User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

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. Having WP:GA articles and honors, and the trust of many Wikipedians, does not matter if some of the site's editors believe you have abused Wikipedia. Your and others' insistence that you have not abused Wikipedia hardly matters. And it's during that first block case that I learned a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible.

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.

Re: Your welcome message to me

Hi Flyer 22, I am in fact working on the Sexual Orientation page as part of a project for a university seminar class. I was supposed to put all of my information in my Sandbox before editing the actual Wikipedia page. For that reason, I have removed all of the information I have added and placed it in my Sandbox. After it is marked, I will re-launch it onto the Wikipedia page. Sorry about that. Thank you. 8sjg2 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that when you add back the text you removed,[1][2] that you add it back in its appropriate format (the WP:Manual of Style formats I explained to you). The same goes for any new text you add to the Sexual orientation article or any other Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Leine

Why did you change De gyldene Laurbaer - it is right!!! Have a look at the german page f.e. I´ll fix it again. Is it english: "For romanen"??? --46.244.205.100 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --46.244.205.100 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Star767

I noticed you have had some issues with Star767. He/she has now been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet see User_talk:Star767#Blocked.--Penbat (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I was watching Star767's talk page (but will cease to do so when it looks like no further comments related to the block will be posted there), I'd seen your posts there and the block that resulted from that. I'd also seen your post in the Blocked section before I stopped editing Wikipedia for several hours. Very soon after the Blocked section was started, I considered posting in that section about the editor not seeming like MathewTownsend, who, like Star767, was confirmed as a sockpuppet of Mattisse, but I decided not to. Mattisse was referred to by female pronouns, and MathewTownsend (given the name "Matthew" and maybe because the editor also identified as male) was referred to by male pronouns, and MathewTownsend edited psychology articles every now and then. So that matter is confusing, like one can't be completely sure of anything regarding it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for removing the vandalism from the article about Harrison, Arkansas.

I went in today to fix it, and noticed you had already been there.

I tried to send you an email, but the "send this user an email" option wasn't available. You seem pretty good with Wikipedia, and it would be nice to have a Wiki friend who can answer some of my questions.

Take care,

Richard. Richard apple (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard apple. You're welcome. When I reverted this, I initially didn't know what was going on with that edit. But the kkk addition to the URL was a dead-giveaway that it was vandalism.

Earlier this year, due to limited email abuse, I disabled the option that allows others to email me. I won't be re-enabling it any time soon for longer than a few minutes; if asked, and if the request is valid, I will re-enable it for a few minutes in order to give an editor a chance to email me. But the editor can just as easily allow me to email him or her, and then email me back that way.

As for experience with Wikipedia and help, I see that you are still relatively new (having registered for a Wikipedia account on December 22, 2012). I (as the top of my user page currently states) have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 (maybe tried to edit it as an IP address at one point before then) and I understand what you mean about it being good to have a Wikipedia friend/someone willing to help you on Wikipedia. There aren't many, or even several, Wikipedia editors I'd call my friends, however, on or off Wikipedia. Still, you may ask me for help about anything concerning Wikipedia whenever you feel like it.

I signed your user name for you above. Judging by your user page, it doesn't seem that you need to be told that all you have to do to sign your user name is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. But your signature should provide a link to your account. If you have your signature formatted so that it doesn't do that, you should fix it so that it does. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to send me an email. I'm very curious about you. Richard Apple 04:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Jackson Peebles's talk page.
Message added 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson appearance

Dear Flyer, I agree with you it did not fit. But thing is and there's also another source I can give you that this person also gave other statements about MJ and later under oath she admitted she did not see anything. So how do you know the comment that is posted here is correct? I don't know who had the idea for this page and why. But the health of an individual ist sth. very private and people should be very careful with what they write. As far as health is concerned tabloids are not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. Yes, this clearly does not belong there. And I clarified that a bit more in this edit summary. As long as what you add to the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article is reliably sourced and is about Jackson's health and/or physical appearance, I likely won't have much of or any problem with what you add to that article. Like I stated earlier the previous hour on that article's talk page: "When I cleaned up [that] article on January 10, 2013‎, I returned and added neutrality to [it] and removed crap." This edit by an IP undid that. That article is of WP:GA status and should stay that way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it loses that status at some point, given the IPs and registered users who continue to add or re-aad junk to it every now and then in order to bias it. Like Bookkeeperoftheoccult stated on its talk page, because it's no longer a WP:BLP article, concerning Michael Jackson at least, it is no longer afforded the high degree of protection against the type of junk that the aforementioned IP added back. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flyer, I just placed my today's add in another paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. Remember to keep in mind what I stated in my 16:15 edit summary. And if you want a Welcome template added to your talk page to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, let me know and I'll give you one. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, I'd be pleased to have one:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer,

Would it be okay if I place a link in the "see also" box reffering to another page dealing with the topics I wrote about in the section "weight & drug addiction"? I did not edit that one so it would be a neutral post. It's about the trial in 2011. I'm not sure because it's not a page specifically about health. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Huon answered you. Before I checked your talk page, I was also going to ask what article do you want to link to. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer, Could I start a new section called e.g. "descendancy" or is the addition too short? I can't write it in the section "skin colour" or another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a section just to include this text is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and is advised against by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs. But either way, I don't see that text or any other text about Jackson being "mixed" with whatever "race" as too relevant to that article. The fact that he did not originally have "European features" is the whole point when it comes to the physical appearance he eventually developed, other than weight. Being "mixed" with whatever "race" does not cause someone to suddenly develop those features, and so I am not seeing how the text you added is too relevant or relevant at all to the article (even if the text were meant to imply why his children have "European features"). Most scientists believe that no one is 100% one "race" anymore.

You need to stop driving home your point in that article (like I stated before in my 16:15 edit summary noted above, it's covered sufficiently there) and stop adding random text to it. Also, there is no need to repeat Jackson's full name as "Michael Jackson" unless a paragraph is about other members of the Jackson family as well and clarity is needed regarding which one the text is referring to at any given moment. In other words, since the article is about Michael Jackson and his full name has already been clarified, it is otherwise clear that we are referring to Michael Jackson when we state "Jackson" in that article; see WP:SURNAME. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my 16:15 edit summary noted above is referring to the Weight and drug addiction section. The Skin color and Cosmetic procedures and diet sections can do with a bit more balance on the "Jackson didn't bleach his skin/didn't have more than one cosmetic procedure" side. Flyer22 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer,

I have a question regarding the section "Death". Source 65 does not exist anymore. Can it still remaine or does it need another source? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you mean it was a WP:Dead link. I've replaced it. In cases where a link dies, you should try to find a replacement at Internet Archive. Or also, as in this case, Google the article title. I did both, and Googling the article title brought up a copy (or rather the original moved to a different URL destination). WP:Dead link goes over what else should be done in the case of a dead link. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer,

There's another problem: the text does not correspond with the source. The source does not say when the incident took place. According to her testimony in court the last time she treated him was in April and then they had a conversation but not in May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's fine for you to remove the unsourced part of the text. Or you can search and see if there is a different reliable source that supports that text and then add it.

Also, remember what I stated on your talk page about signing your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot has signed your posts for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Flyer, I wanted to replace a dead link (#66), but now it does not work and I can't use the undo function. I don't want to mess it up even more. Can you help me please? Quaffel (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that references #66 and #68 no longer worked is because you removed the complete versions of those references and only left their refnames. For what I mean about that, see Wikipedia:NAMEDREFS#Multiple references to the same footnote. Using a refname in absence of the source in its entirety leaves the reference invalid. I fixed them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you know by now, I'd already replied, Stefan2. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 76.97.240.220

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Young_adult_(psychology)&diff=next&oldid=550197519

I think you warned him enough :) JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd seen the IP's edit and was about to report him or her just before you left me this message. I have reported the IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The reason that I warned the IP at least twice is because I did not want my report to be turned away with some annoying "IP was insufficiently warned" comment. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good :) forgot to sign first time JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* A barnstar for you! *

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being here, for working so hard and so well, for your help, support and encouragement. ♥ Lova Falk talk 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you, Lova Falk!! It's very much appreciated coming from you, with how hard you work at this site and how kind and assisting you are. Thank you. I'm here a little too much these days, with barely any sleep because of my off-Wikipedia Internet work and because I'm battling my insomnia more than I have in the past, but knowing that my work here is appreciated by some people and that they believe I'm making a great difference is one way that I know it's not necessarily a waste of time editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, you deserve it. And from the sound of it, you still need lots of hard work in case you ever feel like becoming a wikisloth.

Lova Falk talk 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse article

Dear Flyer 22, Well, you stated that my adding abortion is not valid due to no links with it, now, in the first 2 paragraphs in the child abuse writings in Wikipedia, there also has not been any source added except only in a few circumstances, now, in the line "There are four major categories of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, including abortion, psychological or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse.", none of these forms of abuse words have any relaible source to validate them, now I am getting the feeling that even if I would provide reliable source (despite the other forms of abuse are not linked in any sources) you would still be removing them as unreliable sources, to be honest, it this because you are personally pro abortion? Nayan Mipun, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in, but if you check the two sentences below the heading Types, you'll see that there is a source for the four major categories of child abuse. Also the subsections have lots of sources. When there are sources in the article, the sources don't always need to be repeated in the lead. Also, the lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no text on abortion in the article. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ WP:EDIT CONFLICT ]: Nayanmipun, you are not the first to suggest that I have, or accuse me of, some sort of bias (regarding a topic in question) for following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines, and you won't be the last. Most of what I have to state to you about the Child abuse article is what I stated on your talk page about it. The forms of child abuse that you claim have no sources to validate them are sourced lower in the article, in the sections about them. Per WP:LEAD, they do not have to be sourced in the lead if they are sourced lower in the article. It remains that your text is not sourced at all, and should not be in the article unless added in the way that I described to you.

Also, never again post at the top of my talk page, or at the top of any Wikipedia talk page unless replying to a discussion post. New posts go at the bottom. And you can start a new section by clicking "New section" at the top of any Wikipedia talk page (unless the option to post to that talk page has been disabled). And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biology and sexual orientation

It's biology and sexual orientation. Shouldn't it include biology-related statements specifically? --Scientiom (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reading the talk page, I'm sure. You know what the current consensus is about what that article should mention. Of course the Biology and sexual orientation article should not give the false impression that scientists generally think that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why I reverted you. Should that article mostly be about biology? Sure. But when it comes to reporting what scientists generally think on the matter, we should report accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gangadhar Nehru

The IP is still quite active there. It hasn't responded to the warnings from a bot and doesn't appear to respond to our efforts, so I'm going to go ahead and report it for what I think is vandalism. Since you were also reverting, I think it's apt to let you know. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I realize now the IP has been warned only twice with my warning now. I reverted it for the third time though since it seems like vandalism I believe I have a 3RR exemption, though I won't push it. We'll have to see what happens after this second warning now (if you're still interested). MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MezzoMezzo. Yes, I reverted that IP three times.[3][4][5] I didn't bother reverting after that because I concluded that the IP would be reverted and blocked soon (or the other way around), and, like you, I didn't want to risk a WP:3RR violation...knowing that WP:VANDALISM may not define the IP's actions as vandalism. If the IP continues to edit in the style that we've objected to, and the IP likely will, then, if Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't do something about that, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring will. Despite risk of breaching WP:3RR, I had checked back in on that article and decided that I would revert again if the IP's edits stayed for longer than a few hours. Good to know that you reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Stamper

Hello Flyer22. The unregistered user is continuing to vandalise the lead section of the article. Since you reverted his vandalism, I've reverted him three times in two days. He is ignoring all attempts to communicate and I even warned him on his talk page. Could you possibly revert his vandalism and try asking him to stop as well? I think he might if a second editor does so too. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. There's nothing left for me to warn the IP about, however, since you have warned him or her three times, unless you want me to try to discuss the matter with the IP. But I would prefer you try to start such a discussion first. Like I stated in the section before this one to a different editor, if the IP continues to edit in the style that we've objected to, and the IP likely will, then, if Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't do something about that, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring will. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I've left a message on his talk page explaining why we're reverting and asking him to discuss before removing the information again. Tiller54 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And, remember, you can report the IP at either of the pages I noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orgasm

Hi, You said we don't determine what is appropriate by citing examples from similar pages. It seems to be a fairly reasonable method of showing a Wikipedia consensus on a certain matter. I just wanted to demonstrate that the Wikipedia community seems to have decided that sexual photos are OK.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for responding regarding the statements made about your image additions. You might want to explain yourself on this matter in that section about this on the article talk page, in case others want to reply to you and so that it's there when that section is archived. Or I could leave a note there stating that you replied about this on my talk page. I hope that you understand what we meant about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Flirt Club

Hi Flyer, nothing exigent. I wanted to make sure you're checked out on the Anti-Flirt Club. it is a very remarkable article.--Wlmg (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for pointing me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

;-) --Wlmg (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fianna Fáil Liberalism

I was going through the Fianna Fáil page as an exercise is editing another page when I noted that you reverted an update which highlighted their shift towards European Liberalism. I was wondering why you removed that edit as the previous edit would appear to have reliable referenced sources?sittingonthefence (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sittingonthefence. Look at this; it shows that I reverted the IP, then very soon afterward reverted myself. I can sometimes make mistakes when prowling to revert vandalism, and I was not sure about that edit; that's why I reverted myself, though reverting myself restored a cite error. Flyer22 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed

An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Hi, there. List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests.

Hi, Flyer. Did you want to talk more about List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests?— James Cantor (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, James. We covered the bases in our discussion about it. Why do you ask? You want to revisit that discussion?

Also, as you can see, I expanded the heading of this section with the List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests mention/link, so that I or others know what this section is about from looking at the archives when it's finally archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all good. It's just that that discussion happened in such a whirlwind, that it wasn't clear to me if it was done.— James Cantor (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that analloerotic, gerontophilia and object sexuality are on the list. But the Analloerotic article includes Template:Paraphilia and is listed in Category:Paraphilias, the Gerontophilia article includes Template:Paraphilia and is listed on it, and the Object sexuality article is listed in Category:Paraphilias. So those three listings are a bit contradictory. We know that "sexual interest" is not the same as "sexual preference." So if sexual interest in an elderly person can be normal, but a sexual preference for elderly people is not, that needs to be clarified. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct. When just cut-and-pasted the existing list when I moved it over. I didn't actually check the entries on the list, so I carried the error over. My bad. Gerontophilia and object sexuality should both be on the List of paraphilias and not the List of nonparaphilic sexual interests. I reflexively avoid the word "normal," but in the upcoming DSM, they will be be considered paraphilias but not considered disorders (unless they cause harm to someone). I'll move them back. Good catch.— James Cantor (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using the term normative over normal is preferred by sexologists, correct? Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I just created the List of nonparaphilic sexual interests link by redirecting it to the List of technical terms for nonparaphilic sexual interests article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a consensus; it's one of the most politically laden idea there is for us. I just put my own opinion atop my userpage.

And: Done, I took the words out of the list. I didn't change List of paraphilias, however. Gerontophilia was already there, and "Objectophilia" pipes to Object sexuality.— James Cantor (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen (and read) your take on stigmatization of paraphilias on your user page before; thanks for reminding me that it's there. You used "the norm" at one point there, and I have seen some researchers prefer that wording (or "norms") as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The word social, Virginity article edit

Yes, legality is a social construct and a consequence of it. But laws, legal opinions, etc., do not necessarily reflect the social, moral, ethical attitudes of the place and time they're active. They may, and often do, reflect past attitudes no longer held by the society in question. Legal and social attitudes may even conflict with each other, particularly when social attitudes are changing and there's no consensus about which one should be held. Nor are laws necessarily amended to reflect the social attitudes of the time in question, they may simply be ignored.

The implied causality of the original wording is therefore too strict - removing the words "the resulting" allows for a looser relationship between the two. In my opinion, of course. Ngebendi (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying to my statements. I didn't think of the wording the way you did/do, obviously, so also thanks for giving me a wider perspective on that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ngebendi (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Macbeth

The source provided does not say what the article is claiming it says. How do I know? Because I know this person and I know that what has been quoted is incorrect. The source provided only states that there was a name change. People are assuming that because Jesse's name is MacBeth today that the name change was FROM Al-Zaid to Macbeth, but this is not true. His name was changed TO Al-Zaid when he was a toddler when his mother married a Saudi Arabian. His name was later changed back while in foster care. I can't provide a source because the source would be the same one that is listed with wrong personal assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.192.192 (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source provided is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.192.192 (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given for 'unique environment' in the 2010 Swedish twin study - Biology and sexual orientation Article

[6]

I'm not sure where this 'direct quote' is coming from. The paper largely does not try to define what factors attribute to the 'unique environment.' Making the assumption that it is attributable to "circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups (other than those shared with a twin)" is just that, an assumption. In no place have I seen disease mentioned, for example.

Yes, the paper does mention that "It has been suggested that individual differences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result from unique environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive maternal immunization to sex-speciﬁc proteins, or neurodevelopmental instability" and I would be more comfortable including that line than the one given. But ultimately the study purposely did not go into what factors play a large role in the 'unique environment' and I think it is best to not assume which ones are as it is misleading. As it is now, the three concrete examples given make it appear as though those are important factors that attribute to 'unique environment' when in reality the factors or even their relative strengths are really not known. (At least not from this study)

Perhaps rewording it would be better. Maybe something along the lines of "It has been suggested that such and such, and such and such, are two factors that could make up the 'unique environment' of each twin."

That said, if you are looking at a different paper than the one I've linked then obviously all of this is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weinbergerc (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weinbergerc, I stated why I reverted you; the whole thing is in quotation marks, which means that it is a direct quote from the publication or it's a partly or completely fabricated quote. If you do not have access to the entire publication, considering that it's something people usually have to pay "$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95" to read, then of course you wouldn't see that statement. If you do have access to the whole publication, and that information is not in there, then it should be removed. I don't have access to anything about it beyond the abstract. I was agitated by your removal because I'm tired of editors removing things from that article and others solely because they don't like what the scientists or other type of scholars state, what science suggests or shows, a reliable source states, or what history shows. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, like I just stated in this edit summary, I see that the text is put in a bquote format, but it doesn't show up as a quote in the article. If that quote is real, perhaps it's from a different publication. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't showing up as a quote because it was indented. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember to sign your username when commenting on a Wikipedia talk page. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, the entire paper is available at the link I gave, not just the abstract; please go over it; it does not include the text in question. I personally have no problem with the text I removed other than the fact the it is not from the study it seems to suggest and it is not cited if it is indeed from another study. Hopefully you can see my intentions are for the best. Personally I think it should be removed all together but a rewording to better define 'unique environment' in a more unassuming way might be appropriate as well. Please read the paper and decide for yourself. Best, Weinbergerc (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to click the "download pdf" button to see the whole paper. But, perhaps I can see the paper because I am on a university network though I don't think this is the case. Weinbergerc (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9386-1 Weinbergerc (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "download pdf" button for me when clicking on that link, even while logged into my Springer account. There are the "Look Inside" and "Get Access" options. The "Look Inside" option is simply an extended peep at the publication. And the "Get Access" option relates to paying for the publication. There are some publications that I pay for, whether relating to my Wikipedia editing or not. But I am not interested in paying for this one. I have instead taken your word for it by assuming good faith, and I have removed the text. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I think removing the whole paragraph is overkill though. The variances given were kind of the whole point of the study and quite informative. I think my original edit stays closest to the original intent of the study so I'm going to revert it to that for now. You can see that the variances are also given in the abstract. Best, Weinbergerc (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I added in that I don't have the "download pdf" option even while logged into my Springer account. I should have also added "at least not at this time" on to my "But I am not interested in paying for this one" line. As for removing the whole text, above you stated, "Personally I think it should be removed all together but a rewording to better define 'unique environment' in a more unassuming way might be appropriate as well." So I took that in mind. But regarding your add-back, it shouldn't be in quote form unless it's a direct quote from the publication. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it should not have been in quotes as it was not directly taken. I think the best way this section would read is replacing the wrongly bquoted section with the correct quote form the abstract. "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior."

I'll leave that up to you to change. The current edit I just read looks good, though I do think directly quoting the article is slightly better. Weinbergerc (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I took it out of quote form. But you are free to replace it with the aforementioned quote from the abstract, since doing so is perfectly fine. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandal at my user page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That editor was apparently out to vandalize various user pages. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely the same editor; decided to come back and antagonize me during more user page mess (such as creating user talk pages for user accounts that have never edited). Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for fiercely defending my talk page - and I am sorry you ended up getting your own page vandalised as well! Lova Falk talk 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And no problem. And, after all, I did invite the IP to vandalize my talk page; the true downside of that is that it resulted in the IP vandalizing your user page, not just your talk page, as well. While editors flocking to my user page to revert the IP happened quickly, it did take the IP longer than desired (by us anti-vandal people) to be blocked after I reported him or her at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (very unlikely that the IP was a "her," since Wikipedia mostly attracts male editors and since I'm sure that most females don't act that way, but being gender-neutral in this case can't hurt). Flyer22 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but....

Hey, Flyer, thanks for looking out for my talk page! WK-test is actually my test account, though, and I'm using it to test things on my user talk page, so please don't revert edits from that account. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Writ. I don't watch your talk page, though I might in the future. Your talk page popped up on my WP:Huggle view, and that's how I ended up reverting you (without at first mentally disgesting that it's your talk page). I immediately thought that my revert was not a wise move, considering that it may have been an editor testing something on your talk page before posting. And I was going to reexamine the matter, but I got distracted. Thanks for letting me know. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I wasn't the only one to revert due to Huggle. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant & Unhelpful

i've made numerous valid statements on correcting the eye color page and yet you continuously ignore me and aim to prove me wrong because you seem too obtuse and self centered to even bother listening. I'm afraid i'm going to have to lodge a complaint to wikipedia about how unhelpful and oblivious you appear to be towards peoples pleads on talk pages when making valid statements of corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.166 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from your talk page and the article talk page that I've tried to help you. If your numerous statements about the eye color topic you go on and on about are valid, there should be WP:Reliable sources to support them; you have not provided any WP:Reliable sources for your assertions. And considering that I've pointed you to the WP:Reliable sources page and told you that forums, especially forum comments made by you, are not reliable sources, and yet you continue to cite such sources, it appears that you are the one who is ignorant out of the two of us. You were certainly ignorant in our early interactions, continually adding WP:Original research to the Eye color article against warnings not to do so. Those are the reasons that I now ignore you, except for when you violate WP:TALK. Or except now, considering that you have posted here at my talk page. I was going to revert your above message at my talk page, but I decided to reply instead. However, if you continue to present me with the same WP:Original research stuff you always do, I will continue to ignore you and may remove this section from my talk page.

I care not if you "lodge a complaint to wikipedia" about me. Go right ahead and do so. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Asian Bitch

You're an idiot and you should go back to ching chong land 110.174.147.166 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't laugh at that, but LOL at your behavior. I'm neither stupid (obviously) nor Asian. A bitch? Maybe sometimes. Interesting that you somehow inferred that I'm Asian. What, because I watch anime and play Go (as noted on my user page)? LOL!!!!

Move along now. I'll probably combine this section with the section you created above. No need for you to have two sections on my talk page, or any talk page, to vent your nonsense.

And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. Like I told you before, all you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above, and a bot did it in the section immediately before this one.

That stated, you really aren't welcome to comment on my talk page with that attitude (or, obviously, with your WP:Original research mess). Now again, move along. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You call me bitch like it's a bad thing!"

- Alison ^❤ 05:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me this revert -- "super female" at Triple X syndrome article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Triple_X_syndrome&diff=553923585&oldid=553922803 Thanks. --Kyknos (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's unsourced. And there's no reason that it should be placed before "47,XXX aneuploidy." If you do not source it, reliably source it, and preferably with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, I will revert you again. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, it is written in any textbook of human genetics. Obvious. No other term in the leading sentence is sourced. Do not abuse the rules. --Kyknos (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other terms in the lead sentence are sourced, reliably sourced. See the ICD-10 and Diseases Database (DiseasesDB) links in Infobox Disease. There's that, and other sources in the article that support any one of those terms. Your addition is the only one in the article that is unsourced. You have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 (though sporadically) under your Kyknos username, which is three years longer than I have been editing Wikipedia; you should know that Wikipedia does not go by "Oh my god, it is written in any textbook of human genetics." No, there is WP:Verifiability to take into account. It is obvious to you that the syndrome is also called "super female"; it is not obvious to people who are not familiar with the topic of the syndrome, which is most people. There is no valid reason for you to come to my talk page to complain about the suggestion that you source the material. If it's so easy to source, then source it. But if it's not sourced, I can remove it. This is following the rules, not abusing them. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU DID NOT ASK for sources. You have deleted the information without explanation, without discussion. If you are referring to sources used later in the article, then read them. Super female term is sourced in two of them. --Kyknos (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have to ask you to source the text you added; you should have sourced it to begin with. But I did state above: "If you do not source it, reliably source it, and preferably with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, I will revert you." That is when you should have sourced it, instead of presenting me with the reply that you did. Did you even read the "I can remove it" link I provided you with above? That is the WP:BURDEN part of the WP:Verifiability policy. The burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the information, not me. Per that policy, I can remove unsourced material without discussion. That I and others do so on Wikipedia ensures that a lot of inaccurate or completely false information is not on Wikipedia. That is why I sometimes revert unsourced information; the other times I do it is because the information is clearly vandalism and therefore false, simply false, or dubious. Note that I am not stating that the text you added is inaccurate, vandalism and therefore false, simply false, or dubious. I am stating that you should have sourced it. It is clear that you had no idea if the text you added was already supported by a source in the article before you added it. And telling me that two sources in the article support the "super female" term, without even specifying which two sources they are, is not sufficient. I should not have to search any of those sources to see if any of them support the "super female" term. Per WP:BURDEN, you should add an WP:Inline citation that supports the term, beside that term, in the lead now that I have challenged that text. You, not me.

Also, I ask that you stop shouting on my talk page. And leave the WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude off of it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you want the inline citation for one obvious term, add it for all others. It does not make sense to spam the leading sentence with it, but if you want it, it should be consistent. (Looking at your talk page, I am not the person who wages battles.) --Kyknos (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the "super female" term, there's not much more that I have to state to you. Either provide a reliable source for the "super female" term, by adding it or specifying exactly which source(s) in the article support it, or I will revert you on that term again. And if you continue to revert me after I have made it explicitly clear why I am in the right to revert you, I will then report it at one of the appropriate noticeboards. As for my talk page, it's mostly filled with thank yous or other appreciation. Any WP:BATTLEFIELD section above, like the one immediately above this one, shows itself to be without merit on the part of the person who waged the battle. As for your behavior, it is the way you have acted here at my talk page that shows me that you wage battles at the drop of a hat and that you are inexperienced at editing this site, despite having been here since 2004. Instead of doing the reasonable thing, required by policy, you decided to debate here on my talk page. You should already be familiar with the policies I pointed you to; you obviously were not and still are not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are misusing the rules, probably because you are just mistaken, of course, because I will not assume bad will. The article has just 6 inline sources, most of the information in the article, including everything in the leading sentence is lacking inline sources. You just insist that one small piece of information, information generally well known and commonly taught in high school biology classes, requires some special attention. This is more than strange and by apllying it everywhere, most of Wikipedia would be deleted. I will add that useless inline reference for you, losing 5 minutes of my life that would be better spent improving the article and hoping that the inline reference in the middle of the leading sentence won't look too awkvard. And next time, request the sources immediatelly (we have the "citation needed" template for it), and do not delete useful information without discussion or any comment. Bye. --Kyknos (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policies above show that I have not misused any rules in this case and that I am therefore not mistaken for having reverted you. Read WP:BURDEN; it is mostly about things that are likely to be challenged. People are not likely to challenge any of the other names listed in the lead for this syndrome, especially since they are mostly sourced in the article's Infobox Disease. Like I stated, the term you added is not. ~~Triple X syndrome is not commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes, and the alternative term "super female" even less so.~~ If you honestly think that most people would not look at the lead of that article and see the term "super female," which is unlike any of the other names listed, and not find it dubious or outright vandalism, then you are mistaken on that. I am quite certain that an editor (registered editor or IP) other than me would have removed your addition. You should have the experience to know when something is likely to be contested on Wikipedia and therefore tagged or removed; I do. When I and most other editors (from what I have seen) come across a recently added unsourced addition, usually when surfing for vandalism or dubious edits (as I often now do), we usually do not focus on whatever other parts of the article are unsourced; we focus on that recently added addition as being unsourced, revert it, tag it, or ignore, and then move on. That's what I did in this case. The fact that a lot, maybe most, of Wikipedia is unsourced, not just lacking inline citations, but unsourced, is a bad thing. And it's no reason to add more unsourced information to the site. As for losing five minutes of your life, I was thinking something like that regarding the both of us by you wasting time debating me here instead of simply sourcing the material. Good thing that you finally added a source for it, and I tweaked the placement. You should also review WP:REFPUNCT. I will delete any unsourced information whenever I feel like it, without discussion, per WP:BURDEN, just like, per WP:BURDEN, I may tag it as needing a citation or add a citation for it myself. Again, the burden is not on the person reverting the unsourced material. Now bye. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triple X syndrome (and other common human chromosomal disorders) is commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes and the term "super female" as well. At least on my side of Atlantic (yes, we also speak English here and the USA are not the whole world). I will not comment on the American secondary education system, as I have no experience with it. And remember, you may have the formal right to do something, but it does not mean it is the good thing to do. Removing useful information without discussion is a bad thing. --Kyknos (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is your word that, where you live, Triple X syndrome, including the term "super female," is commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes; I won't contest that, considering that I don't know. But I still believe that most people would challenge that term as an alternative name for Triple X syndrome, more so than the other listed names for it at least. We will have to agree to disagree about removing unsourced material without discussion, especially since people often cannot know if something is credible and therefore useful if it is not reliably sourced. That's why Wikipedia has the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research policies. This site would be even more of a joke than many people already believe it to be if citations were not required for most of the information added to its articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, I've heard this term before. My high-school biology class introduced that one to me (and no, I'm not saying when!! :D ) and it's pretty-common. Same with XYY being 'super male'. I'll dig out some decent refs in a while - Alison ^❤ 23:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on this, Alison. I know you are significantly more educated than me on the matter, and so I greatly appreciate your input and help on it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a lot that I can't remember if I was taught in high school. I mostly studied things in addition to what I was taught in high school, because there was a lot that high school questionably did not teach us. It's the same for newer generations in some regard. Triple X syndrome was likely a topic of study in my high school biology class and is likely a common topic of study in high school biology classes in general; because of these factors, I struck through my assertion above that it's not commonly the topic of study in high school biology classes. I'm still not sure about the "super female" term, however. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an editor just moments ago removed "super female", stating "'superfemale' is not a generally accepted term for 47,XXX." I'll suggest to that editor to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also just expanded the title from "Can you explain me this revert" so that it's clear what this discussion is about from the table of contents and once this section is archived. 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I will also likely duplicate this discussion at the article talk page; it's more appropriate there, and can be beneficial to readers to see that this matter about the article has been discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hi there! I've begun a discussion here about titles for soap opera supercouple articles. Your opinion would be gladly appreciated! If you get the chance, could you contribute to the discussion? Thank you! Regards, Creativity97 21:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, and was just about to reply. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 13: WP:TENSE

I suck as a person... thank you for fixing my formatting error

CensoredBiscuit (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you mean this. No problem. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ryder skye

Hello Flyer22. In regards to Ryder Skye I can also say that I know this person well and can confirm the age of 34 is absolutely correct. I understand why women (and some men) want to lie about their age, but I am more interested in the information being correct than someones vanity. Even if there were no age at all that would be preferable to lying about it. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.