User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 10

First off, I want to say welcome back and that I missed you! I hope you enjoyed the edits and contributions I made to some pages while you were away. Anyway, just wanted to say Hi and welcome back!! I miss you tons!

Hey, Musicfreak7676 and thank you. Are you one of the editors who talked with my mother about the block? Whatever the case, I was told of a few of your edits, such as your image changes to the

talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, and I do prefer the previous image of

talk) 22:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't talk to your mother, I talked to your brother actually. And it's fine Flyer, I just know the article would have benefited from uniform looking images, etc. I also updated the image of

TALK! 23:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Musicfreak7676, I can't see Reese Williams deserving or needing an article. She's not notable outside of her romance with Bianca. Everything that needs to be stated about her is already in the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article; that's why the Reese Williams article kept getting redirected there. At least with

talk) 07:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the page is more for me, aha. Just to give me something to do is all. And I just didn't want to take some sources from the page and then be told I'm stealing them, that's all. Covering my ground and ass. Aha. Like I said, the page is more so for my own ideals is all. Creating sandboxes for characters I believe in.

TALK! 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL!! Oh, you mean for a

talk) 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Aha, yes for my sandbox page for her. I have like a ton of them going for a lot of soap characters I would love to see pages for or something, aha.

TALK! 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I like it of course. Had you seen this discussion about it? Is that why you decided to make the cut? As for the One Life to Live section, as I stated in that discussion, it's short enough.

talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that's where I possibly may have read it. I just know you wanted it cut down, and I believe you mentioned it on the "History" page if they got out of control, you'd remove them all together. So I cut the GH section down.

TALK! 04:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I recognized you are interested in articles related to sexual identity, self, and body. Would you like to contribute on the artist Eija-Liisa Ahtila? some text is also here and we need someone who watches Ahtila's films and have better ideas on the subject. I also wish someone uploads some of her works for fair use.--Taranet (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to become familiar with this person to heavily edit the article in a way that would be beneficial.

talk) 00:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I have requested undeletion in

I'm not really concerned about that anymore, George. I'm not fond of the first or second image that is currently in the article. But, yes, it can replace the promotional image...and exist there just like it did before.

talk) 06:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

 Replaced the promo image. I must give you this tip: Any photo may be profitable, as the

Getty Image (see WP:files for deletion/2012 April 19#File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg). --George Ho (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry that I removed stuff from the talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladoodle (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. You didn't mean any harm by it. Just be careful to keep in mind what I stated to you about it.

talk) 22:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a dispute about Sondra Locke's year of birth. Some sources say 1944 while others say 1947. Because of this dispute, both years are listed in the opening sentence of her Wikipedia page. None of the sources that say she was born in 1947 are reliable. However, there are many reliable sources that say she was born in 1944:

Sondra Locke's marriage license [1] to Gordon Leigh Anderson on September 25, 1967 (available publicly through the state archives or Ancestry.com) lists her birthdate as 5/28/44. MSN movies [2] and the Internet Movie Database [3] say that she was born in 1944. A 1989 People magazine article [4] gives Locke's age as 45, correlating to a 1944 birth year. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [5] appearing in a university production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. For Locke to have attended a university during the 1962-63 semester, she would have to have been born no later than 1944 unless she graduated high school early, which is unlikely given that she makes no mention of it in her autobiography. Locke does not mention her year of birth in her autobiography. On 28 May 2011, Sondra Locke turned 67 according to ABC News [6], Yahoo! News [7], the Associated Press [8], Leigh Valley News [9], and The Boston Globe [10]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944.

Sondra Locke's Wikipedia page, in my opinion, should only list 1944 as her year of birth. There is no question that she was born in 1944. I am requesting that you make this correction to Sondra Locke's page, because every time another user has made this correction, their edits have been reverted without merit. 131.239.63.5 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[11][12]

talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Your wariness was justified: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99 for details if you are interested.—Kww(talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kww. Thanks for informing me. Maybe you wouldn't mind adding a note about this on the article talk page? Also, was it really necessary to revert to this version of the article just because this editor has heavily edited it? Would you mind if I readded my changes? As shown in the first diff I provided above, there is

talk) 20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The question for you to ask yourself is whether you meet the criteria in

WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors. If you feel that you have an independent reason for making the edit (aside from the contact from the banned user), and are willing to stand behind it yourself as being accurate, feel free to restore the data. If it's an article that you would never have visited or noticed without the contact, you should leave it alone.—Kww(talk) 20:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BAN also applies to indefinitely blocked users? Either way, it's definitely an article I would not have edited unless contacted or unless I stumbled upon it. But now that I am aware of it, it strikes me as wrong to so visibly leave in a birth year that is very likely wrong. That is the independent reason I would have for making 1947 a footnote again.

talk) 20:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a grey area. Don't worry about me taking any administrative action against you one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am gonna wait for Richiez to comment first before I reply. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT THAT YOU DON´T REWRITE MY ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not used to citing physical books. The book is Sex at Dawn, and the citation is on page 263, though they discuss it elsewhere and throughout the book. If you have any further questions, let me know.

Update: I have extended the citation with a relevant quote from the source. I am still not sure if I formatted the citation right, but all the information is now there. Any other questions?

-Kyle112 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Look at that to get an idea for how book citations are done on Wikipedia. And make sure to read what I stated at

talk) 23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I reverted one of your edits as part of a transition edit and didn't record it in the edit summary. I should have noted it to make it clear. Someone had removed several Chinese records which I thought were relevant, and you had added some punctuation to their edit so I just reversed both of them. You'd probably figure out what I was doing if you looked at the edits, but you shouldn't really have to so I thought I'd drop you a note. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Betty, I noticed the removal, but didn't know what to make of it and didn't take the time to analyze it either. No one had reverted the editor, so that added to my thinking that it was not a big deal. So I fixed the punctuation with regard to

talk) 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah I restored it because my thinking on this is that given it outgrossed its original release and China was also its most successful territory are probably notable facts; probably more notable than the US performance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flyer22

I just wanted to let you know that I had to revert one of your edits in

I am very sorry that our first communicate turned out to be about a dispute.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Codename Lisa. It's not that much of a dispute. But I'd like to know how you came to believe that no comma should precede "however." I take it that the "not" in your first above sentence is a typo? Just Googling "Comma should not precede however", or with "precede" as "proceed" (which was of course a typo on my part), shows sources that agree with my edit, such as this one. Your "however" is placed in the middle of a sentence and is used in an "on the other hand" fashion, which, from what I've learned, means that a comma should be placed before and after it. I've certainly seen a comma precede and follow "however" in various scholarly sources or simply just news articles. How does it make sense to have that one comma after it the way you've done?

talk) 08:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, it's been some time since I've familiarized myself with grammar rules...so I can understand how I may be in error on some things when it comes to the subject.

talk) 09:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello again.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Codename Lisa. I don't mind long stories. I asked after all. And no worries. Thank you for looking into it and reconsidering.

talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, Hi. It is not a "long" story! You know most of it: An FA review is in progress; I thought I have no choice but to revert your edit; I discovered I have another choice, i.e. defending it; I took it; and now we live happily ever after. Take care. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry, but this video is reliable. It shows the example of what it says. This video is even MUCH MORE reliable than the critcal source, because critics doesn't study the music. They don't really know what they are talking about. The boy who has created this video study the music. And even if he would not, the video SHOWS what it's talking about. Sorry, if I spell wrong, I'm French. SemiramideSutherland (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read over again what I stated on your talk page. What I stated there is why

talk) 02:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

OK So, I will not re-do my edit, because it still will be reverted. But can you explain what is not reliable in this video ? You can easily see that Whitney had a stunning breath control, a perfect control of dynamics, fabulous ornaments and flawless musicianship. Great musicianship and technique is not a matter of opinion, either you have it or you don't. It's not because you're famius, that your statement is reliable. Celebrity always talk about others celebrity in a positive way, they always do compliments, because they don't want to be considered as "bad", to tarnish their image. Something that make me really laugh, is when Celine Dion said Christina Aguilera was "probably the best vocalist in the world". So she mean that a vocalist is someone that SCREAM, and has ANY musicianship. Her belting register is awfull. Its not "powerful", but LOUD, strained, out-of-tune. You can esily hear that. She doesn't use breath support and projection in the "mask" or the head. She sing with her throat, so when she go high, her throat squeeze and tense. SemiramideSutherland (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about

talk) 20:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sondra Locke". Thank you. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not comment any further on the matter, Canoe.

talk) 20:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem at all. I only got involved with my 1st edit of the article. I had noticed that the only year at the time was not in the info box and added it. I usually avoid BLP articles unless I am contacted by a COI or the BLP themselves. I was hoping other opinions from a new venue could help with consensus. I may just give up on discussing it myself and only add points to other comments of those that wish to continue with it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has been closed. Feel free to delete this section. I only added it because the process required it. Thanks for your patience.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, as you have proven yourself an able critic, would you, please, be so kind to give me feedback - in the broadest sense of the term - on an article I'm preparing for Wikipedia. The article concerns an elaboration on Wilhelm Reich's views on sexuality, which I partially felt I should write to do justice to his work on the orgasm page, without taking up too much space there. That is, in the near future I hope to be able to just make a referral there to this article! The article I'm preparing can be found here and you are free to edit there or write me your feedback. All the best, and no worries if you don't have time! --Gulpen (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gulpen, I've briefly discussed it at

talk) 17:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I also see that the matter was discussed at

talk) 17:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Flyer, thanks for your time. I will respond to Nigelj's remarks on his talk page. Reich is indeed the main source of the theory, but I really put a lot of effort into finding other sources for particularly important and controversial aspects regarding his theory, so I think that this is covered. Also, thank you for your compliment! --Gulpen (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article of Megan Fox is better : my article is considerate good and contains more photos, more information...

(cur | prev) 16:37, 11 June 2012‎ Flyer22 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (53,336 bytes) (-7,853)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk) to last version by Safehaven86) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:58, 11 June 2012‎ Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,187 bytes) (+7,851)‎ . . (undo)

--Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf[reply]

File:Sarah Michelle Geller as Kendall Hart.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Sarah Michelle Gellar by David Shankbone.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wonder if the non-free image of Gellar as Kendall Hart is irreplaceable or significant. To me, I don't see any implicit or explicit characterization of Gellar's Hart whatsoever. The only significant aspects of this image are time span, Gellar's hair, and Gellar's blank face, regardless of caption. Although it identifies Gellar as Hart, this is nothing compared to File:Nicholas Colasanto Coach Ernie Pantusso.jpg or an image of Steve Urkel. I have set up a free image of Gellar as part of Casting section. Although I understand that using a free image of Gellar outside AMC as an infobox picture is totally untrue to Kendall Hart herself, still I wonder if there is a slight difference between non-free image and free image of Gellar.

In the past, I used to believe that using a non-free image of a portrayer to merely illustrate a portrayer as a character is sufficient. However, I realize that a free image of an actor can do a better job as a body image than a non-free image of a character as an infobox image. Any objections? --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George, I'm not sure what you mean about the non-free image not being replaceable or significant or that it showcases Gellar with a blank expression. It passes

talk) 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was about to remove it until I realized that Gellar was 16 in 1993 portraying a 20-ish character, according to an article. Therefore, I guess it justifies passing

WP:NFCC and keeping an infobox image of Gellar who was between 16 and 18 in this image. Since you no longer care about this issue any further, let's not discuss this any further. Instead, we'll just let this slide and leave this non-free image alone. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL, yeah, Gellar was at first 16 portraying a 16-year-old Kendall. Then, for the reasons mentioned in the Wikipedia article, at age 17, she began portraying Kendall as a 23-year-old. Looking at the images, there isn't much of a noticeable age difference. However, when you look at clips of Gellar from back then, she definitely looks much younger than she does in media clips from 2007.

talk) 23:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Myrtle Fargate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Phoebe Tyler Wallingford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Mona Kane Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Ruth Martin (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Tara Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Almost forgot: the Tara Martin article violated copyrights of SoapCentral, and I could not find a cleaner, safer revision. Therefore, it's left as redirected. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what angry tone they could give you for letting them know that you've undone these mergers. And, as you know, the project isn't that active. I am not an expert on those characters. I was not watching the soap opera for the majority of these characters' existence, seeing as I was either unborn or very young. I am more familiar with Myrtle Fargate and Ruth Martin, but more so Myrtle Fargate, seeing as they were on the show when I was watching it as a child and Myrtle remained on the show periodically into my adulthood. My point is that their articles are very unlikely to be expanded with real-world content. If I ever get the heart to significantly fix up these articles, then there is a chance. Otherwise, don't count on any other editor doing these articles justice. That's not to sound egotistical. It's just a fact that there isn't any other American soap opera editor, with the exception of TAnthony and Rocksey, as well as Nk3play2 and Sparrowhawk8 since last year, who are willing to put hard work into creating a Todd Manning or Dimitri Marick type of article. Neither TAnthony nor Rocksey are that active on Wikipedia anymore, and I'm unsure if Nk3play2 and Sparrowhawk8 watched All My Children (at least enough to be interested in fixing up the above listed articles).

Oh, and of course the Tara Martin article would need to be un-merged if good or great sources are found for it.

talk) 19:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"[P]romoted her from the dining room to the bedroom." That made me laugh out loud, Wlmg! Thank you for that. So you're horrified that there likely aren't any other registered editors besides yourself who are interested in expanding these articles? You have the plot down, so you could help with that. I could help with real-world material, of course, and you could too, after finding it. Most of such material is going to come from soap opera magazines. For the notability, we have to look on

talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Just regarding the following, from your recent comments here, i.e.

"... you are constantly accusing me of having some anal sex obsession, just like you did back in 2011....you are always telling others who know better than you do about how a Wikipedia article should be formatted... I have pointed out your errors time and time again."

This is very personal, and very extreme, universalizing language, Flyer22. You and I have really had very little to do with each other and it was what, 6 months ago? A year? I remember that we disagreed in 2011 and it wasn't pleasant and that you seemed to object to any change I might suggest to the page, but I am sure that I never accused you of having an anal sex obsession. I certainly never intended to.

I was going to say that it doesn't sound healthy until I noticed your discussion about possibly taking a break on your User page. It does seem to me that you must spend quite a lot of time here on Wikipedia, and sorry but I think that even "sporadic" editing has got to be healthier than (what appears to be) almost constant editing. I know that I wouldn't be able to keep up with my gardening or looking after my cat (and even my own health) if I spent as much time here as you seem to. Based on many years of experience in volunteer community work (in the real world, organic food co-ops in particular) it comes across as a classic case of burn-out.

It really does sound to me (not that I assume you care about my opinion) like -and I don't mean this in a mean way- you need a break.--

Read what you stated at Talk:Anal sex/Archive 5#advice. You repeatedly suggested that I was promoting anal sex. That definitely sounds like accusing me of having an anal sex obsession. Also refer to what I told you about that back then: "You keep citing promotion. I am not sure how many times I have to state that I am not some anal sex advocate. I don't care who has or does not have anal sex. I just like informing people on important matters regarding sexual activity. Sex experts are paid to give unbiased information on sexual activity, and there is nothing biased about something as simple as people reacting differently to anal sex. Good articles on sexuality are likely going to have thoughts from sex experts within them."

As for our interaction back then, we compromised a little. Just like recently. And you must not remember that we interacted in 2010 as well, at

Sex positions article as well. You are often either misinterpreting policies and guidelines or enforcing your own beliefs about how Wikipedia should be formatted. So sporadic editing has not been good for your Wikipedia editing because you are still unfamiliar with much of how things work here. If interested in refreshing your mind on how else we interacted, there is Talk:Fetal rights/Archive 1#Unbalanced, POV wording in first sentence and Template talk:Rights#"Rights claimants... fetuses" contentious

.

As for me personally... Yes, I am burnt out from this site, but I don't spend nearly as much time here as I used to, especially since I have to worry about a sibling using our IP or his proxies to edit Wikipedia and complicating things. Unless focusing on an article for a few days or in an extensive debate focusing on an article, I now usually edit for a few or several hours before calling it a day and take two to four days off from Wikipedia. This or my previous very active editing has not stifled my ability to edit positively and in a collegial way. Most editors will attest that I have been collegial. Collegiality is very important here, and I strive to maintain that when interacting with other editors. But I will be blunt with my criticism at times, such as when I called your editing nitpicking. And it's not an extensive break that I'm looking to take from this site. I'm looking to retire, as mentioned in the

talk) 01:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that my statement that I hated you was inapropriate and apologize for it. However, I do not apologize for saying I was taking my edits down because you said all of them were bad, because I was only exaggerating, you've only said negative things about my edits even when you agreed with them, for example when I was arguing with Malke2010 in favor of putting age of consent in Chris Hansen's article you called the edit I put there "sloppy" and "unsourced" even though it didn't need a source because saying the men were prosecuted for having sex with minors was a sky is blue type statement. I'm not even entirely disagreeing with you, a lot of my edits were to biased and a few were inadequately sourced, though I don't think as many of them were unsourced as you said, and I've apologized for it. Also, you wrote with your account on mine constantly that you did not approve of my edits, so the other users already know that you don't approve of my edits whether I write that in my edit or not, its not like I'm sharing something confidential that people don't already know. However recently, my coverage has been more objective, and I have not personally attacked editors recently. So you have no grounds to say I made a claim against you. And I'm not going to delete what you wrote on my wikipedia account just to deprive you of a leg to stand on in criticizing me. Anyway, people are going to wonder why I'm deleting the vast majority of edits I ever even made here, so its legitimate to point out its partially because you said the vast majority of them, at least in regards to your topics, were wrong, otherwise some people might want to restore them. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a diff (link) where I stated that all of your edits are bad? I did not. The fact that you keep stating it does not make it true. Have I called some of your edits bad and sloppy? Yes. And, as you know, I'm not the only one who has done so. And the only times I've stated negative things about your edits when agreeing with them has been when I saw that I needed to compromise with you. Compromising doesn't mean that I'm going to like the edit. It sometimes just means that it's better than the alternative -- the version I can't even tolerate. And as for the

talk) 01:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I already said that you did not say that. I correct myself. I said that you said most of my edits were bad. At least in the topic areas you edited. And when did I say that only you three objected to my edits? And I think in off2riorob's case I respected the criticism, I said I agreed with it. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are always mentioning us, especially me, in your edit summaries or when asking others for help (even though you sometimes state "an editor"). You act as though we, especially that I, have it out to get you or ban you. I can't even ban you! First of all, banning is different than blocking, and banning is always a community decision. See

talk) 01:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I never mentioned off2riorob in an edit summary, and I respected his criticism like I said, although I didn't respect yours and Malke's. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have mentioned Off2riorob/Youreallycan in an edit summary. See this. And I do believe that isn't the first time.

talk) 01:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Fine, I forgot about that, but I'm more agreeing with his criticism there. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have also stated that you agree with some of my criticism of your edits. For example, above you stated, "I'm not even entirely disagreeing with you, a lot of my edits were to biased and a few were inadequately sourced, though I don't think as many of them were unsourced as you said, and I've apologized for it." So now you are going back on that, and it was only Off2riorob/Youreallycan who was right? Also, why don't you call him by his new name -- Youreallycan?

talk) 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I think he was more objective in terms of his coverage of the underage/pedo area than you were so I respect his criticism more. And also he called himself off2riorob when he made the criticism. I think he was entirely correct though. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you act as though I am some pedophile-pusher. I have protected the Pedophilia article from pedophiles for years, getting dozens upon dozens of them blocked and banned. Do you know what it's like to have to fight off pedophiles, and to actually debate with their skewed logic? I had to deal with that crap for a "good" three years here at Wikipedia, beginning in 2007, and more sparingly since then. I just don't like inaccuracy. And you have made inaccurate edits to the Pedophilia article, based on your personal POV. You've made it no secret that you believe that 18-year-olds, and not 16-year-olds, should be diagnosed as pedophiles, and you also clearly want a sexual attraction to/preference for pubescents to be diagnosed as a mental disorder and/or as pedophilia, despite the Hebephilia article being clear about the debate on that. The Pedophilia article is no place for you to push your POV, or what you believe to be the POV of most people. The same goes for the age of consent articles or any article related to it.

And Off2riorob is not called Off2riorob anymore on Wikipedia, except for when people mention an edit he made under that name or compare his edits under both accounts.

talk) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I never suggested you were a pedophile or a supporter of pedophilia. I meant your coverage in the age of consent articles was very opinionated and biased and not neutral. And its a fact that some people are trying to raise the age of consent to 18 and the age to diagnose pedophiles to 18, that has nothing to do with my personal opinion. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not acting like your the anti-Christ now. I already apologized for saying I hated you and I'm trying to be rational about this. What I wouldn't apologize for was mentioning you in the edit summary as a reason I took down the edit because you constantly criticize my edits. Now off2riorob in his case it was probably inapropriate because he only made one criticism, but I didn't mean it as an insult to him but I apologize now for using his account name. But you I do not because it seems like every time I edit in your topic area you criticize my edits. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally where did I express an opinion in the pedophilia article about what it should be. I only said that the doctors were planning to change the definition of it, I never said whether I agreed with it. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that I have been biased and non-neutral regarding these topics, except for when I have to fend off the occasional pedophile. That has been you, RJR3333. You have a clear POV that creeps its way into these articles. I defer to the reliable sources on these things, Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, it's only a proposal that "18" should be the starting point for when a person can be diagnosed as a pedophile. But you act as though it's a done deal. You act as though it's a done deal that hebephilia will be combined with the pedophilia definition in the

talk) 02:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I never said that pedophiles having to be 18 instead of 16 was a "done deal". I never even said I agreed with it. I just said the change had been suggested and should be added to the lead. I didn't suggest the definition being changed from 16 to 18 years of age in the first sentence. I also never said I agreed with the redefinition of pedophilia as an attraction to anyone younger than fifteen. I just wanted to include mention of it in the lead. I never said the changes were "a done deal". --RJR3333 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking of what you have made clear is your POV (no matter how unintentional) and your POV-editing, such as stating "16-year-olds aren't adults" (although that doesn't apply everywhere), "most people consider pedophiles to be 18 and up" (both examples are not the exact wording, but it is what you stated), and your need to always stress that the age of consent isn't 16 years of age everywhere, even when the Age of consent article is linked for people to see that. If an article mentions that 16 is the age of consent in most U.S. states, which it is, you have a need to stress that 18 is "the federal age of consent" or something about close-in-age examples. And by "acting like it's a done deal," I mean you stating that the definition of pedophilia is going to be changed to include hebephilia and to raise the diagnosis age to 18 years as the starting point. We do not know if that is going to happen. You don't ever seem to grasp that it is a proposal. It being a proposal is why Legitimus removed it from the lead. Trying to convince me that you don't have a certain POV that we both know you have, when I've witnessed it countless times, and you've even admitted to it, is futile.

I'm not interested in debating with you any longer about any of this. State whatever else it is you feel you need to state right now and leave my talk page for now. And by "for now," I mean "drop this discussion."

talk) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I'm confused, when did I admit to having this pov?--RJR3333 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to indulge you once on this. Did you or did you not admit that your edits have been biased? What type of bias do you think it's been, if not for what I mentioned?

And another thing: Will you try to absorb the fact that all of these philias -- pedophilia, hebephilia and

talk) 06:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think what off2riorob meant when he referred to my bias was that I put in my opinion about what the law stated without giving a good argument or source and that I kept putting in my opinion on that in other articles. That has nothing to do with what you're talking about. --RJR3333 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Youreallycan meant, what you think he meant is a general description of what I stated of your bias above. Your POV on what definitions and laws should state on these matters. Exactly. You don't agree, or rather deny, that you have the POV I mentioned above. Fine. But I see it and so have others. We're done here.

talk) 07:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Flyer, I've replied to your concern. -- Luke (Talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would consider asking, at AN or ANI, for a ban on you and RDwhatevernumber, under any circumstances, opening any new thread on any talkpage or noticeboard, about each other.

My wording is because I assume that you are both already editing some common articles. You would both still be free to continue editing articles or article talkpages as appropriate.

You may feel this is harshly worded regarding yourself; alternatively, you may feel it is a welcome relief.

I propose this because RDwhatevernumber has opened enough discussions, at great length, in enough places, that I am starting to get fed up with it.

Apologies if this is already proposed somewhere. --

Nothing harsh about your post, Demiurge1000. Thank you for the concern. And as I've stated elsewhere off Wikipedia, see here for what was stated at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to see what the deal is. I included diffs there. The To Catch a Predator talk page is full of diffs with User:RJR3333 acting inappropriately. And, and as you know, his current contributions show him going from talk page to talk page to discuss me with other editors, usually with a twist on what I or others stated. He has been advised by others to stop posting about me on talk pages, but he continues to do so, spamming any and every talk he can about our disputes. This is sometimes partly in an attempt to get me to comment because I banned him from my talk page.

A little back story: RJR3333 first showed up to Wikipedia, I think, last year. He was a fairly new editor and, as such, made mistakes that new editors are prone to making. Eventually, I started correcting his mistakes, only dealing with the articles we both edit, and advising him on the appropriate ways to edit. After some time of having to continuously aid his editing, he became hostile, asserting that I was out to get him. At one point, this led to him stating how much he hates me on the "To Catch a Predator" article talk page before leaving Wikipedia for a few months. Since he's been back, he has reentered the same topic space that led to our unpleasant interactions last time -- that topic space has mostly concerned the To Catch a Predator article and Pedophilia article. I've mainly stopped editing the age of consent articles, which he also edits, but he has also edited inappropriately in those places.

Basically, RJR3333's editing and conduct on Wikipedia is generally problematic, even though he is well-meaning. He is often combative, deciding to repeatedly revert instead of taking matters to the talk page, and often adds POV-laced edits or

WP:TALK

. Very recently, he continuously violated WP:TALK by posting to my talk page. And again by repeatedly removing a comment of his (the one where he stated that he hates me) from the To Catch a Predator talk page. This is a violation because I've already replied to it and his removing it takes it out of context. When I legitimately archived the talk page as a way of removing the comment, so that he doesn't have to worry about the text being out in the open anymore, and so the original text is left intact, he unarchived and removed the comment again, stating that it was inappropriate that I archived the old and settled discussions.

Like I stated, the editor is repeatedly focusing on me, commenting about me across various talk pages and often twisting my words (and I believe that part of that "twisting" is due to him not being able to properly digest what I've stated). I don't know whether to report him, pursue a topic ban for him while reporting him, or ask for some type of interaction ban. It will prove difficult not to interact with him since we edit a few of the same articles and I am often having to correct him/asking him to defer to any one particular guideline or policy (which he ignores until I inform him that I will be reporting his misconduct).

The problem with reporting him is that it will result in an extensive debate with him, with him twisting my or others' words. And I've been through that so much these last few days that it's horror to think about it happening again. At least simply reporting him for inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages would keep an extensive debate from happening. But not likely. He's even started another discussion concerning me at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not interested in interacting with him, but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. The editor needs a mentor more than anything, but there has been no one to properly mentor him.

talk) 01:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page.
Message added 11:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kudpung, I left it at what you stated because I have nothing more to state on that. And like I mentioned, all is clear from what others have stated about RJR3333's behavior regarding me and in general.

Update for archive: Resolved here. Archived on this date.

talk) 22:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: Explanation for why I'm not interested in reporting him all the time.

talk) 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nevermind! I moved it back!

TALK! 21:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That said, I think that work on the Wikipedia's sexuality pages is uniquely valuable: this is for many (maybe most) people, the only source of reasonably unbiased factual information on the subject available. I'm sure your contributions have done a lot of good, helping people take control over their lives and stay healthy. Please keep up the good work and try not to let all the impassioned debate get to you. --Simon Speed (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Simon. I very much appreciate your taking the time to let me know your thoughts. I had seen that you aren't as active an editor as you once were. And although you were probably very active on Wikipedia during your early years here, I've never known you to be on here as often as myself and some others, so I'm used to you not always being easily available. Just know that I feel that you have done good work around here and that your absence is at times felt by me...and no doubt by others any time you aren't there to correct an article. As long as you're still here, we'll see each other around. Take care.

talk) 08:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, got as far as finishing the initial review and putting the review on hold until the initial issues are dealt with. It's mainly copy-editing, but I can see that it will need to be subtle and careful copyediting. I'll be willing to help out, though you could ask for assistance from an experienced copy-editor - you could find one here:

Okay. Thanks.

talk) 14:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I was already aware of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but it can take a long time for one of them to get around to copyediting an article. Per your suggestion, I'll go ahead and contact Malleus Fatuorum. And considering the carefulness needed when copyediting this article, and that I'd need to therefore examine the edits, I prefer that it only has one copyeditor. You or I, or

talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm quite sure that by now you regret that decision, but I'm not really a copyeditor in any real sense of that word, I'm an article improver. Unlike the GOCE I don't just look at the spelling and grammar, which is what I think they and you believe copyediting to mean.

Fatuorum 00:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You've helped out in ways that were needed or can be argued as better. Yes, I was looking for someone who would simply take care of grammar, other wording issues and minor formatting. But unless someone counts changing the formatting of references in some parts "drastic," it's not as though you've been suggesting or making drastic changes to the article, which falls under a GA reviewer's job. I know that you are a GA reviewer as well, but you've been acting more like a copyeditor and I'm thankful for that. One GA reviewer is enough, LOL. I meant it when I stated I very much appreciate your copyediting skills, Malleus.

talk) 00:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Had you just asked me to copyedit the article I'd probably have refused, but I'm rather defensive about GA, and I expect the best.

Fatuorum 00:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL, since I did ask you to copyedit it, you must mean "had I asked you to copyedit it the way WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors generally do, you would have refused." Let's keep in mind, though, that each of those copyeditors have their own way of doing things. Some are perhaps like you.

talk) 00:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, they're not, and I'm getting rather tired of this. What I obviously meant was that if your article hadn't been at GAN and you'd asked me to copyedit then I'd have refused. Now go find yourself a proper copyeditor and try and humiliate them, 'cos I quit.

Fatuorum 01:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Huh? Malleus, I thought you were saying if I'd asked you to "only copyedit" -- meaning copyedit generally like WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors do. That's what you seemed to be saying. And I was only saying that maybe there are editors there who assess articles the way you do when they copyedit. If there aren't, my apologies. I wasn't trying to disrespect or humiliate you and don't understand how you got that impression. Or what you meant when you stated you're "getting rather tired of this." I've been cordial to you, have been okay with most of your edits, we have gotten along okay enough, and I have complimented you. So I don't understand what offense I've committed against you.

talk) 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Read all of the comments on the article's talk page to see why I'm no longer interested in helping.

Fatuorum 01:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I still don't understand, although there is a squabble with

talk) 02:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

(responded on my talk page) I had told myself that I'd spend tonight working on a draft of one of my writing projects, but as usual I got drawn into reading another article :) Also, if there are template/reference issues, the best person to ask is Br'er Rabbit. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of thing I meant about patronising.

Fatuorum 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Me or Mark Arsten? If you mean me, I wasn't trying to be patronizing. I really do wish you well.

talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

@Malleus I apologize if I've said anything patronizing, as well. @Flyer Make sure to double check my copyedits so I don't change the meaning. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hint before someone picks this up for GA: you should order the refs so they go, for example, [1][2][3] and not [3][1][2]. Although it's not a requirement, it looks more professional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm of the same mindset, which is the main reason I made this edit earlier. It annoys me when bots come along and change a "[1][2][3]" example to a "[3][1][2]" example. I prefer that numbers are in order. Did you think I did the latter?

talk) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I just got through doing the former in this edit as well. The only downside is when two or more of the sources are backing a line that includes a quote...but the quote is not in the first source.

talk) 01:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Huh, the bots did that? That's... terrible, and probably a bug. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bots didn't do that for this article...yet. It was caused by the change of reference formats. But I have seen bots do it before.

talk) 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I had no idea people discussed other people here, much less the tone and obvious agenda present in the discussion you linked to on my talk page. It's quite amazing. I also had no idea my sig was no longer a link to my user page. FX (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, we discuss people here, especially if concerned about an editor's editing, as we are with yours. It's no agenda on my part. You caught my attention with your troubling edit and then I asked

talk) 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You got that right. I can't even figure out how to respond to your message on my page, so it notifies you of it. Or the other way around. FX (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It won't "notify" me of it unless I'm watching your talk page. The same goes for you being "notified" of any response I make. See

talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If anyone replies on my talk page I get a message saying I have a new message. Everywhere else, nothing. Are you saying every page I am watching will notify me of a new message? FX (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get the "new message" notification. You will be able to see that someone has recently replied by looking at your watchlist.

talk) 01:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I see the "considering retirement" banner, which is always worrisome. Maybe a change of pace is due. I founded WP:WER on July 1, and I've been overwhelmed by the response. People really want to help others and there hasn't been a centralized place to address all the reasons people leave Wikipedia. This project is different because there are many, many subprojects, and everyone works on the issues that interest them most, so some work with new users, some do coding for new templates, some work on getting retired editors back, and others seem out and try to offer a helping hand to people considering retirement. Like you. Often what is needed is experienced editors like yourself to assist in the structure and help explain policies to the participants, or help them cut through the red tape, or simply show them where to go to get their idea put in front of everyone. The underlying and unfailing theme of the project is that we will not point fingers, and instead we want to take a positive, proactive approach to keeping good editors here. Some of that means removing very bad editors who edit war, for instance, so that quality editors can do what they love. Most of it is extending a hand to people who need a little guidance, like your friend who needs mentoring, and encouraging others to take on the role of mentor. It is been a positive experience for the members who have signed up on the front page, and it is a community within a community, where everyone is welcome. I would encourage you to look around the place and see if there is something that interests you, and perhaps restores a little faith and gives you another outlet to make a positive difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dennis. I'll consider joining WP:WER. As for retiring, it crosses my mind almost every day I edit here because of any of the reasons I've gone over in the

talk) 15:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The basic ideas in my mind when I founded the project was that 1) We all make mistakes because we all human. 2) We all are good at some things and not good at others. 3) We need each other to fill the voids. 4) Only a positive, optimistic approach will work to bring us all together. That said, the rough times don't define us, but they do build character and offer a bit of concentrated experience, give us something to compare the good times to, and the experience to teach others about the pitfalls to avoid. How we move forward after a rough patch does define us. Healing starts with admitting our flaws, accepting help, and offering help, preferably at the same time. It's how you make a chain. What ever you decide, I hope you find joy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words. You're an administrator for a reason. I do find that it's better having help on this site. Most of us do, I think. Not having it, such as during

talk) 01:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate your faith. A big part of Editor Retention is about making staying here enjoyable. For instance, one of the things I try to do regularly is find someone who deserves recognition, and give a barnstar. Not the flashy types, but the gnomes, the quiet ones that just help out day in and day out without notice. And I like to type out a detailed explanation of what I appreciate about their work. Same when I have to "template" someone. Most of my messages aren't templates at all, they are hand written, well explained, kind but direct messages informing them of information they need to know. These are small things, but powerful when we all do them just a little. And it feels good. There are a great many ways to make a positive difference here. Of course, no one needs to join any Project to do these things, but it is nice to talk with people who agree that they are important. And I'm glad to hear you are leaning toward staying. Oh, and what I'm doing here, simply talking, that is a part of what we do as well. Just offering an understanding ear. People underestimate the power of simply slowing down enough to just listen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is it fun trying to help with an article when confronted with an entrenched phalanx of editors who think they know better when they clearly don't.

Fatuorum 04:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Malleus, if besides any other article, you are also speaking of the Clitoris article, you weren't "confronted with an entrenched phalanx of editors who think they know better when they clearly don't." You were approached by one editor asking you a question about referencing style --

talk) 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

A cup of tea for you!

We all a bit of tea every now and again, to stop, relax, reflect and prepare ourselves to finish the tasks at hand. I prefer mine Earl Grey, no sugar, no cream. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you, Dennis.

talk) 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is a kitten to take your mind off Talk:Asexuality. Enjoy.

Ritchie333 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie.

talk) 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This user helped promote Clitoris to good article status.

Awesome work. Well done. You should consider what you need now to take it to FA: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. You'd need to pay attention to the formatting of the citations. That's one significant difference between GA and FA. FA reviewers are very particular about the formatting of citations. Good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For awesome work on developing the Clitoris article over five years into one of the most profound articles on Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Barnstar - you deserve it! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent and persistent work in getting Clitoris to GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys. I know exactly what you mean about FA, SilkTork. And, MathewTownsend, if there's anything you feel that can use a bit of copyediting in the article, don't ever hesitate. Again, thank you both. And a thanks to all who helped.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't edited the article...yet. But, like I stated, he's definitely pro-foreskin, works his way to every article mentioning the foreskin or looks like it can, and editors have expressed concern that there is often a pro-foreskin bias in his edits. I don't want the pro/anti-foreskin drama brought to the article in question. I'm not much of an expert on the foreskin matter (yet anyway, LOL) -- about the number of penile nerve endings before or after circumcision and the heightened pleasure or decreased pleasure associated with it all -- especially given the contradictory research on it. I just wanted some opinions regarding the editorial decision to include or not include the information I mentioned. But like I stated, I've reached a decision. Thank you for your time, Matthew.

talk) 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My layman's knowledge is that males forgo some organic ecstasy by removal of the foreskin, but for females removal reduces health risks. For that reason, to remove or not-to-remove has become a political issue in some circles, and also a religious issues as it is a Jewish religious requirement. It seems to me the controversy is irrelevant to your article and shouldn't intrude. It's not it's subject and number of nerve endings isn't a competition. (Might tend to give too much weight to male concerns, and I don't see how "research" could settle the question of "decreased pleasure" - how would "decreased" be measured? Seems like removing "nerve endings" would reduce pleasure - makes sense - but that isn't the only consideration - i.e. religious/political/health concerns may out weigh the male's desire for maximal pleasure.) But the fact that until recently the foreskin was removed in infants with out anesthetic, the assumption being that infants can't feel pain, shows the poor state of our knowledge. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is still much to discover. And it's actually different for females, Matthew. As the World Health Organization (WHO) states of female genital mutilation (FGM) (notice that "female genital mutilation" is the more prevalent term for the procedures), it is "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." And only in rare cases is the clitoral hood (the female version of the foreskin) the only part removed. So in contrast to male circumcision, FGM usually has no medical benefit. And I only state "usually" because, as the Clitoridectomy article states, "Clitoridectomy is rarely needed as a therapeutic medical procedure, such as when cancer has developed in or spread to the clitoris." Reduced sexual pleasure is more significant with FGM, while men of course get to keep the glans penis and rest of the penis...and male circumcision has been argued as reducing or increasing sexual pleasure for men. FGM is usually performed for cultural, religious and/or aesthetic reasons.

I agree that the male circumcision controversy should be irrelevant to the Clitoris article. But like I stated here, there has been much debate/controversy about male circumcision "all over the penile-related articles, such as

talk) 01:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Circumcision notice - I think this explains what the situation is - not settled as a medical benefit or not. Shows how sources can be misused!

Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yes, but it being a medical benefit or not of course isn't the only reason that it's a controversial topic. Thanks for the link. I do check in on that project from time to time.

talk) 01:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem at all bringing this issue to me, Ritchie. I don't really have anything to state about it that hasn't already been stated about it at the ANI.

talk) 05:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]