User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:45, 23 December 2015

I RETIRED IN THE MULTIVERSE

This user left Wikipedia in an alternate universe...

For who I am, or was: Past introduction page and past user page. Includes information about my block log. More commentary on my block log here.

For how I was "reborn": User:Flyer22 Reborn/How I was "reborn".

For my views on disruptive editors and the administrators who protect the project from them, and an acknowledgement that I lack respect for those who don't. Includes examples of me usually being right about WP:Sockpuppetry matters.

For how I can surely recognize a person is not a WP:Newbie, even though I likely will not press the person on it unless necessary.

For my views on the WP:Neutral policy: User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Neutral/WP:Undue weight.

For my views on pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Wikipedia: WP:Child protection. Also see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page#WP:Child protection and this discussion.

For awards and gifts I've received (including two "I hate you" type of awards): User:Flyer22 Reborn/Awards and gifts.

If you leave a message here, I will usually reply here instead of at your talk page.

Hey baby

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

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

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

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

Welcome

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

Hi

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

Thank you. Moley87 (talk)

RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worried

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

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

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

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

Last wishes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the ping

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

For you

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

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

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

Glenn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no global account for "Flyer22"

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

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

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

Vicarious traumatization

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

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

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

Socking / Tisane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit for Gh0st RAT

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

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

Tweak

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

PONY!

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

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

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

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

To answer your question

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

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

Courtesy notice

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

Mail call Nov. 5

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

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

Multiple IP Addresses

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

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

Marvin Gaye

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

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

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

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

Soap Opera Couples

Hi,

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

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

Greetings

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

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

To define realistic existence of Public administration

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

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

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

Courtesy notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

Interstellar revert

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

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

to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings

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

Todd FAC 2

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

Derp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations from STiki!

The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit

Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An edit I did not make....

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

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

White Ribbon Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for everyone's input.

Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

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

Page of Justin Bieber

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

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

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

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

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

DRN Case

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

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

Bohemian FC

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

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

Carey

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

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

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

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

Possible sock/IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-V distance, this is right up your alley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sources:

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

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

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

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

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

http://the5thforce.tumblr.com/

12/1/2015

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

additional sources building on racial/religious implications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human sexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

D'SuperHero

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

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

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

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

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

Slut article: Help, please

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

Adam (Wiki Ed), thanks for this.

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

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

Education

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

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

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

Clitoral erection article

Re: the article on Clitoral Erection. Please explain why you deleted my contribution on the hypothesis of clitoral erectile dysfunction and its accompanying reference to academia.edu ^[1] The Wikipedia rules require published references for claims of fact, but my edit only stated that there is a hypothesis, and cited an article verifying that the hypothesis exits.Newnamenow (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___

^ https://www.academia.edu/s/559e1d73ea

Keshi anderson page

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

WP:Hounding: Daenerys Targaryen article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible sock

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

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

Jam Ai Can

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

what the hell man

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

Congratulations from STiki!

The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit

Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utbindas sock investigation

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

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

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

WP:ANI notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

December 2015

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

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

Patrick Kane Rape Accusation section.

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

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

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

Yo Ho Ho

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas

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

Stalking my edits

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

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

[1] ttps://www.academia.edu/s/559e1d73ea

[1]

Revision as of 03:44, 23 December 2015 view source Flyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs) 365,630 edits Do your homework. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:45, 23 December 2015 view source Flyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs) 365,630 edits m Do your homework. Next edit →
Line 708:		Line 708:
	I would appreciate it if you would stop stalking my edits. Seriously, you actually reverted my edits, including valid ones, on a worthless article about Justin Bieber, whom I despise intensely but edited his article just to prove that I can be neutral. Power trip much?--[[User:PhiladelphiaInjustice\|PhiladelphiaInjustice]] ([[User talk:PhiladelphiaInjustice\|talk]]) 03:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)		I would appreciate it if you would stop stalking my edits. Seriously, you actually reverted my edits, including valid ones, on a worthless article about Justin Bieber, whom I despise intensely but edited his article just to prove that I can be neutral. Power trip much?--[[User:PhiladelphiaInjustice\|PhiladelphiaInjustice]] ([[User talk:PhiladelphiaInjustice\|talk]]) 03:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

	:[[User:PhiladelphiaInjustice\|PhiladelphiaInjustice]], do your homework. I have been editing the [[Justin Bieber]] article for sometime now. I did not need to follow you there from the [[The Walking Dead (TV series)]] article. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Bieber&curid=23680998&diff=696432712&oldid=696430805 reverted your entire edit] to alert you to your needless censoring and to give you a chance to fix it; I do not need to clean up for you. I'm already doing that at the [[WP:Good]] article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Walking_Dead_%28TV_series%29&oldid=prev&diff=696433420 you are making ~~work~~ worse]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn\|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top\|talk]]) 03:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)		:[[User:PhiladelphiaInjustice\|PhiladelphiaInjustice]], do your homework. I have been editing the [[Justin Bieber]] article for sometime now. I did not need to follow you there from the [[The Walking Dead (TV series)]] article. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Bieber&curid=23680998&diff=696432712&oldid=696430805 reverted your entire edit] to alert you to your needless censoring and to give you a chance to fix it; I do not need to clean up for you. I'm already doing that at the [[WP:Good]] article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Walking_Dead_%28TV_series%29&oldid=prev&diff=696433420 you are making worse]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn\|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#top\|talk]]) 03:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)