend" with the hash tag "#togetherfor5years" and there were stories about his coming out across the mainstream media.  Twitter saw supportive posts from other cricketers.  Unfortunately, it all turns out to be some sort of joke or misunderstanding (as [[Talk:James_Faulkner_(cricketer)#Coming_Out%3F_%2F_Joke%3F|I have noted]] on the article's talk page).  I made the same mistake as the IP and was abused for it, and then was pointed to the new information by a more helpful editor.

I have just [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2405:205:2408:C749:AC95:CDB:FFAA:38E1&diff=894803205&oldid=894796686 posted this message] to the IP.  I wanted to drop by and suggest that maybe you'd like to post a personalised message to the IP as well.  I also wanted to let you know that there are likely to be similar edits made for a while, and to remind you that edits which appear to unhelpful / potential vandalism are not necessarily so.  A quick look at the page history shows 40 edits in 2019, 37 of them inside the last 24 hours, which gives a clue that something is going on, as do my article talk page posts, and edit summaries from several editors.  I hope you'll take this as an FYI and friendly reminder, as it is intended.  I know there is a lot of vandalism from IP edits, but I hope you'll agree that the contributors like this well (well-meaning if ultimately flawed) are worth encouraging.

Thanks and Regards,

[[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 03:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


[[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 03:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:EdChem|EdChem]], I got your ping at the IP's talk page. I think you handled the matter well enough. I know that edits which appear unhelpful/potential vandalism are not necessarily so. When patrolling, I commonly, but not always, check back to review what I've reverted. And I sometimes revert myself. Regardless of the IP's intent, which I don't know because I'm not in the IP's head, the IP's edit was unconstructive. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

== Peter Fear ==

Hi: I was able to check two of the items in the most recent Peter Fear article and they are correct. Earlier ones did not appear to be right from the general stats but the entries about Arsenal and Oxford, though unreferenced, can be sourced. Just a heads up on that since you and I have both edited the article. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 03:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

==Race==
Yes I discussed it on the talk page. Do not revert without discussion. [[User:Von Clown|Von Clown]] ([[User talk:Von Clown|talk]]) 17:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

== Editing Robert Twycross's page ==

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, 

The page for Robert Twycross was initially constructed without his knowledge, the edits that were made today were at his request. Please could you restore the edited version? 

Many thanks
[[User:Anishine2019|Anishine2019]] ([[User talk:Anishine2019|talk]]) 12:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Anishine2019


:[[User:Anishine2019|Anishine2019]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Robert_Twycross&diff=896118059&oldid=896116982 this] is not the way we edit. See [[WP:Verifiability]] and [[WP:Conflict of interest]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 12:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
== Femininity Talk page ==
Why do you have a problem with people pinging you? Can't you just ignore it?  When you figure the time it took you to type it out and every thing. Or maybe it was meant as an underhanded insult or something. If so,that was the kind of thing a rude ugly person does don't you think. Do you really want to be that kind of person? Did it make your feel better?

[[User:Dave3457|Dave3457]] ([[User talk:Dave3457|talk]])  20:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)‎ 
:[[User:Dave3457|Dave3457]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Femininity&diff=883415820&oldid=883415616 this], I stated, "If you reply to me on this, I ask that you don't [[WP:Ping]] me." It was not meant to be snippy or an underhanded insult, or anything of the sort. I commonly ask people to not ping me to a talk page I am watching. I usually state "Since this talk page is on my watchlist, I ask that you don't ping me." And I do so because the pings are annoying to me, with as busy as I am with other articles. I prefer the pings to be important or indicative that they are important. Pinging me to an article I am already watching is pointless. And, no, I'm not stating that your response is not important. I just mean that, filtering-wise, I prefer that the pings that I get do not concern something I am already alerted to. My watchlist will alert me to your replies at [[Talk:Femininity]]. I can't ignore a ping. It's right there for me to see when I get one. And the only way that red notification is going away is if I click on it. The only way I know what it's about is if I click on it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for May 14==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited [[Daenerys Targaryen]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Elle]] ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Daenerys_Targaryen check to confirm]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Daenerys_Targaryen?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are [[WP:INTDABLINK|usually incorrect]], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 09:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

== Angry White Male  ==

The term [[angry white male]] fits the accepted definition of both [[racism]] and [[sexism]] how can you say it isn't constructive to accurately label things? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ngoc Cens|Ngoc Cens]] ([[User talk:Ngoc Cens#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ngoc Cens|contribs]]) </small>

== The Bells - Dany's arc ==

Hey man, saw your message and came here to discuss. 

While your right that the rush was previously mentioned, I think the section I added, while likely imperfect, has some merit. A lot of critics/fans have complained that what Dany does in The Bells "betrays her character" or "is the antithesis of GOT" and what have you, but that's not the case. There are a lot of hints throughout the show that Dany will go full "Fire and Blood", and the decision compliments GRRM themes of war being terrible no matter the circumstances. Critics like the ones I mentioned on the initial post (and fans, but you can't cite those) have expressed satisfaction with Dany's madness in a thematic regard, but just think '''the story needed to be told better'''. That's the problem with the way the "Daenerys Arc" subsection currently reads: it feels like an oversimplification. A little too much "Dany wouldn't do that", when critics have noted that the problem runs much deeper than that. Dany's descent into madness could have worked, and thematically it makes sense, but they botched the delivery. I just think it's unfair to both the show and the books to boil the reaction to this episode into "character assassination". The "Daenerys arc" section could do a better job reflecting that many critics weren't upset with what happened, but rather were upset with the way that it happened. Hope this makes sense, below is the paragraph I added for reference 

While it was universally agreed that the character development was rushed, some critics noted that Daenerys' turn made sense on a thematic level. Myles McNutt argued that "the choice to have Daenerys burn down King’s Landing is a logical and to my mind effective way of ending this story on a thematic level"[32], though he lamented that "this is the kind of development that requires nuance that the ensemble spectacle of the series just might not be built for."[33]. Similarly, Alan Sepinwall noted that while Daenerys' descent into madness was hinted at over the course of the show, it is the kind of development that "required at least another half of a regular-length GoT season to feel earned."[34]. Tim Molloy of TheWrap defended the plot line, stating "[Viewers] don’t agree with what Dany did. But it’s wrong to say the show didn’t lay the groundwork for her transformation from hero to Mad Queen."[35].
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bells_(Game_of_Thrones)&oldid=897316715#Rush_of_Daenerys's_villain_arc_or_hints_regarding_it Replied on the talk page]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
== Hi! ==

Could you please give me sources for your defense of "s's"? Thanks!! --[[User:ExperiencedArticleFixer|ExperiencedArticleFixer]] ([[User talk:ExperiencedArticleFixer|talk]]) 01:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:ExperiencedArticleFixer|ExperiencedArticleFixer]],  regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Bells_(Game_of_Thrones)&diff=897246980&oldid=897244248 this], you didn't Google? I'm not asking that in a snide way. It's just that I would have Googled. [[User:Dcfc1988|Dcfc1988]] should Google it as well. [https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/forming-possessives-with-singular-names.html This] [[American Psychological Association]] (APA) style blog states, "Per APA Style, the answer is that the possessive of a singular name is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, even when the name ends in s (see p. 96 in the sixth edition of the ''Publication Manual''). Therefore, in the example above, the correct usage would be 'Adams's (2013) work.' Although this presentation may look awkward to some writers, the rule for forming the possessive does not change just because the name ends in s.

:However, it is important to note the following exception to this rule: You should use an apostrophe only with the singular form of names ending in unpronounced s (see p. 97 in the ''Publication Manual''). Therefore, if you were writing a paper about the philosopher Descartes, to form the possessive with his name, you would need to just add an apostrophe (e.g., Descartes’ theory)." 

:See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Britney_Spears&diff=894697514&oldid=894278007 this] by [[User:MrMarmite|MrMarmite]] at the  [[Britney Spears]] article? He can further explain the matter. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

::Hi again! Thanks for your answer! I did google but there was not enough consensus. One problem is that English has no final authority. So it is not only for proper names but also for common nouns, it seems... unless the final s does not sound... One more question: what should one do about "s's" when a surname ends in s and that s is not silent, but does not sound as s. For example, the surname of [[Imre Lakatos]] sounds like "Lakatosh". <nowiki></nowiki>Any sources or references? Thanks a lot!! --[[User:ExperiencedArticleFixer|ExperiencedArticleFixer]] ([[User talk:ExperiencedArticleFixer|talk]]) 15:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
:::[[User:ExperiencedArticleFixer|ExperiencedArticleFixer]], you're American like me, right? Whatever the case, I've seen a lot of Americans who think that the extra s is wrong. I used to think it was wrong; I was taught that it was wrong in school. Or maybe it's just the case that the teacher didn't address that the extra s may be fine for names that end in s. I see so many authors of reliable sources (including news sources) that don't use the s. So I understand what you mean about "English has no final authority." MrMarmite (see his user page if you haven't already) is the one who opened my eyes to the extra s not being wrong. This was years ago. I'm not a grammar expert. So I'll leave him to respond to your second comment if he decides to when he logs back on. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Just to clarify: At some point, I'd heard of the extra s being correct. But my mind was set on "it's wrong" whenever I'd see it, and so I would remove the s. I eventually stopped doing this thanks to MrMarmite. The extra s still looks a little off to me when I see it, however, because I thought it was wrong for so long. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Hi again! I'm not American, I expect to  be British (just a documented resident for now) or American (residence paperwork being processed). MrMarmite says he's not an expert, so I'll look for the answer in APA. I need to know because I submit manuscripts to academic journals. My regards. --[[User:ExperiencedArticleFixer|ExperiencedArticleFixer]] ([[User talk:ExperiencedArticleFixer|talk]]) 08:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 02:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

== Your recent edit to the Child article ==

So? The article deals with the legal definition of a child as well, which is 18 in most countries. And if my edit wasn't allowed, then why is there a picture of a 13 year old in the gallery? (I would argue the same about the 11 and 12yo in the gallery too as they are pubescent and are a fair game for the definition of adolescents, but I'm more concerned about the 13yo because of that age being the onset of teenage-hood). [[User:Rocksmooth|Rocksmooth]] ([[User talk:Rocksmooth|talk]]) 09:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
:The article is more so focused on prepubescents (and to a lesser extent, those just approaching puberty), though, because we already have an [[Adolescence]]/Teenager article. Per [[WP:Gallery]], I've never been fond of the gallery section and have been contemplating removing it. All it has done is lead to people arbitrarily adding pictures of children and edit warring over it. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 09:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

:See that [[Template:Human growth and development sidebar]] lists the different stages, and that the articles about minors ([[Child]], [[Preadolescence]] and [[Adolescence]]) are distinct. I suppose that, per [[WP:Summary style]], the Child article could have paragraphs summarizing each of the stages, but I think it shouldn't focus too much on the aspects that already have their own articles (Preadolescence and Adolescence). Furthermore, the [[Childhood]] already does that summary style approach. 

:Also, as I'm sure you know, the onset of puberty varies. Many children, especially boys, are prepubescent at ages 11 or 12. It's just that most kids these days are pubescent by those ages (although many of them don't look it). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
::I personally call BS on being prepubescent by those ages; to say the very least, I hit puberty when I was 11, though it wasn't until my late adolescent years that I became mature, that being I still retained my childlike mentality into my early to mid teens. Most 11 and 12 year olds show stages 2-3 of Tanner scales development which are also associated with 13 and 14 year olds. The only reason society fails to see them as adolescents is because it they lack visible secondary sex characteristics and it would be a complete invasion of privacy and extremely inappropriate to view their reproductive abilities, which should be reserved between the child's parents and doctor.... [[User:Rocksmooth|Rocksmooth]] ([[User talk:Rocksmooth|talk]]) 11:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
:::There is nothing to debate on the puberty matter. It's a fact that "many children, especially boys, are prepubescent at ages 11 or 12." I'm not going to list sources in this section just to support something that is easily found in the literature (not just the old literature). And I already stated that "most kids these days are pubescent by those ages (although many of them don't look it)." Anyway, like I also stated, that gallery section should be removed. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 11:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
:::: Sockpuppet blocked. Let me know if there are any other block-evading edits I missed.  I'm not going to bother with the [[wp:wikignome]] type edits used to establish cover. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 13:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] (pinging you just in case my talk page is no longer on your watchlist; I know that it's been on your watchlist in the past), I wondered if you'd see this editor and think that the editor is GTA5Player. I knew that the user wasn't new, but certain editors become uneasy when I point out a non-new editor as non-new. They might point to [[WP:Assume good faith]], even though, per [[WP:LEGITSOCK]], being a new account doesn't automatically equate to a sockpuppet violation and WP:Assume good faith doesn't mean throwing out common sense and logic. Since the editor stated "I'm a Dutch editor" on their user page, I wondered if perhaps the editor is a Wikipedia editor from the Dutch Wikipedia. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

==Unblock request by suspected sock==
Since you are pretty familiar with the GTA5Player long-term abuse case, I'd welcome your input at the latest [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GTA5Player|SPI]] and/or this  [[User_talk:Rocksmooth|unblock request]]. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 21:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

:Although I did wonder if the editor is GTA5Player, their editing behavior didn't quite match up to GTA5Player's editing behavior. So I also considered whether or not the editor is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JMccoy13 JMccoy13.] Notice that I'm not pinging JMccoy13; I do not want that editor to possibly get some email notification that I've pinged him and then come back and start right back where he left off. He doesn't have email enabled; so whatever on that. But I don't want him pinged to this matter at all, since it will just result in him going back to his previous behavior whenever he finally receives the ping. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
:: Turned out to be a different sock; possibly related, but blockworthy either way. Thanks, <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 04:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

== Thank-you ==

Hi Flyer22,

It's me from years ago. I wanted to stop by and thank you for a final time. In our 2013 interactions and later, our 2015 interactions, you taught me a lot about editing public wikis and how to reach consensus when there is a conflict. Because of you, my experience editing other wikis such as TV Tropes has been far more successful with those lessons.

I'm sorry if this is weird and if I'm bothering you! I never edit here anymore but I took something to a talk page today (and I did miss a rule but thankfully, I was corrected) and I thought of you and how much our experience helped me in working on collaborative public documents. 

Thank-you again!

[[User:Anatashala|Anatashala]] ([[User talk:Anatashala|talk]]) 06:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:Hi, [[User:Anatashala|Anatashala]]. You're not bothering me. Good to see you again. I see that you've also been at [[Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)]], where I'm currently debating a matter. I hope that all has been well with you. There's no need to thank me. I'm just glad that you benefited as an editor from things I stated back then. I've improved as an editor over the years as well, and I'm not quite the same person I was back then. Thank you for having been one of my positive interactions and for still looking to genuinely improve this site. Occasional edits are also appreciated; remember that. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 13:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

:Also, I apologize for having gotten snippy with you the way that I did at some points in 2013. Looking back, I probably should have been more open to guiding you. I know that we eventually ended up on better terms, but still. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 14:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

::Thank-you, Flyer22 Reborn! I've been fine, I hope all is well with you! And no need to apologize, I was really not getting it back then, which must have been so frustrating (I'm frustrated with myself looking back!), and from your talk page, you're still working so hard for the betterment of articles. Those lessons in editing, reaching consensus, conflict resolution, guidelines really genuinely helped. I was glad we were able to get to a better place too. And thank you for teaching me. 

::Yeah, the article is really heating up! If I could get your advice (no rush, please take your time!), I had pushed for some small wording changes as seen on the article's talk page and myself and other editors reached some consensus via discussion but the changes were [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Iron_Throne_%28Game_of_Thrones%29&type=revision&diff=898442520&oldid=898434750|recently lost] -- in a month, or whenever things settle, would it be advisable to re-open that issue on the Talk page or would it be better if I just let it go? I also realize plot summaries are intended to be 400 words, so there's that too, and two users were very nice to work with me on that.

::Either way, thank you so much, Flyer! Wikipedia is an intense place to learn and any article on Game of Thrones right now is even more intense ;) But I'll always keep those editing lessons you taught me, they were invaluable.

::Thank-you again! [[User:Anatashala|Anatashala]] ([[User talk:Anatashala|talk]]) 17:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
:::[[User:Anatashala|Anatashala]], since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Iron_Throne_%28Game_of_Thrones%29&type=revision&diff=898442520&oldid=898434750%7Crecently that matter] and what you stated on the talk page is still fresh, I think you should go ahead and address it. Ping the editor who made the changes. I usually don't get caught up in plot summary matters these days, but what you stated about "reluctantly" and "stabbing her to death" is sound. Also, the 400 limit is not "a hard and fast limit," although some editors treat it like one. [[WP:Policies and guidelines|Guidelines are guidelines. Policies are policies]]. We should usually do our best to adhere to guidelines, but we don't always have to be strict about it. At [[MOS:FILMPLOT]], we, for example, offer some leeway. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
::::I'll go ahead and do that! Would it be alright if I reference this discussion to refer to the 400 word limit? Thanks! [[User:Anatashala|Anatashala]] ([[User talk:Anatashala|talk]]) 00:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::That reply was fast. Feel free to reference this discussion. Pointing to what WP:Policies and guidelines states about there generally not being hard-and-fast rules on Wikipedia, and noting how MOS:FILMPLOT allows a bit of leeway, might be better, though. Or you could reference all of this (meaning this discussion included). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::Yes! I was able to see the ping notification right away because I happened to be looking up what to do about [[Malassezia]], a beautiful new development in my life ;) 
::::::I addressed the issue and included the relevant links, as well as a link to this discussion. We'll see how it goes, I suppose! Thanks again for your advice! [[User:Anatashala|Anatashala]] ([[User talk:Anatashala|talk]]) 00:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

== Re: you need to source "Agnew, Klismaphilia:76" ==

It *IS* sourced. Please see the "Notes" at the end of "== References ==".

Also, my comment "cannot find any references other than from fetish sites" referred to verbiage that has long ago been removed.
[[User:Helen4780|Helen4780]] ([[User talk:Helen4780|talk]]) 02:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Helen4780|Helen4780]], I'm keeping this at your talk page. I'm not going to respond in two different places. You can also take it to the article's talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 02:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

== Individual studies ==

Sorry, I didn't know about the policy on primary medical sources. Since studies prior to 2014 were mentioned, I thought specifically bringing them up would be relevant. I won't do it again. [[User:RockingGeo|RockingGeo]] ([[User talk:RockingGeo|talk]]) 22:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

== Me actually venturing into LGBTQ studies ==

Flyer, sometimes my WP arrogance astonishes even me.  Although the reason I've put [[Stonewall Riots]] on my watchlist is because my friend [[User:Moni3]] (who's no longer around) worked so hard to make it into the beautiful article that it currently is.  I've taken it upon myself to watchlist all the major articles she worked on, because they're all works of art and need little "improving", especially the FAs like this one.  So I don't believe that this article, other than routine maintenance, requires re-structuring.  So friend, please leave it alone! ;) [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 16:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

:[[User:Figureskatingfan|Figureskatingfan]], I was surprised to see you at the Stonewall riots article. The reason that I watch that article is because of [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]], who hasn't been on Wikipedia in months, and because of my respect for [[User:Moni3|Moni3]]. I didn't know you were familiar with her. I got involved with the Stonewall riots article because of Rivertorch. I have no plans to restructure that article. It doesn't need it. My goal there is to keep the article in good shape, which is why I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stonewall_riots&diff=900732259&oldid=900731331 this] comment about the lead. Looking again, that new fifth paragraph shouldn't be in the lead since it's not summarizing anything lower. It's an anticipatory paragraph. 

:When Moni3 retired, I felt the need to be the primary "maintenance worker" at the [[Lesbian]] article. Before that, when I still wasn't as experienced an editor (you know, as I am now), I asked her for advice on improving a lesbian topic. At some point, I started watching the [[Emmett Till]] article and got into a debate there. As you likely know, the Emmett Till article is not an LGBT article. I edit a range of topics. But, mainly, when I take the time to significantly edit, I usually work on a sexual topic article and/or a psychology article because of my knowledge of those topics and because there's hardly anyone else to do that work. And that includes editing [[paraphilia]] topics. In some cases, it's a medical article like [[Congenital insensitivity to pain]]. But before a medical topic, if I'm not involved with a biography article or some popular culture topic, the next topic I'm focused on is a gender topic, which might also be a psychology topic. For example, I recently significantly worked on/fixed up the [[Sex differences in intelligence]] article, but there's more work to do with that, and I'm sure you can imagine how contentious that topic can be. That is why it was important for me to do what I did there. When something is sourced well and there are no Wikipedia violations or those violations are significantly cut down, it helps a lot. I'm not sure that I knew what I was getting myself into by moving away from soap opera articles and fully into sexual topic articles and gender articles every now and then. But it can be very stressful, especially when dealing with editors who are editing with their personal POVs driving them rather than adhering to what the literature generally states and our guidelines and policies. I can't state enough how much I wish this site had more editors like Rivertorch working in the LGBT areas. By this, I mean that he doesn't let his personal POV get in the way of his editing. I know this because I've seen him argue the opposite of whatever personal view he has for the sake of the encyclopedia. Moni3 also seemed to edit like that. I see more activism in the medical and LGBT areas than any other areas I work on, and I'm not afraid to state so. But then again (except for the gender or sexuality stuff that overlaps), I'm usually not involved with political articles, which have just as much agenda-driven editing. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

::I sure do miss Moni as well.  I too watch over a few of hers but they seem to have a lot of eyes on them already and I don't need to do anything.  I do want to take this opportunity to say that there are few editors as important to this project as you Flyer. I hold you in the same esteem that I hold for Slim and Waid, and that's very, very high.  If it wasn't for you most the types of articles that you edit would be a mess. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 00:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
:::Responding to say that I agree with Gandydancer, another editor I respect.  I met Moni while working on ''[[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]]'', [[Maya Angelou]]'s first autobiography.  Moni, along with [[User:Scartol]] and [[User:Wadewitz|Adrianne Wadewitz]], mentored this non-academic with zero experience with working on literature articles to the experienced editor I am today and a contributor to the Wikijournal.  As you know, I edit a wide variety of articles, too.  I'm relieved and happy to know that there are a group of editors protecting and maintaining Moni's articles, many of which I consider works of art (for example, [[Amazing Grace]] and [[Donner Party]]). [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

== Thank you for your feedback. ==

[[File:Kitten in a helmet.jpg|left|150px]]
Hi Flyer22_Reborn,
I appreciate any criticism because I haven't been editing for very long. I will try not to use quotations too much. It's an effort to redress the balance, I suppose.
Regards,

[[User:Hammelsmith|Hammelsmith]] ([[User talk:Hammelsmith|talk]]) 00:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>

==Article hijacking==
Hello, I noticed that an article about the Native American deity [[Okeus]] had been hijacked to be about an unrelated jewelry retail corporation. I reverted those disruptive edits to restore the original article, but I'm unsure how to resolve the issue now. I remembered how I split the AfterEllen / AfterElton articles, so I didn't copy-paste the jewelry content into a new article such as [[Okeus (jewelry retailer)]] because I didn't want a repeat of that sort of situation. I just thought I would ask for your advice on how to handle this. Thank you for your time. [[User:Bohemian Baltimore|Bohemian Baltimore]] ([[User talk:Bohemian Baltimore|talk]]) 02:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Bohemian Baltimore|Bohemian Baltimore]], if it's unrelated, it shouldn't be in the article. A separate article shouldn't be created if it doesn't meet the [[WP:Notability]] guideline. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
==ANI report==
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Ellesmelle|Ellesmelle]] ([[User talk:Ellesmelle|talk]]) 17:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

== Request for consensus on Michael Jackson page. ==

Could I ask for your vote on whether the total individual child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson should be noted on his Wiki page?
Regards, [[User:Hammelsmith|Hammelsmith]] ([[User talk:Hammelsmith|talk]]) 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
:Hammelsmith, I'm going to decline to get involved in that debate. At least for now. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

:I have enough drama to worry about on Wikipedia. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
::Sorry, I didn't notice your response right away.  I understand, I'll only consult you or seek your assistance for an emergency.  Regards, [[User:Hammelsmith|Hammelsmith]] ([[User talk:Hammelsmith|talk]]) 08:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

== helping of me? ==

hello it is me i am sorry for being naughty i would like to learn to be a better wiki editer english is not native of me so i am learning how can i becoming better writer? thank you kind one
how for the example do i beginning of format? what is source? thank you i am a big fan of jenn mann goodbye
thank of you to helping me!! [[Special:Contributions/64.71.110.56|64.71.110.56]] ([[User talk:64.71.110.56|talk]]) 08:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

== Swimming Categories ==

I'm assuming that you don't know this, but the whole Swimming Project (That I was in the middle of overhauling to [[WP:AQUATIC]]) covers, not just swimming, but water polo, diving and synchronized swimming too. So instead of just moving the article back to it's original page name, you decide to revert all edits that are being made as part of a reboost of what was considered an inactive project. I'd suggest properly understanding what you are editing before you do it. [[User:SmartyPants22|SmartyPants22]] ([[User talk:SmartyPants22|talk]]) 13:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
:I reverted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Category:Top-importance_swimming_articles&diff=prev&oldid=902654325 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Swimming&diff=902654718&oldid=902643033 here]. In that first case, you were changing "swimming" to "aquatic." So me reverting you on that aligned with moving the page (not article) back. Feel free to revert me on revamping that might improve things. But I don't see that the pages need to be renamed so that "aquatic" is in place of "swimming." [[Water polo]] involves swimming. [[Diving (sport)|Diving]] involves swimming. [[Synchronized swimming]] involves swimming. If you were going around renaming all of the swimming categories so that "aquatic" is in place of "swimming," I'd feel the same way. The categories aspect would especially need discussion, via [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
:Yes I agree, sorry about that; you know how you feel when someone reverts your edits. :) [[User:SmartyPants22|SmartyPants22]] ([[User talk:SmartyPants22|talk]]) 16:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

== Kinda wondering... ==

What brought you to the article discussion page for ''GoT'' (Season 8). I know you have had some very well-documented issues with Sebastian James in the past, and its seems odd that you'd suddenly show up where he has been participating heavily (though not usefully). It also seems odd that your first post there would be to attack my intent. I'm not saying misunderstandings can't occur; I'm here to try to understand your presence. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 15:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
:How can you still call other people stalker when you know that I had a discussion with them in the past a long time ago? As expected, you did really waste your ''precious'' time to delve into my history of edits. Do you know that every people whose ideas contradict yours don't have to explain why their "presence" exists? Most people won't even give an answer to a question like this since you call their first statement on continuing the discussion as an "attack" and "hate" (the delusion of it all!) with lots of smarmy comments. [[User talk:Sebastian James|Sebastian James <span style="color:red"><small style="font-size:70%;">what's the T?</small></span>]] 18:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
::Sorry, I don't believe I was talking to - or about - you. You may go off and find something shiny to play with. - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 23:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
:::[[User talk:Mazewaxie#La risposta|This]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#GoT season 8 critical reception summarization|this]], and [[Talk:Game of Thrones (season 8)#Does saying the season received mixed reviews need a source|this]] are discussions that were ''definitely'' aimed to - or about - you. Why don't you stop doing the things you don't like to other editors then whine about this discussion (which is the only thing you do on this encyclopedia correctly). I see the despair caused by failed attemps of bullying from a mealy-mouthed editor who contradicts themselves and conveniently misunderstands, in this case, the editor's username is Jack Sebastian. [[User talk:Sebastian James|Sebastian James <span style="color:red"><small style="font-size:70%;">what's the T?</small></span>]] 07:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

:::Jack Sebastian, regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones_(season_8)&oldid=903063881#Continued_discussion this], what brought me there is that the article is on my watchlist. I occasionally edit ''Game of Thrones'' articles. As for my "very well-documented issues with Sebastian James in the past," I knew that I'd interacted with one of you Sebastians in a likely heated manner, but I don't remember any of it. I'd have to go back and look. And I don't feel like doing that at the moment. And I fail to see how Sebastian James and I having had tempestuous interactions relates to how I addressed you. I mean, do you think I made up with Sebastian James and we became the best of friends and I decided to defend that friend? As for an "attack [on your] intent," I addressed that at the article's talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 08:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

==Immediate attention==
I want to make sure that you've seen my reply [[User_talk:El_C#Sexual_fluidity_article|here]] so that you get a chance to self-revert before it's too late. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

==Email==
Can you confirm that you recently sent me a few email messages?  Wanted to make sure it was actually you. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 18:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

==Age of consent ==
You undid my edit without a comment explaining why.-[[User:ApexUnderground|ApexUnderground]] ([[User talk:ApexUnderground|talk]]) 14:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent&diff=903848853&oldid=903715023 That] enough of an explanation for you? Or do you want to take this to the article's talk page, where I will provide source after source as to why I am right about how age of consent is defined? [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

:Followup edit and note [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Age_of_consent&diff=903850616&oldid=903848853 here]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

== Request for consensus on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations page ==

Could I ask for you to submit a vote on the Talk page please? There are some issues today. Regards, [[User:Hammelsmith|Hammelsmith]] ([[User talk:Hammelsmith|talk]]) 20:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
:I'm taking that article off my watchlist. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 10:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
::Understood. Sorry for the trouble. Best, [[User:Hammelsmith|Hammelsmith]] ([[User talk:Hammelsmith|talk]]) 22:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

== [[Gymnastics]] ==

You forgot one edit which was vandalism. I took care of it. The editor was already blocked so no point in warning.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#F80"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;•  16:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

== Zenica prison ==

Please don't revert good edits. I explained that image is valid for that article, info on selling eggs is true, as well as song from DJ Krmak. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/5.43.74.138|5.43.74.138]] ([[User talk:5.43.74.138|talk]]) 11:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

== Yikes ==

Hey Reborn, wanted to let you know that you have my support and thoughts.  What's up with all the anger?  And admins that watch this talk page, how come the IPs haven't been blocked, eh?  I appreciate the page protection, but shouldn't you guys go further than that, hmm?  Nobody on this site should have to go through the shit that Reborn has.  Her contribution is sooo valuable.  I could go on but I think you get my point. [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 16:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
:I did block the IP (for one week) I reverted, and I also semiprotected the talk page (also for one week). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks, Christine. I still plan to email you soon. As for the hate, it's largely a product of the controversial areas I work in. Because I've been called so many names on this site that I've never been called in [[real life]] or on social media (when I do use social media), I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=904779552&oldid=904779368 this] comment where I questioned an IP about the word they chose for me. I'm not saying that the word they chose or what they followed up with isn't bad (of course, it's bad); it's just that there are some words and comments people might consider to be worse and, unless I just revert the IP without a reply, responding with "that's all you got?" is a way of fighting back/getting under their skin. I'm used to it. It really doesn't bother me.

:Also, thank you as well, El_C. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

::Anytime. I also just redacted some nonsense. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

:::El_C, I apologize.  I do appreciate what you've done and how you've helped.  Please forgive my righteous indignation, which I should've overcome enough to be more polite towards you.  Reborn is my friend, and I tend to get a little mama-bearish with both my friends and my children.  Of course, she doesn't need it nearly as much as my kids do, but it's still no excuse for not practicing what I preach. [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 20:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

== Suggestion for admins ==

To all admins who stalk this page, I have a suggestion for you: if any editor, IP or not, vandalizes Flyer22's talk page, they should automatically be blocked.  I'm jus' sayin'!  Fly, always stay the same, since you seem to bring out these losers who demonstrate their unworthiness to participate in the Wikipedia editing community, and get themselves blocked after no time at all.  ;) All my love and support, [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 03:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

== Sorry ... ==

I was offline.  Don't hesitate to ask again if need be. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>]] </sup> 01:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

== OfficeBoy  ==

Since you were one of the editors who warned {{noping|OfficeBoy}} back in Feb this year when I got involved, this is a heads up that I've created an [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing sourcing issues with OfficeBoy|ANI discussion]] about his sourcing problems, if you want to weigh in. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 06:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

== Thanks for Man Flu revert... ==

I watch it since adding the BMJ info. At the time I also verified with them that the article was factual, but can't reference their email because it (correction) ''wasn't'' 'published.' Cheers! [[User:Shir-El too|<b style="color: #F64A8A;">''Shir-El''</b>]] [[User talk:Shir-El too|<span style="color: #DF73FF;">''too''</span>]] 10:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

== Meatpuppetry ==

Any idea how [[User_talk:Partytemple#Extended_confirmed_status_and_meatpuppetry|this]] happened? [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 16:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
:Per what I stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&oldid=907292945#Edit_consensus:_lead_sentence_describing_Jackson's_legacy_after_Leaving_Neverland here] (my "21:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)" post), he's one of the admins who looked into the matter. I wasn't expecting that action, but it obviously happened. What I can repeat is that there are admins who, like me, see meatpuppetry at the Jackson articles. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC) <small> [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 16:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC) </small>
::Thanks for the reply. I see. Is there anywhere I can see the discussions/investigations going on with these MJ pages or is that behind closed doors? I don't actually see where these system-gaming edits happened on Partytemple's history but I haven't looked very hard. I'm really glad other people have the patience to audit this stuff. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

:::[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Flyer22 Reborn: incivility, personal attacks|At ANI]], I pointed to the following accounts as examples:

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthGuardians

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deboleena.ghy

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GiuliaZB

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Funkof40000years.

:::Notice how TruthGuardians had never been to the Michael Jackson article until popping up to comment in the "Flyer22 Reborn is edit warring without good reason" thread at 01:59, 19 July 2019? That editor hadn't been on Wikipedia since 07:29, 14 July 2019. 

:::Notice how Deboleena.ghy hadn't been to the Michael Jackson talk page since June 19 and hadn't been on Wikipedia since 08:19, 15 July 2019, and then popped up at 06:06, 19 July 2019 to comment in the "Flyer22 Reborn is edit warring without good reason" thread?

:::Notice how GiuliaZB hadn't commented at the Michael Jackson talk page or been on Wikipedia since June 16th and then showed up on July 19th to comment in two threads that Partytemple started (the "RfC: Is Tarraborrelli a good source for this article?" and "‎Taraborrelli, rumor enforcer?" threads)?

:::They were directed to those threads. Many would deduce that Partytemple directed them to those threads. I didn't state the above to the admin who took action in relation to Partytemple, but I wouldn't be surprised if he saw the same.

:::As for discussion behind closed doors, I simply contacted a few admins to look over the matter. I didn't have extensive discussions with them about it. Per what [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&oldid=907292945#Edit_consensus:_lead_sentence_describing_Jackson's_legacy_after_Leaving_Neverland I stated] at the article's talk page, extensive discussion may be needed in the future in the form of discretionary sanctions. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

::::I see. Thanks for this. Well, it's a relief that another problem editor has hopefully been removed from the MJ article. 
::::By the way, I know you and MarchOrDie had differences, but I think their work on the article overall improved it. I see some of the restructuring they came up with seem to have vanished - there was a dedicated "Sexual abuse allegations" at one point, right? Trawling through the history of that article and its discussions is a bit of a headache - do you happen to know if that was put back through consensus or what? [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 08:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::Incidentally... are you ever gonna archive your Talk page? It takes me 20 minutes to scroll down to this convo each time, heh. [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 08:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::I was kinda wondering the same thing.  I can do it for you, my friend! [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

::::::The article setup was changed back (somewhat) per the RfC: [[Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 34#Request for comments on restructuring the article]]. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson&oldid=907292945#RfC_result this] section on the talk page.

::::::As for archiving, I'm trying to compete with [[User:EEng|EEng]] for the longest talk page. Just kidding. But I did think of his talk page the longer mine got; I figured if he can do it, then I can get away with it. Still, I've been meaning to archive this talk page. It used to be archived consistently. I'll get back around to it soon. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC) <small> [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 18:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC) </small>

:::::::Thanks for the info. Good luck with your world record! [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 03:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for the kind note! It was well received. [[User:AlexEng|<span style="color:#00C5CD">'''Alex'''</span><span style="color:#9CBA7F">'''Eng'''</span>]]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">([[User_talk:AlexEng|<span style="color:#FF83FA">TALK</span>]])</small></sup> 22:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

== Well Done ==

I have mainly encountered you on the Woman page. I appreciate your approach, your detailed explanations/comments and I like how your mind works. Keep it up! [[Special:Contributions/95.150.80.152|95.150.80.152]] ([[User talk:95.150.80.152#top|talk]]) 23:22,  July 2019 (UTC)
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==
[[File:Peacedove.svg|60px|left]]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic [[TERF]]. 
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> — [[User:Aeusoes1|Æµ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
== Alan Webster (paedophile) listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Alan Webster (paedophile)]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Alan Webster (paedophile)'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 29#Alan Webster (paedophile)|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 04:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

== Rasmus B. Anderson ==

Can you please explain why you reverted my correct edit. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/50.68.172.46|50.68.172.46]] ([[User talk:50.68.172.46|talk]]) 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Feel free to revert the IP. I don't want 3R. [[User:Neils51|Neils51]] ([[User talk:Neils51|talk]]) 11:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

== Dani M ==

Hi. I am swedish and read swedish, I now added refs to ALL major newspapers and media pages that published his own statement and so on. And btw, Syster Sol was major part of making Dani M one of the most popular rappers in Sweden today. Please don't delete her name from that list any more either. [[user|Flyer22 Reborn]]

==Azealia Banks==
Good night. I would like to know what was the problem with editing the article about Azealia Banks. What was the problem after all, isn't she controversial? I didn't even insult her.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/179.189.102.229|179.189.102.229]] ([[User talk:179.189.102.229#top|talk]]) 22:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Greetings ==

Hey [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer]], would you give me your facebook ID, I think it's better to chat, [https://www.facebook.com/sharif.uddin.3557 here is mine], you can knock. Best wishes. [[User:Lazy-restless|Lazy-restless]] ([[User talk:Lazy-restless|talk]]) 11:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Lazy-restless|Lazy-restless]], no, you may not have my personal information. And I don't want yours either. And I'm not on Facebook. Please discuss what you want to add and why at [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. Do not just keep reverting to your additions after objections. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 19:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

== ANI Notice ==
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice-->--[[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
:I dropped by because you just Huggled an edit I was looking at before I got chance to revert it - it occurred to me that I hadn't seen you around for a bit, so thought I'd just drop by and say hi. Seeing this ANI notice came as a surprise. I haven't looked into the details, but I just want to say that I greatly appreciate your efforts here - you do a lot of good work here behind the scenes, mopping up the mess that other people make, and I hope you will continue to do so. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 21:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
::I'm glad to see that the thread has been closed. FWIW, I didn't see anything wrong with the way you expressed yourself, and I thought David Fuchs' characterisation of your comments in particular was most unfair - especially the crass comparison with BLM and people of African descent - you clearly weren't saying anything of the sort, and I'm certain that you wouldn't. I was in the middle of writing a response to David when El_C closed the discussion; I guess it's better to let things lie, but I hope you take heart from the numerous comments that people left there about your cool-headedness and dedication to keeping our content in these areas neutral. I'm sure there are a lot more people who are grateful for your efforts than showed up on that thread. Cheers [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 17:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

== kabul  ==

The main page kabul shahi should be recreated, that is very important.It is the historical name, turki (bhuddist ) and hindu shais are sub divisions.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.90.196.230|88.90.196.230]] ([[User talk:88.90.196.230#top|talk]]) 12:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== A kitten for you! ==

[[File:Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg|left|150px]]
You are most welcome.

[[User:Fylindfotberserk|Fylindfotberserk]] ([[User talk:Fylindfotberserk|talk]]) 08:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>

== A puppy for you! ==

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks">[[File:GoldenRetrieverPuppyDaisyParker.JPG|x120px|left|link=Template:Puppy]][[User talk:Humorous1234|Humorous1234]] has given you a [[puppy]]!{{pb}}<small>Puppies promote [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.{{pb}}</small>{{clear left}}</div><!-- Template:Puppy -->
I'm going to random pages and giving lucky people puppies!
You were chosen! Spread the WikiLove by using {{tls|puppy}}!

== Edit summaries  ==

Please use edit summaries when you use tools to revert. --[[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E010:1100:F836:2E97:1A3A:8CE5|2604:2000:E010:1100:F836:2E97:1A3A:8CE5]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:F836:2E97:1A3A:8CE5|talk]]) 03:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
:IP, I didn't see the need for that since I left an automated note on your talk page explaining. Most edits I revert with [[WP:Huggle]] are vandalism or otherwise unconconstrive and don't need edit summaries. Your edit was not vandalism or unconstructive, obviously. It was unsourced, and I noted this on your talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 00:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

==My mother said it was in the water==
But no one believed her.
:Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior <br /> Science <br /> 30 August 2019 <br /> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693 <br /> PDF:&nbsp; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/365/6456/eaat7693.full.pdf
<nowiki>;-)</nowiki>&nbsp; [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">yak</span>]] 07:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
::Pyxis Solitary, yeah, material on that was recently added to the [[Biology and sexual orientation]] article. [[User:Crossroads1|Crossroads1]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Biology_and_sexual_orientation&diff=913229193&oldid=913222925 tweaked it]. I also saw it on the news last night. Basically, researchers are saying that there isn't one gene that make someone gay. There is no gay gene. But doubts about the gay gene were previously expressed. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 21:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Until now the gene chatter has been based predominantly on boy story. But this study included a lot more females than past ones. Which is why they need to stop calling these things "gay" whatevs. My father blamed wearing pants for my being a lesbian -- so I say, we need more studies on the causes of female homosexuality. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #7F00FF; color: #FCE883; font-weight: bold;">Pyxis Solitary</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">yak</span>]] 07:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

== Just need confirmation ==

Have you been able to see the recent email I sent you? I know you are a busy person so I don't expect you to reply to my email right away but I just wanted to ascertain if you had read the email. —[[User:Human10.0|Human10.0]] ([[User talk:Human10.0|talk]]) 17:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
:You didn't use the "Email this user" feature. I don't use the other email address anymore. I can copy your email over to the new address and reply that way. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 03:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
::I'm sorry. I have sent you the email again with the "Email this user" feature. Looking forward to hearing from you. —[[User:Human10.0|Human10.0]] ([[User talk:Human10.0|talk]]) 23:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet help ==

Yo. You have tons of sockpuppet experience and I have zero. 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.101.156.239 This IP account has only a handful of edits], most of them on AfD discussions, while quoting Wiki policy (they mention [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deadly_Viper_Assassination_Squad]]). Is that suspicious or am I missing something? [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 22:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

:{{tps}}It's [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody]] - look in the archives at the June 2017 entry and the behavior is right on. <b>[[User:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 01:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

::I see they've already been blocked. OK then! [[User:Popcornduff|Popcornduff]] ([[User talk:Popcornduff|talk]]) 02:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

== Shifty tactics ==
You can't stop me editing Milo's page simply because we disagree about the content. I'm being civil and discussing changes, I'm not edit warring etc. If I make/made a mistake I'm happy to correct it or have it corrected, but I take your comment (that I've deleted) on my talk page as a personal attack. Disappointing as I was pleased we were being civil and working together, but alas you're back to acting like you own the page. No hard feelings, but I'm not up for having spurious claims about POV editing thrown at me (this is actually against policy and it's not the first time you've refused to assume good faith). [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

:[[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]], fine. Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bacondrum&diff=prev&oldid=915050158 this], I will take the matter to [[WP:ANI]]. You don't seem to get it. It is no shifty tactic. And it's not simply in the past. You just made your latest derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos yesterday. And now you are saying that I'm trying to [[WP:OWN]] the page by pointing you to [[WP:BLPCOI]]. We'll let ANI decide.  [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
::Suit yourself. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 23:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Look, I'd rather not fight, I'm not going to stop editing the page, so lets be civil. I retract my claim that you were being shifty, just don't tell me my edits are biased and that I shouldn't be editing the page, I've every right to edit the page and I've been discussing changes, I've not edit warred, I've not done a single POV edit. If I violated BLPCOI I'm happy to retract/delete the violation. We don't need to return to incivility, in-fact I'd prefer not to. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 23:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
::::Can't get rid of me that easily. Peace. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 23:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::That's just not helpful. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::Exactly. If not a sanction, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=915225497#Bacondrum's_WP:BLPCOI_editing_and_comments_at_the_Milo_Yiannopoulos_article this close] is what I wanted. It will serve as evidence in the future. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 23:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

==Neutral notice==
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film]] over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Request_for_comment here]. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

==Vulva article==
OMG. All those shaved pussies in the article! Oy! [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]] 04:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
:With [[:File:Genital Diversity Expanded.jpg]], there was an effort to include both shaved and non-shaved vulvas. With [[:File:Vulva collage 12.jpg]], yes, there are more shaved vulvas, to various degrees. An editor could look to put together a second collage showing more non-shaved vulvas (along with shaved ones). And we could then replace File:Vulva collage 12.jpg with that. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

:And thanks for the above comment. Your "all those shaved pussies" exasperation gave me a laugh. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 05:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

== SOGIE Bill article ==

Good day Sir! Please review my added contents in the SOGIE Bill article. It does not violate the standards set by Wikipedia. I added websites as citation in every line to become vivid as well as verifiable. I hope for your action with regards on this matter. Thank you and God bless! [[User:Jsnueva1022|Jsnueva1022]] ([[User talk:Jsnueva1022|talk]]) 03:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
: {{Ping|Jsnueva1022}} At the very best, addressing someone as "sir" in this kind of context comes across in present day English as rather over-formal and archaic. Worse than that, however, doing so without first checking that the person you are addressing is male is likely to be seen as at least slapdash and at most insulting. Presuming that someone is male without any reason to do so is not a good idea. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly known as JamesBWatson''</small> 20:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox
| title = Precious
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
| image_upright = 0.4
| bold = [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#Flyer22|Five years!]]
}}
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 06:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

== Invitation to talk page ==

You are invited to the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#2019 in film|talk page on WP:FILM]] to discuss the issues with the format of [[2019 in film]]. [[User:BattleshipMan|BattleshipMan]] ([[User talk:BattleshipMan|talk]]) 01:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

== O J Simpson ==

Hello. If you feel that something is wrong or disputed with my addition to the O.J. Simpson article. Feel free to add Your input to the talk section on the page. Ive followed WiKI policy here and I don’t see anybody disputing what I added so I assume there is consensus. [[User:Samsongebre|Samsongebre]] ([[User talk:Samsongebre|talk]]) 02:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

Hi Flyer22. I am slowly returning to editing. I have excuses as to why I took such a long sudden break (computer broke then rebroke and then work and then life etc) but the truth is that once I stopped editing for a while I found I didn't miss it all that much. Every time I thought about coming back something else would come up that seemed like a better use of my time or at least more enjoyable. I know this is pretty common and probably really healthy so I am not apologising for that aspect. I want to appologise because I left rather suddenly and feel I abandoned you in relation to the transgender articles. I have a lot of other areas to catch up on (including some GAR reviews I abandoned which is inexcusable), but will try to follow some of the trans articles if I get time and motivation. I hope you are well. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 06:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

== Could you please block my IP? ==
I know this sounds silly but let me explain. I'm at a school so I share an IP address with some other students. So a lot of those kids are primary school kids who think toilet jokes are the epitome of comedy. They're not going to make any constructive changes and they're not going to stop vandalising Wikipedia. My IP had been banned before after they made a buch of vandalising edits but it seems to have been unbanned. And now they've gone and done it again.

I have made my own account so I am going to be able to still edit Wikipedia. If any of the kids sharing my IP with me were really do want to make helpful edits, they can always go home and make an account, and use it at school.

Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/115.124.1.167|115.124.1.167]] ([[User talk:115.124.1.167|talk]]) 23:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

:{{tpw}} It would be better for you to create [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|your own account]].  - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime Phone|<span style="color:#0047AB">'''FlightTime Phone'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime Phone|<span style="color:#0047AB">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 23:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::The IP wrote that they had their own account. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks IP but [[Special:Contributions/115.124.1.167]] does not show enough activity to warrant a block. The optimistic hope is that someone who today thinks toilet jokes are hilarious might do useful editing in a few years. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

== Hey ==

Could you tell me why you rolled back my request for help with sourcing an article on the reference desk? I asked a similar quesiton just the other day, got help and got on with the article. [[Special:Contributions/2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C|2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C]] ([[User talk:2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C|talk]]) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:Ah i see you reverted, thank you. I just got very confused as i could not see any way i did something that wrong there haha. Have a good day anyway :) [[Special:Contributions/2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C|2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C]] ([[User talk:2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C|talk]]) 00:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

== Sorry about the rollback ==

Bloody page jumped when loading and my middle click to open a different new tab hit the rollback instead. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 01:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

== Invitation ==

You are invited to [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#2019 in film|this section of MOS:FILM]] about the issues with the format of [[2019 in film]]. [[User:BattleshipMan|BattleshipMan]] ([[User talk:BattleshipMan|talk]]) 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

== [[Jeffrey Epstein]] ==
As you can tell, I am not very well versed in how to update Wikipedia, and really, I don't even know how to write these comments to you, so I am asking for your help to reconsider by offering evidence that the edit, at least done better, is a good idea. My primary reason is that nobody knows who Mark Foley is anymore, so it is not a good example. I didn't want to delete that example as someone else put it there, but since you said that there should only be one example, perhaps you would agree to update to this much better known person? 

You said it was [[WP:Undue]] to use Epstein as an example of someone for which the term [[Pedophilia]] was used. I believe Undue is to lend credibility to a weak minority position, like thinking the Earth is flat, and this doesn't seem to rise to that standard. Also, you said my first edit didn't have a reliable source to cite what was concluded, and so my conclusion was [[WP:Synthesis]]. Here is one that works well [https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/07/15/40768104/jeffrey-epstein-is-a-horrifying-person-but-that-doesnt-mean-hes-a-pedophile] that you could cite if you agreed that an edit was a good idea. You then said it was POV that someone was a biological adult when they are capable of reproduction, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult] has already settled that as someone who has reached [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_maturity], meaning capable of reproduction, which is true of nearly all 14 year old females. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty] says most females reach this state at ages 12.5 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche]. This article finds that 90% of girls reach this stage by age 13.75 [https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/1/110]. So, there is no credible allegation that [Jeffrey Epstein] was an actual pedophile. You then said that there does not need to be a collection of examples, and that one is enough, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley] was already used. Fair enough, but should that not be updated to a contemporary example that is actually in the memory of most readers? Do people in other countries even know who [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley] is? That was a local US issue. They for sure know who Epstein is as it was international news. Why use such an unknown regional example?

Seaching on google "Mark Foley Pedophile" returns 11,500 results while "Jeffery Epstein Pedophile" returns 3,390,000, making him 300 times more well known. Also, Foley is not as clean of an example because using him as an example needlessly associates homosexuals with pedophiles. Epstein reduces any hint of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation]. [[User:Silencertalk|Silencertalk]] ([[User talk:Silencertalk|talk]]) 23:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
:Replied [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silencertalk&oldid=922607545#Jeffrey_Epstein on your talk page]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 13:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
== Barnstar!! ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This is for your valuable efforts on countering [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]] and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. '''[[User:Path slopu|<span style="color:Red">PA</span><span style="color:Green">TH</span>]] [[User talk:Path slopu|<span style="color:Blue">SL</span><span style="color:Maroon">OP</span><span style="color:Darkorange">U</span>]]''' 13:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
|}<!--template:The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar-->

== Your request ==

Sorry I haven't dealt with your request for help. I will try to get onto it tomorrow. And ''please'' feel perfectly welcome to prompt me again whenever I don't respond in a reasonable time, if you want to. I suffer from attention deficit disorder, with the result that things I really intend to do get left because my attention leaps off onto other things, and any reminder to get my attention back again is welcome. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly known as JamesBWatson''</small> 15:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

== Editor needs advice ==

You undid one of my edits but then changed your mind and restored it. I am glad you did that. The wider situation is that there is a user who refuses to comprehend the simple guidelines I was following, namely that list articles should not start with "this is a list" ([[MOS:FIRST]]), and that bold face is used for article titles, not for related terms, and should not included links ([[MOS:BOLDAVOID]]). This editor, [[User:BhagyaMani]] appears unable to comprehend written English to any acceptable standard and I think their edits have gone well into the territory of vandalism now. Maybe you would like to try explaining the guidelines to them so that they can follow them. [[Special:Contributions/145.15.244.27|145.15.244.27]] ([[User talk:145.15.244.27|talk]]) 09:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

:Commented on the other editor's talk page. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 13:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
== Primary sources ==

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. Thanks for your comment. But the info I added is not biomedical material. It is rather Sociology. The Wikipedia article I have edited is full of other primary sources. Half of the article should be deleted if we follow that MEDRS policy.
The policy on reliable sources must be properly understood, knowing the goals of that policy. I understand that we have to be careful with medical information, so that users don't take preliminar findings as definite. But this is not the case.
--[[User:JAustria|JAustria]] ([[User talk:JAustria|talk]]) 12:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
::Replied [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JAustria&oldid=924707584 on your talk page]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 13:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

== CFR Cluj ==

Sorry about this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=CFR_Cluj&type=revision&diff=926482101&oldid=926481905], the intention was completely different. --[[User:Nyook|<b><font color="#800080">Nyook</font></b>]]''' '''[[User talk:Nyook|<font color="#808080"><big>✉</big></font>]] 18:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2019|2019 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Election_timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|poll}}|voting page]]'''.  If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=926750323 -->

== Amber Heard ==

Hello, [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] and thanks for the mention yesterday regarding the IP hopper at Amber Heard.  I really appreciate your request for protection and eloquence when describing the issues.  Happy editing, [[User:Jip Orlando|Jip Orlando]] ([[User talk:Jip Orlando|talk]]) 13:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

== Conscious capitalism ==
*{{la|Conscious capitalism}}
You reverted the changes I made to the page on conscious capitalism.

Conscious Capitalism is a major business movement. Its article was redirecting to [[Conscious business]] - an article that '''is biased''' and '''is not reflective of Conscious Capitalism'''. -
Read the comments on Conscious business talk page to understand why I made the changes to the Conscious Capitalism page. 

The original content that the page redirected to is still on that page, so Wikipedia lost nothing with the positive, constructive changes I made.

I was in the middle of writing an outline, on the talk page, for future development s of the article, bit couldn't post this.

Your reversion was ill-advised, apparently did not understand the reasons and context for the change, and is unproductive for advancing the quality of Wikipedia's articles. 

I suggest you unrevert the reversion you did, or go write a proper Conscious Capitalism page yourself. I can't be bothered writing it again if someone is going to ignorantly revert it in the middle of putting effort into helping Wikipedia. 

Please move this to the right place on your talk page, I'm not quite sure how / where to place this. 

Lauchlan Mackinnon, November 2019. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:118.211.154.15|118.211.154.15]] ([[User talk:118.211.154.15#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/118.211.154.15|contribs]]) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)</small>

== Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks! ==

Hello, 

[[:mw:Google Code-in/2019|Google Code-In]], Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia. 

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at [[:mw:Google Code-in/2019|the contest page]] and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community. 

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org. 

Thank you!

--[[User:Martin Urbanec]] ([[User talk:Martin Urbanec|talk]]) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Martin Urbanec@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Martin_Urbanec/MassMessage/Documenters_enwiki&oldid=19583321 -->

== [[Teenage pregnancy]] ==

Regarding your most recent edit summary, I should probably point out that using "U.K." isn't permissible under [[MOS:ACRO]], even if "U.S." is used elsewhere in the article. ("Both variants [of abbreviating 'United States'] are used, but avoid mixing dotted and undotted within the same article; use 'US' in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. 'UK' or 'UAE'.") [[Special:Contributions/142.160.131.220|142.160.131.220]] ([[User talk:142.160.131.220|talk]]) 23:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
:[[MOS:US]] states, "While, in principle, either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate 'United States' in any given article, the use or non-use of periods (full points) should also be consistent with other country abbreviations in the same article (thus the US, UK, and USSR, not the U.S., UK, and USSR)." So are you saying that "U.S." can't be used at all in the [[Teenage pregnancy]] article except for text that is in quotes? If so, I don't see where the guidelines state that. And I also remind you that these are guidelines, not strict policies. As witnessed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:142.161.81.20&oldid=846994099#David_Reimer_article here], you always insist on your personal preference in articles, IP. I often remember IP ranges, and I remember yours and your style. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top|talk]]) 04:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
::{{tq|So are you saying that "U.S." can't be used at all in the [[Teenage pregnancy]] article except for text that is in quotes?}} In this article, yes. {{tq|If so, I don't see where the guidelines state that.}} As noted, [[MOS:ACRO]] provides, "Both variants [of abbreviating 'United States'] are used, but avoid mixing dotted and undotted within the same article; use 'US' in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. 'UK' or 'UAE'." Given that the article uses the term "UK", I don't see any other way to interpret that here. Do you read it differently? [[Special:Contributions/142.160.131.220|142.160.131.220]] ([[User talk:142.160.131.220|talk]]) 04:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
:::Yep. That was pretty much the entire point of the RfC that lead to the wording in MOS:US; the dotted form is being gradually phased out on WP as it is in the rest of English usage.  Since "U.S." is a special exception we sometimes permit, but we do not write "U.K.", and the guideline says to use "US" in the same article as "UK" (or "USSR", and so on), then any article in which "UK" appears will get "U.S." changed to "US".  In the long run, the use of "U.S." on Wikipedia is doomed (outside of direct quotations and titles of published works and such): more and more cases of it will be changed to comply with current content that mentions "UK", etc.; more and more cases of it will be changed in the future as articles develop further and include mention of other countries like "UK"; and "U.S." is in continual decline in off-WP writing, even in the US and will eventually be obsolete enough that no major style guides will continue to recommend it, at which point MoS will not longer permit it as an exception. I would bet money on that happening within, say, 7 years, given the current attrition rate and the (slow) frequency of some style guides' publication cycles. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

==Consequence's Best of 2010s ==

We recently updated Consequence of Sound's page to reflect that they cover television in addition to music and film. But also, we added sections for the recent Decades project, specifying picks for top albums, songs, films, and tv shows of the decade. We would like to know why this was removed.

== You've got mail ==

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig= &nbsp; [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)}}

== Mistaken reversion? ==

Dear {{ping|Flyer22_Reborn}}:
I noticed this revision as a revert of previous one by you through [[WP:Huggle]], is it by mistake?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=What_Is_Life%3F&oldid=931231685

[[User:Xinbenlv|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xinbenlv</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xinbenlv|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]], [[Template:ping|<span style="color:#009933;">Remember to "ping" me</span>]]</sup> 19:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

== Revert at [[Variations of golf]] ==

Hi there. I have been working on improving this article for the past day or so. Part of the process has been removal of large amounts of duplication from other articles and adding significantly to the content (all properly referenced) &ndash; the edits you reverted (via huggle) included many of these changes. As such I have reinstated it. I guess you have no issue with this as you've removed the message left on my IP talk page. Any questions though, please ask. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/51.6.161.113|51.6.161.113]] ([[User talk:51.6.161.113|talk]]) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

==Cheers==
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Tom & Jerry as served at Karl Ratzsch's, Milwaukee.jpg|70px]]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | [[Damon Runyon|Damon Runyon's]] short story [https://classic.esquire.com/article/1947/12/1/dancing-dans-christmas "Dancing Dan's Christmas"] is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the [[Tom and Jerry (drink)|hot Tom and Jerry]]

<blockquote>This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.</blockquote>

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well F22R. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]&#124;[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 20:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
|}

== Merry Merry! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | [[File:Wikipedia Happy New Year.png|211px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Flyer22 Reborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this [[Christmas and holiday season|seasonal occasion]]. Spread the [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]] and a [[New Year|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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
[[User:&#42;Treker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:&#42;Treker|talk]]) 15:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}

== [[Richard Shaw (footballer)]] ==

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, I had added a section to the article about his ownership of Tornado Football and cited the website there.  Not sure if it needs to be cited again in the lead. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 20:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

== Broken section marking ==

Just a heads up: In [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_transsexuality&diff=next&oldid=930888883 this edit], you removed a {{tag|section|e|attribs=begin="factors"}} tag that caused at least one instance of section transcluding to break, namely at [[Transsexual#Causes, studies, and theories]].  I'm not sure how whatever other changes you made impacted all this, so I'll let you reconcile it all.

On a side note, section transclusion itself seems like a terrible idea, partly because of this exact kind of potential problem, and I'd be inclined to remove it.  However, I don't edit in this area, and wouldn't be especially sure of the best way to proceed.  &ndash;[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
: Restored section delim at "Causes..", and fixed section transclusion at [[Transsexual]]. Flyer, please check section [[Transsexual#Causes, studies, and theories]] to see if it has the right content, now, and ping me if not.
: Imho, section transclusion is a great feature, but like anything with some formality that needs to be absorbed in order to use it (complex parser functions in Templates; Infoboxes; {{tl|citation}} params; even something as simple as paired brackets in a wikilink) the potential to cause problems exists. That doesn't mean we should avoid such things, though. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 03:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

== [[User:IiKkEe]] ==

I have also found that the batches of edits by [[User:IiKkEe]] are problematic, most recently at vitamin B12 deficiency. [[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 16:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

==Good luck==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; {{round corners}}" class="plainlinks">
[[File:Wikipe-tan in navy uniform.svg|115px|right]]
<center>{{resize|200%|'''豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s'''}}
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.<br>
この[[User:Miraclepine|ミラ]][[User talk:Miraclepine|P]]はFlyer22 Rebornたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！<br>
{{resize|200%|'''フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!'''}}<br>
[[User:Miraclepine|ミラ]][[User talk:Miraclepine|P]] 04:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
</center>
</div>

== Season's Greetings ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | [[File:Wikipedia Happy New Year.png|211px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Flyer22 Reborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this [[Christmas and holiday season|seasonal occasion]]. Spread the [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]] and a [[New Year|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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
[[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 07:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}

== Merry Christmas! ==

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; {{border-radius|1em}} {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}}<!--
-->;" class="plainlinks">[[File:Happy Holidays (2135831016).jpg|206px|left]][[File:Arbuckle Bros. (3093003361).jpg|177px|right]][[File:Season's Greetings, Christmas Card from 320 Ranch.jpg|205px|left]]{{Center|[[File:Happy Holidays text.png|301px]]}}
'''Hello Flyer22 Reborn:''' Enjoy the '''[[Christmas and holiday season|holiday season]]''', and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand [[Wikipedia]]. Cheers, '''<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.6em #c4c2c2">[[User:Everedux|<span style="color:#FF8C00">Everedux</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Everedux|<span style="color:#00BFFF">(talk)</span>]]</sup></span>''' 18:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
[[File:A book of country clouds and sunshine (1897), cropped.jpg|center|500px]]{{paragraph break}}{{-}}
</div>
{{paragraph break}}
:<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings1}} to send this message}}''</div>{{-}}

== [[WP:MEDRS]] ==

Hi! Just saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gender_variance&diff=932893110&oldid=932608216&diffmode=source your comment]. I see what you're getting at. I'm not as familiar with [[WP:MEDRS]] as I am with the TV stuff but I see why relying on a single study would be considered dicey, especially around topics that have historically not necessarily been covered fairly or accurately, so I am happy to (re)take out the stuff I added back in. Let me know. —[[User:Joeyconnick|Joeyconnick]] ([[User talk:Joeyconnick|talk]]) 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

== required notice ==

[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Nkofa|Nkofa]] ([[User talk:Nkofa|talk]]) 20:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)