User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Moley87 (talk)

I was going to ask if I could nominate you to become an administrator, but I'm not sure if you've left now or not. Still, if you are still here and would like to become an admininistrator, I am happy to nominate you. --

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

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

talk) 01:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Okay, thanks anyway. --

HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It's good to see you haven't left. --

HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

She lives in Florida, the alternate universe of the US. They don't call it "weird" for nothing. Where else can you get attacked by gators and humans, both of whom are

wasn't for Florida, 9/11 might not have happened, there wouldn't have been multiple wars based on false premises, and I would still be able to get on an airplane without someone touching my balls. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm,

WP:Userspace

, so that it can be used as a comparison to the new Karen Franklin article?

On a side note: Barcaboy2, I added on to your FYI heading so that it is clearer as to what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived.

talk) 03:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Done.

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

]

Thanks, Neil. I'll link it at the new deletion debate.

talk) 03:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, I was remembering one of the older versions, Neil. The one you recreated seems to be a stubbed version. The stubbed version isn't all that different than the new version.

talk) 03:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Commented.

talk) 03:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Thanks for pinging me at

]

For you

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

Thank you very much,

talk) 00:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure of what happened to lead to the third person and all, but I do think highly of you and am glad that you're not burnt out entirely. Enjoy the barnstar and keep up the good work!

[majestic titan] 01:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi, Cebr1979. With regard to this and your statement above, it seems that you are basing his race/ethnicity on drawings. I mentioned the artwork in that dummy edit because I've never seen or heard anyone state that

talk) 08:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

See the GIF where Yeun has the comic book imagery right beside his face.

talk) 08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I'm stating that both of our interpretations seem to be based on the artwork, and that there is no indication (that I see) on the Internet that the writers changed his race/ethnicity for the show. If it was changed, then why isn't there commentary on it in

talk) 09:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The point of asking at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series) and/or at

talk) 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am interested in having editors who are very familiar with the comics weighing in on this.

talk) 14:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Taken to the talk page.

talk) 15:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 02:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 02:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Thanks, Alison. If it weren't for you having so much experience with this sock (including data on him) and trusting me on these matters, I might have been declined by a clueless

talk) 13:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 00:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

[

WP:Edit conflict

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

Okay, Alison.

talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I've read the post thanks to Alison's email; there were no direct personal attacks there, just a lot of ranting about changing the world, how one can't change it unless stupid and persistent enough, how there have been political movements throughout history and that there will apparently eventually be a political movement that supports his side...even if not in his lifetime. In other words, it seems he thinks that sex with prepubescent children will eventually be the norm and well-accepted and/or that the

Rind et al., a study that pedophiles and child sexual abusers commonly point to in order to support their views, often in ways that Rind does not support. He likened this fight to one army against another, stating that we are nemeses because of our political views on child sexual abuse, but that neither of us can destroy the other or our respective sides. He also stated that, as I've acknowledged higher up on my talk page

, I've gotten lazy at creating content, and he is creating material that I can't be bothered to create.

Sighs. Time to revert his remaining edits and/or delete any remaining articles he has (the ones I know he created and which fall under

talk) 01:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Per what I stated at the talk page of one of the articles this banned editor created, I will be taking the issue of whether or not to keep articles by this user to

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

Hi,

talk) 08:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The barnstar in the

talk) 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk) 02:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

ygm}} template.

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

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

talk) 05:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

No, looking via

talk) 01:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

What I saw was this.

talk) 01:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi,

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

talk) 09:15, 7 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply

]

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

I would state a lot more about that, but it'd be more unnecessary drama, especially since Cebr1979 watches my talk page. Editors can check my history to know what is true and what isn't. For example, there was only

talk) 09:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Not interested. Even after I stated this, you are still acting like I have been against adding

talk) 05:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not see any truce I can have with you.

talk) 05:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

(

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

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

Thank you,

talk) 10:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

to:

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

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

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

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

talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I also see that the revert was a

talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

MOS:TITLES#Italics they should remain italicized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

On a side note: After I made this post, Cebr1979 showed up again to challenge you so that he can get the last word. He also made this edit. You know the deal; it's his style. And I know that you are tempted to reword and/or suggest that I not take this to

talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I still need to reboot, so I'll have to look at it later. I'm trying to avoid disputes with Cebr or anyone else over style matters. It should be enough to cite the applicable MoS sections (whether one personally agrees with that line-item or not; no one agrees with every word of MOS, not no MOS rule has universal support; the point is we agree that it's an arbitrary but necessary set of rules for stability, consistency, and avoidance of trivial flamewars). I think that the don't-italicize view, which I normally lean toward (as part of a "don't apply special style unless necessary, especially if it can be mistaken for emphasis" general approach) doesn't carry the day on this particular issue, because of the clear wording at

MOS:TITLES#Italics about italicizing abbreviated italic titles. Whether a particular editor's behavior/approach to this news is 100% constructive or not is another matter, but I would advise against invoking noticeboards about it unless the behavior is grossly incivil or otherwise can be addressed as a "harmful to collaboration" behavioral problem. The more that AN/ANI/AE/ANEW/ArbCom's attention are drawn to MOS/AT as an alleged hotbed of controversy, the worse it gets for all of us who care about style and title consistency, because the general administrative response is to unquestioningly punish whoever is sticking to their position, and hand the keys over to whoever is posting less and pretending to be reasonable, no matter how unreasonable their position really is. This has been an observable, consistent pattern for about three years now. Every block, temporary TBan, and other administrative action against me has followed that pattern, and the same goes for actions against many other MoS regulars, several of whom have been driven off the project by this administratively punitive approach, predicated on false accusations of disruption, battlegrounding, and other "continu[ed] misconduct", regardless of what the guidelines and the external sources say. It doesn't matter if you're right, only that you're really really quiet and obsequious. It also doesn't matter in the end that these punitive actions often get overturned; the damage is done – troublemaking looks only at sanctions that can be leveraged, not whether they were actually sustained upon review – and the view against MoS being site-wide and centralized, or existing at all, will just be emboldened to apply greater pressure against MoS's stability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 14:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

What changed for me: An editor was revertwarring to force a change to MOS's wording that was provably false, I'd already proven it was false and that the other's position was OR nonsense, and that the editor was deleting sources from an article on English language usage and changing its wording to make their incorrect position appear to be correct, and even making similar false-facts edits to the relevant Wiktionary article. So I took it to

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-at-each-article views would lead to stylistic chaos, it's very hazardous to involve AT or MOS in any way in any noticeboard action. If you're being baited a lot, especially if it involves any incivility, you may just need to compile a long list of diffs demonstrating an uncivil, battleground pattern, avoid responding in similar kind yourself (be excessively, even ridiculously gracious), then take the matter to ANI or AE, casting it as entirely a behavioral matter. Try to get evidence outside a style/title dispute, so it can't be mis-cast as "those damned MOS people causing trouble again".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Thanks. And thanks for this, even though he'll just blank his talk page and ignore you, going about his business afterward. Your "those damned MOS people causing trouble again" line tickled me, but you have my sympathy on that. Yes, as seen at

talk) 16:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

He didn't actually ignore me, but pursued me with ranty hostility to my own talk page. His gist seems to be "any and all criticism is banned from my talk page forever", which can safely just be ignored. If he continues reacting with

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

]

Congratulations from STiki!

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Dispute resolution needed for

Talk:Health care in the United States

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

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

talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Considering what

talk) 11:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 11:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Thanks for everyone's input.  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we tried to fix NeilN's talk page at the same time and I reverted you. My mistake!

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

talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk) 12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry about that, IP. Thanks for fixing my error.

talk) 19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 14:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply

]

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

Anyway, we clearly agree on the science; your scientific-community self-quote above mirrors the kind of thing I say myself. My entire approach to this sort of question about who should be included in such infoboxes is the

WP:BATTLEGROUND, put in a blender. If any attempt at inclusion causes strife or confusion, it should just be removed and replaced with one that doesn't. Even if the phrasing (by a sock) of the heading of the thread that opened this discussion was hyperbolic, the discussion itself indicates that the confusion/dispute concern is real enough. I'm not making any argument that "pure black people" should be the only ones listed; that would be counterfactual, since nearly zero people who anyone would call African-American are entirely from the genetic stock of African populations. I also suggested a couple of light-skinned replacements for Carey. Hope this clarifies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, when assessing an IP, keep

talk) 17:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 17:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: I recently identified Tisane at a glance; he was

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

talk) 19:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sources:

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

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

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

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

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

http://the5thforce.tumblr.com/

12/1/2015

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

additional sources building on racial/religious implications:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You were obviously right to revert this, given the way it was added. As for this, I reverted it as unsourced. What you are seeing with that article is what I noted before at that talk page after you inquired an editor about improving that article -- the constant on-and-off, poor

talk) 23:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Doesn't look much like a new editor, but I really can't say anything more definite than that, and I can't see any other account that is obviously the same person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 17:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

My initial thought was D'SuperHero was the newest TJK sock, but CU findings said unrelated technically. The behavior absolutely screams sock though, and there are some strong similarities to TJK (see the

Ravensfire (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 19:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Adam (Wiki Ed), thanks for this.

Hello,

talk) 18:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

On a side note: I added "

talk) 19:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:EDITORIALIZING applies to article content, not talk page discussions. I'm not sure I'd consider "empirical research is necessary for confirmation" to be editorializing if this is apparent from the conclusion of the paper (which is often the case); the problem is basically that if the idea has not had any actual research yet, it's just noise, not information, and WP does not exist to publish click-bait noise of this sort. This hypothesis could theoretically become notable in its own right if it generated real-world controversy, even before it was subjected to research, but there's no evidence of this. We'd need external sources (e.g. newspapers, science magazines, etc.) telling us it was controversial. Doesn't seem likely. In the end, this sounds like a topic to blog about or discuss on Web forums; it's not encyclopedia material and won't be, if ever, for quite some time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Well this has been a

"fringe/alternative" guideline, as well as the policies discussed and listed above and below). Hence, you were reverted because your edit did not appear to be of a sufficient standard to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, which is why talk page discussions are often helpful; the discussion stimulates interest in improving the article (whether through addition, status quo, or removal of content), in correcting the edit - hopefully/if possible - and to help the original editor. For the technical reasons of why the edit was actually reverted, i.e. the reasons the edit was reverted in the first place, see SMcCandish's

comment above.

Also, in regards to the line; ...any journalist who decides the hypothesis about clitoral erectile dysfunction is newsworthy and controversial and publishes an article about it in a newspaper would make it "encyclopedically relevant"?; see also the quote from

WP:Verify

plays a role as well in these discussions.

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

___

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

Keshi anderson page

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

WP:Hounding: Daenerys Targaryen

article

talk) 00:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: More evidence of

talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Except those timestamps are evidence. Seriously, it took you six minutes to respond the first time, and now you've cut it down to three minutes

interaction ban for a week would be an amicable solution. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Yeah, but when you're responding the way you are ... and about someone with Flyer's reputation in dealing with

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

]

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

So, on the time thing: 19 minutes without a ping. Just saying; and yes, I am aware that notifications are instant since I just helped with a large update on the

trying to "right" Flyer's "great wrong" against you and just get on with editing Wikipedia. Is that really something you can't live with? Getting some sort of "revenge" on a person you 'interact' with over a computer screen, a person who you don't know and are quite likely to never know? If you can't live without that "revenge", then you really are being petty and need to be blocked so you can realise that and regain a life in the real world. Seriously, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

You just

a rude so-and-so. Have a fun time, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Note: More WP:Hounding from Cebr1979 is here.

talk) 04:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Possible sock

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

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

Jam Ai Can

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

what the hell man

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

Congratulations from STiki!

		The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Flyer22 Reborn! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Utbindas sock investigation

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

talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

WP:ANI

notice

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

Note: Charlotte135 is referring to this. And now Charlotte135 will see what happens.

talk) 04:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

@

WP:MEDRS. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. You might want to think about the possibility that you have become jaded after encountering too many sockpuppets and POV pushers in this area. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs