User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 20

Sorry for the template, Twinkle templated automatically. CSD'd it because the same already exists with the

MOS:NEO shortcode, and the convention is all caps I believe. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 08:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of how cheap redirects were! Will remove the CSD. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 08:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Welp, @RHaworth: deleted it just as I hit save to remove the CSD. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 08:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And restored it: "(Deletion log); 08:19 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) restored page MOS:Neo ‎(2 revisions restored: redirects are cheap)."

talk) 08:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Trevor St. John never portrayed the character. I'll get that info removed.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it looks like a case of owning and not fully realising what you're doing. I'm going to go re-link those characters you unlinked (as per standard wikipedia linking) and also change the cast members page name back to the right one. As for St. John, that'll be a discussion. I already know what the consensus will be. Everyone agreed about Drake Hogestyn being taken out of Roman Brady's infobox. Talk soon.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another example would be like when Kelli Giddish was hired to play Dixie Cooney on AMC but, then turned out to be a new character named Di Henry. Or when If you like, you can start consensus talk. I'm okay with that. I'll wait a bit and see what you decide.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: I altered the heading of this section with ", Part 2," so that editors are not taken to an identical section heading above when editing this section.

talk) 23:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure. It's your talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck.

talk) 04:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I managed to dig up my previous account on Wikipedia. Here you go Userpage and contributions --Iady391 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think you're a fool, but I do think that this conversation is getting unproductive. I'll just leave it now. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am here by to make my guilt..... my edits won't dissapoint u in near future.... sorry for those Edits..... Jannat khalsa (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have no clue if i'm doing this properly (sorry) but derek is actually referred to as mcass quite a bit, especially in the fandom. i wasn't trying to be offensive in any way, i just thought it could be added. Katerpleena (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for what I wrote on the RfA talk page. I mentioned the whole outing thing because I wanted to stop the incorrect accusations of lying that were flying about, but I felt uncomfortable about the possibility that I could have been revealing personal information that Liz would not have wanted revealed. As a result I overreacted when you asked how they found out her identity. Sorry about that. Brustopher (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It's an RfA, Flyer22, it's a stressful situation all around. Pass or no, I'm looking forward to Tuesday morning. I hope you're having a good weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

talk) 04:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Tell plz Pritmaan128 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a mathematician? (or a physicist etc.). I have several questions about some articles on mathematics in English wiki, but I don't know whom can I ask my questions. --

Tamtam90 (talk · contribs), I reverted you here because your edit was inappropriate. As for math, as noted on my user page

, I generally stay away from editing Wikipedia math topics.

On a side note: I added ": Math" on to your heading so that it is clearer as to what this section is about, and will be easier to locate once archived.

talk) 18:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

As for where you can go to ask about math on Wikipedia, you can query the matter at the talk page of

talk) 18:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you! --

Tamtam90 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If you feel your talk page is not the place to bring this up, please let me know, or move discussion somewhere else. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. It's just that I'm currently not in a proactive mood to deal with this case. Yes, I know this is a change from how I previously was regarding this editor. But, on Wikipedia, when I see others not caring, I can sometimes cease to care. He's been disruptive for months, and the problem has yet to be dealt with as successfully as it could have been. You can go ahead and write up a report at

talk) 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Flyer22

, thank you for returning to me, also hoping that you are not putting me in the category of those who do not care :( as caring is what this has been all along with me. It is just that I wanted to amass enough (additional) evidence, which I believe I have succeeded in doing.

Thank you for pointing out to me the marche à suivre and I will contact others when they are back from their summer holiday.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let me know if you change your mind:)

No, I know that you care.

talk) 07:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Merci! :)

Have a good day! --Blue Indigo (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at WP:ANI.

talk) 01:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Flyer22

, I want to thank you for this, you handled it much better than I would know how to.

Best to you, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, thank you again. --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Thanks for helping me put the pieces together. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And thanks for trusting me on that.

talk) 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

There's nothing else on that IP or the IPs of the other Cali socks I matched it to. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks.

talk) 08:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 13:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, policy does not allow me to release the information either publicly or in private. For that matter, I no longer actually have access to the edit since it has been oversighted. All I can tell you is that it was a highly offensive personal attack against another editor. -- KTC (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the statement were made against a different editor. -- KTC (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising. I appreciate you letting me know.

talk) 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, you do not know me but I am Darkknight2149. On this site, I mainly edit articles pertaining to fiction (esp. the subject of comic books). I recently noticed a sock puppet of Cali11298 edit the article, Prometheus (comics), which you reverted. After doing my homework on this user, I reverted two of his edits here and here. If you know of any comic book related articles that this user has been known to edit (I already know about Merlyn (DC Comics)), I can keep an eye out for possible sock puppets. If I see any suspicious activity, I'll let you know, as you are much more experienced with this user than I am. Darkknight2149 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

talk) 05:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

On a side note: What makes you think he edited the Merlyn (DC Comics) article?

talk) 06:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't mean to contribute to the perception that you're the "catch Cali11298 editor." I'm just concerned that if he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia and has made disruptive edits in the past, he may make them again in the future. My goal is always the betterment of whatever article I edit, so you can understand why this is a concern.

As for the Merlyn article, I double checked the revision history and a Cali sock puppet didn't edit it after all. I thought I remembered seeing one of the sock puppets edit it when I was researching him but I guess I must have it confused with another article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I challenge a recent edit of yours, in: Wikipedia talk:Civility#Incorrect revert. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Spaghetti's edits from Chris Christie but removed other people's, too. Do not use inaccurate edit summaries. This can confuse you for a vandal, who sometimes uses inaccurate edit summaries intentionally to hide vandalism. Thank you. No names left!! abcd (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 21:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No names left!! abcd is a confirmed sock. Was obvious to me at first glance, but I don't always have the leeway to accuse a person on the spot.

Good job, but not good faith edit in first place. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was copyvio, it's found on a number of websites but this is its origin. Doug Weller (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about that,

talk) 14:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humoral_immunity&diff=prev&oldid=624707821

in which

Humoral immunity, also called the antibody-mediated immune system ...

became

Humoral immunity, also called the antibody-mediated beta cullularis immune system ...

On a quick search, I can only find echo-chamber articles containing "beta cullularis" or "beta cellularis". It appears to be completely made up.

A while back you reverted the following edit as "good faith".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transamination&diff=prev&oldid=608577987

which you attribute to 59.96.232.143 but which my subject (69.50.69.34) also appears to have made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transamination&diff=prev&oldid=550195949

First things: both versions of this statement are probably wrong as (apparently) authoritative sources tend to include proline on this list.

Second thing: I lack enough knowledge of this subject to pursue this investigation further, as to whether this user's edits in general are fully constructive.

Here's another one that is perhaps a step in the wrong direction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circulatory_system_of_the_horse&diff=prev&oldid=443612550

I've now taken this as far as my time permits, so I would be pleased if you could pick up the thread. — MaxEnt 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Med

if you like. Biological terms are things I'm very familiar with, but not that "term."

I think it should be pursued, if you are willing to do so. It's scary how eclectic neologisms inserted into Wikipedia instantly permeate a Google results page, seemingly from many different places, but not at all. Beyond my scope. My formal biology ended with a high school AP. — MaxEnt 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wandered off from that last edit, something in brain began to wonder if Flyer22 pertained to the Mike Knuble Selke award. After skimming your user page, my stray hypothesis seems less likely. I had Non-24-hour sleep–wake disorder for thirty years (25.5 hour circadian day) until a year ago I discovered that sustained-release melatonin packs an extra punch over any formulation I'd previously tried. I was teetering on the cusp of victory, then I added 20 minutes of the Philips goLITE BLU pointed at our translucent shower curtain during my morning shower, and that seems to have finally nailed it. Oh yes, I also dabble at creative writing (definitely not a novel) and I have a page in my personal wiki titled "writing sex" where I collect the attitudes of various writers to the problem of writing a sex scene that advances the narrative. There's an entire group of writers who advise saying as little as possible so as to leave the reader alone with their prurient thoughts—how could the author possibly improve on that? This is not a model of story telling that I endorse. David Schnarch in Passionate Marriage (simultaneously a mind-bogglingly weird / illuminating book) says that people fear sexual intimacy because it's fundamentally too revealing. But then you see so many novelists (novelists who strive to reveal) discretely turn out the lights before the reader becomes scared stiff about their own hang ups. It's totally weird if you ask me. With all your other skills, you really find grammar difficult? The only place grammar is difficult is when we try to gussy up constructs of Saxon or Celtic origin as make-believe Latin, and the debate degenerates into foolish consistency. Elsewhere on your user page you seem well fortified against foolish consistency, so I don't quite get this self evaluation. Anyway, if you'd like to continue with any of these threads IRL, drop me a note. We have more than a few things in common. — MaxEnt 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "facial artery" edit at the

talk) 14:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

On a quick inspection, it resembled an unsophisticated editor having a bias toward unsophisticated-but-possibly-incorrect language. As a attempt at a quick triangulation on this editor's modus operandi it left me wanting. Thanks for the double check. — MaxEnt 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxEnt, sorry for the late reply; I finally queried the WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology about this matter.

As for grammar, I don't necesarily find it difficult; on my user page, I simply mean that it's one of my weaker points. I'm not especially good at it, or even plain good at it. I'm mediocre at it; sometimes poor at it.

talk) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

who you mean at[15] - if you want to email me about it, feel free. Doug Weller (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, very tired for some reason. Either my sleep apnoea or a very painful arm at night. I've figured it out. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend disengaging. Clearly this user has a grudge against you, and nothing you say will change that. Other users may be able to walk him off the ledge (doubtful), but I fear that you're just fuel for his fire at the moment. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Flyer22, I wrote a message to you here (on Robert Sirico and his "work" but it appears to have... dissapeared... Am I making an eror saving? Did you get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.244.15 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your vandalism; see

talk) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, in a previous message that I wrote 10 minutes ago, here in this talk page, (a message that was probably not saved correctly by me since it dissapeared) I was just saying that you were indeed right to make that modification. My comment was not "constructive". But it was true. Also you can call that "vandalism", but it was just a legitimate reaction at a person who dares calling names to entire nations in the most abject way. I think that such a brutally injust and injurious nazi type declaration such as Robert Sirico's Acton Institute paper calling one entire nation as "a nation of sex trafficking" should not remain without proper reaction. It seems, that you are a little overreacting to my "vandalism".. don't be so harsh. Anyway you might want to help Acton Institute as well since all their webpages seem to be down as we speak. I can only express my delight that the poison is not spreading for the time being. I strongly believe that all these insults to entire nations should not remain without reaction, even if you call it "vandalism". Anyway, congrats on your work on Wiki, you are really doing a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.244.15 (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, I reverted your repeat of Kingshowman's mass delete, because he deleted contributions from several editors, including myself in addition to his own contributions. I am currently trying to get a discussion going on what exactly should be in the lede and what sources we can rely on for estimates of additional deaths due to coal-related pollution. I'm not happy with the current sourcing, but I doubt that the figure given is the wrong order of magnitude. Based on what I can find, several hundred thousand additional depths per year seems very likely, but I am hoping to find a usable source that actually states this. Mikenorton (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 03:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Flyer22, re: coal and your needlessly antagonistic position towards me and my edits, thought reading this might be helpful for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admitting_you%27re_wrong

Sometimes, admitting when you've been wrong is the first step to moving forward. Best wishes!Kingshowman (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman[reply]

WP:Patrollers work, and that you had deleted others edits with yours. And yet your latest gloating post is making it sound like your edits were just fine and dandy. They were not. And still are not. You also proceeded to blame me for your WP:Disruptive editing

.

I am not interested in discussing anything with you, considering the way you behave and your vile

talk) 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You began with vile personal attacks on me and on my editing, calling all of my edits "poor, pure and simple" without any reason whatsoever. I don't even understand what the hell your problem is, from the instant I got here and changed anything on your beloved "childhood" page. And you keep threatening to "infinitely ban" me for no reason. You're obviously a paragon of civility. Kingshowman (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman[reply]

talk) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

[16]

[17]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Scrutiny

matter. If you feel that you do not yet have enough evidence for a WP:Sockpuppet investigation against him, or would rather have more evidence than you have, then do what I do: Wait. Gather more evidence. Even if it takes months. Patience is often a virtue. Not much evidence is needed in this case, though. No long wait needed.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Aubmn again" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Also, I've been meaning to tell you that there is no need

talk) 23:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You are correct, it seems that I am stating the obvious: he opened a new account on 12 August & has been following me, reverting me & getting reverted by others, which seems to ruffle his feathers a bit.[18] He began with accusing me of seeking "self-promotion" by editing the article on Chartres, which he has decided must be the region where I live - his statement is confused/confusing: does he mean that I am promoting myself or doing ad-promotion for Chartres? If he knew what my work outside Wikipedia is - and he could easily guess if he went thru the history of my edits - he might feel like a fool for speaking about me the way he does.

Did I mention somewhere that I participate at Wikipedia for relaxation? Did I write that? Well, one gets to do interesting things with interesting people also. However, getting things done can be quite a challenging affair!

Thank you for the advice. --Blue Indigo (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22

,

[19], [20], [21]

You may have to go back or forth as guy(s) [22] [23] working very fast & links may not be up to date by time you get there.

Have a nice day, --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1+2=3+1=4 [24] --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, you may be interested to know that I have raised the issue of edit warring at the Chartres article at

Thanks,

talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi, here is a glass of bubble tea for you. You did very well in the face of the harassment by a blocked user. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It's alright. What has been done has been done. The best thing to do is to apply what we've learnt from it when a future vandal pops up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted some vandalism and I looked at your user page. On your user page you said you created the JR Chandler and Babe Carey article. Curious who these people are I looked at the article. And read the lead paragraph. I was struck by the word "dock". What is a ship's "dock"? Ships don't have docks. Ships do have decks. Is this a typo? Also, I looked at the revision history for this article. Something has happened where all the revisions from September 2014 back to 2008 are crossed out and can't be seen. I have never seen this before. How did it get this way? -GroveGuy (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 10:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

May I ask what article you noticed me at?

talk) 11:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sincerely, Roshu Bangwal Roshu Bangal (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rivera- The submission was totally true-as written by this egomaniac in his 1991 autobiography. Is the truth inconvenient for you?– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.93.226 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:LL221W —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 05:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

While there has been

And odd case. I found LL221W's "...Sorry for causing this. I will not vandalise Wikipedia again or sock..." puzzling. I also find Huggi's communications quite unclear sometimes. However, I just looked through lots of their edits. I don't think they are the same person. I see the double dashes you referred to, and I see similar comma usage styles. I see three articles in common. Other than that, there are really no similarities in edit summary styles or article preferences. I also see no convincing dovetailing in their edits. In fact, the opposite. Sometimes it is nice to give a user an "out" by asking for honesty. In this case, it was not well received. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 06:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. I'll keep an eye on L's contribs too. Anyhow, I should have phrased it "Are you..." and not "You are, right?..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with so many WP:Sock cases, I can safely state that your comment on Huggi's talk page was entirely appropriate. Trust me. You asked. Yes, the tone had doubt that they are unrelated, but questions are usually about doubt anyway.

talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, next time I will not fail to assume good faith, and I will practice a bit more due diligence before making inquiries. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Flyer22 :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there :) I've noticed you removed some information from Jacob Bertrand as 'unsourced' (I was watching the editor before you blanking most of the page, not you). So I looked for some sources and tried to restore what seemed significant enough. For example, major roles in a long-running series and that movie are worth mentioning from my point of view. Reliability of web sources aside, it's easily verifiable that he had those other roles. Actually, I only know that guy from his Nickolodeon appearances because my brother's kids watch those shows. If you like to, please have another look at the current state of the article; I tried to make it clear in the prose which roles were major or minor, so that it's easier for future editors to decide what needs more reliable sources and what could be removed completely (ex. the guest appearance in iCarly - but so far it's just one minor role and doesn't bloat the article). Thanks. Rh73 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking a look at my edits at Avatar (2009 film). I was well aware that Reddit is not a reliable source. What I was trying to do was provide some type of web-based proof that that article does exist. The St. Petersburg Times (now Tampa Bay Times) has their archives behind a paywall and even searching it, I couldn't find the article exists. So I kept the original source with the dead link and put the Reddit link beside it for verification. I thought that would have been the best way to answer the talk page in regards to verification of that dead source. Anyway, your edit didn't hurt my feelings but hopefully my work was enough to satisfy the original query. I haven't had much experience trying to edit material that has mostly disappeared from the web, so if you have any pointers I would be happy to listen. Thanks and keep up the hard work. Inomyabcs (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 06:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the response. Sorry for the confusion between revert and rollback. I usually deal with vandals making many edits in a row and got it wrong when I typed up the section header. Inomyabcs (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the dispute is cleared, can you please delete my ID photo here? File:LL221W --LL221W (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Wide Shut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.145.112.168 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about the transgender actress Saga Becker. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a mistake before. She is not transgender she is transsexual. I am no expert but is there a difference.. and does transsexual consider themselves born male if so?. If that is the case change it back, and if not then let it be. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

assigned sex" instead of "birth sex," "born male," "biologically male," "genetically male," etc. (though "birth sex" is more acceptable than the others). To transgender people, using such words usually implies that their birth sex is their true sex and that their true gender is their assigned gender. For example, see what happened when I referred to myself as genetically female at the Transsexual article's talk page, even knowing that a lot of transgender people would prefer I state "assigned female." Not all transgender people object to those words, but they do on average. I see that you contacted others about helping out with the Saga Becker article as well. -sche

is someone else who might be willing to help out with that article.

As for the distinction between transgender and transsexual people, see what those Wikipedia articles state on that if you haven't already. Transsexual people usually prefer to be called transgender, but some transsexual people reject the term transgender. There was recently a debate about this at the Transsexual article's talk page, seen here and here (those are

talk) 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you use your sock identifying powers and take a look at this. [25] [[26]] A user [[27] has had a series of blocks, and now a one year topic ban. Immediately after being banned a new user appeared at the previous page and picked up where the banned user had been active just before. The new user seems to me to have a real similar flavor to the edits. The "new user" is really, really good with editing after only 10 minutes. I am not the only one thinking this, here is a discussion of "quacking" at the blocking admin's talk page [[28]]. I am very suspicious but ...could you take a look if you have a moment? Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you agree with this line of reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.24.27 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your edit; I reverted you because it messed up words.

talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, Line 6 was definitely not intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:708:110:201:1430:49AE:42B1:423B (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss genital surgery in the lead of transsexuality because as surprising as most people may find it, genital surgery has very little to do with transsexuality. Transsexuality is mainly about gender social roles, and insofar as a transsexual person desires physical changes to conform with their identified role, it is their visible features that are generally of greatest concern to the person. Of course to the rest of the population, the subject of genital surgery is of great curiosity, but the involvement of a transsexual's genitals is of no more importance than what a homosexual does with their genitals even though the public is greatly curious about that subject as well. Try mentioning genitalia in the homosexuality lead and you'll see what I mean. Frankly, I'd like to greatly reduce the corresponding section in the body of the article for the same reason though clearly the controversy requires that it be addressed. Cutelyaware (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

trans women." And yet you removed that as well, and I reverted you. We should not be vague to our readers about what medical assistance means regarding a transsexual person aligning their body with their identified sex or gender

. We are not vague about it lower in the article, and we certainly should not be vague about it in the lead, which is often the only part of an article that a reader reads. The lead is meant to summarize the article (its most significant aspects).

As for stating "because as surprising as most people may find it, genital surgery has very little to do with transsexuality," you can see from this section of the article that some transsexual people would disagree with that. There are also posts at

WP:Permalinks for that are here and here

. And wanting to "greatly reduce" these aspects (factors, including disagreements) in the article, when they should be adequately addressed in the article, is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

On side note: You should take this matter to the article talk page, so that editors of that article know about this dispute (in case they somehow overlook it from their

talk) 10:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And yes, you were clear about why you felt that SRS deserved to be mentioned in the lead, but I feel that you are wrong. Your argument is that it's important to mention what transsexuals do with their genitals because it's what the general public thinks about when the hear the term. While it's true that that makes it an important part of of the political discussion around the subject, it is completely untrue in the psychological sense. That's why I suggested you try to add a similar mention to what gays do with their genitalia to the lead for Homosexuality. The general public has a similar fascination there but it's simply not pertinent to the subject of homosexuality either.

Telling me that SRS is important to "some transsexual people" doesn't affect what I am saying about the general public. Obviously it's important to many of us, which is the main reason it belongs in the article body. If we're going to keep the article focused on the medical and psychological aspects of the topic instead of the sensational aspects, then SRS should always take a back seat to HRT. My attempt at compromise was to remove mention of both. Your attempt was to substitute an umbrella term. That was a good idea but unfortunately its a term that is generally unknown and unused. Since you want to avoid being vague, I suggest we find a phrasing that people will immediately understand and which mentions HRT before SRS since HRT is the most highly sought therapy by transsexuals. FFS for MTF, and top surgery for people transitioning in either direction are of middle importance whereas SRS is pretty low in comparison to any of the above. Cutelyaware (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I see that you didn't actually start a section there; you posted in an old thread there. I moved your post down into a new thread, for reasons explained there.

talk) 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason I concluded that you care so much about transsexual's genitals was because of your original insistence on elevating the subject of genital surgery into the lead even though it is a far less sought after form of therapy than HRT. When you switched terminology to the more general SRT, I was largely mollified but still concerned by the use of a relatively unknown term which is easily confused with SRS. Hopefully we now have a wording that satisfies all three parties to the discussion. Cutelyaware (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't care a lot about transsexual people's genitals, unless it's the topic of sex reassignment surgery gone wrong (by that, I mean medical aspects gone wrong can upset me), or unless it's a Wikipedia article specifically addressing transsexual people's genitals because it should be addressing that topic; the Transsexual article is obviously one such case. I was abiding by

talk) 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not going to beat a dead horse especially as you've agreed to the latest compromise but I will say one last time that transsexuality is not largely about genitalia, as difficult as that is for some people to believe. Certainly transmen seek SRS less frequently than transwomen, but you may be surprised to learn that most transwomen never seek SRS even though it's what most of the general public expects us to want. And of course many of us do want it very much, but it's almost never our primary medical desire. That's because transsexuality is about gender role, we tend to overwhelmingly care about those medical aspects that affect what everyone sees rather than what our lovers and doctors see. On articles about the medical or political aspects of transsexuality, you can go nuts, but it's almost an inappropriate subject in a psychology article, and especially in the lead. Nothing about

WP:Lead suggests that it belongs there as far as I can see. Cutelyaware (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You are indeed beating a dead horse; see

WP:Dead horse. And there is nothing about the topic of transgender or specifically transsexual that you could teach me, except for your own experience. With several years of experience editing Wikipedia, I also know what I am talking about when it comes to designing a Wikipedia lead. WP:Lead specifically states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources

. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." So, yes, "The lead of the Transsexual article still needs expansion and ideally should mention sex reassignment surgery, including the fact that many transsexual people do not get the surgery."

I'd rather this discussion not continue both here at my talk page and at the Transsexual talk page; continue it at the Transsexual talk page only if you must.

talk) 12:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey the Devin Funchess edit that I made was correct. I put the right numbers for his height and weight. — Preceding

I saw that you deleted the image that was posted on the Depression Mood page. Can you please add some other image? The page looks really boring. Thanks Wasickta (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{WPW Referral}}

[29] Actually, I just read a blog that says that incidences of male rape (where the man is the victim, including sexual coercion) outnumber female rape. If I find a source to back that up I'll add it to the article and mention it in the intro since that is a significant fact, if it turns out to be true. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 06:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I see we are both editing this, and you seem a pretty thoughtful editor too. Basically like many articles, the section organization isn't really that good. I'm trying to improve it. If you don't like it, can we discuss - maybe here? - in case there's good reasons one way or the other (I'm fine with that) instead of undoing? Thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 10:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Way ahead of you - saw your edit summary and was already working on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following a previous move of main article there is a question of what to do with Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders which is also associated with a less psychologically focused content at Category:Sexual disorders

I've put in a tech move request re

talk) 22:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: it should have at least been moved to "Gender dysphoria in children."[30] Apols if the move was unsuitable and, if so, I would appreciate an admin moving the page back. GregKaye 00:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the the topic is (should be) the phenomenon rather than its status in whatever diagnostic system, I think it'd be fine to remove the word "disorder" from the title. "Gender dysphoria in children" I think is the best, but "gender dysphoric children" is technically okay. "Gender dysphoria children" is word salad, however, unless punctuated as "Gender dysphoria (children)". — James Cantor (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed at the article talk page.

talk) 00:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding this, if anyone truly believes that post at the article's talk page is my typically confrontational self, then maybe I should consider it a good thing that the person wasn't at the end of my actual confrontational self. Forgive me for not liking it when people, including a WP:Administrator who should have done his or her homework, screw up so badly on an article title. Also, you are well aware that I'm losing patience with your

talk) 01:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And considering that you requested the article be moved to "Gender dysphoria in children," Jenks24 simply made a typo when moving the article.

talk) 01:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Fixed, left a longer note on the talk page. By the way, this now makes a lot more sense. This edit changed it to look like I was moving it to the "in" title, but didn't actually change the underlying code so that that's what would happen when I clicked "move" (try yourself, if you click "move" it will autofill "Gender dysphoria children" as title). Still, that's my responsibility and I should have caught it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

talk) 03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yes I do think it was confrontational. I had respectfully come here with a genuine query in good faith and following our previous collaborative work on this issue. I had first initiated debate on the topic at Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name which you developed as an RM at: Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Requested move.

Please, if you want to cast a

WP:ASPERSION

of something such as "Activism" then please supply links or quotes so as to at least allow these allegations to be defended.

Yes I do find you confrontational. Yes it is true that I added "this" comment as you have mentioned in reply to you "Addressed at the article talk page" comment to say, "in typically confrontational manner." This came in the context of my good faith post at the beginning of this thread where I genuinely came sincerely and politely came asking for advice in relation to what I considered to be a request to move title so "

Gender identity disorder in children

", a title which, from your own comment below, you clearly have no problem with. Despite this you then posted on this page, while making no mention of my intended title, in a post that pinged all and sundry. Then, two hours later, added a similar ping spam post on the article talk page at pretty much the same time as I added my 00:21, 5 September 2015 edit explaining my the difference between the title that I had mentioned above and which I had attempted to edit the technical request to include. I am also writing this in the context of knowing that other editors, for whatever reason, have taken exception to you which. I do not think that citing this is necessarily needed though can be done at request.

Yes, I do find you confrontational. This I mentioned on this page sincerely for what I consider both for your benefit and potentially for the benefit of other Wikipedia editors. You "regarding this" edit was not addressed as a reply to me (the editor that had come for advice) but, as far as I can see, was grandstanding for passing editors. The link you supplied showed a deletion of an edit. I had first added the effort on the interpretation that you were editing to shame and not simply to resolve an issue and I wanted to offer an opportunity for you to reconsider your presentation of the issue. You knew from my opening post that I had intended the title

Gender identity disorder in children

. I removed my "in typically confrontational manner" edit, because, I did not want unnecessary confrontation. Despite my removal of the content you not only made a public spectacle of it, in the context of a highly pinged thread, but you also add allegation. In this direct reply to you as a fellow editor that I would get on with, I will not repeat these pings but just request that you consider these matters. I do not think that our current communications have been working.

I will continue to work on the redirects to the main article that go via the

Gender identity disorder mainspace. As you have respected knowledge of the subject area and while I will edit to the best of my ability I would be more than happy for you to review any of my related edits. GregKaye 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know what you mean by "You knew from my opening post that I had intended the title

talk) 09:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

sockpuppet of Theman81?151.224.47.129 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think that Tortle may be a very sneaky vandal whose aim is to cause trouble to Wikipedia editors, while pretending to be making edits in good faith.

sentinel (contribs) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

well block him then151.224.47.129 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the few years ago and being in school, I was a young editor in high school five years ago so I dont really understand why that is an issue. I mean,

• I proposed a redesign of the community portal on it's talk page but only one user responded so far. And that was doing things the right way. Heres the talk page and heres the draft I suggested. I actually mainly did the redesign in order to fix a gitch that could occur with some users like me where half of the stuff was off the page.
• I spent a lot of time so far on copyediting for the Backlog elimination drive and am currently in first.
• I redid the lead sections by hand on about 500 literature pages with the help of two other experienced wikipedians due to the fact that the previous version made little sense. Bmcln1 (I think thats his uername) was the only one with an issue during the process saying the new leads were too vague and I responded but after a couple days and I think another message to him, I noticed he was still making other edits and didnt respond so I went on with it because others didnt have issues and two wikipedians were with me on the change. So I handled that situation ok and the lead makes more sense than the last one so if I was a vandal, why would I do almost 500 pages by hand.
• I made WP Wikipedia because I saw the design flaw in the community portal and I realized that there was no wikiproject for the upkeep and orginization of the Wikipedia namespace. The project although implemented wrong, was still of good intenions and I spent a lot of time in creating it. One day, I plan on reimplementing it but using the mistake that I learned rom in the end. Also I helped to revert the mistakes I made, a vandal would just leave them.
• I brought
  WP:Job Center
  back to life from pretty much a year of inactivity.
• I spent quite a bit of time on Lego amassing around 50 edits on that.
• I expanded the Agate Desert from a stub.
• I expanded Nembrotha cristata from a stub.

So please reconsider

As long as you've not made any edits as a sock puppet for six months after the date you were blocked, you should be good151.224.47.129 (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Watchlist

ever since I messaged him. Whenever I suspect that an account is a WP:Sock, I put that account on my WP:Watchlist and/or mark it down in my notepad and keep tabs on it, collecting evidence bit by bit. I suggest you do the same.

That's not the way the WP:Sock policy works, IP; you know that.

talk) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Great, thanks! I will follow your advice.

sentinel (contribs) 05:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

So obviously if Tortle has returned and it's been more than 6 months he should be fine13h 37m 34s (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if a WP:Sock has waited six months; it's still a WP:Sock and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia unless the Wikipedia community (or occasionally a WP:Administrator) has decided to give the WP:Sock another chance. That is what

talk) 00:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I dont really want to get involved in the drama of what just happened but 13h 37m 34s said "I was refering to standard offer" and the only other user who mentioned WP:standard offer above was 151.224.47.129 so are the ip and 13 37 34 the same account? And if so, should the ip be blocked as well? I feel kind of uncomfortable about a sockpuppet standing up for me too because that isnt really helping me and is just bothersome. Are ips not blocked as sockpuppets? If not, why isnt this done because wouldnt blocking the ip prevent them from ever coming back? Im kind of lost as far as what just happened. Thanks Tortle (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tortle, IPs are sometimes blocked as WP:Sockpuppets. But, per the WP:CheckUser policy, it's common for WP:Administrators to not publicly and/or directly tie IPs to one or more registered accounts. It's also common that IPs are not blocked for a long time since the IP might eventually be operated by someone else, especially in the case of

talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for explaining that, Tortle (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, thank you for undoing on what I did on Juan Carlos Medina. I accidentally click the save button and don't know how to revert it back so I erase it and hoping someone will notice and revert it back. Again thank you and sorry for being stupid. User 08:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered,

talk) 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for helping, though.

talk) 16:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you discuss, not just edit, especially in light of previous dialog, and especially again, knowing that you are reverting yet again. We have a good dialog on the talk page - if you don't like something, do what I did and say what you don't like - it makes it much easier. Notice I waited a long time to hear your views, before doing some edits. It would be nicer to return this courtesy too :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, I would prefer you keep discussions like this at the article talk page. If you insist on bringing them to my talk page, then I would prefer you comment in a previous section you started here (for example, #Bisexuality above) at my talk page instead of creating a new section for such discussion.

As for talking instead of editing, I feel the same with regard to your approach. I had responded to you on the talk page, as you know. Instead of us working out a layout that we all agree on, you stated, "If you have objections to any, can you try to minimally reverse, or only reverse those parts you actually disagree with (not all of it)." I didn't read that until after I started editing. But I didn't revert all of your latest edits. I significantly changed a portion of your latest additions, but with good reason. If I see what I consider to be problems with an article, I am likely to fix those problems right then. Not wait for permission, or for a person to not grasp what I mean even after I explain (which is common at talk pages). I've learned that, just like in real life, it's often that if I want something done, I need to do it myself. I am fine discussing these matters with you. But just like you would prefer that I not spree edit when it comes to changing your content, I would prefer that you don't spree edit when it comes to adding your desired layout for the article. One approach you could take is what

talk) 14:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The latter isn't a thread I would have seen. Much of this is difference of style, and matters of courtesy, not rights and wrongs.

I guess I mean simply, go even easier on people with there might be good faith disagreements, with gentler wordings, because it really helps avoid worthless issues. I'm happy to continue this on the article talk page if you like, or just dead end it there if we've said all we need, and move back to the article instead. Let me know? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, it's common for Wikipedia editors to prefer that article disputes stay at the article talk page. I'm clearly an editor who prefers that. I figured you might state that you prefer to keep the article talk page uncluttered. My view is that the article talk page is for cluttering...to a certain degree. When certain points there get too long or off-topic, then use subsection headings and/or Template:Collapse.

The way I've edited with regard to you is not a matter of being inconsiderate, marginalizing your views or not

WP:Bold

, I am allowed to do that.

When it comes to your edits to the Bisexuality article, my objections to your changes are not simply a matter of preference, unless we are talking about

talk) 17:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Fly, I know you're busy and so am I. I just started a new job last week, so I haven't been able to focus on much having to do with WP for a few weeks. I'm sure you saw that Todd failed his FAC, simply due to lack of interest. I'm slightly surprised, because I would've thought that someone would've picked it up to review. I say slightly because for some reason, the articles I submit to FAC don't tend to get reviewed unless I'm proactive and ask my cabal to review them. Part of me thinks that's because the articles I tend to submit are kind of esoteric and complex (Angelou and Sesame Street), and folks tend to be intimidated by them. Or maybe it's just me; I tend to make sure the articles I submit to FAC are over-prepared, so they when they see my name connected to them, they avoid reviewing them. I suspect that's what has happened with the Todd article. At any rate, I'll wait another week, re-submit, and enlist some assistance from my pals. I'll have more time starting next week to devote to making sure the article doesn't languish and fail again, anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA assessment

backlogs as well.

As for contacting your friends to comment, I think it's better to get the opinions of editors who are not likely to be biased. If you feel that your friends won't elevate the article to WP:FA status simply to support you (meaning they can be unbiased in this regard), then okay.

talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I hadn't taken into consideration the continual backlog for assessments. Believe me, I know about the GA backlog, for example; that's one of the reasons we started the

WP:GA Cup. And it goes without saying that my pals would be righteous about my FACs. All my friends are righteous, doncha know. Even you! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Help

	Reffering Sites
	hiii, can i add my website into wiki Reffering Sites ? Games Life (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion as the warnings on your talk page say Games Life. Also awards are not for asking questions inside but for acheivements and are definetely not to be used as attempted bribes. If you would like to edit articles not related to your website and need help, I am not too experienced but I can answer some of your questions if you leave them on my talk page. Thanks Tortle (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice thorough job on investigating Michael Demiurgos's socking. I was reading through some of the reports and it's apparent that he was still using the style as you reported, with lots of recent examples on List of Rosario + Vampire characters.

• Changing semi-colons to colons (usually to something that is grammatically incorrect)
• Using his own rules on removing commas (some sentences use Oxford comma style, others don't. It doesn't matter when his usage doesn't make the text any clearer.)
• Changing god to deity (with some gender-neutrality as its basis, even if it isn't what is reported in the text)

I also noted the quoting the poster in his response, which makes it difficult to read his comments, as in talk:List of Digimon Fusion characters

Granted some of his edits could have been helpful but when it's all mashed up like that, it gets more disruptive than helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos, I'd never been so frustrated by a lack of common sense and a failure of WP:Administrators to indefinitely block an account that so clearly needed blocking. So I thank Floquenbeam for doing what needed to be done, and Courcelles

for running the WP:CheckUser tool in this case just to be on the safe side. Jdogno5 will be back, but at least there is more evidence out there now to help others catch him.

As for

talk) 00:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the feedback on the R+V characters. The manga series still has some of the harem shenanigans but not as much panty-service; it isn't the best manga out there but it's worth a read, especially the sections not covered by the anime (second half of season I, and most of season II). I lucked out with finding the author's interview as most have very little to say about character design. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, I'll eventually get around to reading the manga; I read a little bit of it after I finished the anime. The beginning starts out like the anime, as you know. But I've seen viewer commentary stating that people should read the entire manga, not try to start out at the part the anime leaves off at. This is because the anime leaves out a lot of material and changes things. So, yeah. I don't watch anime as much as I used to, and I'm more into mature and/or dark anime instead of the lighter stuff, but I was bored the night I started watching Rosario + Vampire, and remembered that it was a story I'd heard people mention but that I'd never checked out. So I gave it a shot. The main reason I kept watching it is because of the scene when Moka first transforms into her vampire self, after Tsukune has gotten beat up by a monster, and because he collapses into her arms after that transformation while asking which Moka is the real one. I thought: "Wow, this just got a lot more interesting. Who is she? I can see that she's Moka's other half, but just who is she? She's so mysterious." So, for every episode, I was mainly waiting for Moka to transform into her vampire self. The episodes became redundant, though, on that front, with Inner Moka briefly appearing at the end of each episode. The series started to change it up a little later, which was refreshing. I also watched because it was funny; for example, the goofy bat who narrated, actually referring to whatever episode we were on. And I took a little time to see how the Japanese version was, since the Japanese version of animes can across as more intense, more real than their English dub counterparts; it's something to do with the Japanese accents. Compare the English dub version of Tsukune facing off with Moka's father to the Japanese version of that same moment. And on that note, that face off is the second time we get to see Tsukune's ghoul/vampiric form, and the only time we get to see him use such amazing power, in the entire anime. So I also want to read the manga to learn more about his power.

By the way, which Moka do you prefer? Or do you like both about equally? I know that they are two sides of the same coin, sharing the same feelings and acting similarly in a few ways, but these two personalities are very distinct. The way she transforms if her rosary is removed reminds me of how

talk) 07:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I do like watching the adaptations first and then go back to the source material for the depth. It makes the book reading faster, and there's always depth in the source and that curiosity as to "what really happened". But I guess it depends mainly on what material I get to read first. The good thing is that the anime series doesn't spoil too much of the manga, not like the characters and plot sections here. And you'll get to see plenty of Moka and Tsukune development in the manga. Moka's inner self is pretty entertaining; there's one scene in the manga where the other girls suggest she share Tsukune in the harem and the next frame she is walking away with the girls all defeated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting take, AngusWOOF. I've stayed away from reading much of the character summaries for this series, or for other series I might be interested in watching and/or reading, because Wikipedia spoils so much. As for that Moka moment you've shared, LOL; I look forward to reading that.

talk) 08:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The one that got away

Congratulations on this outcome. Just a shame it took a year to reel him in; I wonder how much damage he caused over that period. Any editor that is actively pursuing ways of masking their IP address should be banned on sight IMO. Anyway, I noticed you referenced me in that investigation, and I don't know if you intended to ping me or not but I didn't get a ping. I think you have to actually ping the account rather than the user's talk page for the other editor to get a notification. I see this business has been going on a few days but I only became aware of it yesterday because I still have the SPI on my watchlist. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,

talk) 08:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well that certainly pinged me! If I knew Jdogno was up to his old tricks I would have assisted in any way I could, but then again maybe it turned out for the best. It may have just looked like a personal vendetta and the case might have been given less consideration. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 11:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The only way I could view a personal vendetta against a WP:Disruptive editor as a problem is if the personal vendetta is not based solely on the fact that the editor is disruptive, and/or if the personal vendetta causes harm to Wikipedia.

talk) 11:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I was just looking through the database reports and I noticed that you've created over 19,000 articles! I have no idea how you managed to do that, but I'm awarding you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar regardless. Keep up the good work! Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 22:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Are they all redirects or something? Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, maybe the database report is wrong, in which case I'll have to take my shiny barnstar back ;) Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see. Looks like the 19,000 pages created are from vandalism patrolling, not article writing. I probably should have given you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar instead. Regardless, nice work! Kaldari (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Dahmer edits

Hi. I have left a message upon the user page of the editor who made the prv. extensive psychological evaluations of Dahmer. I haven't attempted to revert these edits as the new editor, at least on the surface, seems to have read the new sources he/she has used as justification for extensive reverts. I don't own literature which goes into the depth of these extensive pathology/paraphilia/psychological reverts. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'll leave a reply on there shortly. Personally, I'm in favor of reverting the page to the status is was at before these extensive edits were made by the editor in question, although I do take on board the fact that DendroNaja has made edits I was unaware of which had caused friction. I may try and find online info. supporting one editor's versions or the other. Regards and kudos for your diligence.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 2600:1006:B107:49FE:F0C9:D67C:AA66:F82A (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stop. Keep editing

talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You might try pointing out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker when dealing with this guy. It links a few discussions and documents a long history. By the way, check out this edit for a bizarrely patronizing edit summary that you may find amusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, if 2602:306:3786:3210:FCE4:C263:2598:F1A7 (talk · contribs) is him, he is now adding to the plot sections.

That User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker list is handy; thanks for creating it.

talk) 03:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this 2602 person might just be a random plot bloater. I wouldn't put it past our guy to make pointy edits just to piss us off, but it sure flies in the face of his M.O. to expand a plot summary. He becomes enraged when anyone adds a single word. Also, the geolocation is off. It doesn't necessarily prove anything, but the geolocation is usually pretty stable for Orlando, Florida. My gut says it's not him, but you're more experienced in these matters. So, who knows. Also, a lot of the work on that page is from Aspects, who put in the time to dig even deeper than I did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for

Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act —have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your opinion on the above matter at the designated talk-page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the right battle

What are you doing? [31] ... if I'm reading the timestamps correctly, you made two separate comments -- not the battle you want to fight. NE Ent 01:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 02:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Is that the same edit as this? No, I guess not, but I still don't understand. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, it looks to me like you moved their comment. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Your user page: Alternate universe

Regarding your user page, I'm wondering if you have considered the possibility that someplace in the multiverse, an alternate you might have actually managed to retire from Wikipedia! If you have considered this possibility, would that alternate you be considered a sockpuppet? (Do not take any part of the preceding comment seriously!)Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Flyer22/Archive 17#Cats and clones or whatever), I believe in alternate universes. I don't care how crazy that makes me sound to some people; those people need to look more into the science supporting the idea of the multiverse hypotheses, especially if they are stating I shouldn't be believing in such matters while it's perfectly fine for them to have their religious beliefs. The brilliant Stephen Hawking explaining and supporting the multiverse hypotheses is enough to win me over without the other scientists who support it weighing in. A single Universe

is not something I believe in anymore.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Alternate universe" so that it is clearer as to what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived.

talk) 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries on the heading title :) I want to thank you for this link (from your user page). That page will likely be open in the background during my future editing sessions (who could get angry at anyone while listening to that?). Meanwhile, it provides an interesting way to watch for vandals, new users, and interesting random topics -- all at the same time! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I RETIRED IN THE MULTIVERSE

This user left Wikipedia in an alternate universe...

LOL. Thanks for that, Viriditas; nice gift. I'll certainly use it.

talk) 12:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Picking up from the older thread highlighted up above (part two), I don't recall if you said you read the short story "All You Zombies" or saw the film adaptation, Predestination. The story would interest you. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply,

talk) 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

At the very least, check out the film. Sarah Snook does an amazing job. It's not a great film, but it's a worthy adaptation of the story. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,

talk) 16:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I just watched this review by Chris Stuckmann (for those watching my talk page, it's a non-spoiler review); I pretty much agree with what he stated. Now I'm off to watch other YouTube reviews of the film while working on some things at the computer and occasionally surfing Wikipedia with

talk) 17:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page stalker) It's turtles all the way down for me. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to thank Viriditas for that link, which I hadn't seen before. What a great article. I shall be handing out bananas to anybody involved when I can get round to it. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That film can really make a person's head hurt. It reminds me of the question I've pondered for a long time, and that I pose to others: "What created existence?" I follow that up with: "I mean, if you believe in God, then what created God? And if you aren't religious, the question of what created existence remains. How can something have always existed?" If you watch this "How the Universe Works - The Big Bang" video, you can hear the narrator ask at 8:31 into the video: "So here's a mind bender. What came before the Big Bang?" And Lawrence Krauss replies, "The philosophers in ancient times used to say, 'How can something arise from nothing?' And what's amazing to me is that the laws of physics allow that to happen. And it means that our whole Universe, everything that we see, everything that matters to us, could have arisen out of precisely nothing."

Going back to the film, though, I guessed two plot twists (by that, and hopefully without spoiling anyone, I mean the aspect surrounding the bartender and Snook's character, and the bartender and the bomber); this is because of what was revealed with the first plot twist and after the bartender gave his "You know who she is" line to Snook's character. The initial plot twist and the baby plot twist took me fully by surprise, though. I had suspicions about the bartender throughout the film. That stated, if I didn't know that this film was supposed to have some elements of surprise (twist elements, to be precise) before going into it, I wouldn't have been looking for them. Well, other than the fact that the bartender and Snook's character were suspicious of each other with regard to the bombings. When I Googled the film, I saw something about the film having a twist element in the results, and I immediately avoided reading about what that twist, or any other twist in it, might be. I would have hated being spoiled on this film, for the same reason I would have hated being spoiled on The Sixth Sense.

As for the "turtles all the way down" expression, yeah, I only recently became familiar with it. So Viriditas was smart to wikilink the expression for you.

talk) 03:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's your (mathmatical) turtles. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about "turtles all the way down" that has me kicking myself is that even though I've read a lot on

talk) 06:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am reminded of strange loops and Drawing Hands. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

derbi barceloní tag

Hello,

I'm JosepRCDE, sorry but my english is very bad. I read your article about catalan derbi and i need explain that this is false. FCB try impose this history.

This points are completely false:

"Espanyol, being one of the clubs granted royal patronage, was founded exclusively by Spanish football fans, unlike the multinational nature of Barça's primary board. The founding message of the club was clearly anti-Barcelona, and they disapprovingly saw FC Barcelona as a team of foreigners.[2] The rivalry was strengthened by what Catalonians saw as a provocative representative of Madrid.[3] Their original ground was in the affluent district of Sarrià.[4][5]

During the dictatorships of Miguel Primo de Rivera (1923-1930) and Francisco Franco (1939-1975), Espanyol was seen by the vast majority of Barcelona's citizens as a club which cultivated a kind of compliance to the central authority, in stark contrast to Barça's revolutionary spirit.[6] Also in the '60s and '70s, while FC Barcelona acted as a social integrator for immigrants from poorer regions of Spain in search for a better life, Espanyol drew their support mainly from sectors close to the regime such as policemen, military officers, civil servants and career fascists.[7]

In 1918 Espanyol started a counter-petition against autonomy, which at that time had become a pertinent issue.[2] Later on, an Espanyol supporter group would join the Falangists in the Spanish Civil War, siding with the fascists. Despite these differences in ideology, the derbi has always been more relevant to Espanyol supporters than Barcelona ones due to the difference in objectives. In recent years the rivalry has become less political, as Espanyol translated its official name and anthem from Spanish to Catalan.[2]"

respect for the Espanyol history and Espanyol supporters.

Thank you

Josep — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosepRCDE (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalisco

FYI...Jalisquillo is pejorative, [32], Jalisciense is correct. Someone was having a laugh. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Flyer22. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you. I've dealt with you before, and it is quite clear that you have no idea what

talk) 08:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am obligated to report this to you. You do not have to participate if you don't want to. You have dealt with me before? If you keep accusing me of things, you may end up getting blocked for WP:Disruptive editing. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)} I've placed a 3RR warning on the IP user's talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signedzzz

I pinged you on the talk page of the above mentioned editor here regarding his comment about having discussions with you of this type "every year." John Carter (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, it's best that I refrain from commenting on Signedzzz or interacting with him unless absolutely necessary. As currently seen on his talk page, he still thinks that I am referring to him as a WP:Sock and as a pedophile, despite

Fram being very clear to him that I am not. That section of my user page doesn't even link to the version of my user page that he had a major issue with. And I don't see the problem with linking to the version that it does link to and pointing to the discussion that resulted in that section being removed. I much prefer the current section, by the way. As for what Signedzzz stated about "every year," I think he means last year and this year, and any other year that may come up. It's only coming up because he's seeing things that are not there. In his campaign to get my previous section removed, he also saw things that were not there and twisted my words. Like I explained at WP:ANI

, this is why I should not interact with this individual. Regarding some editors I've had one or more big disputes with, I've gone on to build online friendships with them and/or collaborate with them on a Wikipedia article. That will not be the case with Signedzzz.

As for WP:Socks, at least I recently helped catch another.

talk) 23:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

What's your score now? :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To find out the exact number, I'd have to look back at the cases I reported to

talk) 06:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries. I thought you might have been keeping track. :) I have found exactly one set (confirmed and blocked) and suspected several others, but not had any accounts to compare them with (i.e. I found only the sock, not the master). I'm not counting one persistent dynamic IP user who unplugs his ^{(presumed gender)} router every time his IP gets blocked -- his IP range is so broad that there is nothing that can be done, short of blocking his entire country, and in any case, others discovered this particular user well before I did. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey

I see you just reverted my edit onkozhikode. im confused as to whats wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortosthanos (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw

Is there a way you can fix your comment? It appears to have broken the numbers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh okay, and yes thanks. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My inappropriate !vote

Hello Flyer, I just wanted to drop you a line. I'm not a sockpuppet, I'm just a confused lurker who finally registered an account and almost instantly fraked up.

Thank you for clearing up the RfA !vote thing. I hadn't made the connection between the hashtag and opinion as being a "numbered vote" instead of simply stating an opinion about the RfA. I feel pretty dumb. Really, really dumb.

Again thank you for striking my inappropriate edit. If there are other actions I should take to patch up my goof, I would appreciate some guidance if you have the time.

Jasphetamine (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not intend to insult your intelligence. I was attempting to be friendly in the hopes of patching over a severe faux-paux. I apologize for the hasell I have caused and will respectfully refrain from further editing of your Talk page.Jasphetamine (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasphetamine: My question would be if you are new to Wikipedia and just learning the ropes why would you be so opposed to Montana when you never had contact before? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Precious again

child protection
Thank you, user with significant knowledge in the

awesome Wikipedian

! - Enjoy a "bit of tea every now and again, to stop, relax, reflect and prepare ourselves to finish the tasks at hand".

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 982nd recipient of my

Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you,

talk) 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

RE: Ken Jeong

Good catch. Thanks. But not a good faith edit, as he was never a gynecologist -- that's just scatology. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

New Media Theorist

Hey Flyer, the editor says "new account"--we have no choice but to accept. So far they're not getting into trouble, at least not with people who matter (and I'm trying to prevent trouble between you and them), so give them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Well, I can tell you that I got an email about a simple matter: they'd not logged in. And then I asked the same question you did; I didn't know what you had asked them. Their answer was substantially the same. NMT, I don't think I'm betraying any confidences here. So my point really is that we have no choice but to accept that and to take their edits as they come. As for the people that matter, I meant nice people, really--nothing official. NMT, I am really not interested in any personal information, which wouldn't mean anything anyway if there's nothing to compare it to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd seen that "not logged in" part, not his IP. I saw the matter after you'd used

talk) 01:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Documenting his latest reply on the matter here.

talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Gentelemen: I had a nice chat with Drmies by email today. I would be happy to give him my real-life identity and any information in terms past editing he needs to settle your concerns

Flyer22, as I think he is a trustworthy stand-up admin who will respect my privacy. It's really not going to be fruitful to spend any time pairing me up with old users, as, well, I am not them. So I guess am offering to 'verify', in order to have any concerns dealt with. This is a pretty good offer, seeing, as you admit, I have done nothing wrong! New Media Theorist (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, I can understand your suspicions. That said, I am willing to provide my identity, place of residence, IP addresses, Internet provider, CV, and a list of past (very, very minor) Wikipedia editing activity to Drmies, if he's willing to do the work checking.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That information is not necessary, and it wouldn't help prove that you've never edited Wikipedia before registering as New Media Theorist.

talk) 01:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If disclosing my entire personal identity and past Wikipedia activity to a respected admin is not enough, I do not know what is! I hope you do remember this offer and my willingness to do so. I appear to be experienced because I have more than two decades experience within universities, including far more writing and reasoning courses than I would have liked, and I have been working with technology and coding for more than two decades as well. I've taught almost fifty university courses in a half-dozen different areas of my field of expertise. Given those skills, becoming a decent editor in here in the past month is really not that surprising: editing Wikipedia is not a challenging skill to grasp. I hope you will take my good faith explanation at face value. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I really have to conclude that the approach to new users -- questioning their motives despite the presence of any evidence whatsoever-- is a) disheartening and b) a violation of

WP:AGF. There's a reason for that policy, and it is to avoid treating people the way you are treating me, i.e. guilty without any evidence of doing anything wrong whatsoever. Unless you have some evidence beyond the observation that I am a skilled editor, please stop. I would respectfully encourage you stop for a moment and consider the ramifications of assuming someone is bad from the start. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

New Media Theorist, if I WP:Assumed good faith in the vast of majority of the cases where I was right about WP:Socking, that would have contributed to the disruption caused by those WP:Socks. WP:Assume good faith does not mean forgoing common sense or otherwise good sense. I do not WP:Assume good faith in cases where I think or know I should not. And you know what? That's worked out for me, and this community as a whole, the vast majority of the time; I've been very clear about that. I've also been clear that I am done discussing this matter with you. And yet you keep coming back here trying to prove your innocence to me. Why is that? Why do you want me to believe in you so badly? When editors do that, it makes me less likely to believe in them.

talk) 02:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And WP:Assume good faith is a guideline, not a policy, by the way; there is a difference:

talk) 02:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Let us stick to the facts. You came to the talk page of someone who has violated no rules, with claims for which you have no evidence. ZERO evidence. You decided you would shake me down, to see if you could find something out. Despite my explanations and good faith offers, you refuse to cease claiming that I might be this sock or that, or to acknowledge that you made a mistake. If you had one tiny scrap of evidence that would be perfectly fine, but you have nothing. This is the online form of bullying. If you have evidence, you can raise claims and questions and accuse. But you have nothing. You are bullying someone who has done nothing wrong, on the basis of "who knows, maybe they did do something wrong that I am not aware of". You said I am "passive aggressive". Maybe it's because I tried to be somewhat nice in my replies at the same time as I was trying to stand up to a bully. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI cases showing such behavior...if you'd like. I didn't even accuse you of being a WP:Sock. And yet you got defensive and indeed passive-aggressive, stating that it was not my business, which is the reply of someone with something to hide. I made it clear to you that it is my business, that it is the business of the entire Wikipedia community, unless you are validly editing within the WP:Clean start rules. Another editor, Coldcreation, also felt that you are indeed no WP:Newbie, and commented accordingly. You continued with the wanna-be humor and passive-aggressive defensiveness. After I was clear to you why I feel the way that I do about you (years of experience with such cases, and an excellent rate of being right about them), and that I am done discussing this matter with you, you continued commenting here as though I have to believe you or else I'm a bad Wikipedian and/or a bad person. Those are the facts. Instead of being done with this, which one would think you were after this edit

, you have continued with it. Everything you have done after my querying you about your Wikipedia editing experience has caused me to trust you even less. Yes, not trusting you begins with your editing history and you knowing of policies and guidelines that WP:Newbies almost always never know of, and that, despite that, you are still making it seem like you are a complete WP:Newbie. It doesn't matter how much university experience you have; that will not make you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That you worked "with technology and coding for more than two decades as well" would not contribute to you editing in the experienced way you edit. There are plenty of Wikipedians with the "working with technology and coding" experience, and their WP:Newbie histories do not reveal the level of experience that your WP:Newbie history reveals; their histories look like that of WP:Newbies.

You have no idea what evidence I have. If you do not understand why I am so suspicious of "new" editors who edit like you, and why various editors trust my sense on these matters and/or come to me about WP:Sockpuppet cases, then I suggest you look over the cases where I caught WP:Sockpuppets; a few are clearly there in the WP:Sockpuppet section of my user page. Look at the excuses and denials they come up with, and see that I have experienced it all. I very much doubt that there is a WP:Sock who could fool me, whether I buddy up with that WP:Sock and let them think they are safe, or whether I shun the WP:Sock. I am clear on my user page that I recognize non-new editors; this includes returning editors who are not WP:Socks. I don't always think that a non-new editor who clearly has experience editing this site is a WP:Sock. But to tell me that such editors have never edited Wikipedia before is something that I will never believe. I suggest you leave me to my beliefs; they won't be changing because I see no valid reason that they should change. I do not think like those who are sympathetic to WP:Socks and/or to new accounts that don't edit like newbies but are not WP:Socks. Such sympathetic editors cause more harm than good to Wikipedia; I've seen it time and time again, including in

talk) 23:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If you have evidence, let's see it. Obviously you have none, as there is none! Your paranoid bullying and preemptive attacks on new users like myself are, in my view, pathetic. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 17:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting

This is interesting, considering this. Any idea who it is? If so, drop me an email. BMK (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Adminship. And as noted at WP:Clean start

, past accounts should be disclosed in such cases.

By the way, if you didn't know, we are also discussing an important sock matter at

talk) 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 19:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And big props to you for having the guts to start such a thread at

talk) 19:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Pedophilia

Can't we just close the nonsensical thread over at that talk page? It is getting to be borderline trolling, although I appreciate your work in this area. GAB^Hello! 02:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 02:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page watcher) "Borderline"? It most definitely is trolling; indeed I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn't the first of April when I saw someone accusing Flyer of going soft on those who abuse children. The only thing he or she said, that had any merit at all, was that the sources used for the article show some western bias. I think that this is excusable, here, given the nature of the sources, and the amount of attention this subject gets within academia. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demisexuals

Hey Flyer22, I know that you were working on the Asexuality page at one point and did not want to expand the topic of demisexuals at the time. I, however, would like to add the definition of what demisexuality is, explain the type of relationships demisexuals experience, as well as where they fall on the asexual spectrum and other information regarding demisexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity. I feel that expanding on this subject is important in order to allow questioning people to find the information and possible validation that they may need. Though this is a fairly new topic, there is a lot of information on it. I would like to make this information easily accessible for curious people. Ideally I would like to make a separate page for this topic but if not I would like to at least expand on the subject via the Asexuality page. What do you think of this? Mschm24 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.

talk) 23:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Emily Kinney

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily Kinney#Did Kinney leave the show in 2014 or 2015?. Thanks. Chamith (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 23:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Image Placement - left and right

It's not about preferences, it's about balancing the look and feel of the page to improve readability. If you look at any edited encyclopedia, you will see that exactly zero of them put all of the images on the right side. It's just not done in publishing. Hike The Monicas (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You state that there are "valid reasons", without citing those reasons. I'm at least leaning on historical placement practices used for hundreds of years in professional publishing to support the argument. Hike The Monicas (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 22:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I left Wikipedia 5 years ago with over 10,000 edits, because it just become too hostile of a place to get any work done. I have to say it's worse now than ever. I understand the need to enforce the rules, but it's the uncivil way in which it's accomplished that is galling. It's not just you -- it's endemic now. Maybe you should take a break for your own health. Hike The Monicas (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

In fact, I've lost a lot of respect for editors who enable these disruptive users and/or make it seem like I'm being too harsh on them. When it's someone I've indicated that I know for certain is a WP:Sock I've interacted with, it's wise to take my word on it. If the administrators want to take the gamble that I'm wrong and ignore the matter, any future problems that editor causes is on them.

talk) 04:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Why did you undo the Socket Bayonet edit?

The bayonet section which you undid was a very truthful and specific edit. It was already a given that the socket bayonet made the plug bayonet obsolete, and therefore the pike obsolete as well, and the British Army did not do anything but follow the general guidelines laid out by war experience from other countries.

The British Army's "mastering" of the bayonet sounds very biased as well. In fact, alone, each history of the countries such as Sweden, Prussia, Russia and even France(which has more bayonet charges than since the British Army's inception in 1700s) have done more for bayonet tactics than Britain who usually copies tactics from the Continent. Why undo when it was making it neutral and true? The source doesn't say anything about "perfecting" the bayonet charge. In fact, the source looks like some magazine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.138.12 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide change

Hi, you switched back the changes I made to TV Guide Magazine's editor structure. Doug Brod departed in April 2015, so it was incorrect. I fixed it, but you've reinstated the incorrect information. [TV Guide Magazine, Sept. 28-Oct. 11, 2015, page 2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE70:A0B0:E6CE:8FFF:FE2F:4D88 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was unsourced.

talk) 17:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

IP, you just added that source into your above comment. If that source is accurate, then go ahead and revert me and support your content with that source. See

talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Quit with your phony threats

If you wanna go to ANI, Flyer... GO! I am not stalking you, nor have I ever. I'm currently in the process of fixing a lot of mistakes done by random IPs. Quit with your paranoid accusations, they're childish.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the same consensus talk I linked to here specifically states that the "Alias" parameter in the soap opera infoboxes has been changed to "Other names" so you knew you were doing wrong when you reverted me here and don't tell me to learn to read when you're the one making the mistakes because you didn't read something properly.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 08:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I got as far as... pretty much nowhere, to be honest. I don't care what your paranoid delusions of grandeur are. If you wanna go to ANI, Flyer: GO! You have nothing because there's nothing to have. You are NOT that special. Go to ANI. I double-dog dare you (or whatever saying the cool kids are using these days).Cebr1979 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fuck u

If you our gonna make a list make sure you include all of them so don't change my shit again you ain't from the coast put all rapper or move on WestCoastKingtyb (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puberty

I am "consistent with these words" but don't let me or the dictionary stop you. Go on, use any words you please: it's Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can fertilize with. Textorus (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textorus, regarding this, this and this, I expected you to come to my talk page about it. This is because, even though I don't see you around a lot because our editing focuses significantly differ, I remember you, and editors have a tendency to bring disputes to the editor talk page instead of to the article talk page. I remembered you because of your "diction" edit summary style; not a lot of editors use that style. Anyway, it's nice to see you still improving Wikipedia.

As for the article in question, I referred you to the

talk) 02:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Flyer, how nice to meet you again, and what a good memory you have! I'm afraid I had forgotten all about our little chat on "heterosexualization" - quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Still, here we are chipping away at the bastions of ignorance and confusion, eh? You more than I, it looks like, and good on you for that. My expectations are lower for myself and for WP - as I said in 2011, I do it just for the minor pleasure it affords in passing the time, the way some people knit or whistle the "Stars and Stripes Forever." And I just try to ignore it when my conscientious efforts are overruled by another editor. Still, it's a bit irksome to be not only reverted (which ought to be reserved for vandals and other wikicriminals IMO), but accused of being "inconsistent" -- oh my!

Just so you know, I did indeed look at the other articles, even before your note, but saw nothing there from any reliable and authoritative source to contradict the traditional usage of those terms. I will take on faith your word that there are dictionaries now that admit the use of the one for the other - though of course there are also plenty of so-called dictionaries that will allow you to use "infer" when you mean "imply" and even worse perversions of the language. Alas for good, honest English diction! But "who am I to judge" --? I made my edits, and a small protest, and now I am over it. I understand your reasoning, appreciate your compromise, and I know you are a conscientious editor too, so carry on as you please.

Good to hear from you. I rarely ever run across the same editor twice these days, so it's nice to see a familiar name.Textorus (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

WP:Due weight policy, or some other policy or guideline. Some of them act like they should just invoke WP:Ignore all rules whenever. I am not always stern with our policies and guidelines; I recently made that clear in the #New Media Theorist section above. Some editors apply WP:Assume good faith

without a lick of sense.

Anyway, I meant no offense by reverting you; reverting is just a part of the job here, and it was mainly to get your attention. And I definitely wasn't calling you inconsistent. When you gave me that advice in 2011, I did keep it in mind. And I understand what you meant even more now.

talk) 04:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I admire your persistence and endurance in the face of the never-ending onslaught of the wikibarbarians. So enjoy (and place this wherever you think best - I didn't want to edit your userpage) and take care.Textorus (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, I appreciate all your hard work to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; but don't forget to stop and have a nice cup of tea now and then - it does a body good. Textorus

Thank you very much,

talk

)

It's not needed

So, you're telling me that adding snark comments to a users talk page is being civil? Yes, I didn't like the comment you left, that is part of the reason I removed it. The other part is because it was an unnecessary. I think Wikipedia can do without sarcastic comments such as this^[1], and this^[2]. Just stop your accusations, please. New User Person (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 09:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And the initial comment I left at your talk page was not sarcasm; it was genuine. It was also a test, and you failed. Instead of informing everyone of just who you are, I am going to let them figure it out. That is, if a

talk) 09:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And regarding this? Wrong. There is no hole. But it's not first time an administrator has been wrong regarding me highlighting a problematic editor.

talk) 04:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not hard to recognize a sock puppet but lack the evidence to prove it, it happens all the time. You seem to act like we are sitting on our hands because we are too blind to see or we just don't believe you. The reality is that without evidence all we can do is sit and wait until such evidence presents itself. While you are indeed a talented sock hunter we can't just follow your gut feeling, no more than I can follow my gut feeling.

I am not blocking this user right now because I cannot confirm they are a sock puppet no matter how likely it seems. Unless you can provide evidence we are lacking then I suggest you disengage with this user and just watch for... well, evidence. Don't think you are the only one with eyes to see, we are not blind, like you we just don't have proof. HighInBC 15:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

an apology to me; I was, however, clear with Beeblebrox that I understood why it was not easy to just trust my word. At Talk:A Rape on Campus/Archive 1#Beware of WP:Sockpuppeting going on at this article, you can see that Euryalus handled that; that was a result of Euryalus trusting me enough. In the #SpaghettiCali section above, you can see that Yunshui afforded me some trust. In the Help to deal with sockpuppetry/Action Hero case, I'm not sure that Ponyo bagging that WP:Sock had anything to do with me, but I certainly highlighted that matter. So did Rsrikanth05

.

We need more editors who are willing to take that leap of faith regarding WP:Sock cases, those who are willing to query "new editors" about their previous Wikipedia editing, especially because they know what content creators endure due to disruptive users. Not doing so and/or

talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

___

1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:New_User_Person&oldid=683595693
2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:New_User_Person&oldid=683595383

Incorrectly regarded as vandalism

I wanted to let you know that I removed a vandalism warning you left on an IP user's Talk Page because, even though the user's edit (here) certainly wasn't helpful, it does appear to be in good faith. All (s)he did was change the word "fiancee" to "girlfriend" (two words that are easy to be confused) and removed citations. While it is unknown why the user removed the citations, I don't think it is enough to go on to definitively call it vandalism. Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikilinking policy

Just an FYI for you: If you put a pipe before the closing square brackets when wikilinking a policy, it will display without the prefix. In other words, [[WP:V|]] will display

V. I just learned that cool trick myself! John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey,

talk) 23:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Just saw your recent post at ANI and kinda got lost in all the "WP's.  :) John from Idegon (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent efforts NeilN talk to me 06:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Planning College

Hello, you recently made some changes to Emergency Planning college page but I had place holding text there whilst I update the new page so when I revert the changes back to what I had put there please can you not edit again?

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.14.10 (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer. I just dropped by to leave you a note about this matter, but I see the IP user already did so. After being reverted three times by three different editors, the IP user apparently created an account that starts with the initials of the organization, and reverted the article to the more spamy version (which was promptly reverted). I've welcomed the new user with the COI version of the welcome message, and also posted a user-name warning on the page. I also posted a 3RR warning on the IP's talk page, just in case it really is a different user. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

i was doing a biome project and that is right im sure i saw it in more then one book look into it will you.Kaiwen0115 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pokerkiller

I am curious. You say you were watching this user for a while. May I ask if this is because you saw disruptive behaviour, or if it is simply because it was obvious it was not a new user?

I am did look through their contributions and did not find anything disturbing, however I only looked through a sample. My current advocacy for a finite block instead of an indefinite block is based on the fact that I saw only helpful edits from the Pokerkiller account. I would like to know if you saw something I missed. HighInBC 23:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been watching

talk) 00:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the info. I am glad I did not miss anything that would me regret supporting their return. HighInBC 00:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I stepped into incel

I found the incels article originally because I saw Fyddlestix's delete and wanted to support the deletion of it. I had zero idea of any controversy surrounding it. I don't know what that controversy is nor do I care, but I do wish editors on wiki would actually assume good faith. I often get the notion that editing on wiki is more akin war zone than anything else. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Amber Heard

talk) 23:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

(

WP:BLPCAT. clpo13_(talk) 23:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: I see that the David Bowie article currently has the LGBT and bisexual categories; I thought they'd been removed again months ago and that the article had stayed that way since then. In any case, as noted in that aforementioned discussion about his sexual orientation, his latest public statement on his sexual orientation is that he is bisexual. So the bisexual category in that case is supported by WP:BLPCAT.

talk) 05:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,

talk) 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your edits on

Male Privilege

thanks for your edits on

Male Privilege

. You kind of caught me in the middle of editing, i was still moving stuff around and wasn't quite finished linking to the articles for other languages. see the talk page for my reasons for changing that section. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Can you help me to redirect the article National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army to the article National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army Thank you so much Hanam190552 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers

Hello – apologies if I have done anything wrong. I have been trying to clear some of the backlog of mergers that have built up over the last four years. I have noticed that some of the proposed mergers had tags placed on one of the articles but not the other, so I thought that maybe by placing the missing tag it could actually generate the discussion that you have rightly noticed is missing... if the tag isn't there, how would anybody know it had been proposed as a merger in the first place, in order to have a discussion about it? Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, will do – apologies for causing any problems. I'll stick to just merging obvious candidates (e.g. duplicate articles) and see if some of the older merge candidates can be taken off the list like you suggest, because there are over 12,000 tagged articles now, which is ludicrous. Richard3120 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't have a problem with the

WP:DRIVEBY redirect. The redirect has a problem in that it's going to the less helpful of two potential targets (one that ultimately points to the more helpful one anyway), so it should be retargeted to just go there in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You deleted my edits

Why did you delete my useful edits to the Banana Kong article? I just want to help make the page more detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivitoe (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Cabinet of the U.S.

Thanks for reverting that last edit. It wasn't made in good faith, though: It's parallel to the immediately preceding insertion by the same IP. --Thnidu (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks

Thanks for the catch! Much appreciated. Aurora (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Chris Crocker

Yes, my removal was intentional (reference fixes and removal of unsourced DoB). If you have a reliable source for DoB, please add. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN boilerplate

I've quoted in you passing at

WP:Administrator's noticeboard#Request to lift temporary topic-ban.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Commented.

talk) 04:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

What I just posted to Talk:Marty Saybrooke is authoritative (not because it's from me, LOL, but because it's direct quotation of all the relevant material from The Chicago Manual of Style, and explains the rule very clearly. Maybe it will be useful elsewhere this may be discussed, since the editor in question persists in the defiance, and others often intuitively understand the rule but cannot accurately articulate it. Chicago explains it better than Oxford, which is why I did not quote the latter in much detail.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Summers Link

If you can, I would like your input on the issue concerning the link I posted in the Phyllis Summers page concerning Sandra Nelson's last airdate. Thank you. Jester66 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 04:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 05:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Flyer22, I totally understand how you feel. Guess I'll have to look for other sources that show what I'm trying to say. Jester66 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Flyer22, funny thing is I've also disputed with him in the past. Also this actually involved me too. Jester66 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I know you've been in disputes with him before this recent dispute. You made that clear.

talk) 03:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Domestic Violence is not a gender issue!

Please discuss before deleting valid verifiable additions to the Domestic Violence article. DV is NOT a gender issue. It is clearly a people issue and affects both genders.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 02:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh Boy. So if it is 30%, 40% 50% of domestic violence against men, how then is domestic violence a gender issue? Perhaps you have no reply. What is your definition of a "gender issue" can I ask please? Charlotte135 (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 03:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. However I shall comment on the article page instead. No need for your aggression or personal attacks please. They seem quite unwarranted. However you choose not to discuss on the article page either but instead push your "superior" edits, as you personally referred to your own edits, over any other editors on the topic. Please respond on the article's talk page then.01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Charlotte135 (talk)

WP:Due weight policy, and similar, especially while sporting an "I'm so sweet and innocent" persona. I've repeatedly encountered editors like you trying to present men and women as equally (or close to equally) affected by something or committing something, whether it's child sexual abuse, rape in general, pedophilia, paraphilia in general, aggression, crime in general, sexism or domestic violence. The literature on these topics generally show a significant gender difference; there is nothing equal, or close to equal, about it. And yet you are consistently trying to present the idea that men are as affected by domestic violence as women are, despite the literature on the matter generally being clear that this is not the case. You speak of male domestic violence victims undderreporting their victimization. Well, as you can see from this 2013 Domestic Violence in Iran: Women, Marriage and Islam source from Routledge

, page 1, "According to many criminologists, domestic violence against women is the most under-reported crime worldwide."

Your assertion that I've referred to my edits as "superior" is false. I stated that "[m]y sources would be head-over-heels superior" to yours. You gave me reason to believe that due to the poor sourcing you've displayed so far at that article. If you want to challenge me on that, then start listing your sources at the talk page, and I'll list mine.

talk) 02:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Talking of duplicity you have now not responded to my comments on the talk page but chosen to respond here instead? For the last time I ask you to please stop immediately the personal attacks and aggression on me and adhere to the

no personal attacks policy. Please comment on content, not on the contributor Flyer 22. For someone who says they are "superior" to other editors, I am surprised you continue your aggression and personal attacks toward me personally and ignore this policy. I will look forward to any constructive comments on the article instead.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 02:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e- composted SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you,

talk) 05:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice

I mentioned you here [33].

Also please consider this formal notice and warning of your recent edit-warring on Domestic violence regarding content subject to aricle probation by Arbcom. Thank you. Minor4th 19:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Roxy) *I have struck my comment, as I was just informed you have already been notified and warned. I apologize for my mistake. Minor4th 20:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC) :(talk page stalker) You should make it a normal practise to read the page history. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 19:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 20:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]