User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:41, 23 May 2015

CAN'T RETIRE

Flyer22 Frozen tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that she couldn't do so…

Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. If you want to know more about me, see my user page. My work on Wikipedia, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was blocked; see the block cases. It's during that first block case that I learned a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Wikipedia, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible. Especially see User:Flyer22#Main type of editing style for why what you consider neutral, or what you consider needed with regard to images, likely differs from my view; don't know about you, but I'm following Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines in that regard. If you have any questions, compliments or criticism concerning my Wikipedia work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.

about the abstinence

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

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

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

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

Use of the term "mistress"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had nothin to do with this editin

Hi Friend

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

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

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

advice requested on youngest parents lists

Hi Flyer22,

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

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

Only Human (Delta Goodrem song)

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

Talk:Gender#Gender_identity

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

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

This is Jhamilton. Buddy, you had a chance.

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

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

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

Sock warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicting edits on Sex in Space article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking you to judicial board

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

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

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

ANI: question about your user page

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

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

apology

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

Minas Gerais, information

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cali11298

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

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

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

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

Bikini

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

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

Titanic

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

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

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

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

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

don't talk to socks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CVC Capital Partners

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Zimmer

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

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

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

Laci Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation

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

Facefucking may refer to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My previous edit: Condom article.

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

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

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

Lamborghini Huracán

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

UEFA Euro 2020

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

Sleeper check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oopsie...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Fluidity and Lisa M. Diamond articles

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

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

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

Confusing sexual orientation with sexual orientation identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender-identity/role

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

Invitation

I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estrogen article

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

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

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

In Regards to the Bigender Article...

Hey, Flyer22!

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion: Human Trafficking

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

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

Gay Sexual Practices

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

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

Hi: RoniA20 WP:Sockpuppet investigation

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

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

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

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

"LGBT" vs. "gay"

Hi Flyer22,

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

Thanks,

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

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

for opening the sock drawer

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

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

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

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

sorry: Black-capped chickadee article

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

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

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

Could use your thoughts

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

Anti-Iranian Sentiment

Hello there Flyer22.

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

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

Hi Flyer22,

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

William Northrop

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

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

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

Bullshit and "seems"

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

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

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

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

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

Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God complex vs Deity complex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devin Funchess Edit

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

Thanks, but...

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cali11298 trying to brag about WP:Sockpuppeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A cookie for you!

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

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

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

Deterministic context-free language

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

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

Cali11298 at an afd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppet case against HydrocityFerocity

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

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

In regard to the anilingus page

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you maintain your composure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tomboy reversion

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

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

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

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

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

Oooohhh...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello there

Hi Flyer22,

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

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

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

Gender clarification

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

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

Same user, multiple IPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brangelina

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carbonite

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

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

Ex Machina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use-mention

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

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

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

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

Concerns and a Thank You

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

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

Moving articles to create a redirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murder of Hae Min Lee

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

I'm letting you know

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

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

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

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

Passamethod

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

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

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

911 Address

911 doesn't ask for your address. I don't know why you revered that. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Sullivan, if you don't know why I reverted this, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Clearly, you are not too reformed from your WP:Vandalism days; for example, this gem. You are not a WP:Newbie in the truest sense, despite the youthfulness of your Fresh Sullivan account, and yet you still made that horrible edit at the 9-1-1 article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, my vandalism days are over. I won't do that again but I was actually replacing wrong content with right content not vandalizing. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2015

It's not that hard to understand that 911 doesn't ask for your address. I wasn't vandalizing. I was putting correct information in for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Sullivan, so I really have to explain to you why your edit was inappropriate? Okay, it was inappropriate because you replaced WP:Reliably sourced content with unsourced content containing WP:Tone issues; Wikipedia should not be written like that. If I see you make any other edits like that, you will get a stern warning from me. If you continue such editing after that, I will likely start a report on you at WP:ANI for editing pertaining to WP:Competence. If you need a WP:Mentor, go get one.

Also, this is my talk page; so there is no need to WP:Ping me at it. Flyer22 (talk 01:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake on my part for not adding a source, I should of, but when I called 911 a few months ago they didn't ask me for my address so I gave the fact that cell phones are no problem. Tell me why I can't tell Wikipedia the truth about 911 and address asking. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try a softer approach: As mentioned, part of the reason your edit was inappropriate is because of WP:Tone issues; read WP:Tone for what I mean. When I link you to WP:Policies or guidelines, or WP:Essays, it is because you should read them to better understand how Wikipedia should work. They offer more information than you will get from me. You added, "Cell phones are no problem. 911 has your address automatically. They NEVER ask for it. If caller says it, dispatchers refuse help. 911 does not ask for your address, never has never will." Look at how that text reads. First of all, you are talking to the reader; per WP:First person and WP:You, you should not talk to the reader. Secondly, you capitalized the word never; per WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters, you should not. You added "never has never will"; what about that is appropriate to you? It sounds like you are talking down to the reader. Thirdly, you needlessly removed reliably sourced content. Why remove that content? And, as we know, your content was unsourced. I mentioned WP:Mentor above; this is because if you need one, you should seek one. I am not interested in mentoring any Wikipedia editor; I only do it when I feel I have to, like now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

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

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

@@ Line 862: / Line 862: @@
 ::Yeah, he's probably still around. There's one particular new account that I'm fairly sure is his. I'll keep you posted if anything is amiss. Cheers, [[User:Middayexpress|Middayexpress]] ([[User talk:Middayexpress|talk]]) 20:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
+==911 Address==
+doesn't ask for your address. I don't know why you revered that. [[User:Fresh Sullivan|Fresh Sullivan]] ([[User talk:Fresh Sullivan|talk]]) 01:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
+:[[User:Fresh Sullivan|Fresh Sullivan]], if you don't know why I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9-1-1&diff=663612526&oldid=663609629 this], you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Clearly, you are not too reformed from your [[WP:Vandalism]] days; for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chocolate_Rain&diff=prev&oldid=588877856 this gem]. You are not a [[WP:Newbie]] in the truest sense, despite the youthfulness of your Fresh Sullivan account, and yet you still made that horrible edit at the [[9-1-1]] article. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 01:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
+[[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]], my vandalism days are over. I won't do that again but I was actually replacing wrong content with right content not vandalizing. [[User:Fresh Sullivan|Fresh Sullivan]] ([[User talk:Fresh Sullivan|talk]]) 01:29, 23 May 2015
+It's not that hard to understand that 911 doesn't ask for your address. I wasn't vandalizing. I was putting correct information in for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. [[User:Fresh Sullivan|Fresh Sullivan]] ([[User talk:Fresh Sullivan|talk]]) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
+:[[User:Fresh Sullivan|Fresh Sullivan]], so I really have to explain to you why your edit was inappropriate? Okay, it was inappropriate because you replaced [[WP:Reliably sourced]] content with unsourced content containing [[WP:Tone]] issues; Wikipedia should not be written like that. If I see you make any other edits like that, you will get a stern warning from me. If you continue such editing after that, I will likely start a report on you at [[WP:ANI]] for editing pertaining to [[WP:Competence]]. If you need a [[WP:Mentor]], go get one.
+:Also, this is my talk page; so there is no need to [[WP:Ping]] me at it. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]] 01:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
+It was a mistake on  my part for not adding a source, I should of, but when I called 911 a few months ago they didn't ask me for my address so I gave the fact that cell phones are no problem. Tell me why I can't tell Wikipedia the truth about 911 and address asking. [[User:Fresh Sullivan|Fresh Sullivan]] ([[User talk:Fresh Sullivan|talk]]) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
+:Let me try a softer approach: As mentioned, part of the reason your edit was inappropriate is because of WP:Tone issues; read WP:Tone for what I mean. When I link you to [[WP:Policies or guidelines]], or [[WP:Essays]], it is because you should read them to better understand how Wikipedia should work. They offer more information than you will get from me. You added, "Cell phones are no problem. 911 has your address automatically. They NEVER ask for it. If caller says it, dispatchers refuse help. 911 does not ask for your address, never has never will." Look at how that text reads. First of all, you are talking to the reader; per [[WP:First person]] and [[WP:You]], you should not talk to the reader. Secondly, you capitalized the word ''never''; per [[WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters]], you should not. You added "never has never will"; what about that is appropriate to you? It sounds like you are talking down to the reader. Thirdly, you needlessly removed reliably sourced content. Why remove that content? And, as we know, your content was unsourced. I mentioned WP:Mentor above; this is because if you need one, you should seek one. I am not interested in mentoring any Wikipedia editor; I only do it when I feel I have to, like now. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22#top|talk]]) 03:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 ==FYI==
 This new project may appeal to you and your interests: [[WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's health]].