Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. If you want to know more about me, see my user page. My work, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was even blocked. See the block cases. And it's during that first block case that I learned a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible.
Especially see User:Flyer22#Main type of editing style for why what you consider neutral, or what you consider needed with regard to images, likely differs from my view; don't know about you, but I'm following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines in that regard. Any questions, compliments or criticism of my Wikipedia work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.
Archive 10/block cases (from March 21, 2012 - July 24, 2012, for block case 1; December 12, 2012 - December 19, 2012, and to December 24 concerning extra comments, for block case 2; 2014 for block case 3)
Dear Flyer22 Frozen, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Scalhotrod, I'm not sure that Flyer322 and the socks were trying to impersonate or pick on me. There are always going to be other Wikipedia editors with a Flyer username, and Flyer22222 (talk·contribs), who I currently mention at the top of my user page, also clearly has a similar username and it doesn't appear that the editor was aware of me before creating that account. Is it jarring for me to see another editor with a username that is very similar to mine? Yes, it is.
Yeah, I was; see here. I considered that I might get blocked at one point as a sock of that editor, even though I was reverting him or her. I watch the Human skin color article because it can be problematic, and those socks were focused on human skin color; so I noticed them at the Human skin color article first. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Hekerui. I've noted before that I've learned my lesson; if some people want to state that I'm doing the wrong thing by reverting likely WP:Vandalism as "test/vandalism," and that I should rather WP:Assume good faith in cases where there is even a sliver of a chance of the edits not being WP:Vandalism (for example, regarding the case you cited, maybe that editor read that matter somewhere and believes it), then fine. I understand what you mean, but seeing comments that I'm now being too charitable humor me.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Hardiness (plants) article," so that it is clear as to what the section is about; it will also help identifying the section when it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comment: I actually didn't read all of that edit until you pointed it out to me; I reverted it because of the poor formatting and because it was unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not about winning
Please stop your personal attacks and your attempts to game the system. Wikipedia is not about winning. And if you should have the last word, I have no problem giving it to you. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:The Last Word essays are not the point when it comes to my interaction with you. The point of how I've interacted with you here at the Age disparity in sexual relationships article and here at the Conversion therapy article is that I do not respect you as a Wikipedia editor; this is because you are a WP:Disruptive editor who fails to listen to reason. You do not have a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you remind me of the highly problematic editor L'Origine du monde, who recently askedBeeblebrox and JamesBWatson for an unblock. At the Age disparity in sexual relationships article, you have been repeatedly reverted; those who have reverted you include Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Chaheel Riens, Binksternet and, most recently, MrX. At the Conversion therapy article, you have been repeatedly reverted by Binksternet and MrX. And here, you were reverted there by Harry the Dirty Dog. I warned you there at that article's talk page that if you continued WP:Edit warring, I would report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or at WP:ANI. And I would have, if Euryalus had not recently blocked you for 24 hours. With the way you were WP:Edit warring, blocking you for 60 hours would have been justified. It seems that by coming to my talk page, Euryalus was brought to the attention of your problematic editing, and therefore tried to reason with you on your talk page, and eventually blocked you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing your time stamp above and the time stamp for Euryalus's initial comment on your talk page, and, because of that, thinking that Euryalus must have already become aware of your editing, I see that it's elsewhere that you first caught Euryalus's attention. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for editing Wiki, but Henry Knox was nicknamed "Knox the Ox" Books contain valuable information that kids ignore. I insure you that my edit was necessary. Thank You Benl Loves History (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: I added "The Henry Knox article." to the heading above, so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help locating the section once it is archived. Also, you don't have to issue WP:Barnstars or other special tags to communicate with editors on their talk pages. To start a new section on an editor's talk page, simply click on "New section" at the top of the talk page of the editor you want to communicate with. For this discussion that we are currently having, all you need to do is continue replying in this section if you want to communicate with me further. And remember to sign your username when discussing matters on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles Invite
Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Other :Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
I don't totally understand what's up with Anthony Bradbury's opinion on the whole FAQ thing. But if his opinion is the prevailing one among admins, this makes the FAQ template useless except for mainspace pages. Yeah I don't get it either. But anyway, I found that the Template:FAQ2 is a good replacement as it makes the text live on the page itself rather than a sub-page. This seems to have some stability benefits as well, at least for me, as sometimes the FAQ would not load or reflect recent changes until a day later. If you watch any other pages with talk FAQs you might want to transition them over before he deletes those as well.Legitimus (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here, I just told Anthony Bradbury that Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ can validly exist just like Talk:Homophobia/FAQ validly exists. If it were truly a problem, he would have deleted Talk:Homophobia/FAQ by now. I will either simply restore Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ, or wait and see if you do, or take the matter to WP:Deletion review for wider input. Now, however, I might reconsider, given what you've stated on the matter. Still, the double standard of Talk:Homophobia/FAQ continuing to exist while Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ does not is annoying to me. And I rarely stand for that type of double standard on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, I have no strong feeling about this, and do not insist either on the deletion of the page or its retention. my point is that a talk page cannot exist on its own, without an article page to refer to; and the article page to which this talk page was related made no sense, and was itself as it stood a candidate qualifying for deletion. I do not deletion review will help you, although I shall not object at all if you try. Simple wheel-warring restoration is, I think, pointless, as another admin (not me) will delete it again. The answer surely is to re-write it so that it is encyclopedic? --Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally I notice that Talk:Homophobia/FAQ is also a talk page with no article page to refer to, and hence qualifies for speedy deletion. Had my attention been drawn to it before I would have given deletion serious consideration, but had not seen it until now. I will not now delete it as that seems to me to be a possibly excessive reaction to your comment; I see that in this case the questions posed also appear on the talk page of Homophobia, which in my view is the correct place and indicates where the FAQs should be placed in the Pedophilia article. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a misunderstanding and it relates to Template:FAQ's very function and design. You just put {{FAQ}} on the talk page and nothing else. The material that appears for this on the talk page when saved does not actually reside on that page, but rather is pulled from a sub-page; in this instance, the text appearing in that part of Talk:Homophobia actually lives on Talk:Homophobia/FAQ. If you delete Talk:Homophobia/FAQ, the FAQ part on Talk:Homophobia becomes blank. This page/sub-page setup is simple how the template was designed, so if what you say is correct, then this template simply isn't valid anymore for this purpose.Legitimus (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Bradbury, I'm not a male/man, actually. As for rewriting Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ so that it is encyclopedic, it's not an article. It's not supposed to be an article. It's a FAQ, and it was a WP:Subpage of Talk:Pedophilia, and showed up at Talk:Pedophilia like the FAQ that it was, just like Talk:Homophobia/FAQ shows up at Talk:Homophobia like the FAQ that it is. Anyway, as you now know, fellow WP:Administrator Floquenbeamdisagrees with you; so I'll see how that plays out. And, Floquenbeam, as for what you stated in that diff-link, I think you've had my user page/talk page on your WP:Watchlist since my March 2012 block case; see here.Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ has been restored, per reasoning on Anthony's talk page. And Flyer22, I think you're right about why this page is on my watchlist, thanks. My memory only lasts about 25 minutes these days... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bob.mangia (talk·contribs). You are wondering why I reverted you here, correct? As seen on your talk page, I considered that you were adding WP:SPAM. I had meant to check up on that revert to make sure that it was WP:SPAM. If it's not WP:SPAM, I apologize for reverting you. Feel free to add the link back...properly, by adding it to the External links section of the article; see WP:Layout.
Hi. WP:Talk makes it very clear that breaking up an thread in the interest of refactoring and staying on topic is completely appropriate. Please read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments, paying attention to the sections on Off-topic posts and Sectioning. I will offer you the choice of accepting {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} boxing around your digression if you prefer, but I insist that you remain on-topic w/r/t the question of improper synthesis/OR. --April Arcus (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said in an edit summary, "When I state that I do not want my comment tampered with, that is exactly what I mean. Now do leave it alone, per WP:Talk.". You are not reading the contents of the policies you are citing, and you are deliberately steering a discussion off-topic. The rules are not only for you.
April Arcus, WP:Talk makes it very clear that you generally should not mess with another editor's comment, and, that when the editor objects to you messing with it, then you should leave it alone. There are only a few exceptions for you messing with an editor's comment; what you have cited above is not one of those exceptions in this case. There is nothing about my comments that is off-topic, and I've been very clear with this latest edit that you should leave my comments alone. If you continue to mess with them, then I will take the matter right to WP:ANI. I ceased discussion with you at that talk page for a reason -- a reason that is noted there (multiple reasons, actually). If I wanted to communicate with you further, I would have. I don't. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, WP:Talk is not a policy; it is a guideline. I am the one who is constantly having to inform and remind you of certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and of the WP:Advocacy essay. I've noted the following before: There is not a Wikipedia policy or a guideline that I need to become familiar with. I am one of the editors who knows each and every one of them. You already know that I do not tolerate WP:Advocacy; my user page is clear about that. I don't care what your cause is, as long as you do not let that cause inappropriately affect your Wikipedia edits. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
April Arcus, I'll eventually get back to discussion with you at that article, comparing WP:Reliable sources, including WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and such. But like I stated, I am waiting for James Cantor to weigh in there on the matters you have addressed. I know that he's had his battles with transgender topics on Wikipedia, mainly involving this editor, which is why he made this pledge, but he is an expert on the transgender topics at hand and has access to more sources on them than I do. I find him rational and willing to listen to me even when my knowledge on sexology topics clashes with his knowledge on them, as recently as this discussion.Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you reverted all my changes made to the LittleBigPlanet 3 article and I was just wondering why? I don't edit wikipedia much but I actually worked on the development team for the game so wanted the page to be a bit more informative than it is now. So was there a reason and if not, is there any way to get back the changes I made? I spent quite a while typing up the plot! haha
I don't play that game or any video games these days; I mainly played them when my brothers and I lived together (we grew up playing video games). Anyway, I came across the LittleBigPlanet 3 article via WP:STiki, and I reverted you because the formatting was partly inappropriate and you added unsourced material, some of which looked trivial to me. Per MOS:HEAD, headings are in lowercase (except for official titles, such as the title of a book or a film). And, per WP:Plot, there is a limit to the plot information we include. For example, WP:TVPlot and WP:FilmPlot are plot guidelines for television and film...respectively. For video game layout matters, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. As for retrieving your content, you can click on this link (which is your edit before I reverted you), and then click on the "edit" option for that link. You can go into that version of the article and retrieve your copy with the "copy and paste" feature on your computer. You can also save that version of that article (by clicking "Save page" below the editing window) and subsequently restore the article to your version, but that will erase any edits made since then, such as this editbySoetermans.
On a side note: I added "(LittleBigPlanet 3)" to the heading above, so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help locating the section once it is archived. I would alert you to my reply on your IP talk page, but, judging by your edits to the LittleBigPlanet 3 article and now to my talk page, you clearly change IP addresses. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was actually just using the LBP2 wikipedia page as a guide for the LBP3 page, that has a hefty Plot section too. Ive just been editing from my laptop, so sorry if my IP address is changing, not sure how to control that!
Glastonbury Festival is Avalon...Atlantis is Avalon...holy graal????????? this is a shame! without corrections wikipedia is unreliable
Avalon belong in the Arthurian myths and not do the tour guide of mendacious Glastonbury...why you deleted my edits?--79.12.99.161 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Knowing what I know about Wikipedia, I wouldn't fully trust it for reliability either without checking the sources supporting its text. If the sources are wrong, I'd then blame the sources. Thank you for explaining your edit after I reverted you. You should have briefly explained in the edit history, however; I mean, better than the "fantasy" edit summary you gave as an explanation. Flyer22 (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to get a laugh out of me, Cyphoidbomb, but the way that Jackthomas321 is so disrespectful makes me sad. I hope that he only talks that way because of the anonymity of the Internet (not having to state those things to a person's face); otherwise, I assume that he generally is not a person people should be around in real life. May my sisters or heterosexual or bisexual female friends never have a boyfriend or a husband who is like that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your point is very well understood, Flyer, and pity is a rational response to him. I found it pitiable, but still hilarious, because I appreciate the absurdities of human behavior. Because I didn't fit his shallow model of masculinity, (I wasn't shouting back at him or getting angry) he assumed I must be a woman instead, as if only women must be polite and level-headed. (Frankly, that sounds a lot like misandry too.) He actually said of his own free will: "When something is wrong, a Real Man gets angry whereas a coward behaves polite." If there's one thing a bigot is, it's ignorant. And believe me, it was my instinct to deliver an equivalent tirade about misogyny and to tell him that Western society shuns that absurd mindset, but based on how quickly he is prone to irrational responses and rage, and assuming that his comments are in earnest, I think he's far beyond broken, and polite society will kick his ass accordingly, or banish him to his miserable comfort zone, a byproduct of a backward mindset, rather than as a catalyst for change and improvement. Also there were Do Not Feed the Trolls considerations, which precluded me from poking the bear. Sorry you didn't at least get a chuckle, but on the other hand, I got a real taste of misogyny directed at me, which was educational. :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Yes, Cyphoidbomb, what you experienced with Jackthomas321 is undoubtedly what a lot of girls and women face. I've thankfully mostly experienced misogyny on the Internet, as opposed to in real life, but I've experienced sexism often enough, including occasionally from my brothers. As a child, the sexism was the typical "girls are weaker/you can't play this game" type of thing. As an adult, my typical experience with sexism is when a teenage boy or a man states something insulting to me because he apparently finds me attractive; that was also the case when I was a mid-to-late teenager. It's interesting to get your take on misogyny and sexism, since you are a man. Of course, you and Cullen328 are upstanding men from what I can tell, so I appreciate your opinions either way. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I was really shocked reading the comments. I get deeply affected when I see so many Indian men being so misogynistic. One particular comment on Indian women and dogs was especially disturbing. What a terrible, terrible thing to say. :( --KRIMUK90✉07:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was pretty effed up to say. The guy was simultaneously trying to claim he is enlightened, by expressing awareness that harming women isn't acceptable, and that in his culture, women are less than dogs, which he acknowledges as wrong, but somehow, because I didn't agree that the week-by-week gross values at PK (film) were noteworthy, I'm a special case who needs to be made an example of by being called a prostitute, by suggesting I'm fellating admins, etc. As a man, I want his testicles revoked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flyer, I've left this message at the WP:Medmos talk page too.
If you are talking about the discipline, it is surgery. If you are talking about an operating room in the UK, it is called a surgery, so multiple operating rooms might be surgeries. But the procedure is an operation. Multiple surgical procedures are called operations, not 'surgeries'.
Hello there Flyer 22. There was no reason for you to delete Fualaau's date of birth from the article. That was legitimate information. Also, I don't inject my personal opinion into articles. The comment about the boy having "fun" was placed in the revision history, NOT the article itself.
For your information, Letourneau was an absolute idiot.
Anthony22 (talk·contribs), as you know, I'd already explained why I deleted your content. As for your "fun" comment, you were editing from a POV (your personal opinion) mindset; that mindset affected your editing, and I commented on it. As for Letourneau being an idiot, let me guess: You think she's an idiot because she didn't hide her sexual crime well enough and instead got caught for it...twice? Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cock tease: It wasn't tagged by the Women's History project
Ongepotchket, as you likely saw, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History tag was added byDimadick in 2011. You are certain that Dimadick was not a member Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History? Either way, one does not have to be a member of a WikiProject to tag an article talk page with one of its tags, and a person can easily become a member by simply deciding that they are a member. I reverted you here for the reasons stated in that edit summary. Cock tease, which is about, "derisive sexual slang used to describe a woman who acts in a sexual manner to seduce men without actually fulfilling the sexual actions," and is a "term [that] has been in use in Great Britain and the United States since the 19th century," "has nothing to do with women's history as described by the project"? What part of that project's page, as it currently is, makes it clear that the cock tease topic is not within its scope? I anticipated you reverting me and/or bringing this topic to my talk page; if you had reverted me, I would have taken the matter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History so that they can discuss it. Perhaps the matter should be taken there for discussion regardless.
I trust your edits and input, and the tagging for this article is not a hill I wish to die on today. Probably not tomorrow either. Consider the matter dropped on my end. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as a suggestion on keeping the word "beautiful", you can rewrite the statement as "the (source) anime profile describes her as beautiful" or "X calls her a beautiful". If the premise of the story notes that she is a beauty then that can be cited. That should keep it NPOV. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, I went to the Campione! article because I had just finished watching the Campione! English dubbed anime in between finishing up some computer-related work. When I finish a series or a film (for example, Nightcrawler starring Jake Gyllenhaal), I am likely to visit the Wikipedia article to see what shape the article is in and to see what critics and/or fans thought of the series or film (trusting the WP:Reliable sources more so than the unsourced content). That is, if I haven't already visited the Wikipedia article and learned of that stuff. I was annoyed by this edit an IP made to the Campione! article (not sure if that IP is you), which is why I made thisWP:Dummy edit, but I'm not interested in pressing the matter. I know that beauty is subjective (well, it often isn't when it's a person that people will generally view as beautiful), but when the character is consistently described or otherwise viewed as beautiful in the series or in the film, I find it odd that someone would mark the plot information as some type of non-neutral POV. If the character was consistently described or otherwise viewed as ugly, a jock, or a nerd, for example, I doubt that the "non-neutral POV" claim would pop up. Or rather I think it would not have a good chance of popping up. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with retaining such descriptions. I haven't combed through that article like I did with the List of High School DxD characters which has characters that were considered "beautiful" and were called "yamato nadeshiko" by the author and the characters (Akeno in particular). I recently redid List of Totally Spies! characters where on the main three characters, I had removed a bunch of those adjectives, only to put some of them back once I had read the profiles coming from their television websites. As for the Campione! article, I think the character descriptions are way too long but I agree with you that I don't really feel like reading the light novel to find out; perhaps there are description profiles from the light novels and the afterwords that would be sufficient as sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the character descriptions in the Campione! article are far too long, and that article clearly needs fixing up in general. Speaking of High School DxD, though, I've enjoyed that series a lot. While it does have much unnecessary sexual fan service, I was hooked on that show from the first episode, an episode that is both funny and scary. The show has a nice blend of humor, action and horror, and I made sure to watch the uncensored version. Watching some Season 1 episodes of the non-dubbed version, I see that some of the words that were changed in the English-dubbed version come across significantly better in the non-dubbed version where they are unchanged. My youngest sister loves the series as well, mainly for the love story between Issei and Rias, but hates the sexual fan service that's in it. For example, the first episode of the English dub has all sorts of sexual talk and slang (including dated slang) that is not in the non-dubbed version. And, to be clear, the love story between Issei and Rias is the main reason that I also watch that anime. To that, my sister perhaps would say, "Hey, we're women. Can you blame us?" And then smack herself for the stereotype. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The character list articles for that show plus Campione could use a reception section to discuss that. If the portrayals are significantly different across media, that can be listed as well, provided they are supported by the critics reviews or interviews with the animation developers or authors. List of Rosario + Vampire characters#Reception has a good paragraph about the fanservice portrayal for both the anime and manga. When that many critics complain about the fanservice, it isn't just an isolated incident. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note: AngusWOOF, I'm not sure what I think of the Campione! anime. It held my attention, per some of the things seen in this trailer for it, but it has a cheesy voice-over introduction (which seems intentionally cheesy) and the romance between Godou and Erica is not well-executed (though I believed that Erica was in love with him for whatever reason). At least the fan service was not overboard. I'm not sure if I should read the Campione! light novel or what. I skimmed a bit of the Campione! manga after watching the anime, but Godou looks too different and significantly younger in the manga, so that made me not too interested in reading it. I prefer that the characters have physical consistency when it comes to manga-to-anime adaptations or vice versa. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping the reviews include some thoughts on the light novel presentation, but they're probably just focusing on the anime, which is fine. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
deleting only completely dead links
Hey dude, I'm only deleting those links which are completely dead i.e. Only those who's link was not recoverable even after a long research and its not my fault that all links that I found belonged to that category. And sorry for any inconvenience.
Regards Monarchrob1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Monarchrob1, did you read the WP:Dead links page that I pointed you to on your talk page? If not, go ahead and read it and see how it notes that leaving in a dead link might be the best option even after one fails to find a replacement. On your talk page, I was also noting that you should attempt to replace a dead link with a different WP:Reliable source. Removing the source and leaving the text uncited as though it never had a source is not an improvement unless the source is not WP:Reliable or is used in a WP:Synthesis way. Since my post on your talk page about WP:Dead links, you have received another complaint there about removing dead links. Do heed what we are stating on this matter.
On a different note: New discussion sections usually go at the bottom of talk pages, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. That is why I moved your post down. And to correctly sign your posts, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot had to correct your signature above. Also, consider replying on your talk page when a person starts a discussion there; this keeps the discussion centralized. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Monarchrob1, with all due respect to your intentions, but how come you did a long research to recover a broken link when it took me just one minute to find a alternative URL? Please stop immediately with your removals. Either your skills are not sufficiently developed yet, or you're just making up excuses for not having even tried, because that's the feeling I'm getting here, since your careless removal also deleted a neighboring citation that was AOK. The article I'm talking about is Alpha particle X-ray spectrometer. Nevertheless, best regards, -- Rfassbind-talk22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HIV and or AIDS information
Ok I get it. It is supposed to be about people not the information. That page is a disgrace, doesn't meet the very basics of sexual health that everyone should know, has had in their hand or that are taught to year 10 students and it is not ethical because you mess with peoples lives - controversial is not an explanation for 30 year old basics. The fact that HIV/AIDS is not sorted because of / suggest this model is fundamentally flawed. This lack of progress is not helped (caused?) when the discussion is long winded, piffling, largely ignorant and detached from the point and isn't point-by-point but person-by-person, eg my complaint of conflation with illness is detached and useless. It creates a rambling mess which I find extremely difficult to navigate when it comes to the edit page - it is purposely designed not to be easy. It is demeaning to have to learn this to correct such obvious errors that should not have been allowed in the first place. Does anyone take some responsibility to do a complete re-edit taking everything available into account or will this page continue to carry this silliness? I will make some suggestions about another section which is worse and I would like to know what you think about the content and the complete re-write required. At the moment I am not convinced I can help or should when the page is so obviously poor more than 30 years into the pandemic. Eric Ericglare (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Ericglare (talk·contribs). When I moved your comments at the talk page of the HIV/AIDS article, as noted here on your talk page, it wasn't meant to frustrate you or dissuade you from commenting. It was because, as I've stated in the edit summary, the placement of your comments made it seem like your comments were a part of another editor's posts. I know that talk page formatting can be confusing for new and relatively new Wikipedia editors; so I suggest that the quickest way for you to learn the formatting is to observe how others add their posts, and then to follow their lead. If you start a new section at the HIV/AIDS article talk page, which is easy to do by clicking on the "New section" option at the top, and explain your issues with the article in that section, others (such as Doc James and Bluerasberry) will listen to what you have to state. They will be more willing to listen, however, if you provide high-quality or otherwise decent medical sources to support your assertions; see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). As for messing with people's lives, I don't think that I do in the negative way that you seem to be implying. Flyer22 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind re-reading what I wrote and then giving me a reply about its content not an abstract picture of its content. Tip: I did not refer to you. Tip 2: things I did not complain about I mostly agree with. Also why should crappy sources trump common sense such as the meaning of /? Is there something about authoritative sources or is a URL enough? I am annoyed that poor quality with Wikipedia has remained all these decades.Ericglare (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 (talk·contribs), but the newbie page you sent me to said specifically that was a newbie mistake and we should try and integrate. In terms of observing, I'm finding that obscure for determining how and then very difficult to find the information on very basic things (your links were helpful, thanks). Can I assume that most what is in the edit page is typed and not from some function like the the 4 tildes which is pushed ad nauseam instead of being automatic when logged in? Ericglare (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says what is a newbie mistake? Your formatting? And by "integrate," you mean your posts? You can validly post in an existing section if what you are posting is related to it, but posting in a section that is months or years old, especially if that section is not still active, can cause your comments to be overlooked. Like, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout states, "If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can easily be overlooked." Similar is often true of new comments without a new section to go along with them. And if you post in an existing section, make sure that you don't post at the start of the section; doing that makes it look like you started the section (or, in the case that you did start the section, that it began with your new comment). That's part of why I reverted you on a heading matter last year; you probably never checked back to read what I stated there, or you forgot about that section. As for getting better at talk page formatting: Well, besides the WP:Talk guideline I pointed you to before, and my suggestion that you observe the way other Wikipedia editors post, Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages and Wikipedia:Indentation can help you.
By "edit page," you mean the article or talk page? Or both? Whatever the case, yes, that stuff is typed. Additionally, when you are replying on someone's talk page, you don't need to ping that person via WP:Echo; this is because they will already receive the message. I've clearly pinged you twice above since this is my talk page, not yours, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of my replies. I won't ping you to this discussion anymore since I assume that if you want to read my replies, you will check back here; I will go ahead and let you know of this on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment was moved from your user page
Hi, Flyer22. I'm sorry I am writing it here, but I just started editing Wikis today, and only because I saw what was a blatant biased article on Wikipedia - the article on Pope Joan. I have then made some completely unbiased editions there (really neutral, just so it would look less like Catholic propaganda) and all my edits keep getting reversed by the 3 only users who apparently mod that page, which have clear personal biases regarding the Church. I saw that you edited the Feminism page in Wiki and look like a very reasonable and experient Wiki user, which is what I think is needed in that page. Would you bother taking a look at that? Thank you very much and sorry if I posted this in the wrong place :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.107.196 (talk • contribs) 3:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
IP, looking at that edit history, which shows the disputes going on there, I'd rather not get involved. I've stated the following before on Wikipedia: I have enough contentious topics to deal with on this site.
For some contentious topics, I feel a bit unprepared for what is to come because it feels like, or perhaps is the case that, I am the only editor there to meet whatever possible dispute. I have the possible disputes worked out in my head, however, and have a pre-existing reply typed up for one of them. Typing up a pre-existing reply can be especially helpful in the case of a dispute that has been repeatedly addressed. The Feminism article is one contentious article that I have not yet edited and do not have on my WP:Watchlist. So it must instead be a feminism-related page you saw me at. Perhaps the Sexism article? Either way, you should either seek some form of WP:Dispute resolution or the help of an editor who is not as burnt out from WP:Wikistress as I am. Flyer22 (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flyer. I just voted you for my once a month dumb question. In this vote, do I click the "Vote" below or above the picture of my choice. Also where I could look up answers like this on my own? It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of votes were the wrong choices. Remember 2000 - how many people voted Dubya by mistake? SlightSmile18:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The top most and bottom most images gives the clue. So it's the Vote button underneath the image of choice. I knew I had a brain somewhere. SlightSmile19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your treatment of me
I find you high-handed, bossy, glorying in your greater knowledge of Wikipedia policies (which I certainly admit), and seemingly taking pleasure in rubbing my nose in my mistakes. While I have certainly received corrections from other editors, yours consistently have the "I know more than you, you're ignorant" tone to them.
I have already begun avoiding making edits on pages you watch, so as to avoid you.
According to WP:Newbies, "New members are propsective contributors". I'm not a prospective contributor, I'm a contributor. You know more policies than me. Others no doubt know more than you.
From WP:Newbies
"Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility"
"Our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold"
"If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive AND RESPECTFUL manner.
"If possible, point out things they've done correctly or well"
"Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome"
At all the above, in my judgment, you have failed, at least in your interactions with me. Even were I a newbie, this is not the way Wikipedia policies say newbies should be treated.
Deisenbe, I stand by all of what I stated to you on your inexperience with editing Wikipedia. And what I stated at that talk page was the first time I have specifically addressed you on your inexperience with editing Wikipedia. All the other times, I simply reverted you and politely answered your questions, including the ones that, due to my experience with the site and/or awareness of what constitutes a valid reference, I find to be common sense...such as the aforementioned one about porn videos. But enough is enough. If you were a WP:Newbie who was willing to learn from your mistakes and improve, I likely would not have a problem with you. But you barely seem to be improving; you make what are essentially the same types of mistakes without seemingly attempting to improve by learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Instead of truly trying to understand why I or another person has reverted you, you act as though you are a victim and are likely to go and mark the revert down as a revert you are disappointed with. For example, with this edit summary, you probably took it as me being bossy and talking down to you; it was instead me reminding you of what are inappropriate references (in this case, porn videos) and cleaning up an article. In our aforementioned discussion about porn videos, you didn't seem willing to understand why those references are inappropriate; you seemed to take it as my or Wikipedia's failure to understand why you are in the right on that matter.
Like you stated, you have been registered with Wikipedia since 2005. But like I stated, you are essentially a WP:Newbie. And WP:Newbies that don't seem to want to improve in their Wikipedia editing will have that wake-up call sooner or later if they decide to keep editing Wikipedia. I will not apologize for urging you toward your wake-up call in that regard. If I owe you an apology, you owe me an apology for consistently leaving messes for me and others to clean up. And as for my experience with editing Wikipedia, there are few (if any) who know more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than I do. When I was a WP:Newbie, I quickly snapped into shape so that others would not have to clean up my Wikipedia messes; anything less is not fair. But you know what they say: Life is not fair. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your expertise. I was not aware that WP:Newbie is guideline, not policy. Now I understand why you are free to ignore it. deisenbe (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deisenbe, I don't ignore it. Wikipedia guidelines are obviously meant to be followed; the exception is a WP:Ignore all rules case. I hope that by pointing you to the WP:Ignore all rules policy, you don't start waving it around to excuse any inappropriate editing on your part. And while we're on the topic of thanks, thank you for your "17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)" comment; it shows me that informing you of appropriate Wikipedia editing and that you should strive to be better at editing Wikipedia if you are going to be editing it as much as you do is futile. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for input on the campus rape article
Hi Flyer22. I saw you edited the campus rape page recently. I am wondering if you could offer your input there on a potential NPOV issue. Opinion pieces by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is not an expert, are used several times as citations for prevalence of campus rape, while other authors and studies (of far more reliability, in my opinion) have been removed (again) in recent days. The page is suffering from what I believe is POV-pushing. I am asking a third party to take a look as the first step to resolving this conflict, rather than start what could become another edit war. Thanks. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ongepotchket, I am aware of all of the WP:Edit warring and POV-pushing going on at the Campus rape article. I'm staying out it because it's too much for me; see, for example, what I stated in the #Message from 189.8.107.196 section above. Topics concerning women and rape or other sexual assault always attract the attention of editors who shouldn't be editing those articles or who edit them poorly. At the Campus rape article talk page, I recently got out of trying to get editors to understand when and when not an article should be moved, and there were editors who still didn't see why moving the article would be wrong. So I can only imagine how frustrating debating editors there on other matters would be. I know that it's not what you want to read, but I decline to get involved. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a matter of opinion about the quality of the new born infant image. It was submitted by the administrator Dennis Brown and it is fact an image of his fellow administrator Drmies' new born boy. I don't think it's a particularly good image. Moreover the fact that it's a boy is somewhat superfluous here as the infant could either be a boy or a girl for all we know. Also we already have an image of a white Caucasian in the Spain image below.
It's curious that there is a dearth of high quality images of boys on Commons. I simply thought this the best of the bunch. C1cada (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C1cada, you are pretty familiar with Wikipedia for a relatively new account; you apparently even WP:Watchlisted the Boy article to see my response to your removing the image. Either that, or you checked back into the edit history manually. And, yes, I'm always suspicious of editors who clearly are not new to editing Wikipedia but have a brand new Wikipedia account and will be thought of as new by others. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the image. And I highly doubt that the newborn is a girl (unless the baby comes to identify that way later on); it doesn't strike me as something that Drmies would lie about. But it did cross my mind that you or someone else might argue that a person cannot tell from looking at the image that the child is a boy. Well, I thought that a person might argue that until I clicked on the image soon after you removed it and saw that Drmies is the uploader. You should have taken this matter to the article's talk page, so that everyone watching that article can know where to weigh in on this matter. But I'll go ahead and point to this section via a WP:Dummy edit in that article's edit history. I'm not too interested in debating this matter, but your reasons for removing the image are, in my opinion, not valid. I also see that Gerda Arendtadded the image back, but in a way that is supposed to be a compromise.
By the way, yes, that was an awful typo you made to the heading of this section. I saw you at my talk page from my WP:Watchlist before deciding to read what you wrote. And before I did, I was like, "Oh, goodness, don't tell me I've come across some bizarre editor who thinks that the image is lewd." Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I like the baby image. I am woman who likes to see images of newborn babies anywhere, especially the baby of a friend, added to the article in a nice gesture by sadly missed Dennis. I referred to the article, meaning the image, several times. The boy grew, and an image of him was used in the edit that was the most constructive single edit I recall. - You can tell me of course that all these sentimental reasons are of no importance, - wasn't there talk about gender gap? For equal opportunity, at the same time a baby girl was born ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of the image and I don't give a damn about your Wikipedia friends' baby pics. I don't have any nice pics of my infant children I myself should care to share on Wikipedia but I trust you will allow healthy competition in this matter should it arise, if only to head off unmerited accusations of elitism. I would be obliged if you could something about that ECHR issue I mention above. Don't you advocate on the Armenia holocaust question? I believe you do. C1cada (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've been editing all day and your time not so limited that you cannot alert Drmies that an editor presumes to question the relevance of his baby pics as lede images. More important than the Armenia Holocaust denial appeal before the ECHR? I shall be making a very substantial edit on the matter when the judgment is given. C1cada (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my sweet little boy put in the same paragraph as a holocaust? and what's more "international" about the one you put in there? and what's it matter that you can't tell it's a boy? Flyer, I appreciate your diplomacy, and Gerda, yours as well. And thanks, Dennis Brown. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HiDrmies, thanks for that. Nice start. I had reached a hiatus with it. I actually find editing Wikipedia rather tedious myself. I added a couple of edits. Jessie Burton's best selling novel was a fine debut, but I did think she wasn't quite up the task right now. You might enjoy it. The Warmoesstraat is an English Wikipedia article in need of rescue .
Nothing personal about that image of your. Fine little chap and I congratulate you. But there's another or so 100+ coming on line every minute, so you may have some competition there. I'll let you off myself. It is curious that when you make a Google search for free to use even commercially images of new born baby boys, there really isn't anything more suitable. Cheers. C1cada (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice article Gerda. It reminds me that I have yet to listen to this particular piece, though I do know a fair bit of Benjamin Britten's music and think it absolutely gorgeous. I really ought to listen to more. Your article start certainly seems to have attracted more than its fair share of Talk Page drama! You will forgive me if I don't delve into the issues on this occasion. I would say in general that one ought to respect the wishes of originating contibutors, and you have my sympathy. C1cada (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I also will have yet to listen, - the article was a spontaneous "birth" on the composer's centenary (2013) with him the featured article, and then I thought it would be nice for Christmas ... - I don't agree that one ought to respect wishes of the article creators (I forgot to mention the great help of Alfietucker) too much, - simple respect for how the composer and most sources used for the article spelled it would have been enough. I found not enough support for such a crazy idea ;) - I don't know if "ignore" was the best answer to this image removal. I had a better answer to the latest such thing: it's on the Main page now, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiovascular disease
Hey Flyer. Sorry if I should be doing this on the sites talk page. Still havent got the hang of using talk pages. The resource that I used to back up the claim is a reputable source because it was created by a not for profit university. And uses a number of high quality resources to back up all statistics listed on it. This infographic in particular used heart.org, circ.ahajournals.org, nhlbi.nih.gov, cdc.gov, and the mayoclinic. Legit sources. In an easy to read manner. Despite the fact that its an infographic it has some great stats and info. Not everyone that reads wikipedia has the time to dig deep into journalistic papers for their information. These types of sources should not be discounted just because it has just as many pictures as words. Does that make sense? BrettofMoore(talk) 15:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic Violence-- I have to say that the domestic violence infographic falls under the same jurisdiction as the Cardiovascular one. And I followed you're suggestion for this one. You stated if we keep this statistic it should be in a different section. I clarified what year the data fell into and moved the info to the section that you suggested. I'm not sure if you are even looking at the edits at this point or simply dismissing them. Can you clarify yourself? While I need to rationalize the input, I also feel that you may need to rationalize the exclusion as well. We're on equal footing here.
BrettofMoore(talk) 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
BrettofMoore, I had been in the process of replying on your talk page regarding this, this, this and this edit you made to the Domestic violence and Cardiovascular disease articles. I was going to state the following, or something like it: Wikipedia's health content should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. And although that guideline allows poor or mediocre sources on occasion, you should strive to use better sources than the ones you've used at the aforementioned articles. Google Books is only a click away. While I have argued that lay sources should be allowed to go beside scholarly sources or as a standalone for basic health information, there are WP:Med editors that are very strict on the matter of sourcing health-related content and don't want lay sources used in conjunction with scholarly sources or at all. For an example of what I mean, see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 10#Mayo: how did this happen ?. That discussion shows that WP:Med editors recently removed Mayo Clinic (one of the sources you cited above) from the WP:MEDRS guideline. We can still use Mayo Clinic in certain cases, but you can see from that discussion how WP:Med feels about using such sources; they prefer the best sources available. In that discussion, it was only me and another editor (WhatamIdoing) arguing for reasonable use of lay sources.
Besides adding poor or mediocre sources at the Domestic violence and Cardiovascular disease articles, you framed the content broadly, as though those pieces of data are definitive. If something is only a matter regarding the United States, as is the case for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, then make that clear; don't make the study sound like it applies broadly. And don't make a study sound as if it applies broadly when different studies report differently, unless, of course, that one study is authoritative or the topic is not so disputed that it requires stating something like: "This study reported this, but this study reported that." Your second addition of the source/text at the Domestic violence article was better, except for the WP:Editorializing you engaged in. And I reiterate that your source is not even close to ideal. Also be mindful of WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: BrettofMoore, what is up with the time stamps of your signatures? Those time stamps are not correct; I corrected them above. Have you been copying and pasting old signatures because you don't know how to sign your username? All that you have to do to sign your username is type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. When I do edits on health related articles, I'll be sure to ensure that I go for the more scholarly resources in the future (although I do find it kinda mind boggling those arent considered reputable).
Sorry about the wrong time stamps. I still don't really have the hang of using Talk pages. Most of my contributions to wiki has not been in Talk page engagement.
And I'll keep in mind always clarifying the region that the statistics are covering. I did not intend to start an edit war. I assumed that clarifying in the edit summary might be enough in these instances. And I had intended to move it to the talk page if there was still issues after. Especially since the domestic violence edit summary made it sound like the source was not the issue, as much as the location within the article. I'll concede to you're superior knowledge in this instance. Thanks for taking the time to talk.
--BrettofMoore 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettofMoore (talk • contribs)
Thanks, BrettofMoore. Sources such as the CDC are reputable, but you'd be better off citing sources such as that directly instead of via one of the lay sources. Just study WP:MEDRS and adhere to it, and you'll be fine at health-related pages. In the future, make sure that you take discussions about reverts of your additions to their respective article talk pages; I pointed you to the talk pages when reverting you in the hopes that you would take the matters there instead of to my talk page. But don't sweat. The same goes for signatures (and I guess you were copying and pasting your signatures?). WP:Newbie mistakes are natural. I made a lot of mistakes as a WP:Newbie, and still make mistakes editing Wikipedia. What is most important now is that you want to improve and will strive to improve in your Wikipedia editing; those types of WP:Newbies are awesome. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, but I didn't respond to the latter part of your comment because I didn't pay attention to it, I didn't realise it was also yours. Guettarda (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I changed the heading of this title by adding ":Wikipedia talk:No original research" so that it's clearer as to what this section is about, and is easier to identify once its archived. Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flyer22, my addition on the doodle.com wikipedia page from two days ago was removed. I'd like to understand why. It says "good faith" but I am not sure what rule I was transgressing since When2meet, Doodle, and ScheduleOnce are all similar websites. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.43.98 (talk • contribs)
Please be more careful and check the edit before reverting it. As I said in my edit summary, the wiki links only works with the correction. The correct name for Pyrrhura frontalisismaroon-bellied parakeet (there is no species called maroon-bellied parrot, resulting in a red link), and the correct name for Pyrrhura devilleiisblaze-winged parakeet (there is no species called blaze-winged parrot, resulting in another red link). If you're asking about the other half of the edit (common green morph; rare yellow morph), please check the provided citations, which explain these things in detail. I've re-added my edits with an additional citation. If you're asking about "de-capping" of yellow-sided conure→MOS:LIFE. In the new edit I've also re-added Argentina. This was in the article until another editor removed it without reason some time ago. Any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. 62.107.222.99 (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I was careful; as seen in that diff-link, I asked you why you are making those changes. You did not only change links; you changed wording. All you had to do was revert me and explain why. Stating "wiki links should work now," as you did before I reverted you, does not fully explain what you were doing. Flyer22 (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought everything but the parrot/parakeet name change (mentioned in my edit summary) was obvious, as it only required a check of the citation. Additionally, there is no requirement to have an edit summary, although it is considered good practice (WP:EDS). Indeed, the fact that I provided any edit summary places me among the minority as evident by Special:RecentChanges (fun fact: I did a fast check and among the non-edit summary were two admins). Regardless, unless there are any questions to my recent green-cheeked parakeet edit, I consider this discussion closed. It represents the very reason why I can't be bothered to make an account: Too much time wasted on discussions instead of improving articles. 62.107.222.99 (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If "everything but the parrot/parakeet name change" was obvious, you would not have felt the need to explain with your "12:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" comment above. I take it that you think that I was lazy when reverting you; the laziness applies both ways. I am a WP:Patroller, and WP:Patrollers, or any editor, should not have to figure out what you meant because you were too lazy to provide a WP:Edit summary. There is no reason at all that an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself should not provide an adequate WP:Edit summary for edits that are not WP:Minor. As for you not having a Wikipedia account, I highly doubt that you do not have one. Even if you are not using one now, you've had one before. And if you want to educate a Wikipedian on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you should go and find one who actually does not know them. Your condescension and teaching skills are entirely wasted on me. Flyer22 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of articles which appear inappropriately categorised as health. You don't seem to agree with my view. But some appear to be about microbiology etc.
Hello, Rathfelder. Before you made this change to the section on my talk page, I was about to bring up the fact that I reverted you at a number of articles, including the Vaginal flora article (seen here). I fail to see how the Vaginal flora article does not belong in Category:Health unless one makes the argument that it's already covered by being included in Category:Feminine hygiene. As for the other articles, I reverted you at, seen here, here, here, here, here, and here, I mainly reverted you (as indicated) because you were changing the categories with no explanation and marking the edits as WP:Minor. You should ask about these matters at WP:Med. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've always though of adjusting categories as minor edits. You are the first person to suggest they aren't. And I'm afraid I don't think articles about microbiology belong in the health category. Health is a top category and should mostly be populated by subcategories. "Health" as a topic encompasses a vary wide area of human experience, and putting all that in the same category doesn't seem helpful. I don't see why I have to ask permission to be bold. But if it helps I will mark these edits with reasons.Rathfelder (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, WP:Minor is clear about what a minor edit is. At least it is to me. But if you can't see that changing categories does not usually qualify as a WP:Minor edit, especially when it concerns matters of personal preference, then maybe that page should be clearer. Vaginal flora clearly concerns health, as currently noted in its lead, and as is clear by common sense. This is also why it is currently tagged within WP:Med's scope. So, since that article is already in Category:Feminine hygiene, whether or not it should be in Category:Health is a matter of personal preference. Stating that you should ask about these matters at WP:Med is not about permission; it is about having WP:Consensus on a topic so that an editor is not going around categorizing health articles based on his personal views. WP:Med is the WikiProject that deals with health topics, after all. If you don't take this topic there for wider input and instead keep categorizing health topics based on your personal views, I'll take the matter there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Health contains medicine. Not the other way round. I don't think that is my personal view. But my understanding of Wikipedia is exactly that editors are expected to be bold, and to apply categories as they think fit. It other editors think differently then we discuss and reach consensus. Not the other way round. Rathfelder (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that categorisation was heirarchical. So it makes sense to put articles in more specialised categories. If we fill the top categories with everything that could be included in them they won't help people to find their way around. Am I wrong?Rathfelder (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Not the other way round" arguments are lost on me. You stated, "I[f] other editors think differently then we discuss and reach consensus." Exactly. I pointed you to WP:Med for wider input. So how about taking it there. This is not a matter to be decided among two editors. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category" WP:SUBCAT Have a look at the other articles in Category:Health. I don't think these articles fit there. They should be further down the hierarchy. Rathfelder (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Think" is the keyword. If you are convinced that all of your categorization of health articles is correct, you should have no problem getting wider input on the matter. In other words, I am wondering why we still have not taken this topic to WP:Med. I already stated above, "I fail to see how the Vaginal flora article does not belong in Category:Health unless one makes the argument that it's already covered by being included in Category:Feminine hygiene." That obviously means that I can see it being valid that, under that circumstance, the Vaginal flora article does not need to be in Category:Health. That, however, does not mean that I am willing to leave this matter and similar matters up to you, or up to us. I am done discussing this here. If you want to discuss it further, then take it to WP:Med, or I will. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic all the articles in the feminine hygiene category should also appear in the health category. I'm very happy for you to get someone involved in WP:Med to review the categorisation of articles. But I am following WP:SUBCAT and WP:BOLD. Rathfelder (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is that following my logic after what I reiterated in my "00:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)" post? I've taken the matter to WP:Med since you obviously won't. I referred you to WP:Med for the reasons I stated above, and because I am a part of that WikiProject. In other words, I know how they work; I am familiar with the editors and what their opinions are likely to be, and I generally have no problem going along with what the WP:Consensus is there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
April Arcus, what are you talking about? I didn't remove your citations. Well, except for the Green source that you wanted removed. Like the edit summary states, I changed the citation style from its long format. And all that it took to do that was remove the spaces from in between. I formatted the references similar to how the other references in the article are formatted. If I really wanted to be consistent, I would have removed your Template:Citation style and replaced it with Template:Cite journal. And, ideally, reference styles should be the same within an article; see WP:CITEVAR. If there is any "unliked" reference style, it is your Template:Citation long-form style, since that style is rarely used in Wikipedia articles these days. I don't need to ping Rjwilmsi via WP:Echo; you already have, and what he's recently cleaned up at that article is not my formatting. Whatever the case, regarding our #WP:Talk discussion above, I, as you know, recently provided a bunch of sources supporting what I've already stated to you at that talk page (as seen here and here); so I am close to done debating all of this with you. Like I've made abundantly clear, I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state....with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from as well. What do you mean by "linking"? If you mean having URLs in citations and/or linking to the publications in citations, I am fine with that. But I did not de-link anything in your citations. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,
I am fairly new on Wikipedia, but was hoping you could clarify the relevance of sourcing if the statements provided to no add to the discussion-and in fact seem to steer the topic into an area that it doesn't fit into?
Specifically the section in Stonewallriots-
Garbage cans, garbage, bottles, rocks, and bricks were hurled at the building, breaking the windows. Witnesses attest that "flame queens", hustlers, and gay "street kids"—the most outcast people in the gay community—were responsible for the first volley of projectiles, as well as the uprooting of a parking meter used as a battering ram on the doors of the Stonewall Inn.[73] Sylvia Rivera, who was in full drag and had been in the Stonewall during the raid, remembered:
First-there is no definition of what "Flame Queen" is, I presume it is referring to either flamboyant men, or drag queens. But, "the most outcast people in the gay community" is a preposterous statement. Nothing in the article defines who these people were, there is no citation of what the community was at the time either. Street kids would not be considered outcast within a demographic in the way this line seems to imply. Hustlers? Stonewall has a reputation for being a hookup den. I imagine hustlers would have been all over it anyway. They would not have been outcasts either.
My objection is insinuation without substance. I do not believe that posting a statement about say, a political convention followed by "the most evil there are" would be acceptable based on the neutrality requirement (as I understand them). Plenty of books refer to this or that part as evil as well-so why is it acceptable to include a wispy personal narration such as "the most outcast people in the gay community" which has countless ways to interpret-simply because a book has that line? It certainly doesn't add anything to the paragraph. The people I know who were there just gave me a blank stare when I asked them about it as well, one asked with a degree of profanity (paraphrased) "Everyone there was family, I don't even know what they are saying there. Most were homeless. Most were hustling. Most were queeny.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordtyp0 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lordtyp0 (talk·contribs). I noted why I reverted you at the Stonewall riots article. I don't see what there is for me to elaborate on except that I don't find the statement non-neutral if it is a true statement in that context, and I certainly don't find it comparable to stating "the most evil there are." Wikipedia commonly notes when a group is the most disadvantaged group. You stated, "Removed unsubstantiated inflammatory language." I noted that the content is very likely WP:Reliably sourced because Moni3 (who is currently a retired Wikipedian) is known to source her statements well (look on her user page for all of the work she has done for Wikipedia). The Stonewall riots article is a WP:Featured article. A paragraph may not have a citation placed at every sentence; it seems that Moni3 was a big believer in not engaging in WP:Citation overkill. The only reason that I will over-source a paragraph is because so many Wikipedia editors think that if a reference is not at every sentence in the paragraph, then all those sentences except the one with the reference must be unsourced. And as for being neutral, Wikipedia defines being neutral differently than it is defined in common discourse; see WP:Neutral. I also noted when I reverted you that I don't feel strongly about the content staying; so feel free to remove it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Environment and sexual orientation
You have made an edit with the comment: "This is not "many studies"".
My apologies, but if you follow the link and read the conclusion section, the author lists 4 other different studies to back up her statement that her study is "not the first". That makes the total 5 studies and I think it qualifies as "many studies".
You have used WP:MEDRS to remove a reference to "Science of Relationships".
I don't understand how it is an unreliable source. If you look at their editors, they are all Psychology professors or PhDs. The removed article was written by Prof Dylan Selterman of University of Maryland College Park. Perhaps I have misunderstood your comment.
IP, why have you decided to bring this matter to my talk page instead of to the article talk page? I believe that you've come to my talk page before as this IP regarding the Environment and sexual orientation article. I believe that that's you; that belief includes the fact that you both like to use the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health source, as seen here and here, and that you both like to use the word nonetheless at that article, as seen here and here. You also remind me of this editor.
I had a problem with that other IP's editing, and now I have a problem with your editing as IP 205.241.40.253. Yes, I removed your "many" text. Four studies is not "many." Furthermore, Lisa Diamond specializes in sexual identity, particularly women's sexual identities. Your text was a blatant misrepresentation of the source, and of what Lisa Diamond has stated on the topic of sexual orientation vs. sexual orientation identity. As much as you want to make it seem like sources are stating that sexual orientation can change, these sources are speaking of sexual orientation identity the vast majority of the time, without specifying that they are. And that is why I decided to make a section on the matter in the Environment and sexual orientation article; because you keep taking advantage of sources tossing the word sexual orientation around willy-nilly. I figured that I might as well enlighten readers on the fact that when they read/hear about sexual orientation changing, it is highly likely sexual orientation identity that the researchers are referring to. This source is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Read the WP:MEDRS guideline for what I mean. For example, when possible, WP:Primary sources should not be used for any of this content. I am tempted to remove every WP:Primary source from the article. But there is also the WP:MEDDATE "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published" matter to take into account. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, 5 studies are considered "many". I am going to drop this issue because I just read your final edit and it sounds flowing -- although "Scholar Lisa Diamond" sounds a bit awkward; why not "Prof. Lisa Diamond"?
I still don't understand why the Science of Relationships article is considered a primary source. It is actually reviewing the studies done by Prof. Diamond and it is more of a news article, not an academic paper; thus, making it a third party source.
For some reason, you're very hyper-sensitive. By the way you like to interpret for the public what the authors meant by "sexual orientation", instead of letting the public decide what the authors meant, alludes that perhaps there may be a personal bias on this topic. (Just curious - do you hold a PhD in Psychology to override the intention of authors who do hold PhD and are often professors?) I am sure you're aware that many public have been moving away from Wikipedia because they find bias in articles. It's most unfortunate.
Regardless, thank you for the final edit. Goodbye.
I did not call "the Science of Relationships article" a WP:Primary source; I stated that it is not WP:MEDRS-compliant; it isn't, or it barely passes that guideline; that guideline does note cases when it will accept mediocre or poor sources. You are free to ask about whether or not that source qualifies as a WP:Primary source and/or as WP:MEDRS-compliant at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I don't like to "interpret for the public what the authors meant by 'sexual orientation', instead of letting the public decide what the authors meant." I report what the sources state; that is what I did by "enlighten[ing] readers on the fact that when they read/hear about sexual orientation changing, it is highly likely sexual orientation identity that the researchers are referring to." I don't misreport, give WP:Undue weight to matters or add WP:Fringe sources; I make sure to give these topics an appropriately balanced view...per Due weight. What you continually try to do is give false balance to the topic of sexual orientation. If "many public have been moving away from Wikipedia because" of how I've acted on these matters, then they are moving away for the wrong reasons. I doubt that this is goodbye as far our interaction goes, but goodbye for now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cicada
On the wings of a butterfly...
...for your efforts in starting hurricanes. Eugene Szlamp 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you had questions about one of the sources I cited (the SID one - entitled "Teen Queen"). I have a scan and ocr of the article with that exact quote (I was unable to find the source for the "psycho looney" quote in the original article that the Tracy source cited from the SID source, thus my change) if you'd like to see? (Redacted) I can upload it and post the URL here? Thanks!! 72.143.228.9 (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, if you are uncomfortable emailing a gmail account, feel free to email me (Redacted) and I can provide you with any sources to review. Thanks! 72.143.228.9 (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP. When I made this edit (first followup edit here), which partly concerns the Soap Opera Digest (SOD) source, I was referring to the part of your edit that changed the "I chose to see Kendall as misunderstood"/"psycho-looney" piece to the "I don't always agree with her methods/"I have to justify her actions" piece. So you are correct in your assumption that that's what I meant. Above, you stated "the Tracy source cited from the SID source," but, looking at The Girl's Got Bite Kathleen Tracy source, page 64, I don't see where it cites SODorSoaps In Depth (SID). So how do you figure that page 64 is citing the SID source that you have? Does the book state that somewhere? I remember all of the other stuff from the "Sarah Michelle Gellar: Teen Queen" SOD source that I added to the Kendall Hart article, except for the text that you attributed to it. Maybe your SID source is different because it's not a SOD source? And if you meant "SOD" by "SID," maybe my memory is blending two different SOD sources? Maybe the book got it wrong? Maybe it's more than one of these factors? Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! Yes, it is a Soap Opera Digest article - I just noticed that myself! Anyway, I gleaned that Tracy was quoting the Teen Queen SOD article (the article I'm referring to comes from a May 24, 1994 copy of Soap Opera Digest) based on the other quotes she was taking from that article (ie. summarizing Gellar's interview where she called Kendall "the most terrible daughter on daytime," which is the lead in the Teen Queen article). Gellar did talk about justifying her character's actions but I could not find the "psycho looney" quote anywhere in the context it was used in the Tracy source. The only quote I could find was, "I don't always agree with her methods, but as an actress I have to justify her actions - and I do." Now, that quote may have come from somewhere else but I spent a few days scouring the bibliography at the end of the book with the articles I have, and I have almost all of them - but I am missing some, and I was unable to find it. That's why I changed it - I understand I might have done it incorrectly and I do remember Gellar stating in Pure Soap that she saw Kendall as "misunderstood." However, and this was definitely a mistake of mine, I didn't source the "misunderstood" comment to the Pure Soap episode as I lack the airdates and proper citation information.
The article I'm referencing, I do have a scan of if you'd like to see? I can upload it here or email it to you! Does any of what I'm saying make sense at all? Of course, I may have been wrong but looking at the Tracy book and the SOD article, I see a definite parallel, I was able to source many of Tracy's quotes, just not that one. 72.143.228.9 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did find the "psycho looney" quote but it appears to be used in a completely different context than what Tracy cited it as. It comes from a 1997 TV Guide Article and the original quote appears to be, where Gellar -somewhat inaccurately ;) - recalls her character's various misdeed (because she never shot at people), "It was amazing, playing a psycholoony. I got to attempt suicide. I shot at people. It was great." What do you think? 72.143.228.9 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should err on the side of caution and not tie the Tracy source to different interviews without a WP:Reliable source doing that. Not even if we are certain, meaning with no doubt at all, that the Tracy source is quoting from a specific interview and/or putting the matter in its own words. Tying the sources in that way borders on WP:Synthesis. It's not quite WP:Synthesis with regard to your aforementioned edit to the article, however, since you sourced your text with a different source. I'll take your word for it on what the SOD source states. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Should the original psycho looney quote from Tracy's book be left in the article in this case? In any case, feel free to email if you ever want to see a scan of the source, if you have any questions for my edits, or if you ever need a soap source. I have a few magazines I've collected over the years and some old SMG era episodes available. I often edit under a dynamic IP as I didn't intend to be really involved with Wikipedia but maybe I should get an account since I find myself editing more and more articles here and there. In either case, you have my contact information :) Is it okay if I wipe my email addresses from my previous messages in your talk page? 72.143.228.9 (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I don't feel strongly either way about which text we stick with, but I'd rather stick with the Tracy text. And, yes, it's fine to have your email addresses removed; I thought it was not a good idea when you listed them unless you don't mind giving your email addresses out in a public forum, or unless they're solely made to be disposable and/or are alternate email addresses. I have removed your email addresses above with Template:Redacted. If you want them wiped from the edit history, see WP:Revision deletion and Wikipedia:Oversight. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's IP 72.143.228.9! Okay, that sounds good. Would you object to me spending some time trying to find the remaining articles I don’t have from Tracy’s bibliography to look for where that exact quote came from and if I can’t, maybe I can drop you a note to review a possible edit on that quote since you prefer the Tracy text? I know I said this before, that I was able to find most of where everything else came from via Tracy quoted in the Wikipedia article, (eg. being hired and kept in the role due to her skill and resemblance to Lucci is also supported by a late 1993 Pure Soap phone interview with McTavish by Michael Logan and the actresses' similarities observed by a few other articles for instance), but I just can’t find the exact quote for the “psycho-looney” quote in the way it was used - which nags at me as I’m afraid it may have been repurposed or quoted inaccurately. Of course, I could totally be wrong, which is why I’d like to keep looking for that exact quote.
Thanks for the redaction on my email address and pointing me to where I can get it wiped from edit history. Admittedly, they are my regular contact addresses and I thought about the potential ramifications after the fact. Anyway, thanks so much for your help and working with me on this! 72.143.233.204 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It was my intention that both of those edits would help other editors concerning image and/or formatting issues. It's good that one of the edits has helped.
Hi Flyer22. I understood that besides pointing out that I should not have removed the infobox information, that you were in fact in agreement with me in removing the image. That is what I got out of your summary and the link: 1. from the summary: "we do not have to have a picture illustrate exactly what the topic is about" - perhaps I read too fast, I understood that "we do not have to have a picture if it does not illustrate exactly what the topic is about". 2. from the link: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic".
My issue is that we are perpetuating (being copied by dozens of WP mirrors) the error that this image is about foot fetishism. It is like taking an image of a player with a rugby ball and using it for American football; or a pic of rodeo and using it for a bullfight; a picture of the Rockies and using it for Sierra Nevada. There is a big difference between fetishes and BDSM. That images is being used not for lack of other images, but because it looks as if the one person is busy worshipping the other's foot - it is not the case, she is being humiliated, obeying orders, which could have been to lick the floor, to lick the sole of a dirty shoe etc. No worshipping there, it is about humiliation.
Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not in agreement with you. That is why with this edit to the Foot fetishism article, I once again pointed you to WP:PERTINENCE, stating, "Rui Gabriel Correia, like I explained in the edit history at Sexual fetishism: Per WP:PERTINENCE, a picture does not need to be exactly what the topic is; all it needs to do is look like it is. There are no other WP:Free images for this topic." It is clear to me that by "must be relevant" and "directly related," WP:PERTINENCE also means "looks like what the topic is about." The image, if no one knows what it is actually about, can very well represent foot fetishism; and it did, at both the Sexual fetishism and Foot fetishism articles, until you removed it.
WP:PERTINENCE is clear about the following: "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of an unidentified cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, so long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated."
Despite this, you continue to post derogatory and inflammatory accusations about my account. I am formally requesting you to cease this activity, in line with the Dispute Resolution Process. If you believe your claims, you know what needs to be done to have them investigated. Continuing to post messages about me, failing to follow the "Sockpuppet investigations process", or further accusations about my account will be considered hounding, and will result in your conduct being posted to the Administrator's noticeboard for further action by a Wikipedia administrator.
BrentNewland (talk·contribs), I see that you showed up to post the above at the exact same time that the editor I suspect you are related to showed up to reply to me, as seen here and here. Don't put mess on my talk page again. You don't know what WP:Harassment is, but feel free to threaten me some more; see how far that gets you. Your WP:Disruptive editing won't be tolerated here; I reiterate that in case you did not grasp it before. Yeah, I don't believe you. Try to make me believe you, and see how far you get with that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.
