Jump to content

User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intensity254 (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 6 January 2013 (→Responding to post on my Talk page.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. If you want to know more about me, see my user page. My work, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was even blocked. See the block cases. You can have several or various WP:GA articles and honors, and the trust of many Wikipedians, but, if some believe you have abused Wikipedia, in contrast to your and others' insistence that you have not, it hardly matters. During that time, I learned quite a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you, and the experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia. My thinking about leaving Wikipedia and my block history remains on my talk page for those reasons. Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible.

Any questions, compliments or criticism of my work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.

Archive

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi flyer22. Do you know who this is? [1] Pass a Method talk 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned here fyi. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pass a Method, with the exception of these two comments,[2][3] I have an idea, but as a few people who have corresponded with me via email know, I am trying to keep away from that drama. The only times that I should be involved in any stated problems with your edits is when I choose to be involved. So far, that has only concerned an edit or edits you have made to an article or articles that I also edit. So I ask that you do not address me about this in the future.
Thanks, Adjwilley. I also replied there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

education

I found more links if you have any problems. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butch & Femme Relationships

another issue i'm very surprised is not in the lesbian article is the issue of butch/femme relationships. very often lesbian couples contain one partner where the woman looks and acts female and the other looks and acts like a man (dress, hair, everything). with gay male couples i very very very rarely have seen a relationship where one man looks and acts male and the other acts female and dresses in women's clothing. shouldn't there be some mention of this in the article? the reason i think it is taboo and not discussed is that the feminine women in the butch/femme relationship are actually bisexual (possibly even heterosexual) women who are choosing to be with butch masculine women due to often times past sexual abuse or various issues (often sexist anti-male feelings) with men in general. 24.193.117.138 (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP. I responded at the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brunet/Brunette = Brown.

The definition of Brunet/Brunette is wrong, as Black hair is no where near Brown. Never in public is it said that a person with Black hair is a Brunette. Implying it is wrong as it is not the right colour & saying so demonstrates you lack of colour perception. Black haired people are known as Raven haired, never Brunette. You either have Blond hair or Black hair. As these people have a very poor understanding of what Brown hair looks like. To confuse the issue on a Encyclopedic site is a wrong misuse of information, it only serves to dumb down the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.69.50 (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not state that black hair is anywhere near the color of brown. They state that "brunet" and "brunette" are terms that are used to refer to black-haired people in addition to brown-haired people. For a long time now, the terms "brunet" and "brunette" have not only been used to refer to brown-haired people. Like I told you on your talk page, "The first [source], Merriam-Webster, includes black hair by name, and the second [source] includes dark hair (which of course applies to brown or black hair; it even states 'dark or brown hair')." Refer to those two sources currently used in the article: Read here and here. There are various sources like that, and various books showing that authors use "brunette" to refer to black-haired women just as much as they use it to refer to brown-haired women. Yes, indeed many people in public refer to women with black hair as brunettes. And while black hair may not be anywhere near the color of brown, very dark brown hair is often near the color of black. In fact, it's often believed to be black, as is discussed on the Brown hair talk page. So this has nothing to do with my being wrong, my color perception, my confusing the topic, my being unencyclopedic, or my dumbing down the masses. It has to do with this being a prevalent use of the term "brunette," among the general public, dictionary definitions and scholars. Like I told you, among other things, we "go by WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability here. Read the first paragraph of WP:Verifiability; that is a big part of how things work at this site." Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Buchanan

I actually believe "Teen Jess" is a separate personality, much in the way that Victoria Lord's imitation of her father Victor in 1995 is considered a separate personality. FrickFrack 11:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, FrickFrack. We aren't supposed to go on what we personally believe about the storyline when adding information to Wikipedia, though. As you know, I asked you about that poster adding that information because I only know that Teen Jess was a result of amnesia; she was not a split personality in the sense of dissociative identity disorder, from what I saw of that storyline (meaning that I didn't watch all of it). Teen Jess is simply Jessica from a point in time in her teenage years, so it does not seem accurate to refer to her as a split personality... Well, okay, since the definition of split personality is a tiny bit broad, as even an alter ego may be referred to as a split personality, I state that we should at least not list Teen Jess in a way that our readers believe that she is a part of Jessica's dissociative identity disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Dusty relic

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Dusty relic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arrow

I'll definitely check it out. It's clear from the trailers that they are reusing Smallville sets. I already saw the Daily Planet set used for Dinah's office. We'll see. I don't have high hopes for it, but it could turn out ok.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, reading that the pilot episode was "directed by Smallville veteran David Nutter" is one thing that has me interested in the series. The others are just that it looks fun and intriguing. It doesn't seem like they'll mess up this Green Arrow tale, at least not for some seasons into the series, if at all, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are only calling him "Arrow", and they put a rule of "no powers" in the show. I'm not sure yet. I have it set to record so I can watch it. I'll know by the first few episodes if this is going to be Smallville or Gossip Girl real quick. It has the potential to be a good as Smallville was great, or simply as bad as Smallville was at certain points (ala "Magnetic"). BTW, I see that the discussion on Todd Manning just ended abruptly. Has there been further movement regarding it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Smallville or Gossip Girl. I take it that you don't watch The Vampire Diaries, LOL? I watched a bit of that show (originally one of the latter seasons, then a bit of Season 1 since its best to start from the beginning with any story), but still have not gotten "into it." I did get into Teen Wolf, though. I noticed that you started editing the Arrow (TV series) article. I'll help look after it if you ever need me to. As for the Todd Manning article.... Well, I'd told that editor that I would be archiving that talk page discussion soon because there was nothing further to discuss. The final statements were on September 23rd, and it was archived on the 29th. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never even tried TVD. Though, I'm a couple of seasons behind Supernatural, so I need to catch up on that. Teen Wolf has looked good in moments, and others it looks like the other trash on MTV. I haven't sat down to watch it straight, from start to finish, but I have heard good things about it. Yeah, I've tried to start editing Arrow, and I've already met resistance to anything. My first issue is with including "Story by" credits. I know some people add them, but my feeling is that you don't have to have written anything (writing notes don't count to me) to get the credit, and since the table is for "Writers" it should reflect only them. Then I mentioned that the international broadcasting section is basically a TV Guide for around the world I've received no comments about it. I'm afraid to start cleaning that up because I feel like it'll just start a new edit war. LOL. I've tried to do basic clean up around the article so far, but nothing truly major (part from removing a table that replicated information that was within eye view).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure that The Vampire Diaries doesn't interest as many boys/men as it does girls/women. And, oooh, I definitely need to catch up on Supernatural. I caught up on it a lot on TNT, but need to get to the point where I'm up-to-date on it. Teen Wolf just really surprised me as a decent series, and, like I imply on my user page, reminds me a bit of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which makes sense, considering that the creators' inspiration for the series is partly due to Buffy). Regarding your edits to the Arrow (TV series) article, I agree with you 100%. And thank you for correcting this, which also corrects part of my initial statement in this section above. And like I stated, I'll be there to support you on that article if you need it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start over

I would love to start over. We have a great deal in common and some of those things appear to be a willingness to discuss...at length.... LOL!...and the willingness to stop and reset. I also know you have a great deal offer in terms of knowledge and I know I can learn a great deal from you. Truce accepted and I offer an apology if anything said insulted you on a personal or professional level.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amadscientist. I appreciate that, and apology accepted. I'm sure that there are things I could learn from you as well. That's one of the good things about Wikipedia -- learning from each other. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I of course apologize for stating anything that may have insulted you on a personal or professional level. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD enforcer

I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer#"Request for stable state" project proposal. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Betty. Seems fine to me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The formal proposal is up and running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you are still interested in supporting it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Flyer22 Frozen! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments/opinion

Hi Flyer - I'm trying to come to a consensus at this discussion regarding the inclusion of some primetime dramas that have been called soaps/soap-like in the WP:SOAPS project. If you have a minute any opinions are greatly appreciated. Take care, Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, Kelly. Seems things have been worked out there. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law

Hello, if it is not an inconvenience, do you mind watching over and adding the Zoophilia and Zoophilia and the law articles to your watchlist? It rarely gets edited, aside from this one user who repeatedly adds unencyclopedic, non-neutral content.

The articles lack active editors and watchers, and I'm asking you because you're a good, level-headed editor who is not involved with the past issues of the two articles. Someone963852 (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Someone963852. I appreciate that you considered me to address this with, and of course appreciate the compliments. I don't use a watchlist anymore; I revealed that some time ago on this talk page and still don't use one. I simply look at my contribution history to check up on articles...because I mainly stick to the same articles these days. And by looking at my contributions, the WP:Rollback feature lets me know if someone has edited an article/talk page since I last edited it. I do all of this because Wikipedia is a very stressful/frustrating place, especially with regard to the topic areas I work in and I have too many pages watchlisted that I don't feel like un-watchlisting; I'd likely be tempted to see what mess someone has inserted into whatever article (which can end up taking more time than I want to spend on Wikipedia for any given day). I have regulated myself to focus on certain articles, and let others deal with the other topics on Wikipedia. Basically, Wikipedia is like a job to me. And the only reason I continue editing here is because I know what will happen to certain articles if I'm not here.
All that stated, I will help you keep an eye out on those articles you've listed above. I have been aware of the zoophilia issue for some time. As you know, there are those who have tried to get zoophilia listed as a sexual orientation, and Plateau99 is one of those users. I have interacted with him and reverted MarkB40n. You noted MarkB40n as a sockpuppet of Plateau99. You are very likely right, considering that Plateau99 was blocked for one month in June...and MarkB40n showed up with the same zoophilia-pushing agenda in July. Editors like Plateau99 often don't go away for long, and, now that the Plateau99 account is indefinitely blocked, he is very likely continuing to edit as MarkB40n. Simply reporting the user to an administrator won't help unless he or she blocks him per WP:DUCK or starts a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise, you should start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation yourself.
Also, feel free to email me any time. It would be good to get your email address, since you aren't on Wikipedia all that often these days and therefore email communication is the easiest way to get a hold of you. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply and willingness to keep an eye out on those two articles! I'll open a sockpuppet case soon after I learn how it works. That user edits the two articles multiple times but only in a span of a day or so in a month, and adds unencyclopedic content while doing so. It is getting tiresome having to check and undo it every single month, because not enough editors are willing to look it over. Giving up now will just allow him to advance an ugly agenda, and mislead the readers with false information.
Also, I enabled the email feature on Wikipedia, so you can contact me any time. Someone963852 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Don't see any email in my box from you. Maybe resend? John Carter (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's in your spam box? I'll send it again later since I have a copy of it by way of Wikipedia, and I'll let you know when I do. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't keep a "spam" box for that account, actually. Weird stuff has been happening since the hurricane hit, maybe this is one of them. I'll be watching for it, but I might not be active here for the next day or so. John Carter (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just resent it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with improving the All My Children and One Life to Live character pages

I was wondering since someone created the List of characters from Y&R from 1970s to 2010s, can you help me with this? Thanks! Jester66 (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create any list about the The Young and the Restless characters, Jester. But looking at List of The Young and the Restless characters (2000s) as an example, it's nice to see an American soap opera character list on Wikipedia that is generally well-sourced and encyclopedic-seeming. I emphasize "American" because some British soap opera editors, like Raintheone, have most of, if not all, of the Wikipedia British soap opera articles well taken care of; Raintheone has even taken care of various Australian soap opera Home and Away articles. I'm not too familiar with All My Children storylines from the 1970s; I'm more familiar with that show's storylines from the 1990s and 2000s/2010s.
What are you specifically looking for me to help out with on the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article? If sourcing is one issue you are looking for me to help out with, I must state that sourcing plotlines from that far back is a challenge. But the best place to start looking for sources for that time period is Google Books. Also, are you asking for help with the actual character articles, not just the lists? I've helped with some, as you may know, but have only significantly expanded ones (some of them) that pass WP:Notability....such as Bianca Montgomery and Todd Manning. If I had more time to spare, the Starr Manning article would be significantly fixed up by now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a little more work has been done on the Starr Manning article since I last discussed that article at Talk:Starr Manning. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well can you help we with the one from 1990s-2010s? Jester66 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jester, you didn't have to change your original text above; you could have simply struck through it, which would have been better, per Wikipedia:TALK#Own comments.
As for helping you with the 1990s-2010s All My Children character lists, I will once those are created. Nothing elaborate, but occasional help. But they shouldn't be created if they aren't going to be well-sourced and of encyclopedic tone (notice that the List of The Young and the Restless characters (2000s) article is not just plot, but includes casting, portrayal and a bit of character development information as well). There are a lot of characters redirected to List of All My Children characters. Are you planning to create space for every minor character on that list? Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't state that I wouldn't help out with the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article; I was simply noting that I can't be much help with adding plot to that article...unless it's plot I read from a source. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have to be EVERY minor character, just those who have made an impact to the show and was a part of storyline with major characters. And yes it will have to be well-sourced and of encyclopedic tone too. I will create the 1990s-2010s pages. Jester66 (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, because you left out "not," for a second there, I thought you were saying that it does have to be every minor character (and I don't mind at all if you add "not" in by the way). Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant does not have to include every character, sorry was typing too fast. Jester66 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jester, are you sticking with the color blue or red for the infoboxes? In the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article, Phoebe has a blue one; the other two have a red one. I'm certain that I know how that happened. You see, all of the All My Children infoboxes were red, then they (most of them anyway) were changed to blue because of what is stated in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put all of them blue. And I created the 1990s-2010 pages. Jester66 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arre redirected the pages, looks like we have to work on them in the sandboxes. Jester66 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Arre 9's reasoning,[4][5] and Arre 9 is of course correct. I stated above that "they shouldn't be created if they aren't going to be well-sourced and of encyclopedic tone"...and I was trying to get across the point that the sourcing and encyclopedic issue should be dealt with before or soon after creation. If these lists are to exist, they should be fixed up one list at a time. You need to work on the List of All My Children characters (1970s) article first. As you know, I tweaked it a bit, but it needs more tweaking. In addition to more wording tweaks, it should have any sourced casting, character development and/or portrayal information that you can find from WP:Reliable sources. Remember that I mentioned Google Books, and remember that I stated that while I will help, it will be "nothing elaborate" and more so "occasional help." My occasional help will definitely include sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messsage to you

Hi, I've left a reply to you on my talk page, regarding the pedophilia article. Regards Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TV, fictional characters and ages

Hi Flyer. I'm writing you because I see you were involved in this WP:TV discussion that formed consensus to remove age related fields from infoboxes. There is currently a discussion here at WP:SOAPS regarding (among other parameters in question) adding date of birth and date of death to the soap infobox. Soap infobox2/UK soaps includes those fields. I'm wondering if you can clarify how, if at all, the WP:TV discussion I referenced applies here. Did removing age become part of official policy or just a guideline? Also, if you have any thoughts on the parameter changes please weigh in. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a soap opera policy, and a guideline wasn't created for it; it was simply a matter of removing the age field from the infoboxes (which, as you know, was carried out for all television character genres) and this being the way that not having the age field was enforced. "Date of birth" and "Date of death" fields are the same as the "Age" field...in that they can be used to assert how old any character is. And as we know, soap operas often don't go by real-world age...either because of Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome or de-aging. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I guess my question is, is discussing adding the DOB etc parameters a moot point because of the consensus formed at the WP:TV project? Or is the SOAPS project free to add them if we wish? Personally I agree with the thought process behind not including them, but there are some that feel otherwise. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion has changed since then. I don't much mind at all these days that the age field isn't included for soap opera character infoboxes. But for primetime television shows and film, where the age matter isn't much of an issue, I sometimes find myself wishing that the age field was included in those instances. I suppose that WP:SOAPS is free to add them, but I feel that the wider consensus -- meaning the consensus that is still carried out by WP:TV -- trumps adding the field. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for weighing in. I wanted to make sure we weren't discussing for nothing, in case we were bound to whatever WP:TV had decided. I do believe we should do what they do, but will see what consensus ends up being. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks for alerting me. I most likely would not have known about the new discussion until a month or so later, seeing as I am not as actively involved in soap opera topics on or off Wikipedia as I once was. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescence

Hey Flyer! I hope you are doing well. Just letting you know it's me probably annoying you with the media/body image stuff over at adolescence (I always forget to log in, my bad). Just keeping it balanced a bit. I'm aware that some scholars like to make definitive statements about media/body dissatisfaction issues, but it's important to note other scholars dispute those claims too. I've kept it to the simple "scholars continue to debate..." language with the two cites, although we could probably work to broaden the discussion a bit. Would you want to do more on the "pro effects" side and I could balance it with some "no effects" scholarship? Avalongod (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avalongod. LOL, yes, as you saw, I guessed that the IP was you. I responded on the talk page with this. Discussion about this matter is better had there. I'm not interested in adding any information about this type of research, and am busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia. Maybe Lova Falk, who now helps me watch the Adolescence article, will be interested in adding some of the pro-research you mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm happy to work with Lova Falk to put something more comprehensive together if that seems the best direction. Take care! Avalongod (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now commented on the talk page of Adolescence. Thank you Flyer for involving me. Lova Falk talk 11:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danity Kane image

Thanks for your messages on my talk page. You will no doubt be interested to read my reply to your latest message. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template update

Hi Flyer - I wanted to ask your quick opinion away from the long convo at the infobox soap template on what you think the best way to get this done is... there are so many pieces and opinions and every time I think we've come to a conclusion it seems to open up again. It's also the oldest edit protected request and I have a feeling it looks pretty ominous to any admin looking to help with it. Do you think it should just keep going like it is and whichever admin helps edit it will sort out consensus/no consensus? Or maybe we should change it and request the unanimous changes first? I had also requested a third party to come in and decide if that romances discussion had reached consensus but no luck there yet. IDK, I'm just a bit discouraged in having a hard time wrapping this up :/ Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you should go to an administrator and ask for help. We should go ahead and implement the changes that have been unanimously agreed upon. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And implement the ones that have overwhelmingly wide support. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for telling me to remove my retirement tag, and making edits whenever I can. All I can say is that, you are more open than I am. Surge_Elec (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, you're welcome, Surge. And thank you for the barnstar. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, my friend. Surge_Elec (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lova Falk talk 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescence article

Hi, Flyer22. Nice to meet you. Thank you initiating a discussion in respect of the(se) image(s). I laid out my thinking in a more detailed way on the Talk page. Kind regards FeatherPluma (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is blocked

Yes, again. You've been repeatedly using Singaporean proxy IPs to avoid detection and to set up sock accounts, all abusively. There are too many IPs to enumerate, but this, this and this are just three samples. Fireflies36 (talk · contribs) is you, Fireflies35 (talk · contribs) is you, as is MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs), just for starters. There are plenty of others - lots of them. It's hard to even know where to start. But they're all you,  Confirmed by two checkusers now. This time, given the subject matter and how the edit times sync with your own, nobody is going to accept the "younger brother" excuse this time. You've gone to great effort to cover your tracks to avoid being detected in your interesting LGBT POV-pushing spree, but you're done now. Once I get the time, I'll likely to to AN/I and push for a site ban, something I rarely do - Alison ❤ 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Alison's block and checkuser findings. AGK [•] 00:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Allison, that's not true. I'm not User:MikeFromCanmore or his socks, or Flyer22. Am I her brother? Yes. But I am not User:MikeFromCanmore or his socks. Please check again. And have others check. It doesn't make sense to have edit warred against myself. There's no way that MikeFromCanmore or his socks were editing from the same computer/same true location as me. I was trying to keep User:MikeFromCanmore from removing the material. 220.255.2.150 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It started with the Lesbian sexual practices article. I saw User:MikeFromCanmore remove material that my sister had added some time ago. I reverted him there and elsewhere on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. I then reported him at WP:LGBT and at Drmies's talk page. Look at the vast differences between our rationales and at the edit times, where we were replying almost back-to-back. That would be an insane amount of work to comment back and forth with myself, using valid rationales vs. idiotic rationales, trading IPs, etc. That is not going to "great efforts to cover [my] tracks." That is us being two very different people. And most importantly, what would I get out of it? That's insane, as insane as User:MikeFromCanmore's rationales. My sister has never socked. And I mostly haven't been editing the same articles she edits anymore, and definitely not in a way to game the system. I've still been using proxies because she doesn't want me editing Wikipedia because she doesn't want my edits tied with hers and doesn't want me editing any of the articles she edits or talking to her while on Wikipedia. That's why she at one point had our IP blocked so that all I could do is use proxies. See here. When I was debating with User:MikeFromCanmore, he was soon calling me a proxy IP -- see User talk:142.161.182.190 -- which is correct. And he knew exactly what type of proxy I was using. We got into extensive debates, not just there, but also at Drmies's talk page. Given that he knew what proxy range I was using, it's not unlikely that he started using it. I had noticed the sudden vandalism to User talk:Widr because I kept getting vandalism warnings about it today when my IP would change, and I figured that User:MikeFromCanmore was using it, trying to get me blocked. I had almost commented to Drmies about this or with one of the other users I'd developed a sort-of friendship with there on Drmies's talk page. My point is that if you compare most of User:MikeFromCanmore's IPs to mine, you should be able to see that I did not operate those. I stayed on one proxy IP range and never used it for disruption or vandalism. I used it to edit a few aricles and mosly to combat User:MikeFromCanmore. To allign me or my sister, but especially my sister, with User:MikeFromCanmore, is a grave mistake. 220.255.2.101 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are telling a pack of utter lies. Why did you use anonymising Singaporean proxies? Was it perhaps because you thought you could make a bunch of anonymous edits to contentious articles about sexual topics while maintaining the facade of a legitimate account? AGK [•] 01:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a fair amount of time dealing with these socks, I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by this - not that Mike was the sockpuppet of an experienced user, but that the Singaporean proxies were also Mike's. They posted a tremendous amount of text in arguments against him, including at User talk:Drmies, User talk:Dennis Brown, and my talk page. If CheckUser confirms that this account is the puppeteer of MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs), then it looks like that's settled (and I clearly have no interest in defending "Mike" or whoever he/she actually is), but could one of the CheckUsers clarify the Singaporean IP situation? Did someone actually argue with themselves for hours on end? I'd say that the proxy part were just a misunderstanding in a situation with proxy IPs on both sides (a misunderstanding which has already happened several times in this whole mess), but seeing that whoever's using those proxies doesn't deny being Flyer22's "brother," I must say I'm a bit confused. So, to be clear, this entire edit war was actually between sockpuppets of the same account? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Without going into too much of the technical details, I can confirm that the 220.255.2.0/24 SingNet IP range was certainly used by Flyer22 (talk · contribs). Furthermore, I can confirm that the following open proxies were also used, and I'm just collating them here for transparency;
I spent some time looking into this tonight. It looks like MikeFromCanmore shared a common proxy with Flyer22 at one point and this is where the link came from. However, I'm going to say that the MikeFromCanmore group is a separate sock group at this stage. In fact, one of the 220.255.2.0/24 range was checked as part of this overall investigation and this was when the Flyer22 IP sockfarm was discovered. Sockpuppets warring with sockpuppets - Alison ❤ 05:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on this below (after the unblock request). Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Flyer22 Frozen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As this is a CheckUser block, I know that the CheckUser who blocked me, Alison, must agree to my being unblocked for the unblock to happen. I see what has been stated about my perceived guilt above, but here I am anyway. I have taken a couple of hours to review the disruption. And much like Alison, I don't know where to begin. It appears that no matter what I state, I won't be believed. By some anyway. But I need to state this regardless: Above, in the section now marked as "WP:DENY," my brother mentions that I added the content to Lesbian sexual practices that MikeFromCanmore was persistently removing. This is true, at least regarding some of the material, and it can be confirmed by checking that article's edit history.[6][7][8] Because I am the one who added some of that material, and this is an article I have heavily edited, this is no doubt why my brother repeatedly reverted MikeFromCanmore and got into an edit war with him over this material.[9][10][11][12] This is not the first incident where he has used a proxy to revert disruption at that article; he also edit-warred against Freedamordistat/Francaiselesbienne[13][14] (as he's admitted to me). When I saw the edit war with MikeFromCanmore, I decided to stay out of it, especially because MikeFromCanmore cannot be reasoned with and I recognized the IP who was adding back the material as a proxy IP. I'd discussed with Dennis Brown and others, by way of email, that there was (still is) nothing I could (can) do to keep my brother from editing Wikipedia, short of kicking him out of the house, and that he was still editing Wikipedia as proxies. He linked to a discussion about it above. As confirmed there, it is true that I agreed to IP block exemption, after it was suggested to me to do so, to keep my brother from editing Wikipedia under our true IP. That wore off after a month, and I didn't bother requesting for another. Because I feared that the proxy IP at Lesbian sexual practices was my brother, I stayed out of the edit war and debate and instead emailed three users about the edit war, asking them what I should do regarding that situation. These three users are: Gwen Gale, Siawase and Nigelj. You can obviously contact them for verification. Above, AGK called what my brother has stated about this drama "a pack of utter lies," but what my brother stated is the only thing that is logical. To believe otherwise is to believe that I persistently edited out material that I added, by way of fighting with myself, reporting myself at a WikiProject and administrator's talk page, and by having lengthy debates with myself, all for the sake of somehow drawing suspicion away from the fact that I am committing vandalism at various articles as various IPs. To that, I can only state that I am not a sockpuppet; nor am I a vandal. It was bad enough when I was accused of being my brother, but to now be accused of being MikeFromCanmore is far out there, like "out of this world" out there. For me to have been MikeFromCanmore, for my brother to have been MikeFromCanmore, goes against everything I am, everything he is; to persistently damage an article I contributed significantly to, and any LGBT article, would not happen in either case. People who know me as an editor, and how much I care about the articles I have significantly built, know that. I don't have that much time on my hands to go about such an elaborate ruse, and I can't grasp why anyone would go about it for so long, especially while using a proxy. Last time, I wasn't accused of vandalism. And now, not only am I accused of being a sockpuppet, multiple sockpuppets at that, but also an extremely disruptive vandal. My brother doesn't care what proxies he uses. He just uses proxies, and anyone can edit with those proxies. I highly doubt that he committed any vandalism under any of the proxies he's used. And if I had ever sockpuppeted, I would not risk being blocked again, let alone indefinitely blocked, after that embarrassing first ordeal earlier this year. The second ordeal, where my brother used my account, was almost just as embarrassing. But this third ordeal is by far the worst, not just because of the indefinite block, but also because of what I laid out above about MikeFromCanmore. Above, my brother requested to have more CheckUsers look over this. I could not endorse that request any harder if I tried. A thorough combing over the IPs to show that while my brother and MikeFromCanmore may have eventually used the 220. proxy, considering that MikeFromCanmore knew about the location of the proxies and was using various IPs (proxies or otherwise) to damage the articles Lesbian sexual practices and Lesbianism in erotica, my brother and MikeFromCanmore are not one and the same. And neither are the three of us. Seeing what IPs that my true IP has proxied under should also help. I ask that the CheckUsers consider more extensively examining the IPs (proxies or no proxies) and the computers (brands, files, etc.) that have been used during these edits. Once MikeFromCanmore goes back to disruptively editing the articles Lesbian sexual practices and Lesbianism in erotica, which I have no doubt that he eventually will, using whatever IP he'll be using at those times, that will also confirm that he is not me or my brother, assuming that CheckUsers will be able to see that even with his use of proxies, considering that proxies yet again did not protect my brother from being connected to me. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking per email/Skype discussion and per the agreement below - Alison ❤ 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I'm just going to note here that the MikeFromCanmore account group may well be separate to these. There have been so many IP ranges and open proxies used by these accounts that there may well be overlap. The useragents are also different between the Canmore group and these sets of proxies above. Can you at least explain what exactly is going on here with the open proxy IPs? This is not okay and, given the level of disruption here, looks a whole lot like WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY right now - Alison ❤ 06:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not what to believe here. I've been working with Flyer22 on this for month, although not recently. Flyer, you and your brother sound a lot alike, although not like Mike. I don't have access to CU data, so I can't tell if you are being honest or if you are just a clever troll playing all three roles. This wouldn't be the first time someone has done this, after all. Why would your brother have been so much on my talk page? I can see why you would Flyer, I've believed you when no one else would, but I just don't know what to think here. An Arb has been involved in this as well (Alison can email me for info), again months ago. More importantly, regardless of everything you say is true, Flyer, this has been an ongoing source of drama for a long time. At some point, WP:DE kicks in and "why" no longer matters. Again, I'm not sure what to believe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alison, for looking further into this and confirming that I am not MikeFromCanmore and neither is my brother. Also try to forgive me for this long post: Concerning the IPs confirmed as having been used by my true IPs, it's as I suspected/knew, and as my brother admitted; he has continued using proxies to contribute to this site. If he made a lot of the edits that belong to those IPs, it also shows that he has been somewhat honest about no longer editing the same articles that I edit. For example, concerning his 115.111.7.248 and 37.72.10.253 IP edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amanda Todd, I'd never heard of Amanda Todd until now (that may make me seem dense, but it's true). The only similar thing there is my brother talking about pedophilia, reiterating things I've commented on before. I have not been evading/trying to evade scrutiny. There's nothing that I need to evade scrutiny for; my block cases are mentioned/listed higher up on my talk page. And, like I mentioned last time, I would have commented on things under my Flyer22 account instead of as an IP. These contributions show my brother outing User:Acoma Magic, but I'm not as familiar with that user and would have outed him under my account. I see edits that can make people think that I'm my brother, except for the de-capitalization edit summary style, and I see edits like this one that are completely unrelated to me (not familiar with that user at all). Even though my brother has continued to use proxies, this is something that some administrators and one ArbCom member (one to my knowledge) knew about, and he (still speaking of my brother) doesn't appear to have been a vandal. From what I can see, this particular case was not a case of a registered account or proxy IPs reverting to support my reverts or commenting in discussions to support me.
To fully understand the proxy issue, you'd need to read over my email exchanges with SilkTork, Boing! said Zebedee and Dennis Brown. But to relay a shorter version here, my brother has always used proxies when using the Internet, stating that it gives him his privacy. That didn't stop when he started editing Wikipedia. He started editing Wikipedia to try to help me, but he went about it wrongly, starting by using proxy IPs to persistently watch over and report Pass a Method's edits because he considers Pass a Method a highly problematic editor (sentiment that has been expressed by various other editors). As mentioned back in September 2012 on John Carter's talk page (also linked in my unblock request), he stalked/complained about editors he viewed as "having caused me trouble" and/or as having problems in their editing. I stated, "Since my original and second block, efforts have been taken to contain my brother's editing, and his editing in relation to me, on Wikipedia, which is briefly commented on in the following edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee and Dennis Brown are two editors I have privately discussed this matter with. ... As for editing times, my brother was shown to edit Wikipedia at or around the same time as me as well; when I was blocked the first time, there was a close editing time in addition to spacing of editing times. So it's not just when I'm not at home, such as during my 6-day absence from Wikipedia when I was blocked again. Looking at the 23:33, 10 July 2012 edit and the July 16, 2012 edits I made to my talk page show that 6-day absence. I have a job (my brother does not), a job that I just got home from, and I do not have the time or interest to stalk Pass a Method all day (even though it appears that Pass a Method has been stalking my edits). Furthermore, I would not have asked others to deal with Pass a Method for me. It doesn't appear to have worked out much for these IPs so far; seems 50/50 most of the time. And I would have edited any of these articles attached to these IPs while signed in; they are often not controversial edits. The edits that show vandalism in some of my brother's proxies, I believe to be committed by others who used the proxies days, weeks, or months before he did, since he changes IPs often and is not a vandal. Well, not typically a vandal at least. I stated before that I cannot control my brother's access to Wikipedia (editing or simply reading it). I have made sure that he cannot edit Wikipedia using our IP address, but he never seemed to use it for most of his edits before, and he no longer supports me in disputes. Other than that, what he does here is something I try not to concern myself with if I do spot him. For example, if IP 94.76.201.77 is him, then I am all the more inclined to ignore this request.."
Dennis Brown also commented: "The other day, I blocked Flyer's IP and gave her IP block exemption. The IPs in question are anonymous proxies. I'm not sure what Flyer can do about this. Either you believe Flyer, or you don't..."
And at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, also in September 2012, I relayed: "I didn't even request [IP block exemption]. It was suggested to me, and I accepted it. But it was really a last resort type of thing because my brother continues to edit Wikipedia, will not stop, and it was suggested by administrators that he create a Wikipedia account. I saw that as a bad idea, even if using a tag on his user page stating that he is related to me. I don't want him to feel welcomed at this site or feel that he is welcomed to communicate with me on Wikipedia. IP block exemption ensures that he cannot create another Wikipedia account under our IP address and helps to keep me better disassociated from him. With or without it, he will still be using proxies to edit whatever part of Wikipedia he wants to. ... So all in all, taking away IP block exemption will hurt me. For instance, if my brother signs up for an account under a proxy, that proxy will be caught sooner or later, usually sooner, and so will the account associated with it if a WP:CheckUser comes across it. If he signs up for an account using our actual IP address, however, then that takes me along with him if he is shown to be a trouble-editor at any article. So far, he hasn't shown himself to be a trouble-editor at articles, except for any time that he followed the meatpuppet route. ... And I have done everything to keep him from editing Wikipedia, with the exception of kicking him out."
That is a summary of my brother issue/his proxy issue, Alison. Now it seems that I should have kept using IP block exemption or simply left before my reputation could be further damaged. During my second block (linked in my unblock request), I'd told Boing! said Zebedee that I discussed containing my brother with a member of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (SilkTork), and "I explained that I can't keep him from editing Wikipedia, and even pointed to the fact that my brother is still sparingly editing under our IP address, sometimes going as far to use my particular phrasings (not sure what the phrasing matter is about...unless he wants to make it look as though I'm editing). He may even be still using proxies elsewhere on the site. But there seemed to be agreement that as long as he doesn't edit to support me in any way or create another registered account, everything should be fine as far as affecting my account goes. Even if I were to discard this account and edit under a new one, it wouldn't be a true WP:Clean start because I wouldn't be willing to leave the topic areas I edit in, which means that my brother would soon recognize me. It seems that I might need to have the aforementioned ArbCom member weigh in here, because this has gotten ridiculous and what I consider to be a more serious line has been crossed, since he dared edit under my user name. As far as I'm aware, that has never happened before. Although there were times in my earlier editing days in which I didn't look back at my contributions, that was before my brother had any interest in editing Wikipedia and I now look back at my recent contributions each and every time. My Wikipedia password has always been secure as well, as I have never revealed it to anyone. But seeing as I use this password for other things, including for my computer account, and my brother may know of it from any of the other instances, I will now need to change my computer password and my Wikipedia password. Unless knowing my Wikipedia password, if I was still logged in as Flyer22, he still would have needed to enter my computer-account password before being able to edit under my Wikipedia account."
Boing! said Zebedee responded, "Got your email - as you say you have now secured your computer login again, I have unblocked your account. I wouldn't worry about having a couple of blocks in the log - you have the evidence in this talk page history to show it was someone else's doing (and some of our best contributors have lots of blocks :-) And I don't think you need consider a clean start either - you haven't been doing anything wrong yourself. Should you have any related problems in the future, there are a few of us who know what's behind it and will be able to help (and you have my email address, so you can always contact me independently of this account). Cheers. --"
Clearly, there was something to worry about. But for me to go out of Wikipedia like this? It makes me extremely sad. I suggested during my first block that I would be willing to meet with Wikipedia ArbCom members in person to confirm that my 19-year-old, now 20-year old, brother exists and that the edits I've been accused of making, as a different registered user and as IPs, are his (or people unrelated to us at times). I am still willing to do that. If using Skype to confirm that there are two of us was agreed to, I'd do that. Anything to keep my Wikipedia account from ending in this horribly false fashion.
Dennis, it saddens me greatly that you have lost faith in me.[15][16] But I understand. "Assume good faith" can only go so far. Still, I would trust that you and others who know the behind-the-scenes matters wouldn't be so quick to think of me as guilty. You are one of the people who knows that I've done a lot, everything, to keep this very moment from happening. You commented that my brother sounds a lot like me. In response, I can only point to what I stated above in my comment to Boing! said Zebedee. My brother has certainly watched me on this site enough, is familiar with my reasoning, and has admitted that he has learned to edit this site (what the policies are, etc.) by watching me. So it doesn't surprise me that he can or would sound like me (he goes as far as to repeat what I say about pedophilia to people in person), or that he would show up on your talk page to discuss things with you about a problematic editor. He's familiar with you through me and you were steadily blocking MikeFromCanmore. Looking at this and his posts about MikeFromCanmore, he also apparently has a fondness for reporting people at Drmies's talk page. Drmies and I have not interacted much, however, so I cannot explain why that is.
That's all I can think to comment on at the moment. I ask that Alison and others be as fair as they possibly can on this issue. When what was likely my brother was scolded by a user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, he ceased his stalking/complaining to others-behavior of Pass a Method to make sure that I would no longer be caught up in his Wikipedia disputes. I have faith that he would be willing to give up his Wikipedia proxy use for good, considering this latest incident. He apparently truly does just want to edit Wikipedia, and it appears that I should have gone with the advice to let him create his own account and have it publicly connected to mine by a tag on our user pages. I can't help that it just didn't seem like a good idea, for the reasons stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Flyer and the "brother" are two persons or one is no longer relavent. The simple fact is that the level of disruption from this "family" as a whole has gone beyond what can be accepted from the community. Too much energy is being wasted in this game, that could be better used to improve the project. Time to protect the project for good (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The project can be protected without indefinitely blocking me. Disruption... While my brother has continuously used proxies to edit Wikipedia, that is not a major Wikipedia crime. I'm looking where WP:PROXY states, "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Proxy blocks are to keep vandals and other such problematic editors from damaging Wikipedia. My brother is not a vandal and I don't see where he has damaged Wikipedia. He is not any of the actual disruptive editors around here. MikeFromCanmore was, and is, an actual disruptive editor, in stark contrast to how my brother behaved, as others from Drmies's talk page have stated. His only similarity with MikeFromCanmore was proxy use, proxies used for very different reasons. There have been true-blue disruptive Wikipedia editors who have gotten dozens and dozens of chances to remain a part of this community and still get chance after chance, either because of their perceived value and/or obvious popularity. And I should be indefinitely blocked because of actions that I did not commit, but went through great means to try to stop? For the continual proxy use by a member in my home because that proxy use occasionally gets mixed up with vandals? Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, I'm trying to assume good faith, I really am. I have devoted a fair amount of time and energy trying to resolve these problems this year. Had the brother been using anonymous proxies only and you had not, then CU wouldn't have made the connection. That is the whole idea behind open proxies, and why we block them. I'm fairly active in that area, being somewhat familiar with networks. But I just don't know what to think here. I want to believe you, and my giving you block exemption demonstrates I have in the past, but the amount of drama and problems this has caused is hard to ignore, regardless of the reasons. My granting block exemption was a "hail Mary", a final, last ditch attempt at making the situation workable. As to what happens next, it is out of my hands, but I'm pretty sure you have two issues you have to address fully: Demonstrate you really are two different people. 2. Provide a path forward that prevent these types of issues in the future. Until those two things happen, and until a Checkuser agrees, I can't see this working out. I won't stand in the way of any resolution, as I genuinely do not know what to think about the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, it sounds like you are stating that I used proxies while using my Flyer22 account. That didn't happen because I didn't use any proxies, and I certainly wouldn't edit Wikipedia as Flyer22 while using proxies knowing that at any moment one of those IPs could be connected to me if a CheckUser blocks it. Alison and/or another CkeckUser should be able to clear that up. As for your block exemption, it obviously did work to keep anyone else from using my IP but me. But it only lasted for a month, and I considered the issue over after that. I was wrong, clearly. But like I stated above, "I have faith that he would be willing to give up his Wikipedia proxy use for good, considering this latest incident." Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time to WP:RBI - except in this case it's "ban" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, I have no idea if you used proxies as I don't have access to the checkuser data and only a CU can verify that. Since CU linked you, it looks like you may have whether you knew it or not, as my general understanding of CU is that IP address plays a major role in linking, and proxies hide your true IP. Using a proxy is a simple setting in Internet Explorer, so it is technically possible to be using one unknowingly. I was already reviewing the necessity of continuing the block exemption when this issue came up, and obviously my actions will be scrutinized in granting it. For now, I recommend pulling back and allowing the CU to look at the data again, as it appears from their comments above that they are doing just that. As I'm involved in the situation, I can't help you anyway, and again, I lack enough information to have a definitive opinion anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins, we get it: You want to throw me to the wolves, because you obviously feel that I am one of the worst of the worst, even though you have come across actual worst-of-the-worst type of editors and continue working with some of them because they are "oh so valuable/popular." But stop commenting on my talk page about it. You know full well that you aren't being helpful in this discussion and are only antagonizing.
Dennis, I don't even believe that I accidentally used a proxy while editing as Flyer22. The first time that I was blocked, I believe that the connection was caused by a weak proxy that my brother had been using when commenting in a sockpuppet investigation, as noted above. I use Firefox, not Internet Explorer; we discussed that before, I think, that my brother is an Internet Explorer user. I'm not sure if editing Wikipedia while using Firefox while his Internet Explorer is still set for proxy use could hurt my editing, or how often he edited at the same time I was editing, which maybe could cause some type of connection, but he's long since stated that he always turns the proxy off after he is finished using the Internet (whether on Wikipedia or at some other part of the Internet). As there is a lot more that goes into CheckUser data, such as computer and browser comparisons, you know that it's not the IP aspect only that CheckUsers rely on; I've witnessed this times over. Because of that, maybe it doesn't matter if even a strong proxy is used; CheckUser will find a connection due to the same brand of computer/useragent. I don't know. But thank you for trying to assume good faith. I agree with stepping back, but that's difficult to do when a dismissive/antagonizing post is made in this discussion; such posts should also pull back. There was already a rush to judgment with assuming that I or my brother was MikeFromCanmore. I ask that editors try to assume good faith on this matter instead of being out to start a lynch mob (except, of course, for those who have that mentality concerning me regardless; meaning the few enemies I've made at this site, as they will only see me as guilty). I'd seen that one editor, who is familiar with a great deal of what I'm feeling at the moment, has assumed good faith and suggested an in-person meeting to show my innocence, and I'm thankful for that mindset. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a further review. Nothing would surprise me - I have seen socks edit warring with each other, and I have seen one editor appear as half a dozen rounded, fully convincing characters (including one alleged to be their own grandchild), and I have seen a serial sockmaster sock to create FAs (unfortunately using copyvios from an expensive academic tome that weren't spotted for some time). Technically the crossover with MikefromCanmore appears to be only one point, so they could be different people, but the 'kid brother' defence is in my opinion just so much rubbish. The 'brother' has continued to edit, anonymously and in volume, throughout the areas where Flyer22 has edited. So it wouldn't surprise me if this editor has created an alter ego with an opposing viewpoint, for whatever purposes seemed good for them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I don't know what else to state. During my original block, I stated that I can't confess to something that I did not do. The same remains the case now. I never lied about any of this. There is no kid-brother defense, as Skype or an in-person meeting can be used to show that we are not one and the same. Even uploading a YouTube video and notifying CheckUsers and/or ArbCom members of it. All I've ever wanted to do concerning Wikipedia is to contribute to it and help it, not damage it; and that's all that I've done at this site for five years. In all cases where my brother has edited in areas that I've edited, they are cases where his help was not needed. Cases such as reverting vandalism on articles, adding content, etc., anything that wasn't the case of two registered users or IPs supporting each other's reverts or each other in discussions, are all things that made more sense for me to do while logged in, and it's a big part of the reason that I'm asking you and others to see that I am not lying here. These sockpuppet and proxy IP issues were never a factor for me until this year, because it is only late last year that my brother started editing this site. He no longer, to my knowledge, has been using proxy IPs to revert in order to support my reverts or to comment in discussions to support me, so I can't state much for why he continued to edit some of these articles other than he has a true interest in some of them and thought that it was okay since it wasn't the type of support that caused me trouble before. But having just spoken to him very recently this morning and afternoon, he has agreed to stop his proxy use and has stated that he surely would be willing to meet with any of you to verify the truth of our words. I'm a hard worker, and all I am asking for here, besides assumption of good faith, is for another chance. I mentioned higher up that some of the most disruptive editors have been given chance after chance to be a part of this community. I'm not even a disruptive editor, so you have no idea how jarring and hurtful this is for me, to be on display like this and to ask for another chance because of actions that I did not commit. But here I am asking. And I would be willing to do anything to remain a part of this community and continue to edit the topics I'm good at editing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be possible, in some way, to confirm to the check users or others that there might be two different people who both use the same computer. I honestly don't know how, other than, maybe, to do something like you propose above. Personally, I am less sure that a YouTube video is the best way to go, because people can talk others into lying on such sources, or maybe bribe them in some way. Not saying you would necessarily, but that isn't the most reliable idea I can think of. Maybe sending an e-mail of some sort to a check user or ArbCom in which you reveal your real name, with your brother sending a separate e-mail in which he does the same, with one or the other of you also providing some sort of independent verification that those two individuals actually do both exist, or physically meeting a senior trusted editor in your area who you might be able to individually meet with, for the both of you to physically meet that person and somehow confirm to their satisfaction that the two of you are the separate users of the two accounts. Maybe. I honestly don't know what precedents regarding this might or might not exist, but I can see that siblings supporting each other, maybe on the same computer, might be a problem that will arise elsewhere, particularly if we manage to get more school projects, where we might even have, potentially, identical twins with separate accounts editing the same subject area as a part of a project of a class they are both take. Honestly, I don't even want to consider the difficulties that might pose here. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, John. The YouTube aspect had been further considered by me, even as I'd posted it as a suggestion. A fellow Wikipedia editor mentioned to me in email that with enough bad-faith, people could conclude that I hired an unemployed actor. I have gone with live video communication so far. It's mentioned in the section below that Alison would be speaking to me and my brother via Skype; she has done so, and I'll let her divulge the details about that here on my talk page. I'll respond to your email in a moment. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now receiving abusive emails

I very recently received two abusive emails back to back. One from MikeFromCanmore dated December 13, 2012, 17:02 and one from RJR3333 dated December 13, 2012, 17:17. Surely, Wikipedia email software can show that they sent these. Looking at RJR3333, I see that he has still gone on about me at his talk page. Taking his history into account, I also doubt that he has followed WP:OFFER and that he hasn't been editing Wikipedia under another user name. That he is even aware of what is happening at my talk page shows that he is still obsessing over me. Is it likely that RJR3333 and MikeFromCanmore are one and the same, or is this just a coincidence? What should I do about this? Should I at least reply to MikeFromCanmore? He's certainly made assumptions about my sexual orientation and intentions with the Lesbian sexual practices article and that I'd even be unblocked and free to add the information that he wants. If this information were to be added by anyone, would this be acceptable since it is the request of an indefinitely blocked user?

Below are the emails (with my email address edited out; I've also just sent them to Alison): Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: MikeFromCanmore (Redacted) To: Flyer22 Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 17:02 Subject: This all could have been avoided.

Provided you stopped your pro LGBT biased editing, as you did with "Lesbian sexual practices". I understand your orientation and have no qualms with that, but to try to make an article biased to fit your own personal agenda (trying to manipulate your lifestyle as being superior, and stating this as fact) is extremely disruptive. To make it unbiased you would have to include the Pepper Schwartz study as well as the study by Diane Holmberg, Karen Blair, in the Journal of Sex research that found identical satisfaction, communication, etc. If you actually make it unbiased, then I will have no problem with it. You can keep what's there, but you should present the well sourced article in the Journal of Sex research and the Schwartz study.

http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Holmberg%20&%20Blair%20JSR%20Vol%2046%20Iss%201%202009.pdf

I'm sending this to see if you're more reasonable than your autistic brother, who I assume is your alter ego, but maybe not. Are you willing to remove bias to make a compromise? Your alter ego couldn't face the truth and repeatedly denied evidence. Again, had you not been such a biased editor, this never would have happened! Interesting how the world works. Some might call it karma. Email back.

-- This e-mail was sent by user "MikeFromCanmore" on the English Wikipedia to user "Flyer22". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: RJR3333 <xxxxxxxxxx> To: Flyer22 Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 17:17 Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

I saw that you were banned from editing you stupid kyke. YOU LOSE

-- This e-mail was sent by user "RJR3333" on the English Wikipedia to user "Flyer22". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Okay, Alison let me know that she's "blocked both those accounts now so they cannot send email." And that I should let her know if I get anymore abusive emails so that she can block those as well. She also stated, "And yes, it's the Canmore guy again, so this socking obviously goes waaay back." So I take it that she means that MikeFromCanmore is RJR3333. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • From their edit interests, they look very similar indeed, but Checkuser doesn't give much visibility on that, for a number of reasons. I'm making an educated guess there. And I've had to redact one of the email addresses above, as it's trivially simple to determine the RL identity of one of those posters. It's probably not a great idea to post email to WP, not even abusive ones like these - Alison ❤ 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, Alison. I've seen abusive emails revealed on Wikipedia as evidence, and it seemed that I should post these here as part of my case. As I wasn't fazed by these emails in the way that the above users presumably expected, that is another reason that I didn't mind posting them in their entirety instead of just mentioning them. I'll think better of anything of this sort in the future, if it happens again while I'm indefinitely blocked or during any future time I have on Wikipedia as an unblocked editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, you have an open unblock that you asked for admins to review. I'm an admin, and have reviewed, and will continued to provide my findings and comments as long as it's open - it is, indeed, helpful to the process. Second, I'm very disappointed that you posted the entire contents of private correspondence above - that's not permitted, and goes further towards the point that you should not be here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, welcome to my talk page then. First, the unblock request starts off stating, "As this is a CheckUser block, I know that the CheckUser who blocked me, Alison, must agree to my being unblocked for the unblock to happen." So it is quite clear that any review you could have possibly given was not going to result in you unblocking me, as Alison was still looking over things at that point (and is still looking over things). And knowing how you are, you would have commented here regardless. Also knowing how you are, and how you always assume the worst in block cases, you would have had nothing but negative, snarky things to state here; I've seen you in action countless times, and our few interactions have never been positive, even when my blocklog was clean for years before this hellish year, except for in the case of when you saw RJR3333's harassment of me and WP:COMPETENCE issues for what they were. After that, I'd thought to myself: Hey, maybe that Bwilkins guy is not such a bad guy after all. And that one day we may have a working relationship; indeed, I was wrong. Considering the dozens and dozens of emails I've received stating that I should be here, and this post on Alison's talk page stating so, I'm more indifferent than I am upset/disappointed that you think repeatedly stating on my talk page that I should not be here, usually with as much antagonism as possible, is "indeed, helpful to the process." But we all have our opinions, don't we? The difference between those who feel that I should be here and you (or those like you) is that they are not stirring up needless drama on my talk page; this is why they have refrained from posting here about this matter. They know that it is not helpful. And so do you; you, however, don't care.
Second, while I am aware of every Wikipedia policy and guideline, I had not been familiar with Wikipedia:Email#Abuse handling, which isn't a policy or guideline. And not having been familiar with it does not validly add to the opinion that I should not be here. Regarding Wikipedia:POSTEMAIL#Private correspondence, which is a policy, but one that I was not familiar with despite having heard of it in the past, it begins by stating, "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." This is clearly true, as Alison doesn't see my having posted the abusive emails as a major issue. Still, late last night, I asked her to also block out MikeFromCanmore's email address like she did for RJR3333's (although for my own personal benefit) and told her that I had read the email policy and that I see it turns out that I shouldn't have posted the emails at all without permission, but that it seems very unlikely that one would need to get permission from indefinitely blocked editors before posting their abusive emails to Wikipedia as evidence. I also mentioned that MikeFromCanmore, at least, seems fine with the posting anyway, considering that he gave permission to show his second email (although while claiming that the email address for his second one is not valid). Of course, I won't be posting that second email to Wikipedia. But since he's reading everything that is happening here, and I won't be responding to him by email, I'll mention this: MikeFromCanmore, we will have to agree to disagree on me calling your email abusive. Among other things that can be categorized as abusive, you called my brother autistic; I don't find autism insulting, but your remark that he has autism because of how he interacted with you was clearly intended as an insult rather than a statement of fact. And the information that I added, I mean the bit that you object to, had nothing to do with my sexual orientation or me being biased, and your comparisons are quite off the mark. I improve sexuality articles in need of improving, and all I did in the case of the Lesbian sexual practices article was add on to information that was already there. The Alfred Kinsey and Masters and Johnson studies comparing lesbians to heterosexuals were already there (as seen in the diff links I listed in my unblock request). That stated, if unblocked, I will be adding the information that you propose be added. And, Bwilkins, I'm not surprised that you would be bothered by my having posted the above emails instead of by anything in the above emails. That is another difference between you and Alison. Before you state what you think of the emails is irrelevant to whether or not they should have been posted, I state that, yes, I know you think that way. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, you are mistaken in one respect: the right to overturn this block is not limited only to Alison. Any checkuser may unblock you. (For instance, I'm a checkuser and I could have overturned the block; however, I did not do so, because I reached the same conclusion as Alison—that you have been socking while logged-out on a massive scale.)
Other administrators, with Flyer22 making increasingly lengthy comments (and publishing e-mails without authorisation), and with the only uninvolved administrators being firmly opposed to the block appeal, I suggest that the appeal be formally decided as soon as possible. AGK [•] 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that any CheckUser may unblock me. But Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks states, "All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee, and administrators should not undo or alter any block that is specifically called a "CheckUser" block without first consulting a CheckUser." That is the point I was trying to make. And regarding Alison's CheckUser conclusion, as you are aware of, she has since stated that she is comfortable declaring that I am not MikeFromCanmore. She has also stated that she is not completely sure of what has taken place regarding the proxy IPs; she has kept an open mind, especially because a lot of what she has examined is confusing (as it naturally would be, considering that there are edits and edit summary styles that are illogical when attributed to me). She has agreed to Skype with me and my brother later this afternoon, to better get a grasp on all of this.
I disagree that I am making any "increasingly lengthy comments." The first lengthy comment was my unblock request, and the length of it is not prohibited. The second lengthy comment was to summarize but yet sufficiently explain a matter that Alison asked me to explain; it is the longest comment so far. And the comments to others, especially those who are speaking directly to me, may be as long as desired, but have been fairly short. I'm not trying to write a book when replying; I am only replying at the length that I feel is needed during any given reply. But I'm not actively thinking of the length; I will from now on during this block. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 wishes to contact me via Skype to discuss this, and has been in contact via email. I'm okay with that. Let's not close this request out, please, until everything has been reviewed? - Alison ❤ 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got your email just now. I'm currently writing up the details here, so sit tight. I should have something later today - Alison ❤ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Hi Flyer22.

Per our lengthy email and Skype discussion, I'm going to unblock your account based on a number of conditions. I'm now 100% convinced there are two separate individuals in your household who are editing Wikipedia, one of whom used proxies. Ok, per our agreement, I will unblock your account provided that;

  • Your brother gets his own WP account - just one - and sticks to that without logging out. What he's been doing clearly comes under WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY.
  • Your brother quits using proxies while editing Wikipedia. They're clearly not nearly as anonymizing as he thinks!
  • You both try to steer clear of each other's editing areas, otherwise people will assume WP:MEAT, or some sort of collusion is going on.
  • You both indicate on your accounts that you guys are both editing from the same household, for transparency.

Can you indicate that you agree to this? - Alison ❤ 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alison, I agree. And so does my brother. I know that this is my last chance, and I thank you deeply for investigating this far beyond your initial conclusions. I'm convinced that any other CheckUser would have closed the door on me. What you told my brother about the proxy use has opened up his eyes more than any other commentary about it because now he knows that he simply is not anonymous while on Wikipedia and maybe not as anonymous as desired elsewhere either. But as we both know, he has a habit of using proxies in general; since he uses proxies to browse the Internet so much, he knows that I'm often going to be reminding him to cut off any proxy use before coming to Wikipedia. He can see it as nagging as much as he wants, but that's part of our personal conditions. Even if he's just browsing Wikipedia as a proxy, this is bad because he could forget that he has a proxy turned on while deciding to edit something. But there is something else that will also help this situation; he will have his own computer by this Christmas. So, hopefully, he won't be using this computer as much or any video game system (he used to edit Wikipedia a lot with the Wii while using proxies, as was probably found out during my first block). He will also be looking for his own home next year for privacy concerns and for independence. As for his registered account, as I've already given you one of his email addresses, telling you that it should be fine that you contact him for whatever you need regarding his Wikipedia identity, you may have already contacted him about what user name he has decided on. If you have, or plan to, feel free to tag his account as related to mine as soon as possible. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks for that :) I'm now unblocking your account, per agreement above. I'd also like to note that your account and your brother's are not related to the MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs) group of accounts. Thanks for being patient throughout all this and best wishes to both of you going forwards. Sorry for having had to block your account like that - Alison ❤ 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also re-added your 'reviewer' and 'rollbacker' flags. I'm not going to add IP Block Exemption at this time, though. Given there should be no other proxy use by your brother, this should no longer be needed - Alison ❤ 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alison. Welcome back Flyer! Herostratus (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, as any CheckUser and some other Wikipedians (whether administrators or not) will tell you, the way that you initially acted regarding this case was completely understandable. I don't blame you at all. My brother continued his proxy use even after that meltdown I had earlier this year and after warnings not to use proxies anymore. It can be argued that if that meltdown didn't make him stop, then he must not exist because no (good) brother would risk their sister going through all that again; this is something he's considered. He was even using proxies to continue to comment on my talk page during that time. I, of course, consider him a good brother either way. And I can't read his mind, but I know that he knows that my meltdown was about more than just that Wikipedia editing block. It's like I told you. And, like I touched on higher above, it's apparent that he thought that using proxies in the way that he'd been using them since some time after my first block was okay to do because it's not what got me blocked that first time; he was wrong, and now he knows it.
I had noticed that my WP:Rollback rights were gone. I don't think I've ever had WP:Reviewer rights. If I do have them, I've forgotten that I do.
I additionally thank you for WP:OVERSIGHTING that name-drop per my request to do so; even with having conquered not referring to him by name while on this site, such slips can obviously still happen.
Thank you, Herostratus. Not sure if you got it, but I'd sent you an email. Thank you soooo much for your consistent and strong support of me. You never stop believing in me, and there are no words to sufficiently express how great that makes me feel. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I'm not trustworthy yet, but I promise to abide by the rules, Ms. Alison. I confess, however, that I don't like that I can't edit the same articles as my sister. I've taken an interest in some of the article topics she edits, and User:MikeFromCanmore is still editing Lesbian sexual practices. See User:TyroneBiggums23.[17] He edited that article soon after she was unblocked, and this was very likely to make it seem that he is me, her, or that we're all the same person. I wanted to revert him so badly. Glad that a different user reverted and blocked him. Why couldn't he just wait until she kept her promise and added that information? Something is wrong with him. I think that my sister should give up editing that article and let me edit it. I know how to deal with MikeFromCanmore and users like him. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Halo Jerk1 (and why'd you choose to qualify "Halo" with "Jerk1," why not just "Halo Jerk"?; the other name occupied?), I won't be retiring from editing the Lesbian sexual practices article at this time. Any article that I've very clearly retired from editing, you can have at it.
MikeFromCanmore, about what you stated in this edit that Alison reverted, I had just been unblocked. I was not about to race to that article to add anything to it. What you have added there is more than fine, though, and it is my intention to keep fixing up that article as time goes on. But I do request that you try to refrain from insulting my brother, especially on my talk page. If there "must" be insults tossed between the both of you, then do it by email. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Phew! So glad that you're back with us. Keep up the good work; I'm sure it is worth all the hassle. --Nigelj (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also glad to see you back, and acquitted of all charges so to speak. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nigelj and Bookkeeperoftheoccult. Not long after my unblock, I closed my computer lid and left a note for my brother (who wasn't home during that time) before going to bed, telling him that he could "have at it" (editing Wikipedia under a registered account) because I needed a break from this site. Worth all the hassle? Sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard that Alison went beyond the call of duty to verify your claim that your brother really was responsible for those out-of-character edits. I won't say I'm sorry I didn't believe you, because the probability that your defence was genuine was low; but I am sorry for treating you both harshly (if you forget, I was the person who told your brother he was telling us a "pack of utter lies"). I wish you both the very best, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Please do not give Alison cause to regret trusting you. Regards, AGK [•] 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, AGK. Above, I told Alison that the way that she initially acted regarding this case was completely understandable; I extend that same understanding to you. You guys were pissed, and with good reason. Although my brother wasn't committing vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia in a similar way, at least I trust that he wasn't, he shouldn't have been using proxies and shouldn't have been editing the articles that I have edited. I did contact CheckUsers about this problem earlier this year; I just got through looking through my contributions to find my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, where I spoke to you about this. Here and here. I didn't get any help about this at those places and so then I went to ArbCom member SilkTork, and non-ArbCom administrators, about it via email.
I can promise that Alison will not regret trusting me. As for my brother, I also feel confident assuring that she can trust that he won't be using proxies to edit Wikipedia anymore and won't be stalking my edits to the point that it results in him editing articles that I'm currently editing. If not "no article that I'm currently editing," I'm sure that the reality of foolishness will keep him from editing anything beyond two or three of them. I've looked at his registered account contributions and have observed that he has recently edited/commented at the List of fictional supercouples article. He must see that page as an article that I've retired from. He's correct in that deduction, if that is what he's concluded, but I'm still not certain that it's okay for him to edit that article since I've played such a big role in editing it before him. It's almost like he's trying to carry on my work (not my best work in this regard, obviously). So I'm mostly going to leave things like that to the administrators and CheckUsers alike. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Killers

Hi Flyer, just to clarify the edit that you didn't revert, the article refered only to US ethnicities such as African American and White, the killer in the picture was Brazilian, and so not relevant to the content which is only about America. Yes, making the piece more relevant to other countries with different racial makeups, and understandings of "race" would be useful, but that would mean a great deal of country by country information. To put it simply, the guy pictured is not "black" as the word is used in the article, in fact, he would not be called black at all in Brazil.

All the best

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boynamedsue. I take it that you are the IP that I was talking to in this edit summary? What I was referring to in that edit summary are the following texts:
1. "However, there are African American, Asian, and Hispanic (of any race) serial killers as well..."
2. "...crimes among minority offenders in urban communities, where crime rates are higher, are under-investigated, and that minority serial killers likely exist at the same ratios as white serial killers for the population."
3. "Other reports show about 80% of serial killers being identified as white, placing nonwhite serial killers as accounting for less than 20% of serial killers."
So although the first two paragraphs are mostly discussing white vs. black serial killers, they are not only discussing that. And the rest of that section isn't about that at all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, the point I was making is that the section only refers to the US, and no non-US ethnicity is mentioned. It would be idiotic to have a section stating "99% of Mexican serial killers are Hispanic", or "0% of Nigerian serial killers are African American", though both are probably verifiably true, as the discussion is solely about serial killers in the US. Therefore a picture of a Brazilian is not relevant to the section. I have no objection to seeing a picture of an African-American, or hispanic American serial-killer but I can't see how a Brazilian or Nigerian could be relevant. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the discussion of ethnicity, which was only based on US figures and ethnicities, and placed it in a section named "Ethnicity and serial killers in the US" at the end of the Characteristics section, and left the picture of the Brazilian guy at the top near the characteristics. Having the racial discussion right at the top looked like both undue weight and lack of international perspective. Is that ok for you?

Boynamedsue (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again to you as well. You are correct that the section is mostly about U.S. serial killers. But it seems that there has been some attempt to have the section not only focus on U.S. serial killers. That's another reason I referred to the "However, there are African American, Asian, and Hispanic (of any race) serial killers as well..." and the "Other reports show about 80% of serial killers being identified as white, placing nonwhite serial killers as accounting for less than 20% of serial killers." lines. There was also the Australia comparison that you removed after moving the "race"/ethnicity material into its own section under the Ethnicity and serial killers in the US heading. If the heading were more general, and the section included more material about serial killers outside of the U.S., I wouldn't consider the Australia comparison to be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Yes, the source says "Compared to the United States and South Africa, Australia has a much lower incidence of known serial murders.", but lower prevalence information is usually included in an article or section about prevalence.
When I first saw that you had moved the material about racial demographics (when I simply looked at the edit history), I was going to object because that information concerns characteristics. But then I saw that you made the section a subsection of the Characteristics section, and so I'm fine with that. I did make a few tweaks regarding your changes thus far, however,[18][19] and am still debating with myself on whether or not to place this newly-created section higher. For example, since female serial killers are rare, it seems that information on that should remain the section's final subsection. But the subsection on "race"/ethnicity also seems like it comes best after all the other information about characteristics. So no big objections from me regarding your edits thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no massive problem with seeing the ethnicity section higher up, as long as it's not the first section. My only doubt is the fact it is US-centric, and so it seems logical it go after more universal sections.

The logic behind removing the Australia sentence was that it was an orphan sentence adding nothing to the article, and gave undue weight to Australia. Why compare the US with Australia without mentioning Brazil or Belgium? I think that you are right, long term this should go in a prevalence section.

Re: "However, there are African American, Asian, and Hispanic (of any race) serial killers as well...", this is actually refering specifically to the US as well. The only country where African-Americans live is the US (if two African-Americans have children in the UK the child is Black British not African Americn, and Hispanic is only really an ethnicity in the US.

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to explain the reasoning behind your edits. If we were to have a Prevalence section, one issue that would arise, at least for me, is whether or not to have the racial demographics section separate from it; I'd be torn on the matter because the racial demographics section is also about prevalence, and the Female serial killers section includes a little about prevalence as well. So maybe it wouldn't be best to have all prevalence information in one section.
As for the "However, there are African American" line, yes, I know that the African American part pertains to the U.S., but I was focusing on the "Asian, and Hispanic (of any race)" part when I was speaking of "some attempt to have the section not only focus on U.S. serial killers." Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Tyler Michaelson character article???

Hey. I started a discussion on whether the character of Tyler Michaelson merits his own article. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.--Nk3play2 my buzz 21:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Happy 2013, and glad to see you're still around. I don't want to talk about my personal life too much on here (I see other editors like work colleagues) but the sexuality articles, of which you're a strong contributor, have been very interesting and useful reading for some stuff in my off-wiki life. Thanks.

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ritchie. Most of the sexuality articles (including most anatomy articles dealing with sexuality) at this site still need a lot of work. Because I'm just one person and don't edit Wikipedia as actively as I used to (I mean when it comes to adding content, more than a little bit), and because there aren't a lot of editors who edit these articles or understand some of the topics well enough (besides knowing of sexual acts), most of these articles haven't gotten the attention that they need. I'm always so busy these days. Even when I'm editing Wikipedia, I'm usually simultaneously busy off Wikipedia. And I discussed with an administrator not too long ago that I'm worried about there not being any other editors to satisfactorily take over for editors like me, when I and those like me finally stop editing Wikipedia (for whatever reason we cease to stop editing this site). You know, failing to replenish our ranks in this regard. But I'm glad that I have made a difference concerning what you speak of, for you and others, by editing here. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Arias trial

When you get home and read this, will you or some of your talk page stalkers consider helping out with this article? Or should you avoid it because I created it? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I told you at home, I'll be staying away from that article because it's your creation. And I can't forget that I've been through that type of editing when editing the Death of Caylee Anthony article. The drama that occurred at that article (and may occur again in some form) is another reason that I'll be staying away from editing your creation. Good luck with the WP:AfD; all of that (editing that article and it being put up for AfD) is good Wikipedia experience for you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, some tough times

The Purple Barnstar
To Flyer22, the Purple Heart barnstar, in recognition of wounds received in the course of defending the Wikipedia Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ima break my rule of never awarding a second barnstar to a person, 'cause of all you've had to go through. It's tough. I'm glad Alison came through for you, she's a peach. You're really resilient to work through all that, a lot of people would have walked away. A tough gal, you are, it seems. I'm glad you're still here. You're valuable. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Herostratus. I'll especially cherish this barnstar. You already know that I consider you valuable too, but, if you ever doubt it, don't. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hi there! I don't know if you do this sort of thing, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the article Victoria Newman for GA. I can say that I've put a lot of work into it in the past few months and would love some tips to fix it up even more so that it's GA material. If you're not interested or don't have the time at the moment, do you know of anybody who might be interested? Let me know. Thanks! Regards, Creativity97 17:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Creativity97. I don't review articles for WP:GA or for WP:FA. One GA reviewer I would have directed you to is recently no longer available. There is also a Tea with toast, but Tea with toast generally isn't active on Wikipedia these days; so if you decide to ask Tea with toast, doing so by email is best because of that. You could also ask SilkTork or Bruce Campbell. There are a lot of editors you could ask. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/List of reviewers, but that list needs updating; you'd have to check the contribution history of those editors to see their editing experience and how active they are, or if they are still active, on Wikipedia. But since you've nominated the Victoria Newman article for GA status, there is also the option of simply waiting for a GA reviewer to come around and review it; that could take a month or more. But is there a rush? Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Bruce Campbell is no longer editing Wikipedia. Although I don't think Erik reviews articles for GA or FA, he is very good at writing GA and FA articles about fiction; so is Bignole, they are editors who could help the Victoria Newman article prepare for its GA review (if you choose to go to one of them, let them know that I referred you; Bignole may still be watching my talk page and so may not need to be told that). Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt response. There's no real rush to review it, but I just figured I'd ask around. Other users who are fluent with soap opera articles are all very busy at the moment, so that's why I was wondering if you could direct me to anyone. Thank you very much for those people, I will definitely consider asking one of them. If I can't find anyone, I'll wait, I just thought I'd see if anyone was interested now. I've put a lot of work into Victoria Newman and I think it's come a long way. On a different note, what kind of soap articles do you edit? I read on your user page you've done work with One Life to Live and All My Children. Are those the only American soaps you like? Creativity97 04:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I don't edit soap opera articles much anymore. I originally started out editing mostly soap opera articles here because, although I have extensive knowledge about sexual and scientific (including mathematical) topics, it didn't immediately occur to me to edit those articles. But I soon moved into editing sexual topics here and there, while deciding not to edit much scientific, mathematics or screenwriting material due to "being tired of it" and dealing with screenwriting "enough in everyday life." I managed to stay out of editing those fields, with the exception of science relating to some sexual aspects (such as sexual orientation) and anatomy. Editing soap opera articles was also a hobby. Not anymore. I don't have any more hobbies at this site, and now I generally edit sexuality articles. As for soap operas I like to watch, I was (and still am in some ways) a huge fan of Todd Manning. That's the main reason I used to love One Life to Live; while growing up, I got my siblings (brothers and sisters) into that show because of my love for Todd. I had always watched The Young and the Restless (where, as you know, Victoria Newman is from) because my grandmother (on my mother's side), who I lived with for several years while my mother needed help raising me, used to watch that show years before her death. My mom is also a fan of that show and she still watches it, while I don't watch it at this time; I'd definitely need to catch up on a lot. I think I stopped watching it at some point in 2012, but it might have been at some point in 2011; the time went by so fast (as it always does for me), that I'm not even 100% sure when. Likely in 2011. So, yes, I am very familiar with long-term characters such as Victoria Newman. 'The Young and the Restless-related articles are also mentioned on my user page. And I've also watched All My Children since I was a child; my mom used to love that soap opera as well. I have watched General Hospital and Days of our Lives from time to time, but I'm not a fan of those shows. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to post on my Talk page.

The page was moved by a family member. My account was previously logged in.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Frozen&oldid=531671687"