User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 19

about the abstinence

You know, sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and I don't like being accused of it. I can assure you, Ajortiz2 is not me. I respect the rules of Wikipedia. I haven't even been blocked, so I have no need to create a sock. Regards, Cali11298 (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cali11298, whether you are Ajortiz2 (talk · contribs) or not (and Ajortiz2 has clearly added text that you would object to, so you likely are not him), you still are not new to editing Wikipedia. I made that clear at the Abstinence-only sex education talk page without calling you a WP:Sockpuppet. Do I trust you? Not in the least. And your initial reply there spoke volumes. This edit summary was a warning regarding the both of you; I suggest you heed it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you do not know who I was referencing with regard to Ajortiz, then you should look at A.scooter.rieser (talk · contribs) and compare this edit to this edit. It's either WP:Student editing (the same class) or WP:Sockpuppeting. I removed the other text here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Note for this section: More on this matter is below at #This is Jhamilton. Buddy, you had a chance. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term "mistress"

Aloha. Since you have knowledge on the topic of human sexuality (and seem to focus on it), I would like to ask your advice about the use of the term "mistress". I'm currently working on several articles related to Pierre-Auguste Renoir. One of them concerns a model he used in his early work, Lise Tréhot. For some reason, she is often referred to in the literature (but not always) as his "mistress", but that doesn't make sense to me as that term has a general usage and definition. As far as I know, Renoir was 1) not married at the time of their relationship, and 2) she was not "kept" by him because 3) he was poor. However, it is very possible that she was supported by the wealth of his friend, Jules Le Cœur, who was involved in a relationship with her sister, and it seems that they were all staying with the Le Cœur's in one of their properties somewhere. In any case, why does the literature refer to Tréhot as Renoir's mistress instead of as his lover or girlfriend or partner? Is this because of the historical bias against unmarried couples? If you could look into this, I would appreciate it. I would prefer not to use this term for the above reasons, and many others. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'll look into it and get back to you on this. Given that the term mistress usually has the connotations currently made clear in the Mistress (lover) article, I would not use that term unless the man was married and was bedding the other woman. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. I wonder if the term has changed quite a bit since the 1860s. Perhaps, back then, it was used to refer to unmarried lovers? Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: newer sources (2014) don't use the term mistress. This source uses "girlfriend", which I find to be more accurate.[1] Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So you consider this matter settled? I haven't found anything significant in this regard -- about why she was referred to as a mistress. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. It seems that after 2003 when new information came about Lise, the term wasn't used as much. I'm starting to think that many of these authors used the term only because their sources used it, not because they themselves decided it was accurate or correct. I'm guessing there's a lot of laziness going on here. In the newer sources, I'm seeing terms like companion, lover, partner, girlfriend, but rarely, if ever mistress, since after all, she was never a mistress. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I had nothin to do with this editin

Hi Friend

I was notified that "my" editin was changed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Professional&diff=next&oldid=579542781

However I have never been to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcredible (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Iamcredible (talk · contribs), then it must have been someone else operating that IP. It's common for IP addresses to be assigned to different people, especially if they are dynamic IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

advice requested on youngest parents lists

Hi Flyer22,

In the Wiki-article "List of youngest mothers", I noticed you removed a reference from the lead, regarding a survey of DNA-tested families. You may be technically right to do so, because the lead should not contain content absent from the main table. But thereby, two problems remain on Wikipedia: first, none of the listed motherhood claims appear to be confirmed by DNA testing. And secondly, related to this defect, there is no equivalent Wikipage "List of Youngest Fathers" (See discussion section, where another user has made this complaint). Do you have a suggestion how to integrate state-of the art DNA evidence, and how to deal with the fathers?

86.154.101.56 (talk · contribs), you should be discussing this at the List of youngest birth mothers talk page instead of at mine. But to answer your questions: I don't see why the content I reverted you on should be in the List of youngest birth mothers article. That article is a list, and the content you added seems misplaced. I also wonder how I should judge that source on the WP:MEDRS scale. That stated, as noted here at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers, I have asked WP:Med about the List of youngest birth mothers article, and they didn't seem to care much about it. I think that the article should be deleted as unnecessary, or that it should be turned into an actual article; by that, I mean a non-list. As for creating a List of youngest fathers or List of youngest birth fathers article, you are aware that this was already addressed and responded to. If you want it created, you can be WP:Bold and create it, but I think that it will be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Only Human (Delta Goodrem song)

Thank you for notifying me about the change you made to Only Human (Delta Goodrem song), but my contribution was most certainly not vandalism nor experimental. I made a correction to the erroneous spelling of Vince Pizzinga's name. It would have been nice if you had made some attempt to verify this before blindly undoing my contribution. In any case, it has since been re-corrected - interestingly, you didn't think to undo that particular edit. Please remember this in future when attempting to undo others' work. 86.26.98.23 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gender#Gender_identity

I'd recommend starting an SPI for this if the behavior follows an obvious pattern. I would look into this myself, but I do not have a great deal of time these days, and have been experiencing a lot of computer problems recently, making it difficult for me to pretty much do anything on Wikipedia or otherwise (and is extremely frustrating). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this, I JethroBT, I know what to do if it becomes a significant annoyance. After all, I recently dealt with a stalker case (two actually). Those two editors are still seemingly doing what they can to roam around me even after the strong suggestions that they stay away from the orbit(s) I edit in. That especially goes for one of them in particular; for example, as seen here, here and here. But I suppose I'm like a magnet. I have good stalkers, and then I have the bad ones. Whether or not you could help on this IP case, I wanted to let you know of the registered account that operates that IP range. If that editor didn't want his registered account revealed, it was a dumb slip-up on the part of that editor, at least as far it comes to not being more careful to conceal multiple identities around me. Thanks for weighing in. I hope your computer problems clear up and that you're doing well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is Jhamilton. Buddy, you had a chance.

I warned you to stop harassing me. I've written a report about your abuses against me at this page. You had your chance. Now you'll see what happens when you harass other users who have do no wrong – except maybe they bruised that big ego of yours. Jhamilton303 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is fun. You must love digging yourself into deep holes. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note for this section: The result is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock warning

I saw your warning at the Rolling Stone article page. Any guidelines for IDing the sock? Which account/s there are suspected, if you can say. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. C..... Did you include at sock investigations? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, this revised version of what I posted is not what I would call a warning; it's an alert. I alerted the talk pages of all four of the articles that Beyond My Ken (BMK) named (seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive). I also very recently expanded the section on my user page about spotting WP:Sockpuppets (followup edits here and here). That section can help you. So can WP:Signs of sock puppetry and WP:Duck; those are WP:Essays. There are no WP:Guidelines for spotting WP:Sockpuppets. I recommend that you do not directly accuse anyone of being a WP:Sockpuppet unless you are certain and have valid WP:Duck evidence and/or so-called harder evidence. Otherwise, you might get in trouble for a WP:Assume good faith violation, whether by being taken to WP:ANI or otherwise. I am always prepared when I imply that someone is a WP:Sockpuppet or when I accuse someone of WP:Sockpuppetry. I was prepared for the #about the abstinence case even before that editor insulted my intelligence by blatantly WP:Sockpuppeting after I warned him to heed my statement that WP:Sockpuppeting will not fool me. Yes, I stated that this other editor is not entirely new to editing Wikipedia; I stand by that. Also keep in mind that not all non-new returning Wikipedia editors are WP:Sockpuppets. By the way, despite that other editor referring to me as a he, I am a she. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert and for the links above. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm accusing you of anything, but I do find the timing of this and this to be odd. You both hadn't edited for hours (stopped editing the same hour) and then showed up at almost exactly the same time to edit regarding this non-new editor matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been editing for eight years (12,000+ edits) never with a block, warning, or suggestion of socking. I am quite proud of my editing record and frankly really resent even the implied suggestion. I suggest you look over my edit history and revisit the comment above. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have looked over your edit history, but this discussion is done. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Really. I'm in Madison, Wisconsin. I have no idea where the sock is, although he says he's on the (east?) coast. A check user could immediately tell we are not the same, I'd like to request a checkuser if you don't remove the implication above. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about on the supposedly odd timing? There are ten hours between the timing on the two diffs you put up. Ten. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First diff "04:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)" by Cavalierman. My edit "18:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)" Capitalismojo (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The first diff shows "18:11, 10 April 2015"; the second diff shows "18:12, 10 April 2015." That is one minute or less between edits. If you two are not the same person, then you have nothing to worry about. I queried the odd timing, which does not necessarily mean WP:Sockpuppetry. Again, I am done with this discussion. I will not be striking anything I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Looked at the wrong place. It does look odd. It's not, but I understand. I have stricken my error, for which I apologize. I am done here as well. (By the way I agree with your assessment of the other editor and suggest adding him to the investigation.) Capitalismojo (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting edits on Sex in Space article

We seem to be colliding on edits for the Sex in Space article. Some of the problem may be that we're working at cross purposes: I am trying to improve the citations and get the existing content better arranged, which sometimes takes several cuts. Unfortunately, we seem to be working at the same time. Let's try this: you do all your edits and release the article, and then I'll come back and do what I think works, and then you take a look at it again. What do you think? —Molly-in-md (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Molly-in-md, I'd prefer that this be discussed at the article talk page, where others watching that article (or those who come across it) will have clear access to the discussion. Yes, I reverted you here (followup edits here, here and here), and I explained why: Your WP:Lead was poorer than the previous WP:Lead. Per MOS:Paragraphs, I'm also not a fan of subsections for a little bit of material, but I left the subsection headings alone, except for the repeat text. I am not significantly interested in that article, but I WP:Watch it, just like I WP:Watch a lot of other Wikipedia sexual articles, and I disagree with your WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason I posted here rather than the article's talk page was that a) I think we're mostly colliding in edits rather than article content and b) you'd get notification that I'd left a message on your talk page but wouldn't necessarily see that I'd written on the article's talk page.
AFA the lead, I wasn't finished. The opening paragraph in the existing lead (which you reverted) is clearly not a good lead paragraph because it discusses only info that is not in the article (Newton's third law) and doesn't mention other issues from the body; IOW, it doesn't follow WP:Lead. I'm working on that, in addition to the citation improvements and so on. I hadn't added a GOCEinuse tag because nobody had touched the article in several weeks, and my changes were only going to maybe half an hour.
So, just let me know when you are done with your edits (since I see you had some tweaks), and I'll start again but this time post a GOCEinuse tag. I'll remove it when I'm done -- and probably post here on your talk page, too -- and then you can reevaluate instead of jumping in part way through. Okay?
— Molly-in-md (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Molly-in-md, in my opinion, this still should have been taken to the article talk page. Because I suspected that you would bring this to my talk page, I was tempted to use an edit summary (possibly a WP:Dummy edit) to request that you do not bring the matter to my talk page. I've done similar with other editors. I didn't state that the current WP:Lead of that article is a good WP:Lead (I know what a good WP:Lead is); I stated that your WP:Lead is worse. From what I can see, it is. Your lead started off talking about debates without even adequately explaining the difficulties of sex in space, difficulties that are addressed in one way or another lower in the article. Yes, I am done with the article for now; I already noted to you that I am not significantly interested in the article (it's clear that I don't heavily edit it). So you are free to improve the article in peace. That stated, if you craft a poor WP:Lead, I will change it. If I see a lot of unnecessary subheadings, I will reduce them. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

And I reiterate that the article is on my WP:Watchlist; so I will see edits made to it and its talk page. WP:Pinging, while it doesn't always work, is an option in cases where you doubt that an editor will see a talk page section. In this case, however, you don't have to WP:Ping me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Molly-in-md, I apologize if I came off as confrontational to you above. I honestly don't care much about that article. You are certainly free to improve it. If I disagree with something you do there, I will address it on the article's talk page. I, however, think that the initial sentence (WP:Lead sentence) is better off linking to the Human sexual activity article, mentioning something about weightlessness, "the extreme environments of outer space" and the "difficulties for the performance of most sexual activities." Something like that. Or that the first two sentences should address that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Taking you to judicial board

Im taking you to jboard due to your repeated disrespect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Flyer22

Cavalierman (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI: question about your user page

I pinged you on the ANI discussion earlier. If you don't want to remove the material I was asking about, maybe you can at least say why you think it's important to keep it. Thanks, Samsara 09:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara: - Your question, assumptions and intimidation are what's uncalled for. Either drop this line of bs or get ready to support your obvious intimidation tactics at ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

apology

Even though you are wrong, it does not excuse insulting you. I am sorry. Cavalierman (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Minas Gerais, information

I did not delete information. I replaced it with more accurate information. The former information was not only misleading (it implied something which is not), it focused on a single group, whereas this new study is about all of Minas Gerais, hence more informative. Just this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.96.231 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for explaining, though I'm not sure about your change. I reverted you here and here because you hadn't explained. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Be sure the replacement was better. The article is about Minas Gerais. I posted a recent genetic study covering all of Minas Gerais. Before there were 2 studies (one about "whites" from Minas Gerais, with a false conclusion that they were significantly different from other "whites" from Brazil) and another one about all of Brazil). Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.96.231 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298

If you change the status of a case at SPI again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, this is not a blockable offense. And your warning here and above is out of line. But I shouldn't be surprised that you would behave this way after our recent disagreements. Any block you make on me will see me calling the case a WP:INVOLVED case. If you don't think that a WP:INVOLVED claim would work, you should think again. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

For the future, read the following Wikipedia pages: WP:SPI/C#Role and responsibilities of SPI Clerks and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures#Patrolling. Don't let your obsession with this editor impair your judgment. It's not that I don't sympathize with what you've had to put up with, but you can't resort to disruptive behavior because of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), it's best not to point me to Wikipedia pages as though I am a WP:Newbie. It's best not to patronize me. It's best not to talk down to me in any other way. It's best not to call my interest in the Cali11298 account and/or the Cavalierman account an obsession. And it's best not to call me WP:Disruptive for removing your close tag because I felt that it was better that the case remain open long enough for Reaper Eternal to clarify matters. I was not obsessed with either account, and, indeed, editors who weighed in on these matters are clear that these accounts have been obsessed with me. Whether it's my involvement with you back in 2011, my disagreement with the way you apply the WP:3RR policy, this aforementioned case, or how you reacted toward me in the Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation, you and I have always had a fragile working relationship. In fact, our working relationship reminds me of another working relationship I had with a WP:Administrator. My working relationship with you improved when you were helping out a lot with the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation matter; for example, this case. But it's not the same now. And I doubt it ever will be again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If you do not want editors to point you to Wiki policies, then perhaps you should not have reverted a SPI close by a SPI clerk/CU? I must say, you act as if keeping that case open was the only way to contact the CU, when the CU has a Talk page. Or you could have done what both Ken and I have done and checked the actions by Reaper Eternal's log and see the CU block made for the other sock. In any case, being hostile towards Bbb23 and other editors for merely performing tasks and doing what needs to be done, doesn't help you. Your complete misreading of the situation, SPI revert, and then hostility, could have all been avoided each step of the way just by stating "my bad, sorry". Instead of the escalation. Dave Dial (talk) 04:14, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

I'd contacted Reaper Eternal elsewhere. And I felt that it was best that the reason for the indefinite block on the Cali11298 account be clarified in that case instead of disjointed. I saw the opportunity to point out there that the Cali11298 account had been indefinitely blocked and to ask Reaper Eternal questions there, before the case was archived. I disagree that I have been hostile to Bbb23 in this section. And in any case, I am the one thoroughly familiar with how my working relationship with him has been. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That stated, I do understand where you are coming from on this matter, DD2K (Dave Dial). I can get defensive, and I know it. I've admitted to it more than once on my talk page. But WP:SPI/C#Role and responsibilities of SPI Clerks and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures#Patrolling are not policies, and I don't see how they support Bbb23's reaction to me in this regard. There are various WP:Administrators who would not have reacted the way that Bbb23 reacted; they would not have warned me like I am some inexperienced Wikipedian that needs a slap on the wrist. And they certainly would not have blocked me. They might have let the investigation stay open longer because of my questions; there are WP:Administrators who have done similar for editors. Because of this, I cannot help but think that my "sometimes poor" working relationship with Bbb23 factored into him acting the way he did with me concerning the aforementioned WP:Sockpuppet case. Either way, Reaper Eternal answered my queries, and this case is obviously over. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Bbb23 has asked another WP:Administrator whether or not he would be WP:INVOLVED if he blocked me. Well, just as I've seen Wikipedia editors (including WP:Administrators) have different interpretations of what a WP:3RR violation is (the same goes for other policies), I've seen Wikipedia editors (including WP:Administrators) have different interpretations of what WP:INVOLVED is (especially when it is applied to them). The other case I mentioned above is one such case, and that WP:Administrator also assured me that he didn't remember our disputes. Other WP:Administrators disagreed with him when looking over our histories. Bbb23, I suggest that you don't take the wording "working relationship" too seriously. I certainly would not call that other relationship a true "working relationship." Perhaps I should have stated "interactions." Whether you would be WP:INVOLVED or not, I feel that you overreacted. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Side note: Because it is a recent development and I don't WP:Watch his user page/talk page, I didn't know until an hour ago (after re-looking at his user page) that Bbb23 is a WP:CheckUser. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and IPs can be spoofed. There are some similarities that cannot be considered as coincidence. First edit was the creation of userpage.[2], [3][4] All I would say is wait for sometime, collect more evidence, then discuss with a checkuser before another SPI is filed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Yet another reason for Bbb23 to stay away from me, and to quit WP:Watching my user talk page. I don't want to read anything about how I am overreacting regarding Bbb23, or what a supposedly good WP:Administrator he is. To close that thread the way that he did, knowing how the archive in question will be perceived, and how that WP:Sockpuppet hangs on his every word because that WP:Sockpuppet used his words to mock me, is a mess. I've been clear above in this section that Bbb23 behaves toward me in the same ways that the aforementioned WP:Desysopped WP:Administrator did. And he does. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If what editors suggested to me about replying in the archive is valid, then wow. Awkward. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarified. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Cali11298

Looking at Reaper Eternal's log, the sock seems to be User:Redhood6889. User:69.141.77.252 may also be involved too, although it's harder to be sure. BMK (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (BMK), just in case you are not WP:Watching the A Rape on Campus article, I'm letting you know here that Cali11298 has created yet another WP:Sockpuppet; this one was simply to taunt me. And he was as foolish with his transparency this time as he was before. With the way that he went on about me needing psychological help, he reminded me of Cavalierman. But, as we know, Cavalierman has been cleared. Furthermore, I did not have a strong suspicion that Cavalierman is Cali11298; if I had, I would have stated it. I've been clear that I've had a strong suspicion that Cavalierman is not entirely new to editing Wikipedia. But I noted in the latest Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation that I've dropped the Cavalierman angle. Two WP:CheckUsers (including Reaper Eternal) have informed me that the technical data is not there as far as comparing him to the Cali11298 account goes. Flyer22 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Beyond My Ken (BMK) as a test. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: As pointed out in the #Oooohhh... section, I've decided to ignore Cali11298 unless it's necessary to not ignore him. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Bikini

I hope you remember the article. I has just been promoted to be a GA. I thought you would like to know. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Aditya, it's still on my WP:Watchlist. Although I knew that it 'd reached WP:Good article status, I thank you for thinking of me and wanting to let me know of its upgraded status. Your hard work on the article has clearly paid off. Great job. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Titanic

My edit was based purely on the belief that the release section (as it was) seemed overly massive to me. Thus, I thought it would have been best to equally divide it into two sections, with 3 subsections in each one; one section focusing specifically on the film's releases (original theatrical, home media, and 3D reissue) and the other section on how the film was received (box office, critical, accolades). ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jedi94, thanks for explaining, but this is a matter for the article talk page. That's what I meant by "Discuss on the talk page." Personally, I prefer the current, more chronological setup. And since it's all "release" material, I often dislike the "Release" and "Reception" split. I've also disliked that some editors try to make every film article look the same, despite MOS:FILM being clear that variation is allowed. You can see my comments on such matters, here and here. That stated, I am open to discussing this. If you are still interested in changing that article's release/reception setup, I suggest you take the matter to the article talk page. I'll essentially repeat there what I stated here on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I'm not strongly passionate about changing it—that's why I discussed it here, as opposed to the film's talk page. The section just seemed too ongoing for my taste. Thank you for your input though. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jedi94, I see. Thanks again. As seen in that first discussion I linked you to, these setup disputes are pretty trivial and I'm not fond of arguing over trivial matters. So I do try to compromise in such cases. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I left a note in the article's edit history about this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

don't talk to socks

While I applaud your work to stop sockpuppets, as I mentioned in the admin discussion, I don't see why you have to engage with them. For example, I saw that you invited one Cali puppet to 'come clean and admit it.' Did you really expect him to do so? I would only expect this if he had decided to turn over a new leaf, in which case he would admit it at the start (and also not be fucking up articles). It would probably be better if you didn't interact with with the socks, just try to get rid of them. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dingsuntil, your feedback is fine. But my user page about WP:Sockpuppets is clear that talking to them comes in handy. They commonly make mistakes that allow me to identify them as WP:Sockpuppets. Look at how I engaged with Cali11298 in the #about the abstinence section above. Before he was identified as a WP:Sockpuppet, I set the tone to gauge him and have him more likely to reveal himself as the WP:Sockpuppet that he is. And what happened? He did. I've lost count how many times I have successfully used this tactic. Cali11298 is not the first account he's used, and I wish that I knew what the actual master account is. People have their way(s) of dealing with WP:Sockpuppets; my way works. I won't be dropping it and there is nothing anyone can state to convince me to drop it. My way also worked as recently as this case at WP:AN. So as for what you stated at WP:ANI, here and here, that is not always, or even mostly, the best way to combat WP:Sockpuppetry. As for Cavalierman: Like I mentioned in the #Cali11298 section and elsewhere, I never called him a WP:Sockpuppet (except for stating at WP:ANI that I believe he is one). I implied it, but the possibility that he is a returning editor who is not a WP:Sockpuppet was also on my mind. Either way, he has been cleared as far as being a WP:Sockpuppet of Cali11298 goes. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, suppose Cav is real new user, just a bit bro-ey, trollish, and with a minor case of Knowing What's Right. I'm sure you can see how suggesting he was a sock (which I don't think is significantly different from claiming it, for purposes of interacting with people) is not likely to bring him to Jesus, and in fact calculated to endanger his wiki-soul. Just think carefully about whether the net result is positive and/or higher than your other options. Dingsuntil (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dingsuntil, thanks for your perspective on this. My user page about WP:Sockpuppetry is clear that I do not apply WP:Assume good faith in cases where I am sure that it should not be applied. And the WP:Assume good faith guideline is also clear that applying that guideline does not mean blindly applying it. I was 100% certain that Cali11298 was/is a WP:Sockpuppet master (an extremely poor one), and I treated him as one. I am done talking about Cavalierman for the time being. And because my tactics of catching WP:Sockpuppets have repeatedly proven a net benefit for Wikipedia, I will be sticking with those tactics. Anyone who has a problem with them is free to report me to WP:ANI; I would also suggest starting a WP:RfC/U on me, but I see that it's a procedure that has been recently shut down. The other option is to try Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to turn this into an Ordeal by Wikicombat, although if RfC/U not considered that kind of step, maybe I will (Arbitration definitely seems like it). I'm not bothered by you, particularly, but I'm not convinced you're pursuing the max-benefit strategy. For example, keep in mind that Wikimedia is all vapors over trying to get more chicks to edit articles. I'm sure you'll agree that lots of your fellow chicks don't share your hardcore mindset, and could be driven off by particularly harsh accusations of sockpuppetry, or at least more easily than men (Cav doesn't seem to have kept his cool particularly well, but we're talking averages here).

It's also not clear to me that you need to catch all the sockpuppets. I considered the possibility that Cav was a sock, but also noticed that he seemed to be being incrementally persuaded by my "Keeping 'A Rape On Campus' NPOV is better than POV-ing it because the facts prove your point better than anything else" argument. I might well have talked him into playing that article straight, and he'd get the idea about being subtle, and eventually become one of the wikifaithful in the process (to the glory of our Lord Jimbo, whose light shineth upon the dark hearts of trolls and vandals that they may find redemption in His grace). Dingsuntil (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dingsuntil (last time WP:Pinging you to this section since I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I know what I am doing on such matters. If you want to defend obviously problematic editors and/or give them the benefit of the doubt where they do not deserve it, you are free to do so. But you will not see me doing it. Again, feel free to take me to WP:Arbitration; see how many faults you and others can find, considering that I've caught almost each and every one of the WP:Sockpuppets I initially indicated were WP:Sockpuppets. It will not be difficult for me to provide a list of all of them. That you are here making a big deal out of this and defending WP:Sockpuppets and/or other disruptive editors is only causing me to consider you in a poor light. And your assertion that I am likely driving away female editors is absurd. "Lots of [my] fellow chicks don't share [my] hardcore mindset"? Firstly, it's likely that none of them would appreciate you calling them "chicks." Secondly, you are stereotyping women as though they cannot be as hardcore as I am. Thirdly, as I've mentioned before, working in this predominantly male environment (which is often hostile) day in and day out is what has made me so hardcore on Wikipedia. Fourthly, if women cannot have a hardcore mindset at Wikipedia, they shouldn't be editing here. That's just the way Wikipedia is. If you want it changed, you should be trying that elsewhere. Not at my talk page.

You keep bringing up Cavalierman, as if I believe that he is not a WP:Sockpuppet. I made it clear in the Cali11298 section above: "I did not have a strong suspicion that Cavalierman is Cali11298; if I had, I would have stated it. I've been clear that I've had a strong suspicion that Cavalierman is not entirely new to editing Wikipedia." I am not the one who started a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on Cavalierman. I have not pursued Cavalierman. I also have not mentioned anything about a need to catch all WP:Sockpuppets. It would be best that you stop replying on my talk page about this. If you are going to take action against me for catching WP:Sockpuppets almost each and every time that I indicated that someone is a WP:Sockpuppet, then go do that. Stop lecturing me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

CVC Capital Partners

Hello,

I am trying to update some of the inaccurate information found on Wikipedia about CVC Capital and Credit Partners. I have tried numerous times to get this updated, but my changes keep being reverted. Please can you help with this and keep the changes I have made today, 15.04.2015.

Many thanks, Joe Little, CVC Capital Partners http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.156.204.68&redirect=no

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.204.68 (talk • contribs)

IP, see what Kiwi128 stated on your talk page. You are writing the article like a WP:Advertisement, which is unencyclopedic (see WP:NOTADVERTISING in this case), and you are removing references (though the article could do with more references and better references). Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the history of the company, if there is any to detail with the aid of WP:Reliable sources, should be in the article. That's how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. In other words, the present is not all that should be covered. Flyer22 (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer

Hi, I edited the hans zimmer page because the information was outdated as he is no longer married. I gleaned this information from various photos of Mr Zimmer attending the 2015 oscars with a woman (Dina De Luca) who is not his wife, daughter or team member. I will most likely be editing the post back to my initial edit. Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smjd (talk • contribs)

Smjd (talk · contribs), you need to be going by WP:Reliable sources, not material "gleaned [...] from various photos of Mr Zimmer attending the 2015 oscars with a woman (Dina De Luca) who is not his wife, daughter or team member." Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Laci Green

I removed that section because the "views" that were criticized consisted of one comment this person made on some social media account seven years ago. The section was also inaccurate because it implied that she has a negative view of Islamic people and a positive view of sexism. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reece Leonard, after making this edit (followup edits here and here), I changed the text to this. I didn't remove the "has been criticized for her views on sexism and Islam" part because of what you stated above, though; after all, if a WP:Reliable source is reporting on criticism that Green has received, we can report on that; and in that case, it doesn't matter that the criticism was on a social media account, considering that social media is Green's platform. It's not like Green is very famous. And it doesn't matter that it's years old; we report on people's past and present. It's similar to what I told the IP in the #CVC Capital Partners section above. I removed the "has been criticized for her views on sexism and Islam" part because the source points to a post that no longer exists, at least at the URL it has (it's not on Internet Archive either), and because what the source states about the matter is vague. As for the statement implying she has "a positive view of sexism," I didn't think of it like that. It could have easily seemed like the sexism criticism was a male thing; teenage boys and men who disagree with her views on sexism. For example, Wikipedia certainly has enough men's rights editors, whose views of sexism deviate from the standard research and framework concerning that topic.

In the future, will you consider taking an article disagreement you have with me to the article talk page? That is usually best so that others watching the article (or those who come across it) will have clear access to the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

There's some background in this article from Jezebel. I'm not going to cite that, though, because I think Gawker is a crap source. As much as I like to visit Flyer22's talk page (it's got a lot more drama than mine), I agree that this conversation should probably continue on Talk:Laci Green. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You know that I appreciate your help any time I can get it, even when you disagree with me, NinjaRobotPirate (though we haven't often disagreed). Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you made the right edits here. Reece Leonard (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi. What do you think about using a disambig solution for the current facefucking fracas? If you were to decide on this solution, you would want to think about using either "face fucking" or "facefucking" as the primary target. Using the latter as an example, it would look something like this:

Facefucking may refer to:

• Facesitting, a sexual practice in which one partner sits on or over the other's face
• Irrumatio, an act of degrading oral sex
• Deep-throating, a type of oral sex

This is just one example of solving the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free, Viriditas, as this might not be a WP:Primary topic matter. As I noted here of the WP:Sockpuppet's disruption, including this warning he placed on my talk page, I will see to it that he is WP:Blocked if no one else does it first. It was idiotic of him to show up out of nowhere and revert me on an obscure, recently created redirect page that I only found because I recently looked at Jim Michael (talk · contribs)'s edit history. Well, now I know that he is following me. As you know, WP:3RR exemption and WP:Block evasion allows me to revert him on the spot of any page he follows me to. I should have reverted him again so that he can report me at WP:ANI and get blocked that way. But right now, I am dealing with things simultaneously, including discussing this matter via email with higherups. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have little interest in sex-related topics (I'm more interested in things like immunopsychiatry), I just saw the conflict play out and wondered if I could make a helpful suggestion that could put an end to the conflict and make everybody happy. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"I will see to it that he is WP:Blocked if no one else does it first." That empty threat spiked such a laugh I actually snorted some orange juice through my left nostril. Don't listen to him, Viriditas. I'm not a sockpuppet; in fact, this is my only account. I don't know Flyer very well, but evidently he doesn't like it when people don't happen to agree with him. Thefiremanx6 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be good if you learned to admit when you are a WP:Sockpuppet, like this recent WP:Sockpuppet (who, despite being understandably frustrated with me, knows when it's time to be honest). Lying all the time, including to NeilN, is only postponing the inevitable. There is nothing about the Thefiremanx6 account's editing that indicates that it is being operated by a new editor (or a legit editor), despite the Welcome template that Liz gave it. Liz and I have disagreed on WP:Sockpuppet issues, such as WP:Duck. She approaches WP:Sockpuppets softly and gives even the most obvious WP:Sockpuppets and other WP:Disruptive editors the benefit of the doubt, including when there is ample evidence that the person will never become a better Wikipedia editor. Her approach has made me think more deeply about WP:Sockpuppet issues and the issue of other WP:Disruptive editors. And I know that the benefit of the doubt should be given in certain cases. But I've continued to stick to my guns on these matters.

That stated, perhaps I should have continued ignoring you in this section, but I decided to give you something else to think about -- honesty. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thefiremanx6, don't you want to talk some more? Perhaps keep making posts like this that you feel the need to change? This isn't the time to stop being predictable. Before you are WP:Blocked as the WP:Sockpuppet that you are, I'd prefer that we converse a little longer. Every time you show back up, I get a better feel for your personality. You know, your idiosyncrasies and such. For example, the way you like to state "goodbye" in different ways, with a comma after that and before your signature, including in this latest case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, although my distaste for you as a fellow editor is brobdingnagian, as is my distaste for your baseless ad infinitum slanderous accusations against me, I want to tell you that this is not personal. I just call things as I see them, which is why I reverted you that time. I'll tell you again: I'm not a sock. You would have much more friendly chats here if you toned down your holier-than-thou attitude, as well as accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a sock. Looking at your editing history, I've noticed another difference between us, which is how objective we are with regard to our beliefs. I know you live in Florida (looking at your user bio), and I know the heat can be overwhelming sometimes. I suggest you stay out of the sun, I think that heat is getting to your head. Thefiremanx6 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thefiremanx6, we established at the Abstinence-only sex education talk page that you are not the least bit objective. As for my objectivity, various editors can speak positively of that since I follow the WP:Neutral policy the way that it is supposed to be followed. You are Cali11298, and, unless you have a rock-solid WP:Proxy or virtual private network (VPN), you better be prepared to WP:Blocked as a WP:Sockpuppet of Cali11298. Just like I gave you a chance to admit to WP:Sockpuppetry on your user talk page the very first time I confronted you about the matter, I am giving you a chance to admit to it now. Stop lying so much. The truth will set you free. After all, if you think that any editor will be stupid enough believe that this edit compared to this edit, and this "Adios" signature compared to this "Adios" signature, are from two different people, the truth is the only logical route for you to take. Then again, you could go and report me at WP:ANI so that you can be WP:Blocked that way. So what is it going to be? Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Spare me the sentimentality, I won't admit to something that I did not do, Flyer. And believe me, a lot of people use the word adios, it doesn't mean that I'm this Cali person. This whole tirade of yours is the hobgoblin of little minds. Thefiremanx6 (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That's your answer, is it? Those WP:Diff-links represent coincidences?

You lie too much, and you can't even lie in a convincing way. Well, in any case, this section will serve as a case study with regard to a certain type of WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And, I dream of horses, thanks again for this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, no problem. You are welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There comes a time when you must stop breaking Wikipedia's rules, and that includes no personal attacks and AGF. Flyer, stop being so overzealous and patronizing. Thefiremanx6 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The more you talk (type, whatever), the more evidence I collect. Go report me at WP:ANI for "breaking Wikipedia's rules" already. Or are you scared to do so? You don't want a WP:Boomerang this time, I take it? Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not a vindictive guy, so I'll let you do the honors and report me to the ANI for this sockpuppetting I supposedly did, according to you. Or you could start an SPI. Whatever floats your boat. I'm guessing you've already done so however, given your telling me to get ready to be blocked. Note: this would be a major breach of ethics on your part, as you are supposed to post a notice on a user's page if you have started an SPI so that the user can defend him/herself, and there's no notice on my page. Just saying. Thefiremanx6 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Waste of time, but I'll see you at the latest WP:Sockpuppet investigation I've started on you. And, no, I don't have to notify a WP:Sockpuppet of a WP:Sockpuppet investigation I've started on him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that the WP:Sock is blocked, The Anome, do you have any opinion on the aforementioned redirect/disambiguation suggestion? I am asking you because you edit sexual articles and recently edited the Facesitting article. I generally don't edit the sexual topics that pertain to sexual acts that are considered the realm of the non-standard, such as bukkake or certain BDSM aspects. It may be that you edit such topics more than I do. When it comes to sexual topics, I mainly edit core sexual topics relating to human sexuality or the sexology topics. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My previous edit: Condom article.

You reverted my edit to the article on condoms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs)

Joey13952 alternate account (talk · contribs), and you re-added your edit; this time with a source. I'll leave that matter to Doc James to handle. I'm concerned with other things at the moment.

I also gave this section a clearer heading, and tagged your comment as unsigned. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Lamborghini Huracán

Hello Flyer22 , I'm not sure if this was the method that you wanted me to reply to you by, but thank you for your input. My edit on the Lamborghini Huracan page's intent was to add additional content that could be interpreted in any way. The second generation of Lamborghini v10 engines were made with a crankshaft that had no split crank pins. Being a 90° angle Vee, it would fire every 54° and 90° of crankshaft rotation instead of the even 72° interval. This bit of information could be interpreted in 2 ways, as an advantage for a lower centre of gravity since being 90° instead of 72°, and have a different noise signature, a stiffer crankshaft or be a disadvantage in having slightly more vibration and a different noise signature. However one's opinion could be made through interpretation was my intent for the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishuynh1996 (talk • contribs)

UEFA Euro 2020

I deleted the map in the bid process section because the same map is in the venues section. Also somethings wrong with the formatting of it and the map is covering some of the writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.66.54 (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sleeper check

I ran the CU before the account was created.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Following comments here. Just stopping by to say I'm watching that user too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the more eyes on that account, the better. He has already slipped up with one of his edit summaries. The more he edits under that account, the more evidence I will collect. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Keeping tabs offline. I can be patient. And when I'm patient, I can see what possible mistakes I have made in tying one editor to an exiting account, as opposed to the correct account. I cannot stress enough that these WP:Sockpuppets need to be smarter; little claims about being a newbie or making a rookie mistake will not fool me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional note: Taken care of. He was his own downfall, as usual. Even if Scaravich105nj is not Cali11298, there are similarities that caused me to suspect them as being the same person, such as magically following me to an article (meaning "out of blue" style) and this edit (by the Thefiremanx6 WP:Sockpuppet) compared with this edit (the focus on past tense at political articles). Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: Typical "I've edited Wikipedia before" response (it is sometimes valid, but usually invalid, when it comes to WP:Sockpuppet suspicion). In this case, it is invalid. Trust me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Final update for the Scaravich105nj account: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scaravich105nj. And these are the kind of notes I keep in my head and/or on a computer notepad when investigating a WP:Sockpuppet matter. As seen with that note, I don't jot someone down for cases such as these unless I'm certain that he or she is a WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oopsie...

Thanks for keeping me in line! Jim1138 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Jim, this was no problem at all. Thanks for helping. I wish that people generally understood the WP:Neutral policy, but it often seems that only significantly experienced Wikipedia editors do -- the ones who are often involved in contentious topics. And that's the reason that I have a section about that policy on my user page. When the WP:Neutral policy is correctly applied, the ones upholding it are accused of being POV-pushers, and I'm so over that. As noted in the latest discussions at Template talk:POV, so many editors don't even apply that template correctly. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What, {{POV}} doesn't mean I don't like it? I'll take a look at talk:pov. I wonder how many ... think I'm under the whip of a dominatrix? Jim1138 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, removal of a POV tag under these circumstances doesn't really seem to be covered: Template:POV#When to remove. Except perhaps not meant to be a permanent resident. Should it be amended? Jim1138 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2015‎ (UTC)

It was right to remove this tag because of what Template:POV states about the WP:Neutrality policy; it states, "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." And that is why I stated that I would remove the tag. If you want to amend the When to remove section of the template, you will likely need to discuss the matter at that talk page. Unlike many other template talk pages, Template:POV has enough WP:Watchers and people ready to debate changes made to that template. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention...that template is WP:Full-protected because it's so important and so contentious. So only WP:Administrators or those with similar rights when it comes to editing WP:Full-protected templates can edit that template. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Fluidity and Lisa M. Diamond articles

Flyer 22, thank you for the help on Sexual fluidity: the article is better now.

I will see how to make use of the content on User talk:Flyer22/Archive 15#User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality. RadioElectrico (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this is already a section, I hope RadioElectrico doesn't mind me commenting in it. Anyway, thanks for correcting my erroneous changes to the "Cultural debate" section of Sexual fluidity. I wasn't sure what was being conveyed in the iteration I encountered, but I was under the impression that what was meant was that sexual identity, not orientation, could change. The wording was very confusing in the original, so I tried to make sense of it. I'm glad you corrected my mistakes so quickly. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusing sexual orientation with sexual orientation identity

Ehm, are you really sure, sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual orientation identity are real - life used otherwise, than as synonyms? RadioElectrico (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RadioElectrico, I'm not sure what you are asking. Yes, the vast majority of sexologists, psychologists and psychiatrists believe that sexual orientation is real. While the concept of sexual orientation has not existed until relatively recently in the history of humankind, the factors that are sexual orientation have. Also, sexual orientation identity is an aspect of sexual identity, and those two things usually mean the same thing, which is why it's covered in the Sexual identity article. There is no need for separate Wikipedia articles for those two topics. Sexual orientation, however, is very much differentiated from sexual identity...at least by researchers who know what they are talking about. With sexual identity, a person can claim to be any sexual orientation; for example, due to heteronormativity, it's common for gay men and lesbians to claim to be heterosexual. Does that mean that they are heterosexual? No. It means that their sexual identity is heterosexual. If they ever do identify as gay or lesbian, it is the sexual identity that has changed, not the sexual orientation. That stated, and I mentioned this before (again see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 15#User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality), it's common for sexual orientation and sexual identity to be confused in research. This is addressed in the Sexual orientation article, in this section. That is mainly because of people's sexual identities not aligning with their sexual behaviors and/or actual sexual orientations. On your user talk page, I told you, "While researchers note sexual identity changing, they are pretty consistent in stating that sexual orientation is unlikely to change." That is true. Again, the sources you used were focused on sexual identity changing. For example, with this edit, you can see where KateWishing tweaked your text and added, "Diamond concluded that 'although sexual attractions appear fairly stable, sexual identities and behaviors are more fluid.'"

You need to stop confusing the research and what the researchers stated. And be careful not to engage in WP:Synthesis. It seems that you want to add text about sexual orientation having the ability to change, even though experts who study sexual orientation are fairly certain that sexual orientation itself (independent of sexual identity and sexual behavior) is generally stable and generally cannot be changed, which is why you won't find any credible scientific organization endorsing sexual orientation change efforts.

On a side note: In the future, if I reply on your talk page, it is best that you reply to me there. I prefer to keep discussion combined instead of disjointed. I like the WP:TALKCENT rationale. In this case, however, since we have continued discussion here at my talk page, I would prefer that you continue this discussion here instead of at yours; that is, if you desire to continue this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K., Flyer22, the thing is clearer to me now. However, i went to see Lisa M. Diamond's work from 2008 and from 2012: I don't see she is speaking only of sexual identity being changed, while sexual orientation remains unaltered. In the work from 2012 she explicitly says: "Whereas sexual orientation in men appears to operate as a stable erotic ‘compass’ reliably channeling sexual arousal and motivation toward one gender or the other, sexual orientation in women does not appear to function in this fashion (for a review, see Bailey, 2009)." RadioElectrico (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RadioElectrico (last time WP:Pinging you to this talk page because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), nowhere did I state that Diamond never talks about sexual orientation changing. What I stated is that she was primarily talking about sexual identity changing when it came to the sources you cited. I am very familiar with Diamond's work, and, being very familiar with that work, I know that she is usually talking about sexual identity changing, not sexual orientation changing. Again, refer to the "Diamond concluded" text that KateWishing added. While sexual orientation and sexual identity are commonly distinguished, they are also aspects of each other. Sexual behavior is also an aspect of sexual orientation. Yes, Diamond talks about women's sexual orientation being more fluid than men's; so do a lot of other researchers. That does not mean that they do not think that sexual orientation itself (meaning independent of sexual behavior or sexual identity) is generally stable. The term sexual orientation identity has the term sexual orientation in it, after all. Like Diamond stated, "'although sexual attractions appear fairly stable, sexual identities and behaviors are more fluid.'" It would take a lot of time for me to get you to understand these topics the way that you are supposed to understand them. So all I can ask of you is to follow the researchers' words accurately. And I mean all of the words (not just when they use the term sexual orientation to mean sexual identity in a way that apparently pleases you). I'm not sure why you are so determined to make it seem like sexual orientation itself is likely to change, but I told you above, "You need to stop confusing the research and what the researchers stated." As even seen with this bit I fixed, you confused (either intentionally or accidentally) what a woman stated. Nowhere does that woman state in those sources that she became heterosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender-identity/role

My memory is not so good, particularly since you say this was 2 years ago and I can't refresh it with a log since it's not delted, but when you say I restored that, I thought I had just changed it into a disambig for the gender identity and gender role articles since it only redirected to one of them. Ranze (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Estrogen article

I am new to this whole system. Anyways I wrote a pretty in depth piece yesterday and then I saw it was deleted. What happened?Wayne85VT (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wayne85VT, I reverted you (see Help:Reverting) because your addition needed better formatting and sourcing. When creating headings, you should create real headings (see WP:Headings), not MOS:BOLD headings. And as for sourcing, see WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are the type of sources you should be using for the content you added.

On a side note: I moved your post down and gave it a heading because, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In Regards to the Bigender Article...

Hey, Flyer22!

As best I can tell, this is the primary mode of communication on Wikipedia. I apologize if this is not your preferred method of communication. I'd like to thank you for helping my revision team with our references and providing us with links to improve upon our revisions - it means a lot that you're taking the time to assist new users. I've seen a couple of the messages you've sent my teammates, so I just wanted to reassure you that we are not poorly-researched students who are disregarding accuracy in an attempt to get a good grade. If we were doing that, our professors would clearly see that reflected in our work and we wouldn't get a good grade anyway. Many of us have extensive backgrounds studying human sexuality and a few of us have field experience in LGBTQIA+ activism, so we care very deeply for the accuracy of our project. I understand that one of your concerns has to do with the biomedical nature of our sources, so in the hope of clarification, I just want to say that many queer folks (myself included) are getting exhausted of the only information that is considered respectable being biomedically-based. Gender is separate from sex assigned at birth and many researchers don't even consider possibly conflation of the two when they set up their studies. So one of our goals is to raise awareness for the need to critically evaluate research and biological theories and to put more effort into research on socialization. So any help you'd be willing to give us in terms of how to cite things properly is VERY much appreciated, but I just wanted to reassure you that we are neither spammers, nor are we irresponsible.

Best wishes! -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TripleShotEspresso — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleShotEspresso (talk • contribs)

Hello, TripleShotEspresso (talk · contribs). As you know, I directed you to the WP:Med discussion; that is where your comments on this matter should go. Either there or the article's talk page. Your WP:Students have not had proper WP:Student training, and this commentary by Hunterashlyn (talk · contribs) at WP:Med shows it. Besides that WP:Personal attack, Hunterashlyn is not aware of the WP:OWN policy. I have to state that classes such as yours is why I generally dislike WP:Student editing. Not only am I well-versed in sexology and gender topics, I am well-versed in Wikipedia editing. And what your class is doing will not cut it. Consider my commentary regarding your class "tough love." Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I can tell you're very knowledgable in regards to both matters, so again, thank you for your assistance and "tough love." I am not privy to the full extent of your conversations with my teammates, but I apologize if there has been any personal attacks or tension. It's also very fair for you to say that our Wikipedia editing won't cut it. We don't have any background in is, as you've already surmised. However, we are simply trying to be active citizens in a community that not only extends to everyone with an internet connection, but also strives to use that collective force to bring the most expansive collection of information to be reviewed by an extensive audience and educate the greatest number of people. So we are simply asking for patience as we attempt to bring our knowledge to be reviewed by veterans like yourself. It's also frustrating on our end to see the resources that we scraped together deleted immediately, when what would be most helpful to us would be the types of critiques you sent to my "talk" page. So, again, thank you for your time, and apologies if tensions have been running high. I think we're all looking for a diplomatic solution. TripleShotEspresso — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

TripleShotEspresso, thank you for that. I understand that it can be frustrating being a WP:Newbie. My interaction with your class is documented at the aforementioned WP:Med discussion. Do comment at that WP:Med discussion, and point your class there, so that we can possibly resolve these conflicts regarding the bio-medical content you all are adding to the Bigender article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion: Human Trafficking

Infor4fun, Hello Flyer22. Thank You for contacting me, I am new to Wikipedia and didn't how to yet explain why let alone navigate my way as an editor -- thanks for links! My reason: the image highlighted Egypt as a country where trafficking was not illegal and common practice. However, I researched further about this and found that it is illegal and is a serious crime. Gangs and terrorists are commonly responsible and Government Authorities try to track them. Problems faced include corruption and/or bribery. Ps: researched because of schoolwork. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun

I have not received a reply in regards to this topic. I have seen the image put up again. The problem is that it is in fact illegal so that invalidates the image. I'm not sure if its a new law or not, but this issue must be fixed. I only say this to put Wikipedia closer to becoming a trustable source. Please do see to it, false information can result in big problems in researches. Thank You for your understanding. Infor4fun (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun

Gay Sexual Practices

In the See Also section I added Top, bottom and versatile because the in text links are not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmrc (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmrc, yes, the Top, bottom and versatile link is clear in the Behaviors section of that article. If someone overlooks that link in that relatively small article, it is that person's fault. WP:See also and WP:Overlinking are clear, and you need to start following those rules, per what I've stated on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 the links to top, bottom an versatile are clear but are not linked to the whole article of Top, bottom and versatile instead they are linked just to the individual sections. So I added the full link to See Also. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmrc, and that is still unnecessary WP:Overlinking, especially since the only relevant parts of the Top, bottom and versatile article with regard to the Gay sexual practices article are the Top, Bottom and Versatile sections. All three sections are linked in the Behaviors section of the Gay sexual practices article, which is also a form of WP:Overlinking; but at least that form of WP:Overlinking is taking editors to different parts in the article. Since I don't know how else to make you understand why the Top, bottom and versatile article should not be in the See also section, and since disjointed discussion annoys me (replying here at my talk page and at yours instead of in one spot), I am done discussing this with you. But when I notice you WP:Overlink, like you also did here at the Vegetarianism article, I will revert you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have read the WP:Overlinking and what I edited by adding Top, bottom and versatile is not over linking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmrc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for reverting that user's edits on Sexism back to my version. We can't have people thumbing their noses at consensus, after all. Scaravich105nj (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi: RoniA20 WP:Sockpuppet investigation

A few months ago I have decided to try and start to do some editing in Wikipedia, due to the fact that i have seen some articles in wiki to be bias in the best case, and incorrect in the worst. I have never edited in wiki before, maybe just once, many years ago when i have opened this user, but forget all about it, and never edit with it. So when i have start editing i have edit from a direct PC IP (or what ever it called). Then (as i see it) someone accused me of violating copyright, when it was not the case - deleted the history (in the IP talk page) of me explaining why it wasn't copyright violation and asking for explanation; why ehat i did was copyright violation - and blocked me. Then because i was blocked and couldn't even answer i have remembered of this wiki user of mine, recovered the password - and responded to what happened in the talk page of the IP; said that it was me and asked again how what i did was copyright violation and why they blocked me right away without even explaining why what i have done was copyright violation. Again they didn't explained but just blocked me right away and started this sock puppeteer investigation - In a very unfair and unjustified way - when at start i have didn't even understand what it's all about, and again didn't have a way to answer... Since i have didn't understand what this puppeteer investigation was, and believed that they blocked me unfairly i have used other PC which they blocked again - and only then i have understand what the puppeteer is, and stopped editing though still belived that all of it was unjust and unfair. So now I have decided that i don't want anything to do with wiki - since apparently, as i see it, wiki is controlled by a bunch brutal and dictatorial mafia... AND I WANT TO DELETE ALL THE HISTORY THAT HAD TO DO WITH ME- which include the pages that you have redo...--RoniA20 (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RoniA20. I reverted you here and here because I initially considered it WP:Disruptive editing. Perhaps I still do. You are not the one who should be removing those WP:Sockpuppet tags. I reverted you here because you'd commented in the archives and commenting in the archives is usually not something we should do here at Wikipedia. See this recent discussion about commenting in the archives of a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. You can, however, use the archive's talk page to comment. And make sure you WP:Ping the relevant editors, since the archive regarding your WP:Sockpuppet investigation does not have a lot of WP:Watchers. I put it on my WP:Watchlist after reverting you. I also reverted you here because it is inappropriate to request to have the page deleted in a closed case.

On a side note: I altered the heading of your title with ": RoniA20 WP:Sockpuppet investigation" so that it is clearer as to what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't understand anything from what you've just said. How can i ask to delete all of those things?--RoniA20 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"LGBT" vs. "gay"

Hi Flyer22,

I noticed that you reverted my edit to LGBT community. As the G in the acronym "LGBT" means "gay", could you please explain to me how "gay community" represents lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons? I am having trouble understanding.

Thanks,

Sonĝanto (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sonĝanto, as you may have seen by now, I've taken the matter to the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

for opening the sock drawer

		The Detective Barnstar
		For uncovering what turned out to be a pretty big sockfarm. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I came of as dismissive, sockpuppet investigations just aren't really my thing. I tend to block the really really obvious ones and leave the more complicated stuff for the experts. Obviously you were really onto something there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. I wasn't frustrated with you. I know that, in that case, I thanked Tiptoety for not ignoring the matter. But I mainly thanked him for that because, as noted in the previous Cali11298 investigation, other WP:CheckUsers (except for one who was going to check but needed time to do so) did not take the time to look into the matter, or, if they did, they didn't tell me. This gave Cali11298 more time for WP:Disruption. I am aware of the WP:NOTFISHING policy and that some WP:CheckUsers are very wary of violating that, but I offer Tiptoety enough evidence to suspect WP:Sockpuppetry, which takes the matter away from being any sort of WP:NOTFISHING violation. He seems to trust me enough to know that I am very likely right when I put forth "flimsy" WP:Sockpuppet accusations/evidence, and I very much appreciate that.

Either way, Cali11298 will not stop WP:Sockpuppeting or pestering me. I take note of subtle things in addition to not-so-subtle things when considering whether an account is Cali11298, including this recent comment by a supposed WP:Newbie at an obscure article talk page -- the talk page of an article I recently edited. I do this with other WP:Sockpuppet masters as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry: Black-capped chickadee article

sorry Flyer22 for the article,how do i fix it?--Butter0104 (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Butter0104

Butter0104 (talk · contribs), this was fixed when I reverted you. I just reverted you here as well. Try to edit constructively. To learn more about editing Wikipedia appropriately, read WP:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

On a side note: I altered the heading of your title with ": Black-capped chickadee article" so that it is clearer as to what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Could use your thoughts

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Shenanigans.2C_possible_sockpuppetry_at_Robert_L._Gordon_IV --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian Sentiment

Hello there Flyer22.

New to Wikipedia editing. I hope this is the correct place to "talk" to you. I noticed you reversed my additions to Wikipedia page "Anti-Iranian Sentiment". Why is that? Everything I added was and is fact. As well as sources cited and in proper easy to read grammar. What is the issue that you reverted my extremely valid additions? Please let me know because I strongly feel all additions should be added back immediately. I was going to work on the page even more adding critical information, however now I am very confused. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.225.11 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I originally reverted you because I thought your content was unsourced. I still did not restore your addition, however, because I soon realized that it was a WP:Copyright violation. That I originally reverted you because I thought that the material was unsourced, and soon after recognized a WP:Copyright violation, can be seen with this edit where I reverted the WP:STiki message I left for you with a WP:Edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22,

Thank you for your response. I have taken into account what you have said here as well as under your Edit Summary. I have re-submitted it. Hopefully, this time I have it done properly and it follows Wikipedia guidelines. If it is still incorrect, please can you elaborate further here? Because I would like to add more in the future but first I like to make sure I am on the right track. Thanks! 174.67.225.11 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

William Northrop

Hi, My name is Albert Medders. I have no clue what im doing on wikipedia or how to make correct edits or deletions. I need help. I'm trying to help out my friend William Northrop. Their is data on his wiki page that is untrue which is slandering his name. He requested me to delete it for him or edit out the stolen valor garbage. He has legitimate reasons why his record was not complete and the book as based off of untrue and unproven facts. I need your help freeing William from the slandering of this article about him. He is currently trying to publish a book explaining why the information on him is wrong but the data here is restricting his freedom to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albmed7589 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Albmed7589 (talk · contribs), yes, I reverted you when you recently made this edit as an IP. As for deleting that article or removing inaccurate detail from it, we've already been over this, as you know: Talk:William Northrop#Request deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay I never saw that, as I said I am a total beginner when it comes to wiki. I will see what I can do about pointing out some of these problems. Also im aware of the begging of this wiki page. it was created to help push down some of the nayysaying from stolen valor that was already high on google. I will return with a more informed and well done edit/request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albmed7589 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit and "seems"

Thanks for your message. I have no idea why you are comfortable stating it seems I want to promote something. I gave new information on a page littered with cliches and fallacies. Do you want Wikipedia to be alive or dead?

4 legs good 2 legs bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.62.185 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• IP, your added text wasn't encyclopedic or informational, and it wasn't sourced to a reliable source. In addition, your repeated addition of that one link makes one suspicious, of course. Thank you, and happy days. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, that looks pretty clear to me. It seems the IP is here to promote http://www.bdsm-fetish.net/ not to build an encyclopedia. Not cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe, Cullen, when you have a moment, you can write this up. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos

As those who watch my talk page know, I don't usually start a discussion on my own talk page. But I'm starting this one for a more appropriate discussion about this matter than at Talk:God complex, and so that I can get input on it from one or more of my talk page watchers. I strongly suspect that Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs) is Jdogno5 (talk · contribs). The evidence that they are the same person is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive and currently in this section at Talk:God complex. I don't know how Michael Demiurgos passed the WP:CheckUser testing, but, like I noted to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and Risker at Talk:God complex, these two are undoubtedly the same person unless someone idolizes Jdogno5 enough to be copying his style. So I'm convinced that Betty Logan and SchroCat were right on this matter. With such strong behavioral evidence, should we really let the Michael Demiurgos account, which, judging by its talk page, is just as WP:Disruptive as the Jdogno5 account, continue editing? Or should we simply ignore this, especially since Jdogno5 will continue WP:Socking anyway? Kuru, as a WP:Administrator, and the editor who recently reverted Michael Demiurgos, do you have an opinion on this? And, Michael Demiurgos, feel free to note here why we should not think that you are Jdogno5. If you are not Jdogno5, then why are you making the same edits, or essentially the same edits, he made...with the same rationales?

If no one weighs in on this matter here, then I will simply start a new WP:Sockpuppet investigation on this, pointing to the evidence Betty Logan presented, and to the new evidence at God complex/Talk:God complex. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you are correct, and I would have made a duck block already had I not just reverted him in what is essentially a content dispute. I understand the previous AGF close, but it seems pretty unlikely to have now jumped into the exact same topics making the exact same really odd edits. "Deity complex"? Really? Kuru (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, file an SPI if you are so certain, with the requisite evidence. I personally will not have the time to look at this for a couple of weeks (as I have already posted on my own user talk page). That is the place to make accusations about socking, not on article talk pages (which are about discussing content of the article) or your personal user talk page, where the person alleged to be the sock doesn't really have an opportunity to rebut your comments. But you know that. Risker (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Risker, I indicated above that I likely will file a WP:Sockpuppet investigation for this matter. But I started this discussion to essentially ask if I should. After all, look at what happened in the previous case despite more than enough evidence that these two accounts are being operated by the same person. So I want to make sure that I am not wasting my time. For editors to act like all of this evidence can be chalked up to coincidences would be wasting my and others' time. If a WP:Administrator had acted like Kuru indicated above he would have acted regarding Michael Demiurgos, which would have certainly been the correct action, none of this would be happening (unless another WP:Sock popped up, that is). As for what is the appropriate place to note that someone is a WP:Sockpuppet, I disagree. Furthermore, since I WP:Pinged Michael Demiurgos to this section and invited him to comment, he most assuredly has the opportunity to explain away these "coincidences." I felt that it's better that I discuss this matter, including with him, before I jump right into a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on him when he was essentially excused from the previous one. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only evidence I have thus far is the evidence that Betty Logan provided and this latest "it's most assuredly him" evidence (you know, the evidence where he made the same exact title move/essentially same edits, with the same rationale, as Jdogno5 at God complex/Talk:God complex). So there is not much for me to type up. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I can also ignore this case, since, with the way that Michael Demiurgos edits disruptively, he'll eventually be indefinitely blocked regardless. It would, however, be a shame that Betty Logan's previous WP:Sockpuppet investigation on this remains without the support it deserves. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you necessarily assuming that Jdogno5 is the only one that holds a certain view or rationale? Was there another rationale that should have/could have been given instead that would have any sound logic to it? The only other one that I could think of would be that it is more technical correct as it is gender neutral. However, just saying that it is more gender neutral seem more simple and effective. What other title should have been used? I can not think of one that makes more sense than Deity Complex based on my rationale used.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"...since ,with the way that Michael Demiurgos edits disruptively,...": How do I edit disruptively? "...he'll eventually be indefinitely blocked regardless.": An indefinite block for the very first block seems rather harsh.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs), look at the evidence that Betty Logan presented; look at the timing of when your account was created and how you immediately took up Jdogno5's causes, your editing style, your writing style, your rationales, your propensity to WP:Edit war; all of it matches Jdogno5. You expect anyone with a shred of common sense to believe that you are not Jdogno5? And if not Jdogno5, a WP:Meat puppet for Jdogno5? Having the same views is one thing; taking up the same exact causes as a different account and editing exactly like that account is another thing. How have you edited WP:Disruptively? Um, your talk page shows how (not just that WP:Diff link; scrolling your talk page shows the different ways you've been WP:Disruptive). The same style as Jdogno5. There is also this recent matter. You can fool the WP:CheckUser tool, and it's clear that you did with the way you were querying Betty Logan about IP matters, but you certainly cannot fool me. It is rare that any WP:Sockpuppet can fool me. Oh, and I'll keep this signature style in mind. And I notified Kww, the WP:Administrator who indefinitely blocked the Jdogno5 account, to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You should be immediately blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry; but if no WP:Administrator is willing to block you for that, you will eventually be indefinitely blocked; I'm certain of it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

And while we're at it, WP:CheckUsers should also check this account. How many WP:Sockpuppet mistakes can you make? Flyer22 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"...look at the timing of when your account was created and how you immediately took up Jdogno5's causes, your editing style, your writing style, your rationales, your propensity to WP:Edit war; all of it matches Jdogno5.": "...the timing of when your account was created...", No one else created an account around that time? "...how you immediately took up Jdogno5's causes,...": Which causes of Jdogno5 have I taken up according to you? "...your editing style,...", What about it? Is there anything wrong with it? "...your writing style,..." Likewise: What about it? Is there anything wrong with it? "...your rationales,...", Which ones? Were they faulty or incorrect somehow? (Note: I am not saying they could never have been but if they were, I would like to know how.) "...your propensity to WP:Edit war...", What propensity for edit warring? Where have I displayed such action? "...all of it matches Jdogno5.", That sounds a bit assuming that he is some lone eccentric idealist or something like that. "You expect anyone with a shred of common sense to believe that you are not Jdogno5?": I can not expect anyone to believe anything but what they are willing to believe. " And if not Jdogno5, a WP:Meat puppet for Jdogno5?": I am Michael Demiurgos and I am my own individual. I can not say anything else but that. "Having the same views is one thing; taking up the same exact causes as a different account and editing exactly like that account is another thing.", So no two users have ever taken up the same causes ever or edited alike each other? "Um, your talk page shows how (not just that WP:Diff link; scrolling your talk page shows the different ways you've been WP:Disruptive).": I disagree but that is my opinion only at the very least. " The same style as Jdogno5.": What is his style then? "There is also this recent matter.": Okay, I thought I was making it more tidy. Sorry. "You can fool the WP:CheckUser tool, and it's clear that you did with the way you were querying Betty Logan about IP matters, but you certainly cannot fool me.": I saw a question about the matter in the question section about wiki usage, I thought I ought to ask in case I ran into a situation like that. " Oh, and I'll keep this signature style in mind.": I try to make sure I do not erase the signature when tidying it up.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Go try and convince someone else that you are not Jdogno5; your arguments won't work on me. Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Kuru, I don't think that a valid WP:Involved accusation could have been made against you had you blocked Michael Demiurgos. For one thing, WP:Disruptive behavior is not a true content dispute to me; it's something that needs to be stopped...swiftly. And, of course, there's the aforementioned evidence. But I understand why you didn't block. I appreciate that you are cautious when it comes to your WP:Administrative tools. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

God complex vs Deity complex

Player017 has gotten involved in the naming dispute by moving everything from Category:God complexes in fiction to Category:Deity complexes in fiction without providing any explanation. I've asked them to self-revert and start a discussion on renaming the category at WP:CFD. But someone may need to play cleanup if they refuse. —Farix (t | c) 03:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Farix, see the section immediately above this one for what you are dealing with. I'm 100% comfortable stating that all these accounts are the same person; the editor also apparently knows how to avoid WP:CheckUser detection. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser only catches the fools who either don't know how to reset their IP or use open proxies. —Farix (t | c) 03:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly do not know User:Player017 but it does prove my point about assuming about lone idealists.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh (to Michael Demiurgos). Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Farix, there are other things that go into WP:CheckUser data; a person can change their IP (including by using proxies) and still get caught by that tool. But I get the gist of what you are stating. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants to take note of different signature styles in this case, as I often do with WP:Sockpuppet matters, they should look at this and this. In other words, Michael Demiurgos is clearly prone to signing a certain way, a way that is similar to Player017, but has tried to adapt to changing his signature style. Michael Demiurgos usually signs like Jdogno5...meaning without any dash. And as for Player017 and Michael Demiurgos being the same person, I did link to this Editor Interaction Analyzer tool analysis in the section immediately above this one, after linking to this; think in terms of probability in the case of connecting those two accounts. Like I mention on my user page, probability hugely factors into how I catch WP:Sockpuppets. But I'll leave these two accounts (Michael Demiurgos and Player017) to others to handle for now, until the day comes that I "have to" interact with either of them. Any refutation by Michael Demiurgos that he is not Jdogno5 will not believed by me. Anyone supporting the idea that Michael Demiurgos and Jdogno5 are two different people will see that support wasted on me.

On a side note: I've made this section a subsection of the one above since these sections are related. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Player017 has already self-reverted, so I highly doubt they have any connection with either Michael Demiurgos or Jdogno5. While Player017 is an experienced editor, I'm not quite sure why they didn't start a rename request CFD for something that would be obviously contentious. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Farix, thanks for reminding me of WP:Assume good faith by doubting that Player017 is Jdogno5/Michael Demiurgos. Because of my experience with catching WP:Sockpuppets, WP:Assume good faith can immediately go out the door for me (I note on my user page how WP:Assume good faith factors in when I suspect and/or am investigating WP:Sockpuppetry); this is because I know all of the tricks they use and how they pull them off, and I've heard every explanation there is when it comes to a WP:Sockpuppet denying that they are a WP:Sockpuppet. That stated, my suspicion that Player017 is Jdogno5/Michael Demiurgos has not decreased. If you have the time, carefully analyze the articles and categories they share (meaning the ones they've both edited) and how they edited those articles or categories. Take note that the God complex article is not a highly edited article, and that the odds that an unrelated editor would have made this edit soon after Michael Demiurgos attempted to have the article remain at that title are extremely low. Take note that the Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos accounts, which edit exactly alike (and have both been significantly warned for WP:Disruptive editing and blocked more than once for WP:Edit warring), are the only accounts to have tried to move the God complex article to Deity complex...and based on the same rationale. Ask yourself the odds of this and this happening. Also factor in the timing. Yeah, taking all of that into account, I have a difficult time believing that Player017 is not Jdogno5/Michael Demiurgos, or is not at least related to them in some way beyond sharing the same interests.

But whatever the case, Michael Demiurgos is Jdogno5, and there is more than enough behavioral evidence proving it. It's an absolute joke that he has not yet been blocked as a Jdogno5 WP:Sockpuppet. With this edit to my talk page, Michael Demiurgos queried why signatures are a big deal. This and this matter are just two examples of why signatures are a big deal when it comes to WP:Sockpuppetry suspicion...if an editor is as experienced as I am with exposing WP:Sockpuppetry. Michael Demiurgos's explanations for why he is not Jdogno5 remind of the #Disambiguation case above. Completely pathetic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

All that stated, I'm taking the time to note here that Player017 edited the God complex article a year before the Michael Demiurgos account did; so one could argue that the article was on Player017's WP:Watchlist and that Player017 simply wanted to help out Michael Demiurgos, and has been helping him out in other ways because they edit some of the same articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry about getting involved in this. Honestly, I didn't know who this "Michael Demiurgos" character was until the notice system brought me to this talk page. Come to think about it, I thought that the term "Deity complexes" made a little more sense, since "deity" isn't gender-specific. However, I know that that was wrong. I fully admit that I made a mistake when changing the categories. As you're already aware, I've done my part to fix the mess that I foolishly took part in. I didn't intend to help—nor do I have any intentions to work with—a user who operates sockpuppet accounts.

Once again, I apologize for getting myself involved in this mess.

—017Bluefield (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Player017 (017Bluefield). Flyer22 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, though, it was easier to believe that you are unrelated to Michael Demiurgos when I gave you the benefit of the doubt above and suggested that you were aware of his editing and were just trying to help. But to state that you "didn't know who this 'Michael Demiurgos' character was" even during this and this (that is, if you mean that you did not notice him, including at the other articles you two edit) is a stretch for me; this goes back to what I stated above about the timing. Even you finally replying here soon after I gave you the benefit of the doubt above is suspicious to me. There are only so many coincidences my mind will believe. Regardless, you are not the account I'm focusing on. And since the Michael Demiurgos account has been wrongly excused from his previous WP:Sockpuppet investigation, in the face of overwhelming evidence that should have warranted him a block, it is very likely that I will not pursue seeing him blocked as a Jdogno5 WP:Sockpuppet. Like I stated above, I'd rather not waste my time, and it's very likely that he will eventually be indefinitely blocked anyway (however long that takes). Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note for documentation/eventual archive: Although Michael Demiurgos is obviously Jdogno5, I can see how editors would be skeptical regarding whether or not Michael Demiurgos is Player017. But after the "coincidences" noted above, and comparing their (Michael Demiurgos's and Player017's) editing times (for example, that they both resumed editing on May 6, 2015 after essentially a two-day break following commenting on my talk page), Player017 remains open to suspicion as far as this case goes for me. Flyer22 (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Devin Funchess Edit

Devin Funchess is 6'4 not 6'6. That's the edit I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman5846 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

I'm getting multiple Thank notifications from you for my edit on Ex Machina. Obviously it's nice to be thanked, but recently I've noticed Wikipedia has been glitching out on me in other ways - my watched articles keep unwatching themselves, for example. Are you really hammering that thank button or is this more Wikipedia weirdness? Popcornduff (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I thanked you for this and this via WP:Echo yesterday, but I wasn't sure it'd worked...since the thank button was glitching. Today, when looking into that edit history, the thank options for those edits were refreshed, as if I hadn't thanked you, but the thank option for this edit, where I thanked BullRangifer, was the same; this let me know that I had thanked him for that edit. Of course, I also thanked him here at WP:Film. Anyway, since the thank options read as refreshed in your case, I thanked you again today...twice like before. I usually only thank for one edit because I think editors are smart enough to get the drift that I am also thankful for the related edit that also improved the article, but sometimes I thank twice.

And, wow, I think the above paragraph is the most I ever typed the word thanks in one sitting. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: Wikipedia time annoys me. For example, I stated "yesterday" above. And it was yesterday, but our Wikipedia time stamps for this section tell us that it's May 4th. It's still May 3rd for me. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually got eight thanks from you. It's my most popular Wikipedia edit ever. Sounds like Wikipedia's resetting stuff it shouldn't - user thanks and my watchlist entries... Popcornduff (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cali11298 trying to brag about WP:Sockpuppeting

Flyer, come on, sister. You don't deserve to have that sock puppet detective thing, considering how you still haven't figured out my alternate account. (This is Cali, BTW). I thought you were better. 208.54.35.129 (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What more do I have to state to you than what I stated with this edit? Did you not grasp what I stated there? In short, I stated that if you edit near me, I will know who you are...and that it may take time for me to gather evidence to report you as a WP:Sockpuppet, but I will know who you are. Got all that? You act like I should be out looking for you at any and every article. I am not obsessed with you; you are obsessed with me, like a number of other people whose fun I ruined. Get in line.

On a side note: I moved your post down to a more fitting section, as you can see. You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and good luck with this. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: An example of you failing to think as well as you should if you want to fool me and others is your timing. Why do you think it's at all smart to comment here and then immediately thereafter request an unblock at User talk:Scaravich105nj, stating, "I haven't puppeted since my block, the other IP's claiming to be me are not me, probably just some editor I pissed off trying to get me on trouble."? Are people supposed to believe that you and the IP just happened to show up around the same time, minutes apart, that late at night? (Well, it was late at night for me; now it's midnight.) *Shakes head at your naivety* It's either naivety or you are simply trolling. I question how young you are, not that I mean to insult all younger people's intelligence.

And as for this? No. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

HydrocityFerocity (talk · contribs), regarding this, of course you know who I am. Anything you want to state in this section? Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. What are you insinuating about me? I'm just surprised and disappointed that we're wasting so much hard drive space discussing nonsense like this, instead of helping to build an encyclopedia. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

HydrocityFerocity, you know what I am insinuating about you; and you know that it will eventually be taken care of. The nonsense is WP:Disruptive editors who repeatedly WP:Disrupt no matter what. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Flyer, please calm down..jpg Flyer, you would do well to follow this advice. (Yes, that's me. Don't I look handsome?) :) HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Laughing my ass off. You sure do love to play cat and mouse, don't you? Well, like I told you before. Just be patient, and I will get the new WP:Sockpuppet investigation ready soon. That picture where you note my username adds to my psychological assessment of you, by the way; only certain people would take the time to do that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Flyer make me sad.jpg I'm not playing any games. I'm just trying to be friendly. :/ Be nicer. As for my photo, I know, I'm ridiculously handsome. Here's another one. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, what kind of psychological profile do you think I have, since you brought it up? HydrocityFerocity (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As you no doubt know, you can obviously see what I mean in the newest investigation, where you are identified as a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I don't care how much you dislike me, or how insulted you feel by me. If you would stop disrupting Wikipedia and insulting my intelligence by trying to fool me with your sorry WP:Sockpuppet master "skills," then any insult from me directed at you would be unlikely. You waste my time (hours wasted on you just during this round), and you are a testament to why Wikipedia deserves the criticism it gets. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: As pointed out in the #Oooohhh... section, I've decided to ignore Cali11298 unless it's necessary to not ignore him. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for helping with the page, though everyone else forgot about it. Panther5324 (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Panther5324, I put the Anti-LGBT rhetoric‎ article on my WP:Watchlist at some point last year or this year, but I hadn't edited it until recently. With articles such as those (meaning those of a highly controversial nature), I usually simply watch for WP:Vandalism or other unconstructive edits. Granted...with some sexual or sexology articles, I also add and tweak content. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, Panther5324, be careful not to mark edits as WP:Minor unless they are minor. This and this are not minor edits. And as for that first "this" link, IMDb is generally a poor source; see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Deterministic context-free language

Hi Flyer22, I noticed you reverted my edit on the page Deterministic context-free language as vandalism. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the topic, but my change corrected a mistake: The deterministic context-free languages are _proper_ subset of the context-free languages. On page 133 of Michael Sipser's Introduction to the Theory of Computation, Sipser proves that the DCFLs are closed under complementation, which is not a property of CFLs, and they therefore cannot be identical classes. I am therefore reverting to my previous edits. --128.2.100.145 (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

When I reverted you at that article (as test or vandalism), I didn't see this explanation. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cali11298 at an afd

Hey Flyer22, I saw you were involved in a lot of the Cali sockpuppet investigations, and you seem to be pretty good at finding them. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fredinburg we've had 2 of his/her accounts voting, one even attempted to remove a few of the other votes. If you are interested and have some time, could you take a look and see if any other accounts might be involved? Thanks! ― Padenton|✉   18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, since I watch the the Sophia Bush article, I was aware of the recently-created Dan Fredinburg article. I also mentioned that article in this discussion. I see that the Dan Fredinburg deletion debate has closed, an hour after you posted here about it. I'd seen that one of the Cali11298 sockpuppet's posts were struck. What was the other one? If any other Cali11298 sockpuppets were involved, I'd need those accounts to display other edits that match Cali11298's style before naming the accounts Cali11298 sockpuppets. Often, we have very experienced WP:AfD closers who know not to consider, or to be highly suspicious of, WP:Single purpose accounts showing up to a WP:AfD, especially if it's the person's first edit under that account. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, if you want to do anything about it, there is a high probability that Dracula913 (talk · contribs) is Cali11298. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I was talking to the user you believe is a sock puppet and I think he is not a new user. If I were you, I would keep an eye on the user (he/she was recently on the talk page for Freddie Gray). There were also two anonymous users causing a disruption, but they are probably unrelated to Dracula913. Thanks for your diligence as you already found HydroFerocity on the Gray article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Not very clever, that one. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And the thing is: I knew that he would very likely show up full force after I made this edit to my user page regarding a different highly disruptive WP:Sockpuppet. I knew because of this edit. If I'm giving another highly disruptive editor the "You're a WP:Sockpuppet" attention, then it seems Cali11298 will try to retake the spotlight. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, he is a cocky one, isn't he? He seems so certain he will not get caught, but he obviously makes mistakes. Of course, there are probably more sock puppets, so I will be on alert for more suspicious activity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted all of the Dracula913 edits that needed reverting; some of his edits had already been reverted by those who saw what a mess he makes. And I did that without caring that a WP:CheckUser has yet to identify him as a WP:Sockpuppet. I know what I'm dealing with, and I took appropriate WP:Block evasion action. Feel free to revert that account as much as you want without fear of a WP:3RR violation. If someone tries to warn you with a WP:3RR block, point that person to this discussion; if I can, I will take full responsibility for your reverts since I don't even have to try anymore to spot this editor. Because of what I stated in this case, he's trying to be smarter now by not instantly creating a user page, but it's, as my youngest brother (who used to edit Wikipedia) would say, a fail. And the silence from that account now? It's him regrouping and creating more WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I will do my best to remove any disruptive edits by him. It is unsettling to think the account's silence means he is just getting ready for more attacks on articles. There are numerous users on the Freddie Gray page who will catch any vandalism, but I worry more for the articles no longer under extensive surveillance. So I do not know what I can really do to prevent any damage, I guess I will just look into any suspicious editing histories like I saw with Dracula913.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: He is reverting your edits, I will try and help tomorrow.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I obviously know that, and I commented here. Repeatedly reverting him won't help until that account is WP:Blocked. Even his reaction is a giveaway; who else would state "proof?" in such a way? Flyer22 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And there's this; only a WP:Sockpuppet would state that. And there is plenty of behavioral proof for me. This is a matter that can be taken straight to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully it's settled soon, because, as you said, reverting his edits isn't really effective.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ] Heh, Dracula913 (talk · contribs)? There's your proof. What do you say? Like a boss? Yes, Tiptoety showed up like a boss. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, another victory for the good guys. I reverted some of his edits, but some remain. I know you are more than capable of cleaning the stains the sock puppet left. Thanks again for finding this sock puppet. Maybe eventually this will not be required and everyone can just focus on improving the encyclopedia, instead of hampering it (one can only dream).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Just letting you know these two users, Mammoth8102 and Gladiator Decimus Meridius, may be guys to keep an eye on (especially Mammoth). If it's him again, I'm truly amazed at how fast he works.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Found another questionable user, Toe of the Almighty Camel. I've seen the user's edit history and he/she makes minor changes that seem innocent enough, small acts of vandalism, and makes poor remarks on a talk page. May be nothing, but when he/she started editing Death of Freddie Gray I wanted to be sure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: As pointed out in the #Oooohhh... section, I've decided to ignore Cali11298 unless it's necessary to not ignore him. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case against HydrocityFerocity

You recently suggested that my account may be a sockpuppet acount, I was wondering what led you to this specualtion? Source. - RatRat- Talk    20:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RatRat, I didn't call you a WP:Sockpuppet. I am careful about calling people WP:Sockpuppets. I mention on my user page that I am very good at spotting WP:Sockpuppets and other non-new Wikipedians. I stated of you, "RatRat is another account that I don't think is being operated by a new Wikipedian, despite the newness of the account, but I am focused on the HydrocityFerocity account for this WP:Sockpuppet investigation." So do I think that you are new to editing Wikipedia? No, I don't. I think that you've been editing Wikipedia for a lot longer than your RatRat account would indicate. What makes me think that? Your contribution history, from the day you arrived to Wikipedia as RatRat to now. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the anilingus page

Hello. I am seeking your input on the suggested change I have for the adding of the analoral.png picture. Although this picture has been previously discussed on the talk page, I feel my arguments are valid and worth considering. Thanks. Heyimsomeonenice (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Heyimsomeonenice (talk · contribs), I saw your post at the Anilingus talk page. I also saw that you were reverted by Adrian two. After your initial post to that article's talk page, it seemed like you would simply comment and move on. Clearly, you have not. I stand by what I stated in that discussion about anilingus and the Anilingus article (including that I never feel like editing that article; I really do have some sexual topics on my WP:Watchlist that I am barely interested in contributing to, and only watch because of potential WP:Vandalism, other unconstructive edits, or because of the inaccurate sexual information that makes me want to pull my hair out). And again, I don't see why any editor in that discussion should be focused on adding a same-sex anilingus image, as if anilingus does not occur between opposite-sex partners, and especially when the references are clear that female same-sex partners are barely interested in the act. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, :Flyer22 (talk · contribs). Thanks for replying. I feel it is worth mentioning that the references provided are fairly outdated (For [6]:Reference used was from 2003. For [7]: All references used were from before 2000). But more importantly is that no study to date (from what I have researched) mentions anything about the relevance of anilingus between female/female and male/male. Studies mention it is a rare act (though some recent articles are stating it is becoming more popular among heterosexual couples), but not a single article mentions who performs it more often: males/males, males/females, or females/females. Therefore, although it is a rare act between lesbian couples, it may also be a rare act between females/males and males/males. I'm focused on re-adding the image because I believe it is unjust to remove a completely relevant image (when put in the correct section and explained), simply because a select few are offended by it. I have seen countless of people offended on the talk page of various articles, though very few actually get the article to change if the argument is as weak as that. So long as the information and/or pictures are relevant, they should stay. It may appear that the majority says the image should not be there, but perhaps it is that less people have checked out that section of the talk page because the thought that someone would actually be so offended by such an image, and thought the article was fine and there was nothing to discuss. It also may appear that people are not too upset about the image being deleted, but this is also perhaps that they never knew it existed. I was told to discuss it (which I tried to do), but it seems as if there is no one to discuss it with. Looking at the usage of the analoral.png picture, it shows it has been used on the vast majority of anilingus Wikipedia pages in various languages. The only reason I am posting this is because if I can't find anyone to discuss it with, I can never get the image approved. All I'm asking is that you consider another viewpoint based on these points and the previous points I have made in order to re-add the image, and I wouldn't be discussing this with you otherwise. I definitely understand what your argument is trying to say, but as I have stated before, I believe it doesn't state bias due to the fact that it appears that the couple is the same in both pictures, and as I have also mentioned before, someone tried to add a male/male picture, but it was decided to be too blurry to be used in the article. Along with that, other Wikipedia pages people seem to have no problems relating to the images used with (for example, the Sexual Intercourse Wikipedia page, which has 9 pictures of male/female intercourse, but only one image of male/male and female/female intercourse. Also, the Wikipedia article Public Sex has two pictures of male/female intercourse, but not a single picture of both male/male intercourse and female/female intercourse. People could, of course, view the lack of images of gay and lesbian people as discrimination, but they don't. And even if they did, image removals probably wouldn't get approved. If every page on Wikipedia was regulated based on whether or not a small number of people were offended, the Wikipedia we know and use today simply wouldn't be the same. Upon further research, I have found the absolute best reason as to why the image should be re-added. Please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Images, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In particular, pay attention to the sections "Reasons for deletion" for the Deletion Policy page, the "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature" and "Offensive images" sub-sections of the section "Choosing images" on the "Manual of Style/Images" page, and the "Wikipedia is not censored" sub-section of the "Encyclopedic content" on the "What Wikipedia is not" page. The third paragraph of the "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature" sub-section of the section "Choosing images" on the "Manual of Style/Images" page is what comes closest to the justification of deleting the analoral.png image, though it still is not enough to allow the deletion of the analoral.png image. The third paragraph states that if an editor can find more diverse images (that apply to the other rules described on the other pages I have referred you to) on a general subject where images are widely available, they are encouraged to use them. However, not only is this a very specific article, it also has very few acceptable (by Wikipedia's standards) images associated with it. Even if anilingus was a general subject with many images available (which it is not, in both instances), the article still states editors are only encouraged to use diverse pictures, not required. Please correct me if I am wrong, but from all this information I have gathered, removal of the analoral.png image from the anilingus Wikipedia page is a violation of various image removal policies, and should not have been removed in the first place. Again, if you can prove me wrong, I would like to know. I don't want to jump to conclusions. But from the large amount of information gathered, it seems it would be very difficult to justify the removal of the analoral.png image from the anilingus Wikipedia page. My general proposition is that if a new fitting picture that meets Wikipedia's guidelines of male/female or male/male anilingus is discovered or created, it should definitely be added. However, this does not mean that any of the other images (like the analoral.png picture) should or need to be removed, let alone before the male/female or male/male picture meeting Wikipedia's standards is even discovered. Thank you. Heyimsomeonenice (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Heyimsomeonenice (talk · contribs), I understand why you have brought this matter to my talk page, but I don't feel like discussing it, and you now have further talk page participation at that article because you brought this matter to my talk page. But as for anilingus being rare, it is indeed rare among the general public (going by the sources on the topic); I noted this in the discussion you've been commenting in at the Anilingus talk page. Few studies have been done on anilingus, and so we can only go by those few studies. But anal sex, including anilingus, seems to be less practiced among female same-sex couples...compared to couplings of other sexual orientation/gender mixes (again, going by the studies). The removal of the image you want included is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it was not removed solely on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis, but also because it just seems unneeded. I know that it is not unneeded to you. Your sexual intercourse and public sex arguments are not the same as the anilingus matter. Sexual intercourse is a huge topic, and, as that article makes explicitly clear, it is usually defined in heteronormative ways; after much sexology research, I know this without the sources used in that article making that clear. For example, anilingus is sexual intercourse to some people, but it is rarely defined as sexual intercourse. So WP:Due weight, a subject I note on my user page, comes into play there, and it's not surprising that the Sexual intercourse article extensively discusses male-female sexual activity and has the number of male-female images that it does. It's not as though we don't have articles specifically devoted to same-sex sexual activity; as you likely know, we have the Lesbian sexual practices, Gay sexual practices, women who have sex with women, men who have sex with men, tribadism and frot articles. Furthermore, we should not simply add images because we can. Too many images can cause crowding problems, as made clear at Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Images; so the Public sex article, with as small as it currently is, should not be stacked with images. Two is enough for that article; and for the record, I thought that File:Carracci Le Satyre et la Nymphe crop.jpg was an image of two males, given the muscular nature of both. Looking closer, I see what appear to be breasts on the one on the left. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see two images as too much, but I understand. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. Heyimsomeonenice (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: I wouldn't call File:Lawrence Alma-Tadema Courtship - The Proposal.jpg a sexual intercourse image; it's in its appropriate section. And File:Erotic scenes Louvre G13 n4.jpg looks like it includes male-male and male-female sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How do you maintain your composure?

I just looked at the Anilingus talk page. I have no idea whether to roll on the floor with laughter or tears. Why people think sex and the surround topics is so exciting a place to play I have no idea. It's like children sniggering when they hear the word "Bottom". Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent, I contain my composure (usually anyway) on such topics because I have seen just about every type of sexual comment there is, including the completely asinine ones such as whether or not a person can get pregnant from oral sex or anal sex (I mean, a person can get pregnant during either activity if the sperm is somehow transmitted to the vagina, such as via the fingers, but those acts themselves certainly do not facilitate pregnancy). I also remind myself that there is a lot of misinformation about sexual activity out there and that I therefore should be understanding in the cases of some asinine sexual comments. Some people do state that there is no such thing as a stupid question, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you "maintain your composure" most of the time helps make you our best editor on sexuality topics. As for the image you mentioned in the section above, cool. Who could ever know if "male" satyrs or nymphs have enlarged breasts? At least until some 21st century scholar writes a PhD thesis on the topic. But those animalistic dudes are getting it on, somehow. Thanks to all the artists in the world who provoke and confront. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. So File:Carracci Le Satyre et la Nymphe crop.jpg looks like two males to you at first glance? Or do you think those are two males? Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, at first glance it does look like two humanoid males, but at second glance and second thought, who knows for sure who is "male" or "female" in an etching of mythical creatures having sex? Are we to go by the caption? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The image description states "Satyr et Nymphe." So, yeah, a male and female. Hey, it's not like I know everything. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: Since "Nymphe" is WP:Pipelinked with "Nymph," I'm thinking that, per WP:Primary topic, "Nymphe" should redirect to the Nymph article instead of to 875 Nymphe. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How is this for an outstanding example of encyclopedic prose: "Nymphs are also found in lots of popular culture such as fantasy video games." Wow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

tomboy reversion

This may sound odd, but I want to thank you for reverting my edit to Tomboy. Well, actually what I want to thank you for is your concise explanation and pointer in the edit comment:

This article is not about the word. See the WP:Refers essay. This is an "is" matter.

I have been editing WP for over 9 years (says the counter), and this is the first time I've heard of that requirement. It makes perfect sense to me; I'm a linguist, and I have had to explain the use-mention distinction to people, e.g., in the context of discussing or analyzing a taboo or offensive word.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thnidu, regarding this (followup note here), yes, it can be odd being thanked for a revert since being thanked for one doesn't happen often. I mean, sometimes I'm thanked for one by a WP:Newbie who doesn't understand the "thank you" system. Anyway, you're welcome. Because the WP:Refers essay is a WP:Essay, and not a WP:Policy or guideline, it's not a requirement. And things haven't always gone smoothly when I pointed to it; see this and this discussion as examples. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oooohhh...

My spider-sense is tingling.... if you know what I'm talking about, hehehehehe. SkiverDiver (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't need spider sense to catch you; all I need is common sense, and other times math. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, what do you say we make a wager. If I mainly just edit small political articles, and don't annoy you anymore on sex education articles, will you not revert my edits and try to get me banned. I've seen you somewhere say that you only get editors banned if their disruption is so bad that it warrants it. So, I'll promise not to be disruptive anymore, I'll make another account, I won't try to edit near you, and we'll let bygones be bygones. What do you say? SkiverDiver (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

When you state you've "seen [me] somewhere say that [I] only get editors banned if their disruption is so bad that it warrants it," you are talking about this matter with Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs). Thing is: With Prinsgezinde, I'm not 100% sure who that editor is, while I do know who you are. As you know, I somewhat suspect that he is you. If the editor is deceptive and/or otherwise disruptive with their edits, he or she needs to be kept off Wikipedia. It's like this latest WP:Sockpuppet case I commented in, and that case involves a WP:Sockpuppet that I'd somewhat admired before I knew of "his" disruption. As for you not being disruptive anymore, how can I take anything you state seriously? You lie so much that I'm embarrassed for you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, WP:Block is different than WP:Ban. I have not been trying to get you WP:Banned, though I feel that you should be. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

For the last time...stop trying my intelligence. Also consider getting a life beyond obsessing over me. There definitely will be no truce made here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting SilverSurfingSerpant (talk · contribs) here; I'm deciding to ignore SilverSurfingSerpant for now. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#Cali11298, Dave souza, I know that you have been in dispute with Cali11298 before. Looking at Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I see that you are dealing with him again; this time while he edits as SilverSurfingSerpant. I am letting you and Srich32977 (who edits a lot of political articles) know that SilverSurfingSerpant is Cali11298 in case either of you want to do anything about that. There is enough evidence to tie SilverSurfingSerpant to Cali11298, meaning Cali11298's editing style as one or more of his sockpuppets (and you can study Cali11298's editing style at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive). If you want me to list any evidence here in this section, I will, but I am very tired of dealing with this editor. Look at my talk page, and you can see multiple areas where I have dealt with him. I now think that it's better that I keep an eye on him when I spot him, since he obviously will not quit editing Wikipedia any time soon, and that I should only report him when I feel it's absolutely necessary (such as if I see him abusing the WP:Neutral policy, editing disruptively in other ways, or using more than one account at an article). Since he's gotten compliments in addition to criticisms from Stephan Schulz and Bishonen at the SilverSurfingSerpant talk page, he probably thinks he's editing well. I wouldn't state that he is, but I don't know if he has yet proven to be problem enough as SilverSurfingSerpant. Judging by this edit, I think he's keeping an eye on Beeblebrox; as for why, see the #for opening the sock drawer section above. I declined his truce above in this section, but there is barely any point in reporting him before the report is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and, SilverSurfingSerpant, if you edit near me (either as SilverSurfingSerpant or as another account), I am very likely to report you. Unlike others who know who you are and are willing to ignore that while editing alongside you, I refuse to edit alongside you as though everything is fine and dandy (except for in the cases where I am gathering more evidence). If you respected your blocks, I wouldn't have to deal with you. And so I shouldn't have to deal with you while you disrespect those blocks. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Zythe, it's been some time since we've talked. Anyway, I'm WP:Pinging you in this section to let you that regarding this, this and this, feel free to let me know if he gets too out of hand and I'll take care of it. He's already annoying me by participating in this and this way at WP:ANI. And I had to revert him here and here. The way he's interacted with you is the disruptive way he's interacted with others; see warnings he got about that at User talk:Scaravich105nj. But, as noted in the #Passamethod section below, even if I do get rid of him again, he'll be back (he's not the Terminator, but he's as durable as one). Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing just confused me and put me off editing anything to do with the Arrow and Flash shows for a bit. It reminds me of when everyone was frantically adding Buffy trivia in the early 2000s and I can't put time into reeducating a new generation about how to write for Wikipedia! (Another user who hovers around the Merlyn page asserting ownership contributes to this feeling!) Anyway, I'm glad someone noticed. I thought he was pretty aggressive, and the "edit war" notice was rather alarming, but I was amused by his reaction to me afterwards - as if I'd done something wrong and he was now being a gracious senior editor!Zythe (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Zythe, it's just more ammo for the day I feel I need to report that latest account of his. And I pointed to the WP:ANI matter because it's both annoying and interesting to see a highly disruptive editor (including a prolific sockpuppeteer) who is still prohibited from editing (since WP:Blocks are on the person, not simply the account) advising others to seek WP:SPI and voting on banning an editor. Even if he is trying to be a better editor (and is not simultaneously socking), I don't see any way to trust him, and it feels like I am betraying the actual good editors by letting him roam free. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, I just saw this. The answer is above in this section. Yes, that's him, and he understands that I could get him blocked at any time. But, Spartaz, per what I stated above, this is truly one of those cases where blocking the editor won't help much. Despite problems still existing in his editing, he appears to be trying to edit better than he used to. That stated, I don't know if he is simultaneously using multiple accounts. If he actually reforms/becomes a better editor, that's a good thing, despite the fact that he didn't go through the proper channels (such as the WP:Standard offer) to edit here again. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that i don't see any merit at all in allowing and indef blocked user walk round the edges of their block with socks. There are already some issues and its only a matter of time so best nip it in the bud. No doubt they will be back but it will require a total change in behavior before they can slide under the radar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, while I understand why you blocked the account, I do see merit in keeping an eye on the editor in the way that I have been doing. I suppose that is why WP:Administrators (including WP:CheckUsers) who watch my user page/talk page had not yet blocked him. Unless, of course, they doubted that I was right about him being a sock, or just didn't want to bother with this. I can easily recognize this editor while most others will not have that advantage, and he was seemingly trying to stay in line because he knew that I could get him blocked at any time. It is tiring repeatedly spotting this editor and reporting him, and it seems he was tired of me repeatedly reporting him. On top of that, there is not always a lot of evidence to report him; so even when I know who it is, and have never been wrong when naming an account as him (Cali11298), a WP:Administrator or WP:CheckUser might not block him in a case where there is a lack of evidence. If I knew he was socking with more than one account, I would not have let him continue to edit as SilverSurfingSerpant. But as far as I know, he has only been using SilverSurfingSerpant lately. Like I stated below in the #Passamethod section, "Letting him edit right now does not mean that I trust him; it means that he's one of the more persistent WP:Socks I've dealt with, and that I am significantly tired of dealing with him. Ideally, he should be reported and blocked because he has repeatedly proven that he doesn't understand the WP:Neutral policy and will edit disruptively in other ways. But he will just show right back up if he is blocked. So what am I supposed to do? Report him every few days?"

Anyway, since you've blocked him, I have a suggestion: How about you start an official WP:Sockpuppet investigation on this account, so that it can be properly documented and confirmed, and so that any WP:Sleepers he may have will be uncovered? I will list evidence there indicating that this is Cali11298 if you want. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Would be helpful to add any additional evidence you want to include. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Spartaz (WP:Pinging you again in case you are not currently watching my talk page), I listed the evidence. When I spot him again, I might again alert editors to the fact that he is editing at whatever article, but, per what I stated above, I might not report him. If you ever have any suspicions of an editor being Cali11298, feel free to ask me to investigate the matter. By the way, what made you suspect that SilverSurfingSerpant is not a new editor? You took a look at his early contributions to recent ones and recognized the WP:Signs of sockpuppetry? Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I saw their contributions at AFD and a glance through their contribs left it blatantly clear this was not a new user. After 9 years on the project (8 of them as an admin) you get a feel for real noobs and those pretending but I can't say that I'm able to describe exactly how I get that feeling Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely understood, Spartaz. That's pretty much how I feel, except that I'm sure that I know how I get that feeling: Experience combined with other matters (matters that I list on my user page). This is why I can't take WP:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet too seriously. The way you asked SilverSurfingSerpent if he'd edited under different accounts is what I've done in cases where I'm certain that the editor is either a WP:Sock or a legitimately returning editor (most likely a WP:Clean start matter); see this case, for example. When they don't reply, you know that it's highly likely that you are dealing with a WP:Sock. And when they do reply, they might give a typical "I'm not a sock" response like this one; as seen in that case, the editor even tried to forgo signing his username as if that was going to throw me off and convince me that he is a WP:Newbie. And there are cases like this one, where I very matter-of-factly state that the editor is not new. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, this is what Cali11298, as SilverSurfingSerpent, recently stated to me before Gogo Dodo had the content WP:Revision deleted (and thanks, Gogo Dodo, but I don't mind suicidal taunts aimed at me; such taunts aimed at me do not set me off):

Yo, Flyer22, get a fucking life and leave me the fuck alone, seriously. In this new account I created, I made sure to never edit any articles that you previously edited, because they might be on your watchlist and you might find me. Yet, you still managed to find me. This means that you manually went through the contributions of my previous account(s) and watchlisted some pages I edited frequently, without editing them, so that I wouldn't know that they were on your watchlist and you'd be able to wait for me to maybe edit them again. Only someone who is seriously obsessed with me, as Bbb23 has stated that you are, would do something like that. To top it off, ALL of the edits I made on this account were beneficial to Wikipedia. Flyer, I must say, it's a shame that when you tried to kill yourself, your attempt was unsuccessful. Please, for the love of humanity, try killing yourself again. The world, and Wikipedia, will be a better place without you. Goddamn.

As a fail-safe procedure, I created another account when I found out that you knew who I was, in case this one got blocked. I didn't edit from that one, until after this one got blocked. I do have to say, though, I am pleased. In my new account, I've gotten over 100 edits in only a day and a half. Good riddance, Flyer. This is the last time you'll hear from me, I'll make sure you never found out my new account. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As can be seen, the above is further evidence (an admission) that SilverSurfingSerpent is Cali11298. Clearly, he took offense to me listing evidence in the case that Spartaz started. And as predicted, he attempted to use Bbb23's words against me. Cali11298, all one needs to do is look at your contribution history, under your multiple accounts, to see which of us is obsessed with the other. We aren't both obsessed; there is only one. You edited articles I edit, which is partly why I caught you this time. I also have what is close to a photographic memory. Furthermore, you edited forums I edit, such as WP:ANI. So, yes, while I had put some articles that you edit on my WP:Watchlist because you are a WP:Disruptive editor and need watching, that is not mainly why I caught you. And did I officially report you? No, I did not. Above, I outlined under what circumstances I would report you. Even if you were trying to be a better editor this time, you still edited disruptively, as noted above; this is seemingly the main reason why Spartaz chose to indefinitely block your SilverSurfingSerpent account. So it is not true that "ALL of the edits [you] made on this account were beneficial to Wikipedia." And given your outburst at the SilverSurfingSerpent talk page, including your pathetic need to try and get me to take my own life (no doubt you read my 2012 block case and also saw this latest matter), I am even likelier to note you to others when I see you. Terrible people have that effect on me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And in the future, if you want to be sure that I haven't edited an article, you should always use the "Edits by user" feature. Apparently, you didn't use that feature in the case of the Professor Zoom article. And even before dealing with you, there were articles on my WP:Watchlist that I have never edited; there still are. I might WP:Watchlist a controversial article, for example. When I see a new account, I might check that account to see what it is about. And then there is WP:STiki, which allows me to surf articles for problematic or potentially problematic edits. If you don't want me to spot you, you are going to have to be very good at disguising yourself. And even when you disguise yourself, you won't know if I know who you are. For example, I could have kept quiet about you being SilverSurfingSerpent (formerly SilverSurfingSerpant) until I felt the need to report you. Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, I have watched and admired your efforts to combat this sockpuppet for many months - I have also tracked many of his logins and I agree that his behavior and abilities seemed to be improving. Then I read the comment you have quoted above; in all my time here I have never been so sickened. I have added the user that I believe to be the current sockmaster to the SPI, and I will add a few more minor socks if this continues. It means tracking down another newbie sock or two, but it will be worth the effort, I hope. Best wishes! ClaireWalzer (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I was wrong about User:Joseph2302, and have made my apologies to him on my talk page, where he has been very gracious. I don't have your sixth sense for sock puppets just yet, but I would be interested for your thoughts on this user, who is now blocked for 2 weeks following a complaint from Winkelvi. This edit seems to me to be characteristic of the Cali socks. Thank you ClaireWalzer (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Late reply: That editor is not Cali11298. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with you about this editor; the valedictory signoff "They chase away most users like this. This will be my last comment, so adieu." convinces me that this is Cali11298. ClaireWalzer (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are free to disagree, but you are wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi Flyer22,

I saw the edit you made to your user page. I know that kind, supportive words do not always help, but I have never heard that they hurt. So here they are.

My dad struggled with similar issues for many years, and was not 100% successful. But when he left us forever, due to cancer, he was loved and respected by many people, and had no enemies and left no debts. Only loving friends. My oldest son recently went through a brutal crisis and has emerged with a much better view of life and is planning his future as the father of what will be my first grandson. I have had my own challenges. Definitely. We share something, you and I, a dedication to building this encyclopedia. This world wide free knowledge project. You are a very useful editor here. Thank you for all you do. For whatever it is worth, you will be in my thoughts in days to come. Please be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. What I deal with at Wikipedia is certainly different than what I deal with in "the real world." For the most part. I mean, for example, I don't have to worry about enemies, except for online. Sometimes it's good to know that others have a easier life. While I'm sorry to hear about your father's struggles and your loss, I am pleased to hear that your son is doing much better and that you have a grandson on the way. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender clarification

Mattisse is decidedly a "she". In her earliest accounts, that was revealed. I'll say no more, except reference the "granny defense" at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse. The gender switch in the Mathew account was just a disguise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, sorry for the late reply (was busy with other Wikipedia things after I returned to this site). Thanks for clarifying that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Same user, multiple IPs

Just curious as to your revert summary on Sexism. How do you tell that it is the same user if it is different IPs? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, what I stated was: "WP:Dummy edit: And for anyone wondering who keeps removing the 'but primarily women' content, it's the same male editors using different IP addresses. Yes, I know." So I was clear that it's more than one editor. And as for how do I know? For the same reasons I knew when it came to the WP:Single purpose accounts voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination). I know from observation, probability, and what I've been told via email by one or more editors who keep lookouts regarding certain fields on Wikipedia. I won't state more than that on this particular matter to you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't know if there was some kindof tool on here I didn't know about. Just for future reference. I know a lot of people seem to use different kinds of bots to do auto editing. Thought maybe there might also some kind of auto security add-ons or something. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As you know, the bait was taken. And I responded to it here and here. If that editor brings this matter to my talk page, which he or she likely will, I will likely ignore the ranting and point that editor to the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And the way I got that editor to reveal one of the registered accounts is a tactic I've repeatedly used; it often works. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

D'oh - I would like my trout slap almondine please

Hello F I hope you are well. First let may say thanks for the kind words you posted when I was dragged to AN (or was it ANI - short term memory is always the first to go) last month. I wanted to let you know that I was misread the criteria here Template:Sockpuppeteer when I made my change on the Cali sock template. Specifically the "timeblocked instructions read "Blocked for a specific amount of time, with evidence." Since Cali is indeffed I thought that was the wrong one. I now see that "proven" was incorrect (what a maroon) since it reads "proven without an SPI". I now realize that indefinite is also a "specific amount of time" if infinity is specific - heehee. Thanks for fixing my snafu. MarnetteD|Talk 01:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It was at WP:AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#MarnetteD has some loose standards for sock puppet investigations; Tranquility of Soul shares little resemblance to CensoredScribe. And you're welcome. I'm glad that Medeis (μηδείς) had the guts to make the accusation seemingly without worrying about being pointed to WP:Assume good faith. As you know, for me, common sense trumps WP:Assume good faith.

As for the rest... While it's certainly the case that I would rather have not made this edit since Cali11298 watches that user page/talk page and my user page/talk page, is seriously obsessed with me, and I am tired of dealing with him and his idiotic disguises, we all make mistakes. No need to apologize to me for that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Brangelina

I'll answer your revert question here. If someone is searching for one of the kids, they aren't looking for all of their children, they're looking for one specifically. It's more helpful to be redirected to a section that discusses that specific child rather than have to search through information on (potentially) four other kids to get to the one they are looking for. You also have to think about the future: sections also allows for more natural expansion. Instead of being limited to one or two paragraphs on each child, there is room for expansion. Sub sections allow for that growth. Tavix | Talk  22:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If a subsection needs growth then that indicates the subject is notable enough for their own article. They shouldn't have a pseudo-article contained in one that is about their parents. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• @NeilN: that's not necessarily true. For example, I've watched the Obama family article grow over the years and most of the entries there aren't notable on their own per WP:INHERIT. This is a similar case. BTW: I'm also not talking about huge growth, just an update or two every so often that could add a few sentences per entry. Tavix | Talk  23:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Tavix, I'd prefer that this and this be discussed at the article's talk page, where the few actively watching that article will see to weigh in on it if they desire to, and where those passing by will see to weigh in on it. Either way, I don't see a need for subsections for the section in question, and especially not simply for redirects for the children, who, while famous, are not WP:Notable. Also, that section needs no further expansion. And anyone searching for one of those kids here at Wikipedia will know to check Brad Pitt's article or Angelina Jolie's article. The Brangelina article is not a highly watched or highly edited article (in other words, its traffic is relatively low), and it should probably be deleted; most of what is there is already covered in the Brad Pitt and Angelina articles. After that, the Brangelina redirect should go back to Supercouple#Celebrity. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe an AFD nomination is in order? I don't want to discuss putting band-aids on a patient that is almost dead. Tavix | Talk  23:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind much of it were deleted, and I have stated as much on the article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Carbonite

Your auto-vandalism detection bot reverted my edit on the Carbonite page. I removed a link to a website that was nothing but a couponing website and was not referenced or relevant to the Carbonite article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.61.34 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Not quite. I've removed the spam and your vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ex Machina

Hey, I was one of the people whose edits to the Critical Reception section you didn't like. Just wanted to let you know that there's multiple IPs logged because there were multiple people making edits, duh. If you had read the review, you would see that it is a very ignorant one by a person who prefers movies with non stop explosions. This, presumably, is what led to people other than myself trying to remove the edits as well with their IPs. You're in the minority here, Flyer22, but I guess you'll win out since nobody on my side cares enough to register for a Wikipedia account that they won't use anyway.

So yeah, just wanted to let you know it wasn't just one person making multiple edits endlessly. Aside from you and your lonely campaign of edits and needless smears of others, of course. 50.137.97.76 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)50.137.97.76

Interesting (well, actually predictable) that you chose until the article was semi-protected to come to my talk page to whine about it. You have a registered account. You do. So telling me that you don't is futile. And, yes, I doubt that you weren't using more than one account (IP or otherwise) to edit that article. I've seen this type of behavior times over, and have taken every aspect into account, including this registered editor who showed up to make two edits to that section a minute after you; consider how actively that article is edited and the odds of someone making edits to that article so very soon after you did at that time of day. Do you know the odds? I do. I take in everything when I consider whether or not abuse is going on. But I indicated more than one person when requesting that article be semi-protected. I stated, "One or more IP hoppers repeatedly removing sourced critical reception content without discussion." You act like I care a lot about the aforementioned content that kept getting removed. I don't. I care about you not removing a critical review because of a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT reason. I told you, "Who are you to decide what is a lack of WP:Notability? A negative review can also be included." I also told you, "Stop WP:Edit warring and take the matter to the article talk page or to WP:Film. Or do I have to take it to WP:Film? WP:Dummy edit: Also, sign in to your Wikipedia account; stop editing while logged out and signing back in again, as if you are two different people." And we both know what happened after that, now don't we? Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the review you love so much, you would realize it's bullshit. Clearly at least one other person came to this conclusion. I admit the timing of the IP situation looks suspicious, but it is also understandable why multiple people (not that you care, since you think everyone's wrong except for you) would be bothered by the review. The reviewer is a troll.

I got a chuckle out of your insistence that I have an account. If I had a registered account, I'd use it to edit the Ex Machina page instead of talking on your talk page. Your reasoning is stupid.

But you said yourself that pointing out the truth and arguing with you is futile, so I'll stop now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.97.76 (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

IP, you are transparent. Yet again look at the timing with regard to you showing up here. You are the one obsessed with that text. I asked you to make a coherent argument for removing it, and that you do so on the article's talk page. You have not. Instead, you IP hop, claim that you don't have a registered account, and come to my talk page to whine. You got a chuckle? I get a chuckle out of WP:Sockpuppets trying to fool me. Go ahead and look at my user page and talk page regarding WP:Sockpuppets, if you have not already, and you will hopefully be able to see why your sentence of "If I had a registered account, I'd use it to edit the Ex Machina page instead of talking on your talk page. Your reasoning is stupid." is pathetic. Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Flyer, well like you I suspect though I won't bother to confirm we are dealing with a single user sock puppet here. That being said I am not particularly wedded to Mary Jane's review or even particularly like it. Finding negative reviews on Ex Machina was not easy. My goal here was to make sure that we balanced the critic review section properly and that has been done. How long I am going to tolerate this guy's attempted ownership of the article is another matter. Anyway don't let the troll eat at you. If he continues I'll simply engage the admins, they seem to catch these guys every single time. As for Mary Jane, I have a hard time defending her review, and prefer the other one anyway. The concision of the plot which I also suspect Mr. Sockpuppet of, I find very disturbing. Anyway trust me if history of this follows normal paths bright-boy won't be able to resist repeating the same behavior and he'll end up banned. Either way let's stay out of revert wars. Tirronan (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tirronan. I reverted again before reading your comment here. It is definitely the same editor. Either that, or at least two editors. Their explanations in the edit summaries are essentially the same, and their timing of removing the material is suspicious to me each instance. What I don't like about this matter is the IP hopping, socking, and the IP getting his way without properly defending the removal of the content. This is why I am going to request WP:Semi-protection of the article again. If, in the meantime, you decide to remove the review, then okay. As for the IP hopper, there is nothing that can be done to stop him except for WP:Semi-protection. He's not stupid enough to clearly show his registered account at this point. Well, not unless he is determined to remove that content. If the content is re-removed after the second WP:Semi-protection for this case, I am likely to let the matter go, since you don't seem to mind now that a different negative review has been added to that section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh Mr. Sockpuppet is the same guy notice the similarity of words and phrasings and taking just a few minutes both IPv6 resolved to the same network. Yeah he is that stupid. I've also noted as you have the timing and intent to control every aspect of the article. Notice one of his posts that Mary Jane isn't worthy of being in Wikipedia. So he is defending Wikipedia as a self appointed champion... we've seen this before right? As for Mary Jane, well I didn't pick the review because I liked it to say the least. While the woman is a legitimate reviewer, Her review (probably meant to be funny) came across as sarcastic as hell. She was right on one thing though; I saw the movie and oh is there ever an "Ewwwww" factor to it. Anyway don't let the troll get to you. If he continues with this I'm going to ask the Admin's to go take a look.Tirronan (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL you two are seriously fucking stupid. You'll never find my registered account because I don't have one, and there's clearly multiple other people who agree with me, rather than "sockpuppets". You two are seriously deluded and fucked up to think it's just one person who doesn't like that lame review. You're pathetic and your attempts at linguistic analysis are wrong and pathetic. At least stupid silly flyer2 is now hedging in an idiotic way - "It is definitely the same editor. Either that, or at least two editors." It's nice you've learned to count, flyer2, but really, keep it to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.97.76 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we are so stupid that we successfully stopped your disruption at the article. And, yes, we are so wrong and pathetic that it's you still going to war at this article, picking up in July what you dropped in May, and resorting to WP:Vandalism and childish edits, as seen here, here, here and here. You are a WP:Sock, and you are kidding yourself if you think that it's difficult to determine which registered account you are. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Use-mention

I wasn't sure if I should put in the link to WP:REFERS, and if so, whether in a dabnote or in a see-also. As you point out, WP:REFERS is an essay, not a policy; the policy statement is in WP:GOODDEF, but that isn't as explicit about the "refers to" issue, though it does link to WP:REFERS.

Frankly, the reason I was prompted to add think link at all is because I can never remember REFERS or GOODDEF, and I assume others have the same problem. Maybe I should define Wikipedia:Use-mention to link to REFERS? Please reply on my Talk page. --Macrakis (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Macrakis, regarding this (followup note here), I don't significantly care if you link the WP:Refers essay in that article in a WP:Hatnote or in the See also section. I mainly reverted you because you were calling the essay a policy (and that's not a good thing, and I wanted to let you know it's not a policy) and I don't see that the essay needs to be linked in that article. Anyway, I see that you created this.

As for replying on your talk page, I would have, but I am not a fan of disjointed discussion. This is why the top of my talk page states, "If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here." Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerns and a Thank You

I just wanted to thank you for keeping a close eye on the William Northrop article. I had a hunch that Mr. Northrop and his buddy Mr. Medders would return and try to delete the article. I am concerned that Medders is actively visiting other editors and trying to persuade them to delete the article. As a nephew of a Vietnam vet and as someone who has read the book "Stolen Valor" and found it to be extremely well-researched and highly persuasive, I am concerned that Northrop and Medders will persist in trying to delete or alter what is a highly persuasive case that he faked much or all of his military and combat service claims. I would only like to request that you and fellow editors continue to monitor the article, not only for deletions, but for attempts by Northrop and his associates to change and/or challenge the criticisms made against him with false or misleading data of their own. I once encountered Mr. Northrop and listened to him discuss his highly dubious combat claims, and I can attest to his ability to twist the facts or simply make up stories to suit his agenda. Again, thank you for your efforts to monitor the article and keep the record straight! 70.145.229.162 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

IP, you're welcome, but I don't feel strongly about any of this. What my watching that article comes down to is what I stated in the #William Northrop section above; the text deletions need to be valid, and the article deletion would need to be valid. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving articles to create a redirect

"You did not need to do this to create a redirect. Read WP:REDIRECT. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)": Apologies, did I do something wrong? I hope I didn't cause any damage.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply reply at your talk page to my statement? I was going to request that you do, but I decided not to since I saw you reply at your talk page before. As for what you did wrong, I pointed you to WP:REDIRECT; all you need to do is read and understand it. Either way, because of the #Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos matter above, I am not interested in discussing much of anything with you. I am simply watching you, gathering evidence (even though no evidence is needed for your case). Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not know whether I should reply on my talk page. "I am simply watching you, gathering evidence (even though no evidence is needed for your case).": That seems a bit harsh.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Betty Logan's case against you was closed without you being indefinitely blocked is harsh; I will see to it that this is rectified. You should really be careful with your edit summaries if you are going to deny editing with a previous account. Not to mention all the other things tying you to that previous account. Do cease posting on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee

–– Hello Flyer22 In the year I've been editing, I've noticed and been impressed by your work ferreting out sockpuppets, and am developing my own set of criteria for suspicious edits from new accounts. Could you take a look at the history of edits on the Hae Min Lee article? There are 4 new accounts editing only that page, and even though some edits may be good faith, it smells fishy to me. Thanks for any help you have time to provide! —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene, I know that this is a late reply; I didn't initially reply to you because, on Wikipedia, I am often suspicious of editors (I've had ample reason to be). In your case, I was wondering how you know of me and my sockpuppet catches, and why your post had come after this matter where I was talking about sockpuppets. I considered that you likely know me from my posts at Talk:Death of Freddie Gray. As for the Murder of Hae Min Lee article, there is likely sockpuppeting going on there, but tying accounts to one another with relatively decent evidence would be needed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, or in addition to, there might be WP:Meatpuppeting going on there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 –

I first became aware of your work last September as I had watchlisted a Teahouse regular whose behaviors seemed out of line with a new editor's skills, and you called him out here. He disappeared for a while, but has returned and seems to be editing more carefully. And yes, your posts on the Freddie Gray talk page confirmed my suspicions about that aggressive sockpuppet. With 30 years' experience reading student papers, I notice when tone and content seem add up to mischief or plagiarism.

Anyway, thanks for your assessment of potential sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets at work on the Hae Min Lee article. Things there have settled down in the past few days, but the 4 new editors I have flagged seem to have been only interested in contributing to that article, so still on my watchlist. Thanks for your vigilance and good work, the kind of enforcement work many editors would shirk. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm letting you know

Flyer, I'm getting somewhat tired of the indiscriminate reverts on my edits that have been going on for some time. While such a thing is not against the rules, you either give no explanation on them or publicly announce I'm a sockpuppet whose "contributions are not welcome". Do you not believe in the well-known innocent until proven guilty? I have repeatedly been accused by you and User:NeilN for reasons unknown to me (besides it being "a hunch" and due to my good understanding of the rules), but neither of you have ever contacted me or requested a CheckUser (something I have welcomed before). I am not a sockpuppet, as I have explained multiple times already, and I feel you are perhaps unintentionally harassing me through unproved defamation and censorship. However, you should delete this comment if you feel it is unfit for a talk page. I knew of no alternative. I have furthermore tried to let it go and assume good faith before, but if this happens again in the same manner I am forced to report it as an incident, so we may discuss it formally.
Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC), not a sockpuppet

The discussion took place on my page - which is fine, Flyer22 is always welcome to post there - but I did not participate in it so I cannot recall any comments from me about you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs) (Bataaf van Oranje), every single time I have reverted you, which is not a lot thus far, the reverts have not been indiscriminate; they have been perfectly valid, and I explained why I reverted you each time. I don't have to note why I reverted you at a talk page each time. If you want to know why I reverted you, then you take the matter to the talk page -- the article talk page, not to mine. Just like you did in this case at the Heteronormativity article's talk page. As for my recent revert of you, as seen here (followup note here), you are the one who showed up to the Cunt article; that article is on my WP:Watchlist, and its article history and talk page history show that I've edited it times before. I was not stalking you. While I do occasionally check up on your edits because your edits are often disruptive since you have a poor understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I don't trust you, I have not been actively seeking you out. You often get reverted by others for poor edits, including this recent revert at the List of phobias article (another article that is on my WP:Watchlist) and this recent revert at the Nigger article (also another article that is on my WP:Watchlist). If you don't want to run into me, then you absolutely should not edit articles concerning sexual matters in any way, or medical articles, or significant social articles (like Gender, Adolescence). In addition to those types of articles, I edit film articles, science articles in general, and celebrity articles. I edit just about anything. So, really, the best way not to have me interact with you is not to make poor edits. You can state that you are not a WP:Sockpuppet as much as you want; there is not a thing in this world that can convince me that you are not. And with the way I easily identify WP:Sockpuppets, you should know better than to try to fool me on that. Innocent until proven guilty, you say? I'm clear that it's a "guilty until proven innocent matter" for me when I know I'm right. Just like I know I'm right in the #Oooohhh... case above, and I can report that editor at any time. That stated, other than right now, I have not been referring to you as a WP:Sockpuppet. I revert you because you don't edit well. Feel free to take the matter to WP:ANI; I'll feel free to list all of your sketchy editing. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to quote Sjones23 regarding you not being welcome here (see this and this), then make sure that you are quoting the right person. You've confused who made those quotes (either intentionally or unintentionally), NeilN's involvement (either intentionally or unintentionally), and inaccurately described me by stating "you either give no explanation on them or publicly announce I'm a sockpuppet whose 'contributions are not welcome'." All of this is just another reason not to trust you. If your memory is that bad, then wow. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs), regarding this and this, after I already noted the Gender article above in this section as one of the articles that I edit, perhaps you are testing the waters? If so, don't bother. And don't bother replying in this section or elsewhere on my talk page; you will simply be reverted. If you must reply, do so at your own talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, yes, you are dealing with a problematic editor in Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs); I'm keeping tabs on him. Others are as well. And, hey, he is more than free to report me to WP:ANI for it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read his talk page completely for the first time. Doug Weller (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Passamethod

Hi Flyer22. Have you found any new Passamethod socks of late? His ips were geolocated in the UK, right? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk)

I'll let you know if I see a need to share any information on that. In some cases, I might be more likely to keep an eye on people who are obvious WP:Socks (well, obvious WP:Socks to me anyway); for example, the #Oooohhh... case above. The minute I have to significantly deal with him at any article, I will be reporting him. Letting him edit right now does not mean that I trust him; it means that he's one of the more persistent WP:Socks I've dealt with, and that I am significantly tired of dealing with him. Ideally, he should be reported and blocked because he has repeatedly proven that he doesn't understand the WP:Neutral policy and will edit disruptively in other ways. But he will just show right back up if he is blocked. So what am I supposed to do? Report him every few days? I'm immensely thankful that User:Pass a Method was never as persistent as that WP:Sock. And then there's the #Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos case above; as noted in the #Moving articles to create a redirect section, I will be doing something about that. He made a crucial mistake as far as edit summaries go; and if anyone is supposed to be believe that he started copying Jdogno5 in that regard as well, that person is an idiot. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he's probably still around. There's one particular new account that I'm fairly sure is his. I'll keep you posted if anything is amiss. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

911 Address

All is forgiven. Collapsed section so as to reduce unpleasantry for the other editor.

911 doesn't ask for your address. I don't know why you revered that. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Fresh Sullivan, if you don't know why I reverted this, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Clearly, you are not too reformed from your WP:Vandalism days; for example, this gem. You are not a WP:Newbie in the truest sense, despite the youthfulness of your Fresh Sullivan account, and yet you still made that horrible edit at the 9-1-1 article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Flyer22, my vandalism days are over. I won't do that again but I was actually replacing wrong content with right content not vandalizing. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2015 It's not that hard to understand that 911 doesn't ask for your address. I wasn't vandalizing. I was putting correct information in for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Fresh Sullivan, so I really have to explain to you why your edit was inappropriate? Okay, it was inappropriate because you replaced WP:Reliably sourced content with unsourced content containing WP:Tone issues; Wikipedia should not be written like that. If I see you make any other edits like that, you will get a stern warning from me. If you continue such editing after that, I will likely start a report on you at WP:ANI for editing pertaining to WP:Competence. If you need a WP:Mentor, go get one. Also, this is my talk page; so there is no need to WP:Ping me at it. Flyer22 (talk 01:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC) It was a mistake on my part for not adding a source, I should of, but when I called 911 a few months ago they didn't ask me for my address so I gave the fact that cell phones are no problem. Tell me why I can't tell Wikipedia the truth about 911 and address asking. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Let me try a softer approach: As mentioned, part of the reason your edit was inappropriate is because of WP:Tone issues; read WP:Tone for what I mean. When I link you to WP:Policies or guidelines, or WP:Essays, it is because you should read them to better understand how Wikipedia should work. They offer more information than you will get from me. You added, "Cell phones are no problem. 911 has your address automatically. They NEVER ask for it. If caller says it, dispatchers refuse help. 911 does not ask for your address, never has never will." Look at how that text reads. First of all, you are talking to the reader; per WP:First person and WP:You, you should not talk to the reader. Secondly, you capitalized the word never; per WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters, you should not. You added "never has never will"; what about that is appropriate to you? It sounds like you are talking down to the reader. Thirdly, you needlessly removed reliably sourced content. Why remove that content? And, as we know, your content was unsourced. I mentioned WP:Mentor above; this is because if you need one, you should seek one. I am not interested in mentoring any Wikipedia editor; I only do it when I feel I have to, like now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Fresh Sullivan, this was more inappropriate editing, which I reverted. I never answered your question, you stated? I answered in a way that was valid above in this section; my "03:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)" post above is clear. If you missed that reply, that is your fault; I don't have to WP:Ping you every time I reply. If you don't find that reply sufficient, then too bad; what I told you is the way you are supposed to edit Wikipedia. But if you ever tamper with my talk page again in the way you just did, you will regret it. Do not remove any section from my talk page. Read WP:Talk. This section does not belong to you even though you created it. And as for you telling me to "Get off of Wikipedia" for supposedly not answering your question or whatever else, I do not have to respond to you at all. As far as I am concerned, you are pestering me and I'd rather not interact with any Wikipedia editor who edits the way you edited the 9-1-1 article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Listen sir, I am not letting one incident harm my Wikipedia reputation. Look at my contributions, all of them except the 911 thing are useful after my vandalism days. I apologize and let's not make a big deal about it. We all make mistakes. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Yeah, yeah, with your continued WP:Harassment (see here), you couldn't possibly be the same WP:Disruptive editor you started off as. And I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2015‎

FYI

This new project may appeal to you and your interests: WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's health.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Worst User

	Worst User Ever
	Terrible user. Get off Wikipedia. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This section pertains to the #911 Address section above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

FYA

I like to think this charmer had a change of heart a moment before clicking Save and decided to spare my delicate sensibilities. NebY (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What a sad, foul-mouthed individual; at least in that moment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite - they may not be that way always and anyway, the Wikipedia community's a bit more robust than they might think. :) NebY (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Take discussion to Sexual intercourse talk page

To avert an edit war, I would like to helpfully suggest that we take our discussions to the talk page of the article. The "not supposed to edit the same articles" idea was a self-ban that I have now removed from myself since I have no plans on engaging in discussions that have the appearance of anything other than improving the encyclopedia and encouraging you and others in their editing efforts. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage, I was not talking about your supposed self-ban that had you stalking me just to mark down which articles not to edit; in the case of marking down where I edit, that was a continuation of your stalking. In other words: The stalking didn't stop there; you simply changed its context. I was talking about what is stated at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#WP:Harassment by Bfpage and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 64#Tagging anatomy and sexual talk pages with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles. You know that I do not like interacting with you and yet you still choose articles that you know I heavily edit or occasionally edit, articles that you had no interest in editing until you saw that I edit them, and that includes the Child grooming article. It's perhaps time that I take this matter to WP:ANI again, seeing as I don't want you editing near me at all. I never seek out articles that you edit, but it still remains that you seemingly try to interact with me, including by posting the #FYI section above; I would never post any such section on your talk page because I don't want to edit with you; that is clear from these recent WP:Dummy edits I made to your talk page. It remains that I generally don't like how you edit.

And in the future, just take the matter to the article talk page; do not post to my talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And reasons why I don't like your editing style are noted in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Friendly trouting

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You earned a trout for starting an RFC over a 46 minute editing dispute at WP:WikiBullying. (19:02, 20 March 2015‎ -- 19:48, 20 March 2015)

As penance I suggest you close at least one item at the backlog WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least it's mine, Alsee, although, per what I stated, I don't think I need it. As for penance, I'm generally lazy on Wikipedia these days. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot blanker

I caught a few more IP addresses of the plot blanker after noticing an article where the user had been extensively edit warring. I've given up on reasoning with this editor and have essentially resorted to mass-rollback. What do you think about submitting an edit filter? Might make tracking a lot easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

From my watchlist, I saw you revert him (I assume that the IP is a him) here, but I didn't look at your contribution history in that moment to see what you were up to. I did minutes ago, and saw that you've been reverting him at other articles as well. Yes, he doesn't want to listen, despite our trying to reason with him and get him to improve. If an edit filter will help stop his problematic blanking, I'm all for it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Minutes ago, I went back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#IP user and plot summaries and clicked on this IP again. That led me to this; judging by that, he is definitely counting the plot summary, and he didn't revert again. Also, my interaction with him at that article is what I mean by him knowing how to communicate with us, but generally refusing to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes he (I guess?) edit wars, and sometimes he leaves the article alone after "fixing" it. I'm guessing he may be a Francophone based on the occasional French-language edit summaries. That might also explain the lack of communication. These persistent types are a real pain, and I don't know if I have the wherewithal to go after another one. I'll see what I can do, though. Maybe there's enough commonality to suggest an edit filter. On the other hand, after streamlining several poorly-written plot summaries, it's giving me an incentive to follow-through with my idea to write an essay about that. It seems a little redundant to WP:FILMCOPY, but I guess mine is snarkier and has more ninja action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Non med opinion

Hi Flyer, Not asking you necessarily to contribute to the thread but I wondered about your opinion on thread content at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Disorders of magnitude - POV question which was preceded by, Talk:Sadistic personality disorder#Possible moves: "Sadistic personality" or similar. Sry if, by any chance, I got the non medical bit wrong but I know you from in some ways, I think, related topics and for your work related to POV. GregKaye 10:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You got appropriate responses from Looie496, Ozzie10aaaa and WhatamIdoing on this matter. When it comes to titling these articles, I would defer to WP:Common name and WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles. You might also be interested in getting James Cantor's opinion on this, which is why I WP:Pinged him so that he might comment in this section and you won't feel the need to take the matter to his talk page. He is a psychologist and sexologist and is the one who created the Sexual sadism disorder and Sexual masochism disorder articles, and we discussed his creation of the articles at Talk:Sexual masochism disorder. As you can see with his "14:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)" comment there, he stated, "I would have no opposition to moving Sexual sadism disorder to Sexual sadism, but I don't think there is anything resembling a consensus among the RS's for using sadomasochism to cover both." James and I will sometimes debate medical matters, as is also seen at Talk:Toucherism. It could also be beneficial to get KateWishing's input; she is quite knowledgeable on medical matters.

As for "Non med opinion," if you mean that you assumed I'm not a part of WP:Med, I am a part of that WikiProject. If you meant that you assume I have no medical experience in real life... As indicated on my user page, I don't talk about my credentials on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Help!

Hello Flyer22. I hope you can help. I saw that there is a David Ley article as well as a David J. Ley article. I can't figure out how to rearrange or redirect people to get to the one that they are looking for, and I'm afraid of screwing one or both of them up. Can you show me where to find out how to do it correctly? Starburst9 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Starburst9: Have a look at WP:HATNOTE. I've added them for you to both articles. [5], [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Starburst9 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Apologies. Won't happen again. User14916 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Cali11298 again.

You did a minor edit on my talk page. Why? Was there incorrect spacing? SpeedDemon520 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

SpeedDemon520 (talk · contribs), you know why I made that edit -- to gauge your reaction. And if I could get away with reverting your vote at NeilN's WP:RfA right now, I would. I knew you would show up there. And as soon as I saw you, I knew who you were, and this was confirmed by looking at your contributions. I then tested you by making that edit to your talk page so that you will know that I am aware of you. If you want to play the clueless game, whatever. I will refrain from replying to you for now. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's it, I'm done with this fucking horseshit. I never should've commented at that RfA, I only found it because I'm a Recent changes Patroller, and decided to edit it to boost my edit count in the Wikipedia namespace, as I want to be an administrator someday (I didn't find that RfA by stalking you, just to let you know). I plan on making a separate account, doing legitimate edits, and then applying for adminship in a year-and-a-half or so. Why do you insist on tormenting me? Anyway, yes, User:Lois Millard is collateral damage, that user isn't me, and I'm certainly not female. Anyway, I'm done with this account, time to change IP address and make a new one. See ya. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Cali11298, regarding your question, I knew you would show up to that WP:RfA because, as noted in the #User:Cali11298 trying to brag about WP:Sockpuppeting section above (my "02:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)" post), I did a psychological assessment of you. I've also been clear about your predictability, which bores me. I know you like visiting the "big boy areas" of Wikipedia, like WP:ANI, that you frequent WP:AIV, copy and paste vandalism warnings, and that you keep tabs on some editors you have had significant disputes with and/or who have helped uncover your WP:Sockpuppets, so I don't buy that you stumbled upon NeilN's WP:RfA. I was waiting for a new account to vote there, an account that would likely have a red user page, and I knew that account would be you. And as for you editing legitimately and me torturing you, look at the damage you did with the BeastBoy3395 (talk · contribs) account. And yet, as seen in the #Oooohhh... section above, you were going on about what a better editor you had become. So the question is: Why do you keep torturing editors? It's an improvement that you were honest in this section about who you are, but, considering that you are known to lie like crazy, it's clear it will take more than your word to convince me that Lois Millard is not you. As for Lois being female, where has that account stated their sex/gender? If going by the name or something else, it wouldn't matter anyway since Lois is not only a feminine name, since Wikipedia editors have faked their sex/gender, and since the "Cali" part of "Cali11298" can be argued as a feminine name. And, yes, since you showed me what you look like with taunting signs in the User:Cali11298 trying to brag about WP:Sockpuppeting section above, I know that you are male. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: I changed the heading of this section by adding "Cali11298 again." so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will make it easier to find once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bah. Who the hell have I tortured, Flyer. I thought reporting vandalism when I saw it was a good thing. I've gotten about 20 vandals banned via WP:AIV. And I plan to keep doing that. I'm going straight. 96.234.50.180 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Your name issue is duly noted. As for torturing, you know what you've done and what your accounts show on that matter. Otherwise your lack of self-awareness is worse than I thought. The way you play the victim is legend in its own right. And I've told you before that WP:Ban is different than WP:Block. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Cali11298, surely you have seen this and this by now. That latter bit makes me wonder even more than I already did if you are currently editing with an older account. Of course, you still make new accounts, like this latest one, but perhaps you have an older account that you are building up (for example, so that you can become a WP:Administrator, which you noted above is something you desire). I won't go into the details on Wikipedia...yet, but if you are any older account that shows the signs of being you, including seemingly knowing of Cali11298's edits today and editing one of "Cali11298's articles" today, then you still are not as smart as you think you are. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weegeerunner for future reference. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Noting that this unblock is one of the biggest unblock mistakes I've seen. WP:Assume good faith should be applied with more caution in a case like that. Really, the technical data is all that matters in that case? And what am I to think of technical data anyway if it was wrong to begin with in that case? Sighs. Flyer22 (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-dropframe, as you may or may not have seen, Reaper Eternal unblocked the Lois Millard account, stating, "I don't feel the technical evidence really matches up at all. At most, I'd say it's vaguely  Possible that you could be the same editor, and that clearly isn't enough to justify a block. Unblocked." I am letting the Lois Millard matter go, but I'm making this post to give you some advice and to point out a few things. I understand why you were quick to assume that Lois Millard is Cali11298, but it is better to have significant behavioral evidence to support you when you start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation, unless only a little behavioral evidence suffices. Even if you have to wait months or a year to get that significant behavioral evidence, do so. For example, after months of dealing with Cali11298, I know his idiosyncrasies very well, even when he tries to disguise them. So I just go back to what I remember from the previous accounts and compare them to a recent account, and all the evidence is there (usually enough to get him blocked quickly). With Lois Millard, who might not be Cali11298 (and that's a big might for me), it's not just that he used the "I am not this Cali person" phrasing that Cali11298 has used more than once, it's also that a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet voted similarly as him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regeneration Who and he displayed Cali11298 idiosyncrasies that I had never publicly documented.

What I mean is that as seen here, or here (and downward), or here, Cali11298 often uses one or more single dashes and often employs the capitalization or italicization of one or more words when he comments. As seen here, so does Lois Millard. Cali11298 also uses ellipses in a unique way (certainly different than how I and most others use it); compare Jhamilton303's post at "02:03, 9 April 2015" (where he states, "I wasn't using the word literally, I was just using it to emphasize the point that I label most of my edits as minor because most of the time the edits I make... are minor.") to Lois Millard's post at "22:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)" (where he relays, "I stated that I am new here because... I am new here."). Cali11298 is also fond of using the word frank or frankly; an example is in this archived WP:ANI report. If you look at Lois Millard's May 29 defense and his first comment on his talk page (to the "Welcome" post), it appears that he is as well. And although Cali11298 uses the contraction "I'm," he commonly spells out "I'm" as "I am" when defending himself; so what you get is this case where, as Jhamilton303, he stated, "I am not a sockpuppet." That Lois Millard was similarly using "I am" to defend himself was another red flag for me. So all of that equaled too many coincidences for me to take. They can seem like "just coincidences" to some people, but common sense should come into play and these types of aspects, just that little bit of material, has repeatedly led to me catching Cali11298. And if anyone wants to know what Cali11298 claims he is doing to manipulate his IPs, see the end of this section; I believe he is doing more than that, and has accounts that that are lasting longer than others. I've also recently been clear that I see what appear to be more accounts of his. As for the WP:CheckUser data on Lois Millard? Well, as is indicated by the #Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos matter above, WP:CheckUser data can be a complete fail, and the person can be let off the hook even in the case of overwhelming WP:Duck evidence; I noted in the #Moving articles to create a redirect section above that I will be officially addressing that fail of a case.

So my advice to you and others is to carefully observe an account that you suspect of WP:Sockpuppetry, compile enough behavioral evidence, and possibly report the matter to Spartaz since he is willing to block on a WP:Duck basis. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, your constructive criticism is well taken and I assure you that I will not again fall into the trap of believing that brevity is ideal. I sincerely appreciate more senior editors who are willing to assist even those of us who have been around awhile in improving. Please know that your input in my contributions is always welcome. Thank you, --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-dropframe, feel free to ask me about any WP:Sock matter. That includes questions about an account being Cali11298. For example, if you want to know the most recent accounts Cali11298 is using, or is very likely using, right now, I will answer that. Well, except for when it comes to the several-months-old account that I think might be Cali11298; I'm still investigating that one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is Cali. Flyer, why don't you tell me the first letter/number and the last letter/number of the name of the account you suspect I am? Just want to know whether I've really been discovered already. 172.56.34.247 (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I have more than one stalker, I can't always trust an IP stating, "This is Cali." That stated, you are very likely Cali11298. And, after the #Oooohhh... matter, you are kidding yourself if you think that I would tell you which account I know you are. Unless asked by someone else to publicly reveal your latest account, or unless necessary, I will not. I'm not even going to make a superficial edit to your talk page so that you get the message that I am on to you. But I will state right now that you are operating more than one account, and I see them. You are also playing WP:Good hand, bad hand, and with IP accounts included. You think that you are so clever with your IP scheming; you know, your efforts to fool WP:CheckUser detection. Well, as is clear above, some editors are willing to let you slip by when common sense should tell them otherwise. I only let you edit so that I know where you are and can report you when I feel like it. In fact, when I feel like reporting you, I might just repeatedly state "You are a WP:Sockpuppet," with barely any evidence or with no evidence, and see what you do then. Will you repeatedly deny that you are Cali11298, as you so often do? Will you report me to WP:ANI? Both? We'll eventually see. I will wait in some cases. Wait until you get to that point where others are seemingly respecting you as an editor more and more while you edit with your "good accounts", and then I will pull the rug out from under you. Sadistic as that may seem, you deserve it. Even if you were to become a good editor for a few years, you would not be a WP:Administrator as long as I am around. Well, unless the community forgives your disruption. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So, Cali11298, after my "03:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)" post above (which is essentially a warning), you went ahead and retired one of the accounts? LOL!! Or was that to test me? Nah, I doubt it was to test me. And it doesn't matter anyway, since you keep editing the same way and I therefore always see you. It seems that Binksternet and Tarc have gotten good at spotting you as well. Maybe DD2K (Dave Dial) as well. It's not just me reporting you these days. Good luck trying to hide, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And, oh, this "conversation" amused me to no end. Playing the system like that? Tsk, tsk. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And you retired this one as well, I see. How many more are you willing to retire? I hope you really will be going to get a life, like you stated in that latest retiring notice. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this case solidified to me that the WP:CheckUser tool is as insufficient at catching you as it is sufficient in catching you. You know, since I still see you editing, including with the account that you created yesterday. As long as you keep showing up at the same articles, I and/or others will spot you. So what I stated in my "03:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)" post still stands. I'll keep an eye on you whenever I feel like it and report you whenever I see fit. But I feel sorry for the editors you dupe with your "I'm new" lies and the like. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

Hello, you removed new text in "Characteristics and behaviors" and "Masochism". The reason was: "Non-English" and "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)". New text is based on original translation by scientist.

Citing non-English sources Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerialsky2 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Aerialsky2 (talk · contribs), I reverted you here per WP:Non-English. Yes, non-English sources are allowed, but the preference for English sources is made clear. I'm aware of WP:Assume good faith, but I don't blindly trust sources in these cases. And as noted here, I also reverted you per WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Poverty in the United Kingdom

I have reinstated my edits to the above article because, for the reasons explained on the talk page, the existing content is obviously incorrect. I am happy for you to propose some other wording, but please do not just revert back to the incorrect version. 109.151.63.170 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (Please put any reply on the talk page of "Poverty in the United Kingdom", in the relevant section that I created.)

the origin of the name REED POINT MONTANA

well - what can I say...? My great grandparents were from Reeds Point, and their homestead that my great grandfather built ( Ira Goddard ) is still there - right behind the Main Hotel in town. My great grandfather carved his name on one of the beams in the house.... Other than that for proof that what I am telling you is true - I only have this knowledge from our family passing it down..... I promise you - it isn't names Reed Point because of the reeds in the water - but from the Reed family land where the boats docked..... I have no reason to make this up about the original name..... It's true and I'm sorry I can't verify it - I do have a cousin there but I don't know that he knows the story....he may or may not. His name is Tom Goddard, phone: 406 326 2119. My mother's father was the oldest of the four boys and so Tom may or may not have known the story from his dad, who was the youngest.... lindieann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindieann (talk • contribs) 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lindieann. Your anecdote is the very definition of what we call original research, which is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia. What you should do, if you are so motivated, is write a well-researched article about the early history of Reed Point, Montana, and submit it to a well-regarded Montana historical journal. Once such an article is published, it can be used as a source here on Wikipedia. Your personal recollections? Not so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A small point, but an interesting one.

I've just read User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch. Much of it agrees with what I have noticed for myself, but one point was new to me. Like you, I had noticed that creating a user page right away is likely to be a sign of a sockpuppet, and even more so if the user page contains almost no content, but I had never realised why. However, as soon as I read your explanation (redlinked user page calls attention to the fact that the editor is new) it made perfect sense. Very interesting. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I'm glad that you read that section on my user page, found validity in it, and found it helpful. While it can help WP:Socks, I created it so that it can help non-WP:Socks. And while some WP:Socks have read it, I still manage to catch them. So, for me, it's not giving them much of a benefit. I've been recently editing WP:Signs of sock puppetry and have been thinking of adding what I know there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I always have doubts about the wisdom of publishing information on how to recognise sockpuppets, but it's a judgement one has to make. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ageing women

Hi Flyer. It's been a long time since we chatted! I hope you're well and happy. Have you seen this edit? It's only a small point, but many of them are. I remember that a lot of information was added to this article at one time by a group of students, and this is probably part of it. I don't have access to the source cited at the end of the paragraph, but I'm sure it's meant to cover all the points made in the para. I just worry that I DON'T LIKE IT edits like this chip away at information in an unbalanced way. The statement in question seems intuitively reasonable to me, and I wonder if you have any thoughts. --Nigelj (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw the removal, and, while I considered it might be covered by the source at the end of the paragraph, which is appropriate per what the WP:Citation overkill essay states, I opted not to revert because I don't know if it's sourced. I also do not have access to that source. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, as you know, if it's a primary source (I'm not sure since I have not looked at it yet), that content should instead be supported by a higher quality source per WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	I love this improvement at WP:BRD. Thanks for boldly refining my effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I figured that you were okay with it, but I'm pleased to know that you are very okay with it, LOL. Whether we agree or disagree on an aspect of a policy, guideline, essay, or something else, I do always consider your thoughts. Sometimes it may seem like I don't, but I do. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki; 250k classifications!

Greetings Flyer22, and congratulations on crossing the 250,000 classification threshold of the WP:STiki tool as you approach nearly 2 years of use. While it is convenient to celebrate these arbitrary quantifiable thresholds, what's more important here is/are your quantitative dedication/contributions to protecting free knowledge. We could probably decorate an arbitrary barnstar for the occasion, but I know that those who have made it this far are in it for the right reasons -- and don't need such rewards to encourage their ongoing participation. Thank you for being a user of my tool, and thank you for all you've done for Wikipedia. Best of luck as we continue forward. West.andrew.g (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Age of consent

Hey, Flyer22,
Wasn't there a blocked editor who was preoccupied with articles about the age of sexual consent? I've run into AlexMota300 who edits these same type of articles but I don't recall the username of the original editor and thought you might recall it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That editor is this one, and I still intend to see him WP:Banned. For reasons you and I recently noted, he should not get the WP:Standard offer. I would WP:Ping him in this section, but that would set him off, and then he would ramble on his talk page about me some more. He might ramble on because of this statement. And, yes, I've seen AlexMota300's edits, but I'm not 100% sure what to think of that account. And the only reason I did not WP:Ping that account with this post is because you didn't; I take it that you'd rather he not be informed of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If AlexMota300 were FDR/RJR3333, I think that the WP:CheckUser tool would have caught him by now (though the WP:CheckUser tool is not always a winner). I never reported AlexMota300 as FDR/RJR3333 because I saw deviations in AlexMota300's editing style when compared to what I know about FDR/RJR3333 and his many WP:Socks, and because the WP:CheckUser tool had not identified him in the checks thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I had suspicions but no more than that. In case I was off the mark, I didn't want to annoy him and it looks like I was wrong. As long as you are aware of the account, that's all I was really inquiring about. You have more of a memory for editors in this area than I. Thanks, Flyer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz, see what I mean? Among the various things I've stated about him, two are that he watches my talk page and plays the victim a lot (much like Cali11298 does); they watch me to see where I am and what I am doing so that they can plan how to go about their Wikipedia editing. With Cali11298, I see his different accounts and how he is playing the system right now. There are editors whose editing styles I know very well; no matter how much they disguise themselves (editing-wise or IP-wise/computer-wise), they make wording mistakes or other behavioral mistakes that cause me to identify them instantly. It's because of this that I was clear that AlexMota300 is not FDR/RJR3333. Despite my being clear on that, and you having dropped the matter, FDR/RJR3333 could not help but post about it on his talk page. So, yeah, when others doubt me on just how problematic these editors are and/or which account needs to be blocked or remain blocked, I will never see it as a good thing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

BDSM

For the second time you removed something I wrote. It was one sentence and not for self-promotion. It was relevant to BDSM and the internet. Surprisingly, it took a minute for you to do the business. Perhaps there is an automated "counterpart" of you in this world, as well as others. Yes, we share a liking for metaphysics Puzzled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.62.185 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

IP, it was NeilN who reverted you this time and that was after you posted here again to my talk page. So what are you talking about? As noted in the #Bullshit and "seems" section above, you deserved to be reverted the first time. And, clearly, you deserved to be reverted this time. Stop trying to promote that site at Wikipedia. I could not care less about BDSM (even though I watch that article), and Wikipedia could not care less about that site. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

despite

Hello Flyer, ta for commenting. It was this edit - please check it for me, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&curid=13765&diff=666387665&oldid=666384985 there is discussion on the talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger#Recent_revert - thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey again, Govindaharihari. Other than what I stated at the WP:Words to watch talk page, I don't see how I can be any help to you regarding the "despite" dispute you are in. Also, the "despite" edit you linked to seems to be more about the text as a whole, not simply the word despite. You can post the above links in the despite section you started at the WP:Words to watch talk page and explain there that you want more input on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Vic Silayan

Warm greetings to you, Flyer22. I wish to correct some misinformation and inaccurate data given on the page I attempted to edit. I belong to the immediately family of the person whose page I tried to edit. I hope we can be allowed to add a write-up that was from our own words... It is posted on my own personal account, and it was written and composed by our family... The immediate family of the person involved. We hope you can and will help us make the proper corrections to be able to provide the public with a more factual and accurate details about the person featured on the page we tried to edit. These were from our own words, me and our family members. It was an autobiography we wrote to provide the public with a more comprehensive and accurate information, exactly what your purpose is as you said in your page introduction. Below is a link to the page of the write up mentioned. Please feel free to visit and view it. And let me know if it's acceptable to be added. Thank you very much. Godspeed. - Survivor327 https://www.facebook.com/notes/rely-silayan/this-biography-is-an-incomplete-first-attempt-to-chronicle-the-life-passion-acco/278941000289 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survivor327 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting move of requested move

Hi Flyer22,

I appreciate your action of developing the discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name into an RM and also appreciate that your addition followed a comment that interpreted (reasonably fairly) my content in this way. Can you move the RM template to a point following my OP which, at your option, might additionally present a subheading and explanatory comment.

I greatly respect the effort you have put into the preceding threads btw.

I am also looking into starting a similar discussion on a potential move of Sex to a title that may naturally or with parenthesis include a disambiguation/clarification related to anatomy, biology or genetics. Any thoughts? GregKaye 09:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, what are you proposing regarding the Gender identity disorder move discussion setup? I don't see the problem with the current setup, or why we should complicate it.

As for the Sex article, I prefer that it either remain titled Sex or be titled Biological sex; the other alternative is Anatomical sex. But the reason that it is not disambiguated is because the related articles are disambiguated, and there is a Sex (disambiguation) page for what else the term can mean; as that page shows, sex can be a vague term. But, per WP:Disambiguation, we ideally should only disambiguate when needed. For example, we state "sex and gender distinction," not "biological sex and gender distinction." Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, I don't see how this is an improvement; I had the text the previous way because, per WP:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move, the reason(s) for the move should be within the template. When editors see the discussion listed at WP:Requested moves and/or click on that discussion, the reason(s) should be right there for them to see without them having to scroll up or down. I won't change your edit on this matter (I don't yet see the discussion listed at WP:Requested moves to see how it is showing up there), but I think it would have been better if you had simply made that change instead of asking me on my talk page about it and then going through with it when I asked you to explain. Flyer22 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The first part of my edit above was to give you the option of phrasing things in a way of your choosing. If you want to give editors advice to scroll up or to repeat any points then that's also your prerogative. It is clearly a topic that you know well and another option might be to present a distillation of preceding contents or quotes in a collapsed box but something like this might be surplus to requirements. I think the case made is fairly clear baring the possibility that trolls may have got involved. On occasion when RMs of mine didn't list (which in those cases was because of excessively long multimove requests) I raised a query at WT:RM. GregKaye 12:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Flyer22, at Talk:Sex why do you mention, "... vandalism or other WP:Disruptive posts in this talk page's edit history."? GregKaye 15:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, because of edits like this, this, this, this, and various other edits like that in that edit history. See what all those edits are talking about? Sex in the sense of sexual activity, and that is exactly what I meant. What did you think I meant? How was what I stated not clear? Did you think I was insulting someone?

On a side note: I would prefer that you keep this discussion in one place -- at that talk page. I do not like disjointed discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The point that you mention, while important, does nothing for the current discussion. If clarifications are needed or if I consider that attempts may be needed to keep a discussion on track I try to deal with editors directly. GregKaye 17:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, the point I mentioned absolutely did something for the discussion since it seemingly got you to see what I meant, which is that the WP:Hatnote being that way is because of what readers are most likely looking for when they come to that article. They are not most likely looking for the Gender article, or any other topic you want to suggest. As for clarifications that you need, that is your way, but it is not my way. I mean it that I do not like disjointed discussion. I will not continue this discussion in two places. If you keep replying here about that discussion, I will cease to respond here to you about that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It still makes little sense to me to have a hatnote presenting a meagre description of the primary topic when a redirect or a move would arguably be more appropriate. I still do not see how the references to vandalism have relevance but we can agree to differ. GregKaye 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, as you know, I've addressed your arguments. You don't seem to be considering them, just like you did not seem to truly consider my request that this discussion not continue on my talk page. But I will go ahead and continue this discussion here at my talk page with you a bit longer; I will then link to the updated version of it at the Sex talk page. I've been clear that "sex" is vague, while "sexual intercourse" is not vague (usually anyway). If "sex" were not vague, we would not have the Sex article, Sexual intercourse article, Human sexual activity article (also known as the Sexual activity article) and the Human sexuality article (also known as the Sexuality article). And if you are wondering about the non-human animals, there is the Animal sexual behaviour article. Among all of the meanings of "sex," "sex" is also shorthand for "sexual intercourse." But because of all the different meanings of sex, the WP:Precise policy comes into play here. For reasons that should be clear to anyone who reads the Sexual intercourse article and its sources, including its sources regarding how people define sexual intercourse vs. other sex acts, the Sexual intercourse article should not be titled Sex. Many people do not consider oral sex to be "real sex," for example. And there's the topic of outercourse as a whole. But when a person states "sexual intercourse," the "real sex" viewpoint is usually prevalent. The Sexual intercourse article should be titled Sexual intercourse, per that title being precise and conforming to its sources. What valid point is there for such an article move, when all of the sexual activity aspects have their own Wikipedia articles and when the titles of those articles have been serving readers well? It's like you are arguing to have us merge all of these sexual topics into one article titled Sex.

And as for redirecting... When editors editing an anatomical matter link to the term sex (whether it's linking to sex in the Male article or to sex at the Secondary sex characteristic article, or something similar), it should not take them to the Sexual intercourse article; it should take them to the default meaning of sex (which, as generally seen by dictionary sources, is the state of being male or female) or it should take them to a disambiguation page so that readers/editors can find the sex definition they are looking for. And such an article move or redirect would not take care of your original concern anyway; it would simply make it so that instead of people landing on the biological topic of sex, they would land on the sexual intercourse topic of sex. Unless you can demonstrate that it is problematic that the Sex article is about biological sex, that it needs to be titled Biological sex (or similar) and that the Sexual intercourse article should simply be titled "Sex" despite what I have stated above on that matter, then I see no point in continuing this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22. Please consider the context of the above.

• I succinctly posted at 15:51, 14 June 2015 so ask, "at Talk:Sex why do you mention, "... vandalism or other WP:Disruptive posts in this talk page's edit history."?"
• I then fairly made a reply, "The point that you mention, while important, does nothing for the current discussion. If clarifications are needed or if I consider that attempts may be needed to keep a discussion on track I try to deal with editors directly." I saw and still see no relevance to this content in relation to your position in the debate.
• I then made short , succinct comment regarding the hatnote and your mention of vandalism and disruptive editing and made sincere effort to disengage by stating my I think fair view that "we can agree to differ"

Re: "I've addressed your arguments. You don't seem to be considering them...". In my interpretation I view this as that you have fairly expressed your views in a context in which I have expressed mine.

Re: "the default meaning of sex (which, as generally seen by dictionary sources, is the state of being male or female)". Even based on content already presented at Talk:Sex I think that this overstates the matter:

• A search on sex define presents a Google definition with the activity first.
• The Urban dictionary arguably considers a similar meaning for the term
• Oxford online presents an activity first definition of the term.
• reference.com presents a division of species definition first
• Merriam-Webster presents a division of species definition first
• thefreedictionary.com presents an activity definition first.

Please let me walk away from this thread. Please, as already proposed, let's "agree to differ"

GregKaye 07:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, despite the fact that you stated "agree to differ," you still continued this discussion on my talk page. Am I to let you have the last word on my talk page if I have more to state? If anything, I should get the last word on my talk page. You are the one who continued after I politely suggested that you stop. And now by "Please let me walk away from this thread.", you are acting like I am holding you hostage to this discussion. You should not have started this discussion in two different places to begin with. And as for the default meaning of sex (note that I did not state "popular definition"), I stand by my statement on that, given what not only dictionaries state (online and offline), but what anatomy and biology books state. Yes, I agree to disagree with you on most of this. And Urban Dictionary is not a WP:Reliable source, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please Flyer, I in no way want the last word but also do not want content that justifies response.

"acting"?

I "started" this discussion after you edited my edits and to give an option for you to cleanly rectify that situation in a way that would still permit an understandable flow of information and in a way that would not highlight what had been done.

Knowing that you had worked on the Sex article I then asked, out of respect, for your views on the above mentioned matter. I found you inclusion of information on vandalism and disruptive in the talk page to be inexplicable and, from my point of view, to spare the article talk page from any potential drama, I choose to succinctly ask you about that here. In this context if you make complaint that I even "started this discussion" (which I sincerely regarded to be a positive step in regard to the maintenance of cordial relationships), then I have a clear prerogative to reply.

There is nothing wrong with how I am "acting". There is nothing wrong with what I "started".

All content presented was found in sequential order and represents common understandings of the word. GregKaye 07:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, it should be clear to you that by "You should not have started this discussion in two different places to begin with.", I am not talking about the fact that you started this section; I am talking about your "15:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)" post and what followed. I was clear to you that "I would prefer that you keep this discussion in one place -- at that talk page. I do not like disjointed discussion." and that "As for clarifications that you need, that is your way, but it is not my way. I mean it that I do not like disjointed discussion. I will not continue this discussion in two places. If you keep replying here about that discussion, I will cease to respond here to you about that matter."

So stop it; stop posting to my talk page about matters going on at that article and/or talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And after seeing this and this, and now your repeated postings here in this section after I indicated that you should stop, I have no confidence that you know how to quit a person's talk page when they ask, otherwise indicate, or tell you to quit it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And, lastly, there was nothing to rectify about that formatting of your post (followup edits here and here). At least as far as WP:Talk goes, since I did not violate that guideline. Again, all I did was move (not actually edit) your post so that it was in WP:Requested move format. And because of how that and your changes to what I did played out, a different editor came along and further tweaked matters...as seen here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Re "I am talking about your "15:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)"" It was a genuine question raised for reasons already given. You see the mentioned content as relevant to the thread. Fine. Your mention of vandalism and disruption had no relevance in getting me "to see what you meant" but, again, no problem.

Re: "... seeing this and this," you will also have seen that nothing more was said and I walked away. I am happy with my user talk page interactions which are full of cordial signoffs.

In regard to the edit that you formatted: I flagged up an issue for consideration, you converted that content into an RM, I requested that you amend your intervention, you made your 10:20, 14 June 2015 edit above, I moved your amendment to my content and walked away. You then added your 2:11, 14 June 2015 above. I responded and walked away.

If an editor adds information on a talk page that seems unjustified and which, in the context of the thread concerned, has not been justified I am perfectly entitled to enquire. In a situation in which I do not want to add to content that I perceive not to be relevant in the context of a particular thread on an article talk page, the standard thing to do is to post on a fellow editor's talk page.

Since your edit at 22:57, 14 June 2015 I have done nothing but respond to additional comments made. GregKaye 17:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, if my "mention of vandalism and disruption had no relevance in getting [you] to see what [I] meant," you would not have stated "I think that the vandalism that the page receives is more akin in the most part to childish graphiti and, still, it makes a point." and "I think that a high proportion of visitors to this page will be looking for 'sex'; according to the term's definition as an activity and, though without approval, I am not surprised by a response of protest that includes vandalism." I do not care about what you view as "cordial signoffs." You don't get to decide when it's time for a discussion to end on an editor's talk page. If that editor wants you to stop commenting on his or her talk page, you should stop. Unless, of course, that editor is an indefinitely blocked, highly disruptive editor who is no longer a member of the Wikipedia community and your posts are a matter of clearing up things. The aforementioned editor (should I WP:Ping him here for his view on the matter?) did not want you to continue posting to his talk page and repeatedly reverted you because he did not want to read what you have to state; he was done with you, just like I am done with you in this section. There was nothing cordial about you pestering that editor and him trying to get rid of you. And as for you being "perfectly entitled to enquire"? Not when an editor tells you not to post to his or her talk page about such matters. If you do so with regard to me in the future, I will revert you on the spot and post it at the article talk page, where it belongs. And as for you stating "I have done nothing but respond to additional comments made"? That is my line. What you have done is show that you do not know how to walk away from an editor's talk page when an editor is clear that you should. Clearly, you need to work on your respect in that regard. I have been clear that I am not interested in you stating anything else to me in this section. But you are interested in getting the WP:The Last Word. So go ahead and get it, and know that because of that, and your WP:Advocacy, I would rather not discuss any future matters with you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of this discussion has become a back and forth reply to comments made which becomes more significant in the context of all the links that have been placed to this thread. Yes I later referred to the vandalism content but this doesn't indicate that this content was needed to get me "to see what you meant" with regard to the hatnote. GregKaye 07:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of Human Sexuality

Hiya Is there anyway to pm you, or is everything on here? I'm new to Wiki editing, so thank you for letting me know about overlinking. However, I've spent all morning working on the grammar for that article and now it's undone. A message would have been better to let me know about the policy and I would have removed the links myself. Excuse me for coming across as rude, I really don't mean to be. I've spent over two and a half hours on it. :'( Cari

:'( Cari-Su (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Cari-Su, look at the edit history. I reverted you, relaying, "Reverting to state, 'Be wary of WP:Overlinking.' Everyday words usually should not be linked. Will revert myself in a moment." Then, as promised, I reverted myself, relaying, "Reverted myself, but took away the WP:Overlinking of the 'This includes thoughts' sentence. I will revamp this lead at some point." So your edits are still there; what I undid was your WP:Overlinking and your WP:ENGVAR violation of the word behavior (the plural form). With this edit, you violated WP:ENGVAR again regarding the word behavior. Although you apparently picked that article from its listing at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, an editor does not have to accept your copyedits. They are allowed to revert, even if it took you hours to edit the text. When you disagree with that revert, it is ideal to take the matter to the article talk page, where others can readily weigh in on it. See the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay. Well, unless you should revert and then go to the article talk page about it.

Also, since you neglected to sign your username above, I signed it for you. Since you know how to sign your username, I will refrain from telling you how to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding my signature. Clearly I was too upset to remember to do it. Thank you for alerting me to the American spelling of behaviour/behavior. Cari-Su (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Cari-Su, I see that I missed correcting another behavior WP:ENGVAR violation you made, but the article needs a lot of work anyway. The WP:ENGVAR aspect is minor. Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm British. It's just natural. Can you please stop using the word 'violate'. It's really patronising. Cari-Su (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, like you stated, you're a WP:Newbie and you are still learning. When a WP:Newbie, an experienced Wikipedian, or a semi-experienced Wikipedian violates a WP:Policy or guideline, I often state "violates" if I'm noting it. And if someone points out, or thinks, that I violated a policy or guideline, I don't mind it being noted if it's true (well, as long as it is not stated in a condescending way). I especially didn't mind it several years ago when I was a WP:Newbie (and the condescension didn't bother me since I was new and the experienced editors knew better than I did); I learned from it, didn't complain about it. I moved on. Then again, I was a very different editor back then...with a very different viewpoint of Wikipedia. But since it seems that you think that I am WP:Biting you, I apologize. Flyer22 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I was just shaken a bit too much. I like to learn new things, and it's really lovely when people help me out. Thank you for that. Cari-Su (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Red

My limited view: I grew up with {{Bach cantatas}} being a mix of about half red and half blue links. It was extremely helpful to see what was missing, and to have the proper article name ready when creating a new one. How would that have been negative??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Gerda Arendt. I'm not stating that WP:Red links in a navbox can never be a net positive. But I think that it generally will not be a good thing. This is one area where I have to respectfully disagree with you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked for the specific example. I found the template extremely helpful, showing the wanted set and what was missing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comment misunderstands the purpose of red links. You red link things that are notable per WP:N and that can be verified per WP:V. Anything that can't meet that shouldn't be redlinked. If some items in a navbox haven't got an article but are notable per the previous qualifications, they should be redlinked. It's pretty simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Your comment misunderstands the purpose of navboxes; they are meant to direct readers to existing articles, not urge them to create articles. This is the same exact thing that is meant of the WP:See also section. It's that simple. Stating that "You red link things that are notable per WP:N and that can be verified per WP:V." is like stating that red links should be in the WP:See also section. They should not be.

On a side note: I would prefer that you keep this discussion at the guideline talk page; it is not necessary to reply to me here instead of there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And WP:NOPAGE is clear that a topic being WP:Notable does not automatically mean that it should get an article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Monsohn

Hello Flyer22 I understand you found some "issues" in the page. I cannot for the life of me understand what of all the text you found problematic. Instead of simply offering the threatening statement that there are issues with the page would you please indicate exactly where the problematic portion(s) is/are? I will then do my best to try to add sources. Otherwise you're simply keeping me in the dark. Thanks a lot. D. David M. Bunis (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, David M. Bunis. Thank you for the polite message. You appear to be confusing me with a different editor. By that, I mean that I don't see where I edited the Menachem Mendel Monsohn article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the edit history of your talk page, I also haven't warned you about anything concerning that article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ventura County Sheriff

Heyo. Just FYI I reverted you edit because the anonymous user was correct in this case. The department did change their name. If you look at their home page http://www.vcsd.org you will see it across the top. It's funny because their url is still VCSD.org .... But anyway. Hope you are well! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Zackmann08, regarding that revert, then you might want to change the article's title, either by yourself or via WP:Requested moves. But keep WP:Common name and WP:Precise in mind. In a case like this, having the article text use a different name than the article name confuses our readers (the ones unaware of a name change), unless the alternative name (whether a previous name or otherwise) is noted in the article. Per WP:Alternative title, this alternative name should be noted/bolded in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

VERY good points! Thank you! I will make those happen. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ageplay article

the defrinition for age play is totaly and completly wrong and needs to be changed ive tried to fix it but for some reason you wont let me if you cant to chat to me about this email me daddy_tallica@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddy tallica (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Daddy tallica (talk · contribs), I reverted you here and here because your text was unencyclopedic and unsourced. See, for example, WP:First person and WP:Verifiability. Those are just two things you should adhere to on Wikipedia. To read about the other ways that Wikipedia should be edited, refer to the "Welcome" template I left on your talk page. I don't care a lot about the Ageplay article and only have it on my WP:Watchlist because of the pedophilia content it includes (see my user page about WP:Child protection), but I will revert inappropriate edits made to it.

I will not be emailing you. And there is no need to email me. Simply discuss the matter here in this section on my talk page or at the article's talk page if you want to communicate with me. And remember to sign your username. All you have to do to sign your username is type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username above. And I added a heading for your comment. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Blonde versus brunette rivalry

Flyer22, can I get your opinion on recent edits to this article? I remember you keep an eye on Blond hair and some of the same issues arise here. I wouldn't be sad if this article got deleted as it is a pretty silly piece and not central to an understanding of pop culture. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz, looking at Talk:Blonde versus brunette rivalry#Why This Page, that takes me back to 2013. Often, I think "how times flies by" when I see such posts. Anyway, as you can see from that discussion, that topic was taking over the Blond article and some editors (including me) were not happy about that. Eventually, that content was split into its own article. While the article is lacking quality, and the name of the article should perhaps be changed, I think that the topic can be a valid topic on Wikipedia. This is because of the perception of blondes vs. brunettes in human history and especially popular culture. As that article shows, some studies have been done on that topic. It's going to be challenging to give that article an overhaul, since the creator of that article seems pretty satisfied with how it is. Perhaps make some suggestions about how to improve that article at its talk page, and gently remind the editor of the WP:Own policy? The Physical attractiveness article is also not in good or great shape. There's so much to tackle at that article, and so many WP:Primary sources being added to it, that I mainly simply watch it and make corrections to it, or otherwise keep things from being even more messy there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just feel the need to say I appreciate all your corrections and edits. I was really ignorant before of the standards of editing (and still learning from them) but you've really helped me by making note and consistently alerting me of my mistakes, and your contributions are greatly appreciated! Thelonggoneblues (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thelonggoneblues, thank you for the barnstar. Also thank you for considering my notes (things I've stated in the edit histories or on the talk pages of the The Walking Dead (TV series) articles) and using that to improve as an editor. You often do nice work on these articles. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Town of Albion, Wisconsin

Of course this is the town's official website. Why else would it have the agendas and minutes of the town board meetings? the town budget? the town ordinances? contact information for town officials? Please don't respond to this comment. Just give it a break. 32.218.38.92 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no solid proof. No WP:Reliable source to convince me. There could be more than one such website; I've seen similar cases where there is more than one website, with each editor claiming it is "the official website." And I respond to what I want to respond to. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question, insulting me is not likely to win you any favors. You would also do well to sign in when you visit my talk page instead of hide behind your IP; it's not a good cover since I know exactly which editor you are. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't recognize an official website if it bit you in the nose, or someplace else. 32.218.38.92 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You're a barrel of laughs! BTW, accusing others of sockpuppetry is WP:UNCIVIL. If you think I'm a registered editor, then report me. Otherwise, shaddup. 32.218.38.92 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

More uncivil commentary from an editor citing WP:UNCIVIL. Among the Wikipedia policies you should read, also read the WP:Sockpuppetry policy. Editing while logged out is not automatically WP:Sockpuppetry. I did not accuse you of WP:Sockpuppetry. I accused you of having a registered account; you do. I stated that you are hiding behind your IP; you are. I stated that I know which registered account you are; I do. So do stop commenting on my talk page if you are going to continue pretending that you do not have a registered account and are going to keep slinging insults. The more you continue, the more you risk being blocked. And since I know which registered account you are, and you have exposed your IP address, getting you blocked will be spectacularly easy for me. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I live in Dane County, Wisconsin. The Dane County government website has a section for the County Clerk. The Clerk's office publishes a list of all elected officials in the county. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

.Here is the pdf All the relevant conact info for all communities in Dane County is there. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

removing my entry in Causes of transsexualism

Hi, why was my entry removed? Are there edits that you think it requires or do you think it fits better on a different page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybkovich (talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Rybkovich, I reverted you here and here for the reasons I stated in those edit summaries.

Remember to sign your username. All you have to do to sign your username is type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username above. And I moved your section from the top of my talk page because, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout, newer sections go at the bottom. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Rybkovich, this is still a problem. Did you read WP:MEDRS? Fixing the link does not mean that the text you added should be in that Wikipedia or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In your removal you noted - " by "not working for me," I mean the URL." I resolved this issue. What is your problem with the content of the citation? Is it its sources, author, or methodology? Is it a verifiability issue, if so what is it?

The article is written by Dr. Milton Diamond, the director of Pacific Center for Sex and Society which is part of the University of Hawai‘i and is a not-for-profit entity associated with the John A. Burns School of Medicine (Department of Anatomy, Biochemistry and Physiology). http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/

The article it is published in The International Journal of Transgenderism a journal that specifically concerns knowledge in the areas of transgender identity and sexuality. It is peer reviewed. http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=wijt20#.VYo0nFVViko

The article is explicit in the sources used for its findings as well as the methodology of the conducted surveys.

In regards to the findings. The article is very relevant to the issue of transsexual identity. The high concordance percentage in monozygotic pairs makes it clear that genetics is a very significant factor in identifying as a transsexual. Similarly, the low 2.6% concordance in transgender identity in dizygotic pairs it makes it very unlikely that the childhood environment has any significant effect on one's identification.Rybkovich (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Rybkovich (last time WP:Pinging you to this talk page because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I ask you again: "Did you read WP:MEDRS?" If not, then I highly suggest you read it. If there something you do not understand about it, feel free to ask me. I have a problem with the source you added and with the content you added based on that source, just like I had a problem with similar biomedical content being added to the Bigender article (another transgender topic). Luckily, KateWishing recently cleaned up that article. Wikipedia advises that we generally stay away from WP:Primary sources; WP:MEDRS especially advises against such sources, and other types of sources, and other matters. Peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Yes, WP:MEDDATE has exceptions, but we generally should not be adding material based on small studies and/or studies that have not been replicated. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I read WP:MEDRS. I understand our concerns in regards to the sources. I think in the case of these findings an exception makes sense. The findings are very straightforward, one does not need to be a medical professional or biological scientist to understand them. They provide an answer to a simple yet very relevant question - if one’s transsexual identity is determined by biology rather then personal choice, then shouldn’t identical twins similarly identify themselves? As it turns out yes, in about one third of the time if one identical twin is transsexual then so is the other twin. If there was a lecture to the general audience this would be a great finding to start with. Its also great in showing that the environment is not the key factor because non-identical twins that are raised by the same family at the same time do not show the same similarity. The key is that not only do these findings make perfect sense they are also consistent with the more technically detailed scientific findings. That’s why I think it would make a good addition the article. But I understand that you are the one taking on the responsibility to the readers for the entry so I respect your decision. Rybkovich (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

People have been using twin studies to try and prove or disprove matters for quite some time, whether it's biology and sexual orientation, the G-spot, or something else. Just like twin studies have not given definitive proof on matters regarding sexual orientation (not generally anyway), I don't see that the content you cite on transgender matters have given definitive proof of anything either. And with sexual orientation, there are a lot more studies (including twin studies) to go on. I generally do not like reporting primary research, or reporting a small study (unless it is a literature review or systematic review, or has been replicated). I will leave your content in the article for now, but only because of what WP:MEDDATE states about the instructions "need[ing] to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published"; I still want to clean up that article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Just made a small edit changing transgender to transsexual and adding a sentence explaining the findings. Thank you for looking over this.Rybkovich (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Regarding this edit you made, see the WP:Synthesis policy. Also see where WP:Primary sources states, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: red links in navboxes

Flyer, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links withing the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, I'll take some time to think about it. Thanks for a new option. As you know from this section, I'd rather not interact with Curly Turkey. By this and this bit you addressed to him, you know exactly what I mean. Putting aside that I'm a female editor, and some Wikipedians are trying to make Wikipedia a less hostile/more welcoming place for women, as recently as this WP:Diva debate that SMcCandlish started and this WP:Talk debate that resulted from an addition made by SlimVirgin, no one should have to deal with that type of poison. I was a little surprised that Aoidh stuck with the heated back and forth; I was tempted to ask him to ignore Curly Turkey. I'm making an effort to be less grumpy and to somewhat return to the Flyer22 that I was before years on Wikipedia resulted in me becoming an often bitter Wikipedian, and so interacting with Curly Turkey clearly does not aid that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that he explained that edit summary that got people talking. But whatever the case, I'm pretty much over the navbox discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I had no idea you were a woman until very recently. Not knowing that, I don't believe I have treated you any differently than any other editor in any discussion in which both of us have participated in the past. Generally, I think that's the way it probably should be on Wikipedia. More courtesy for all, and fewer gender-specific solicitations that only seem to lead to more disputes. Some editors don't seem to grasp how much of our internal editor-retention problem is the result of incivility and lack of basic courtesy.

You're a good egg, with good intentions, and good instincts; Wikipedia could use more editors and writers like that. If I can ever be of service to you in your efforts, in any way, please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I honestly initially smelled something fishy about your sockpuppetry allegations and what not; however it turns out that you are actually serious about dismantling sockpuppetry. Thanks for dismantling the laughable yet disgusting 47-sock Cali11298 sockfarm. Esquivalience t 23:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, you should help expand Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cali11298 with necessary information. Esquivalience ^t 00:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Heather Brewer

Hi Flyer22, I have a couple of questions about the recent changes to the article. First, wouldn't it be better to move the article to the new name? Second, if I recall the source, it said that his name is Zachary and Zac is a nickname. Which should we be using? I have a feeling you know more about this than I do, so I'd prefer it if you handled these issues. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you edit that article until now. I only started watching it because of this and this. As for this edit I made, it has become standard to move the article to the transgender person's new name, despite the WP:Common name policy. And I would go with Zachary Brewer or Zachary "Zac" Brewer. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

But, yes, the common name should still be in the lead, per WP:Alternative title, just like in the case of Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, my impression was that you don't want the redlink debate to close because you are on the side that is not prevailing in the discussion? If you favor closure, then I apologize for my mistaken impression, but at the close request, it was apparently your comments that led the closers to not want to conclude the discussion. Perhaps we can clarify. On other issues, we have been on the same side, I don't want to create the impression that I am in any way taking this personally because I am not. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding indeed. And your assertion that "it was apparently [my] comments that led the closers to not want to conclude the discussion" is false. Point to the matter if it is true. Where is it apparent? Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And as for taking things personally... As noted in the #RfC: red links in navboxes section above, there has only been one editor hounding others and acting a fool in that discussion. This is seen and/or noted here, here, here, here and here. I don't care how many WP:Good or WP:Featured articles he has, nothing gives him the right to act so atrociously on Wikipedia. Yes, I take that personally. I could have easily "stirred the pot" and taken that mess to WP:ANI. But I decided to stop responding to him, and I backed away from the discussion. I did not comment on the discussion again until the "RfC: red links in navboxes" section that Dirtlawyer1 started above, and until I was WP:Pinged in this closing discussion by I JethroBT. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Erectile Dysfunction revert by you with out any explation

This is giving me a bad exprience at Wikipedia that despite giving reliable citations and sources to Erectile dysfunction and Premature Ejaculation,my contribution is ruined continiouslly by old Wikipedian like you and IAm feeling like sometimes to quit Wikipedia because of such acts.08:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Honi02 (talk)

Honi02, regarding my revert of you at the Premature ejaculation and Erectile dysfunction articles, respectively, (a seen here, here and here), I did explain why I reverted you. Read the edit summaries. I did not revert you to make you feel bad. In the future, take the matter to the article talk page when someone reverts you at an article. In fact, you should take these matters to the article talk pages right now. This is so that others are aware of the discussion. I knew that you would likely bring these matters to my talk page, but they don't belong here.

Also, how did you know that I'm an old Wikipedian? Age-wise, I'm not old. But I am an old Wikipedian (meaning I've been editing here for several years; since 2007). Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Thanks your reply was satisfactiory to me ,dude the citations and sourced I provide for both articles were from leading newspapers with International reputation .Dude you are like a senior to me so it s your duty to teach me not to ruined my contribution with going through ,can you post questions at both the articles and wait for other to give thier views and had a cosensus?

Dude I want to learn from Wikipedians like you ,I had some other topic questions can i put up?Honi02 (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer's a dude now LOL, not in this universe.

Wlmg (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on the Ivy Taylor talk page

You made this edit on the Ivy Taylor talk page: Hogwash of Flyer22. I pointed out, correctly, that your jumping into a discussion about using Ivy Taylor's LinkedIn page was of zero import, i.e., your comment was worthless and pointless and irrelevant. And since I was clearly correct in my evaluation of your input you did not have a substantive response to my precise carving up your indefensible claims you decided to make some kind of veiled comment about me as an editor. To channel Mark Twain, when someone has no substantive defense they have to resort to personal attacks. I would appreciate it if you would outline what you were making a veiled reference to in the Hogwash I quoted from you. Could you be so kind to make that outline for me? Thanks in advance. This should be interesting.--ML (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, you didn't correctly point out anything. If I was remotely interested in dealing with you at this time, I would take you to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or the WP:BLP noticeboard to show you how much your defense of using LinkedIn as a WP:Reliable source is hogwash. I would also start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on you, if I felt so inclined. If you want to play dumb in that regard, then be my guest. But playing dumb doesn't work on me. I made no WP:Personal attack; if you think that I did, feel free to take me to WP:ANI, and see how that plays out. Like I told: What I stated is "not generic or 'of very limited import' at all. A quick trip to the aforementioned noticeboards would prove that. But I don't care about this matter. I've noticed you, you remind me of a different editor (given the topics you edit), and I decided to comment on how the Wikipedia community generally views LinkedIn as a source, since SanAnMan above seems to have been persuaded by your argument that using that source is perfectly fine." That is what I'm driving at; you know that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha Ha! I've been reading your posts to different editors. You are a bully that is always threatening other editors with sockpuppet investigation, etc. What a load of BS. If you right about any of things that you are simply making veiled comments about and not actually pursuing then you would be pursuing those avenues with the full gusto of the bully that you are. You ain't got a thing. You are just a bully and a loudmouth. Have a good day.--ML (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, you didn't have to read anything on my thread; you already know who I am as an editor, that I catch WP:SOCKS and unveil non-new editors who are not WP:SOCKS but claim to be new in order to deceive, as recently as this other case. You are free to point to any example on my talk page and elsewhere where it was just a bluff and I didn't keep my word to unveil the alternative account, either here on my talk page or in an official WP:Sockpuppet investigation, but you won't find any such example. As for you, you won't last long on Wikipedia, whether it's because I've done something about it or because someone else has. And if you are as familiar with the WP:SOCK threads on my talk page as you claim to be, you should know that sitting here conversing with me is not helping you at all; it's just giving me more to assess about the way you behave and to compare it to... Well, you know. You would be aware that patience is a virtue when it comes to WP:SOCK cases; compiling that evidence is key. And the more evidence, the better. I do indeed bully WP:SOCKS; because, well, it's worth it. You shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Now go report me at WP:ANI and see what happens. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for committing one of the biggest WP:SOCK no-nos with this edit. In addition to your other editing, that was a big plus for my notes. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I said early on in this conversation that your response would be interesting. And it has been. Your chest-pounding and veiled threats are as hilarious as they simple-minded. I'm not afraid of you because I'm not a sock and I have done nothing wrong. You are just a blowhard and a bully.--ML (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, why thank you. We'll see, now won't we? But for the record, if my way of catching WP:SOCKS is simple-minded, then the simple-minded WP:SOCKS are to blame. My way works almost 100% of the time, as other editors have attested; so I am doing something right. You made crucial mistakes in trying to come across as a WP:Newbie, or someone who has never had a Wikipedia account before. And you sound so much like the other account(s) I have compared you to, including your quick temper and need to sling WP:Personal attacks. But, hey, we'll see. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we will see. Like I said I'm not afraid of you. I have done nothing wrong and I'm not a sock. You are a blowhard and bully. You just did not like how I schooled you concerning the use of LinkedIn. It is as simple as that. Blow, Blowhard, Blow!--ML (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, if you were certain that you schooled me, you would have taken the matter to one or both of the aforementioned noticeboards like I essentially dared you to do. You would have provided proof of having schooled me. I, however, linked to proof regarding the Wikipedia community's feelings on using LinkedIn as a source. If you are not a WP:SOCK and think that I've made a vile offense by pretty much calling you out as one, you would have taken me to WP:ANI and/or stopped trying to defend yourself here on my talk page. But then again, as seen with the #This is Jhamilton. Buddy, you had a chance. section above, WP:SOCKS taking me to WP:ANI to claim that they are not WP:SOCKS results in a WP:BOOMERANG or people doing nothing about it. A number of administrators there know that I am trust-worthy when it comes to my WP:SOCK accusations, even if one or two of them suggest that I tone down the accusations without first providing the evidence.

Time to ignore you here at my talk page now. Your claims are being wasted here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

And your immaturity, including this ridiculous taunt, is so far below me that I won't respond to you again here in this section. You may have WP:The last word. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no more to say. I just need to repeat for all the world to see that you are a blowhard and bully. You are incorrect in so many of your claims but you just pound your chest and talk and talk and talk. You are a hollow shell. You will respond to these words, my last words to you with another long-winded, chest-pounding blowhard composition about how admins trust you and adore you and that you are God's gift to Wikipedia. Go on blowhard, blow. I've done nothing wrong and you know it. You just are embarrassed that I you corrected you brutally about the use of self-published sources. Rage one blowhard, rage on. I'm out of here, blowhard. I'm out of here, just write the rest to yourself to make yourself feel better.--ML (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max: Fury Road

Gaah. I'm sorry if I have insulted you with my edit summary at Mad Max: Fury Road. Not my intention, and I probably could have been softer about it. It's not a great excuse for me to say that I didn't know that I was snarking on you, because I probably shouldn't have been snarking on anyone. Anyhow, I apologize. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, no problem on that edit summary matter. Though I explained why I added that wording, I don't mind being called out for adding redundant wording or poor grammar. And I occasionally snark at others in edit summaries as well (such as the IP I was reverting on this matter), as you might have noticed. Yes, I was annoyed that you removed the sourced material I added after I'd been through a minor edit war with an IP, who no one was helping me to revert, but I understood your reasoning. If WP:Consensus is against that text, then we should leave it out. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

How do you add them Grifde08 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Grifde08 (talk · contribs). See Template:Welcome-image for how to go about images on Wikipedia. As for actually adding them to an article, this link (before your edit) shows the appropriate format to use for a WP:Infobox.

On a side note: Don't WP:Vandalize Wikipedia again. This edit you made, for example, is clearly not acceptable. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Meat article

I am wondering why you took out my added section to the article "meat" -- "Most scientists agree that humans are naturally herbivorous, but some studies suggest that humans are natural omnivores,.

I do not see anything wrong with this and it is clearly sited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.207.76 (talk • contribs)

Check the edit history; I feel the same way as the others who have reverted you. You are giving WP:Undue weight to an anatomical viewpoint, and with a poor source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Humans are omnivores; and I state that as a vegetarian. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

_____

WT:Criticism

You pinged me in a thread that you started at Wikipedia_talk:Criticism#Changing the "Criticism" heading to a "Reception," "Response" or "Reviews" heading in articles. I replied at 08:59, 7 July 2015 and you responded at 09:43, 7 July 2015. My point in reply would be that, according to WP:PG "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules" and that, even when, "policies" apply, there is no "dictating". Calling question to one word also does not constitute dictation. You are correct in saying that policy and guidance apply mainly to article content yet directions such as those found in WP:AT are frequently cited in relation to non article contents across Wikipedia. Wikipedia approaches that work well in one context often work well in others.

I am just writing this here in the hope of avoiding going off at a tangent in your discussion. GregKaye 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated. Next time, just reply at the talk page. You know I despise disjointed discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow flag (LGBT movement)

Why did you revert my edits on this page to correct american vs british english? The talk page makes it clear this is a british englsh originated article so the americanisms have crept in since then. Efficacious (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Efficacious, when reverting you here and here, I cited WP:ENGVAR; as seen in that second diff-link, there is also a WP:Hidden note, which you likely saw, advising people not to change the spelling. Looking at the talk page, I don't see any discussion about the spelling, but I do see the tag at the top noting that the article was written in British English. Checking the edit history of the article to see which spelling was used first can resolve this. Whichever spelling (American or British) was first used for that article is arguably the spelling that should be used consistently...throughout the article. Again, read WP:ENGVAR. This edit shows the second ever edit made to that article, and it uses British spelling. So arguably, you can go ahead and change the spelling back to British. Consider citing (in an edit summary) this discussion you had with me while doing that. But I'm certain that the spelling will be Americanized again. Any time a spelling is in British on the English Wikipedia, it is likelier that the spelling will be Americanized instead of being allowed to remain.

In the future, will you consider taking an article dispute to the article talk page and using WP:Ping to call the editor there instead of taking the dispute to the editor's talk page? I ask this because things like this are better documented at the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of ping. Thanks for the detailed response. I bow to your greater experience. :) Efficacious (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I just linked the article to Sexual assault

Hey @Flyer, I have just provided the link the article Sexual assault to Rape.--Jogi don (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Jogi don, you provided a link that is already linked in the article more than once; thus, reverted again. See WP:Overlinking like I stated with that second revert. Flyer22 (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Flyer Are you sure its linked already? I am now going thropugh article Rape and if I finds any such already links of Sexual assault then would not do provide any further links . thanks any way for your feedback.--Jogi don (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Flyer, I viewed Rape and find it true that you have mentioned above to me ,thanks anyway.--Jogi don (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

[ WP: Edit conflict ]: Jogi don, yes, I'm sure it's already linked. Do you know what a lead is on Wikipedia? See WP:Lead. A lead is the introduction of a Wikipedia article. Sexual assault is linked in the lead of the Rape article, and it is linked in this section of the Rape article. Do be mindful of WP:Overlinking; I see that ScrapIronIV pointed you to the WP:Overlinking guideline with this edit, and that DexDor also noted overlinking to you, but that you reverted him just like you reverted ScrapIronIV.

I struck through part of my post above because you realized that I am correct on the link already being in the Rape article.

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me at my own talk page; I will get the message without the ping since you are posting at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ok thanks for your valuable feedback.Always be happy and smiling, have a nice day--Jogi don (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Justin Bieber Edits

Sir or Madam:

I am just wanting to notify that you are in the wrong about the grammar and punctuation. Are you university student at a English-speaking country? If so, I am curious how do you not know about the proper use of a comma, and titles. Also, the sources that I did remove which were very few was pure gossip that doesn't belong on a encyclopedic article. This is not a place to put the the latest news of Justin Bieber. Not all news merit to be on a encyclopedia. This is essentially a biography. Veritably does not equal credibility. Watch your sources, please, on its tone and approach in handing issues of living biographical persons. Thanks. JLanex (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

JLanex (talk · contribs), you have some nerve/ego on you to talk to a very experienced Wikipedian like she is a WP:Newbie, when you are the WP:Newbie (going purely on the newness of your user account, that is). I did not revert all of your edits; I reverted you on a few things and tweaked other things you edited, as seen here and here. Take it to the article talk page if you want to discuss this further. But just to humor you a bit here at my talk: You left a bit of text unsourced; you removed a Rolling Stone source, which is a perfectly acceptable source for the content you left unsourced (see WP:Reliable sources). And stating, for example, "The music magazine, Rolling Stone, interviewed Bieber." is better than stating "Music magazine Rolling Stone interviewed Bieber." in what way, since you want to present yourself as an expert on grammar? Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, JLanex, I will take this matter to the article talk page and point to your poor editing there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I left that unsourced? I'm using Wikipedia Beta, pal. I didn't know I removed it. You changed the grammar on the overview and clarity about the first record label Bieber signed with. Also, you do not need to mention his last name in nearly every sentence. It's redundant. JLanex (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)JLanex, please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF as well as taking the excellent advice you have been given by Flyer22. Also, in your comment above, your own use of the comma was incorrect, so I suggest you perhaps look at your own abilities before criticizing others. I strongly recommend that youstop acting like a troll and take your content disputes back to the talk page of the article in question. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hear, hear. General Ization ^Talk 23:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Oxford Comma. Do you really want to go there? JLanex (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: JLanex (talk · contribs), and that is exactly why you should click the "Show preview" button, to see what you messed up on. I reiterate that I will address your changes at the article talk page, where this discussion belongs. And as for using "Bieber" in nearly every sentence, that was not my doing. Stop attributing the article's text completely to me; I did not write most or even a lot of that article. I would have informed you of WP:Edit warring, but, judging by this edit sumary, one could argue that you already know about that policy. On a side note: I know that you are trying to help the article; again, I didn't object to all of your changes. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

JLanex (talk · contribs), looking at this, this, this and what you stated about "a war" (noted above), you definitely are not a full-on WP:Newbie. Yes, you at times misinterpret the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work, but your familiarity with Wikipedia's ways makes you more experienced than a full-on WP:Newbie. The timing of the creation of your account is also suspicious, as it is a little after the latest WP:Sock accounts of a problematic editor I have dealt with were blocked. There also are not many people who have referred to me as "pal." But I will not worry about those WP:Sock aspects right now. As promised, I've taken this Justin Bieber dispute to the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I made relatively minor changes to my original post there at the article talk page, including this change. Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Flyer22. Since you are already dealing with JLanex, I feel free to request that you offer an outside opinion about the merits of his edits at Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality. JLanex has repeatedly claimed that material there is original research, apparently based simply on his not liking the source used at that article - Kenneth Lewes's book The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality. He has claimed it's not a reliable source, even though it's a well known and highly regarded academic book. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, you already know that I commented on the Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality matter at your request, but JLanex really did not have a leg to stand on in that case. Taking that matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard or putting it through some other WP:Dispute resolution process would have cleared that up. And that is why I initially did not get involved with that matter (I mean before your request). Well, that and because I get tired of dealing with the same problematic editors, especially the ones who return under different usernames and think that I am clueless enough to be fooled by it (or that they are smart enough to fool me with a change of editing style or something else). It should not be considered WP:Edit warring when reverting an editor who is editing in the inappropriate way that JLanex was editing; it is a flaw of Wikipedia's that you would have likely gotten blocked for that had you continued reverting JLanex. If you don't see the JLanex account editing again, it's because "JLanex" is editing with a new account. It is not a coincidence that JLanex went silent after I pointed to his non-newness above, just like it won't be a coincidence if that account suddenly starts editing again soon after this comment. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reversions

"Revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit." (Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary)

"Reverting is mostly appropriate for vandalism." (Wikipedia:Reverting)

"Reverting drives away editors. Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above." (Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary)

deisenbe (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Deisenbe, those are WP:Essays, not WP:Policies or guidelines. And my feelings on the "revert only when necessary" aspect have been made clear. I do revert when I think it's necessary. It is not my job to clean up after others. If an editor adds unsourced text to an article, I will usually revert that editor, per WP:Burden. I use WP:Preserve with common sense. Also, after this exchange, what makes you think I'm open to listening to anything you state about how I edit? Every time I revert you, it's because you should be reverted, including this latest matter. Stop making snide remarks on Wikipedia about what a big bad wolf I am and how your poor edits cannot remain in an article if I am around; I don't care that your poor edits don't remain. The point of me reverting you on them is to get them off Wikipedia. If your edits are fine, I am less likely to revert you. And if you must complain about what a big bad wolf I am, then do so off-Wikipedia, like some other disgruntled editors have done (do it via email, whatever, I don't care). Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 3#There is no such thing as a consensus version?. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Biology

Hi, Flyer. I would like to know what is your opinion of what is going on in Biology article? I am sourcing a clearly true content about Egypt, but two Greek user falsificate the source and remove everything that is in conflict with the "Greek" on nationalist grounds. I think it is not such a stupid mistake of mine this time. Would you notify Project:Biology?--Evropariver (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Evropariver, I see that you notified that WikiProject; but your post there isn't neutral, or specific enough, and you essentially described those reverting you as vandals. They are not vandals, and their reverts of your edits are not vandalism; see WP:Vandalism. I saw you at the Biology and Human articles before you posted here at my talk page, since both of those articles are on my WP:Watchlist, and I must state that the way you are going about editing those articles is similar to the problematic way you went about editing the Physical attractiveness article and the problematic way you went about editing the Eye color article. You are being reverted at other articles as well, including the Chemistry article (as seen here and here), which is not on my WP:Watchlist. My advice to you is to make sure that you are being true to the sources and are not engaging in any WP:Synthesis or WP:Undue weight, and that you stop being quick to WP:Edit war. Instead, take the time to discuss these matters on the article talk pages and understand why others are reverting you. See if a compromise can be reached. Flyer22 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think these reverts are damaging. I tried to include serious omission about ancient Egyot in the article aiming to imnprove it. But I was reverted by some Athenean users(why not by anyone else) clearly and obviously only because of their nationality and only because Egypt predate them and they don't like that. But as I am new nobody trusts me, let a third party-opinion review the reverted content, please, unlike previous disputes this time I am sure it is well sourced. --Evropariver (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse

Hello Flyer22, you revertet my edit in above. Is it usual to write behind one another or? Therefore I did a comma before. Thanks and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweepy (talk · contribs), yes, the second "or" is common on Wikipedia for WP:Alternative titles, usually within parentheses, like it was in the case of the Human sexual activity before you removed them (the second "or" and the parentheses) on June 21, 2015. Just like I reverted you at the Sexual intercourse article, I was tempted to revert you at the Human sexual activity article. I would go with "also known as" for the initial sentence of the the Sexual intercourse article, since "also known as" is also common for WP:Alternative titles, but I prefer that bit for the second sentence in this case. The two "or" pieces have at times been in parentheses there, but, because, in this case (due to the sources), I want it clear that the alternative titles very much apply to parts of the article, I have kept that bit out of parentheses lately.

On a side note: In the future (not for this specific case), consider WP:Pinging me at the article page for an article disagreement instead of here at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)