User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

• I don't expect to engage here much anymore at all unless necessary (such as article talk page space). So, given that this talk page will not be getting much use (and its use has been on the decline because of certain unwanted watchers), you might want to go ahead and drop this talk page. If you email me, I may or may not reply.

• My watchlist will be significantly reduced.

• I don't care about your politics and activism as long as you keep them off Wikipedia and edit the way you are supposed to edit. Read and comprehend WP:Due weight and WP:Advocacy. I am not here to present one side of any debate or conflict. So, no, you will not see me only adding material that you agree with. I am not here to make you feel more validated in your views. I am here to present what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight.

• Harassment/hounding. For those expecting me to just grin and bear it when facing harassment/hounding, and who act like I'm just not assuming good faith enough in these cases, how about you go smile when someone harasses/hounds you. Yes, I'm going to respond to jabs if they are persistent and they are not just a troll matter to ignore. This is not necessarily taking the bait. It can be about making it clear that I'm not going to tolerate it. And while bickering on a talk page is not ideal, I am human. We are human. Bickering will happen at times, and our admins are not above succumbing to this fate either. With as long as I've been at this site, I know that. For the admins who have never bickered, it may be that they aren't out there in the thick of it dealing with harassment/hounding or POV-pushing that undermines this site. Whatever the case, assuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Assuming good faith does not mean playing dumb.

• Socks. If I see a WP:Sockpuppet, I am likely to alert a CU to the matter. I might start a WP:SPI. If I ask you if you have edited as a different account, I have a good reason for asking. It is allowed. It is not a violation of WP:Assume good faith. And since WP:LEGITSOCK is a thing, it is not always because I'm certain that you are violating our WP:Sockpuppet policy.

• My block log. Since many here will look at a person's block log without taking the time to read and comprehend it, or are simply confused by it, I point to what Boing! said Zebedee stated about mine: "Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine 'My brother did it' episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22." So if you want to bring up my block log to sling mud my way (failing to read descriptions as simple as "uneccessary block, will comment at ANI"), be my guest, but it just makes you look ignorant.

Stating the obvious

You changed your name! I'll have to get used to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

An intriguing change for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new user page image :-)

File photo of Flyer22 Frozen in suspended animation.

Insert appropriate caption as desired... Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies

for using the wrong pronoun here. I need to be more careful. Maproom (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits were reverted even though they were necessary and constructive

YOU UNDID MANY EDITS I MADE TO THE CAIS PAGE WHICH WERE NOT ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE BUT PROVIDE NECESSARY INSIGHT FROM ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS WITH THIS CONDITION. There were no politics included or unnecessary changes, only those that correct errors. I am a premedical genetics student with two degrees and a lifetime living with this condition. The page edits things that are crucial to public knowledge about the condition and are things that need to be brought to the attention of those researching the topic. Things added were clarifying and rephrasing, which did not require extra sources. The nomenclature in the article as it stands is out dated and hateful. This is not about activism. The CAIS page is flawed. You are partaking in oppressing this group of individuals by rolling back every one of the edits when they were objective and necessary to contributing to public knowledge. There is no harm in using the phrase "Affected individuals" or "Women with CAIS" Instead of "Genetic males." Except for its called politics when I make changes as if there is no agenda in referring to a group of individuals that are almost entirely made up of women as males when the term XY individual can be used instead. There is nothing unfactual about calling a person affected with CAIS "an individual with an XY karyotype" whereas choosing to push the narrative that women affected with this condition are "secretly males" only adds to the hate crimes and marginalization they face by providing leverage to the uneducated who point to this page and say "right here is says so."

Please change the edits back or at least go through and selectively remove that which violates guidelines. I am an expert on this topic and my nomenclature changes are valid.

Many of the sections you deleted that I revised included important information that the public should know when researching this condition that ARE objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.74 (talk) 05:10, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. High quality sources required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This screed apparently about these edits by 64.106.111.74 at Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

IP, the activism aspect of your comment seems to be directed at the text at the top of my talk page about activism. A lot of the material you added was WP:SOAPBOX in nature. And you even concluded a section you added by stating, "This section was written by CAIS individual/activist Chelsea Kaban based on her personal experiences as well as the testimonies of other CAIS individuals." And that is what I saw when reverting your edit via WP:Huggle, as is clear by my WP:Huggle message on your talk page pointing to this edit. I hadn't even realized all of what I reverted. Either way, there were WP:Tone issues with your text. Anyway, as seen with this and this edit, I restored your language without the soapbox material and unsourced material. I don't mind forgoing use of "genetic males" for the text. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for being aggressive but being discriminated against my whole life for having this condition has made me very responsive to such things. I spent a lot of time editing this page hoping that as individuals learn more about it, it would not further their narrative that its okay to objectify or misgender CAIS individuals (for example, calling me a man after I refuse to sleep with them because "it says so online." I responded swiftly when I saw my edits fully reversed including the ones that were merely changes in language that did not affect the actual meaning. I took this as an assertion from you that women with CAIS should be referred to as males as if that was the only scientifically based way to appropriately refer to them. Thank you for changing at least the language back so that my efforts were not in vain and so that future readers can get a more accurate and less derrogatory understanding of CAIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.74 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome, IP. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

How do I change citations without having to retype all of my edits?

Hello, I can change the citations, but I don't want to have to retype everything. How do I go about doing that? BarrelRider91 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Roostnerve

I'm going guess the user is unrelated to User2083146168. There's some notable spelling differences in the edit summaries and CUs have been done on User2083146168 since Roostnerve account was created. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User2083146168/Archive, I see what you mean by "CUs have been done on User2083146168 since Roostnerve account was created." But it appears that only one CU has been done on the account since, and that this was done by ST47. The CU tool has been beaten times before, and I've had to identify socks in contrast to what previous CUs identified. I know that it seems iffy that the Roostnerve account could have been overlooked, but socks have used different IPs for different sleepers. What's clear to me is that Roostnerve is someone's sock. There are three candidates suspects I have for the master account, and I'm talking that over with editors via email. Obviously, User2083146168 is one of the candidates. the main suspect. Roostnerve is the one I'm focused on. The other two seem unlikely.

I've looked at both the User2083146168 and Roostnerve accounts thoroughly. In addition to having seen a number of similarities from first glance, the Editor Interaction Analyser shows significant overlap, and that speaks volumes...given how new the Roostnerve account is. Overlap like that just doesn't happen that quickly. Maybe there's meatpuppetry involved since User2083146168 has apparently been known to bring in meatpuppets. Either way, for me, this is similar to this recent case. And just like the editor in that case blanked their talk page after I was clear about what other account I believe them to be operating, Roostnerve did the same. In my experience, that (the immediate blanking) is only done when a sock (or meatpuppet) has been correctly identified. Often, it's best to wait for more evidence since the Roostnerve account is so new, but I didn't think that was best in this case because of how problematic User2083146168 is. The only thing to me that indicates that they are different people is that User2083146168 used "lede" instead of "lead." But socks have changed their spelling and other things about their editing to avoid detection before. And that "lede" spelling is one thing indicating that they are different people versus all of the other things indicating that they are the same person, including the fact that, as seen here, User2083146168 would state "Add see also." As seen here and here, Roostnerve does the same. Yes, a number of editors have stated such in their edit summaries, but some editors, such as those more focused on the See also section, state it significantly more than others. Editors may also state it differently. For example, some editors might state "add see also" or just "see also." And when similarities are taken together with other similarities, such as both User2083146168 and Roostnerve using "2" instead of "two" in their edit summaries, as seen here and here, those things that seem like small similarities start to add up. The User2083146168 and Roostnerve accounts also both consistently link to URLs in their edit summaries. And there are other similarities. Anyway, when seeing this, I felt that I should alert you and a few others (including CU NinjaRobotPirate) who have interacted and/or are familiar with this editor to the matter. If CUs don't find anything, then that's that for now. Again, this wouldn't be the first time I've had to wait before finally getting a sock identified. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed to BecomeFree and FindYourPly. ST47 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not that difficult to get around the CU tool. It's only as good as the person using it, and there are numerous technical limitations that restrict its usefulness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This all reminds me of this recent sock case I started. I turned in two accounts, and CU connected those two and two others, but left a 5th account (which was actually the oldest) untouched. I had to report it to the CU in question directly, at which point it was run again and the 5th account was blocked. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ST47, I know I thanked you via WP:Echo. But thanks again for trusting my statements enough to run a CU and identify Roostnerve as a sock of User2083146168. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, it seems I was off in stating that "it appears that only one CU has been done on the account since." But anyway. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I know

but I didn't change the sources

also it is not synonyms

fiends are group of beings including demons, devils, succubi, incubi, imps and hell monsters

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

fiends are group of beings including demons, devils, succubi, incubi, imps and hell monsters. Well then. Truly one learns something new every day. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the user has been pinged back: On a serious note, one's personal understanding of how to categorize these folklore entities does not matter. We go by what the sources say. And I think the user who made this complaint should slow down and not recategorize all these things, especially since they have been reverted by various other editors. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

أبو السعد 22, I never stated that you changed the sources. The sources stating "demon" rather than "fiend" is part of the issue. I don't see how I can be any clearer than I was on your talk page. I would rather not have to start a WP:RfC on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean I didn't change the quotations

no this terms meaning change depends on series or religion

so u r not wrong at all

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda Arendt. And I thank you and SilkTork for your commentary here. I got a chuckle out of the wish for me to "melt again."

I'm trying to think if working on the Clitoris or Vagina article was more difficult, given an editor issue that went on with the latter. But working on both has been challenging. Because of further improvements, the Clitoris article has changed significantly since its GA elevation. And there are more improvements I need to make to it. I might also change its reference format. Right now, a class is looking to edit it; so I have to work on it in that regard as well. I will also of course improve the Vagina article as time passes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Katherine Johnson

Hi Flyer22. I apologize for not posting to the talk page before submitting the GAN. Thank you for raising your concerns. I hope you concur with the ongoing developments to the article. I welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you and others to further strengthen the article. All the best, TJMSmith (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:AN#Possible conflict of interest and sock puppetry by American politician

I've mentioned Johnbellgotahaircut who might have a COI. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"We New Zealand"?

But do we Canada? :P (P.S. Yes, I'm totally joking) --O-M-GOSH! 20:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rock-O-Jello (O-M), I thought about leaving a WP:Dummy edit to note that I meant "Notice that we state 'New Zealand', not 'NZ.'" But by the time I thought about that, I'd already made a second edit summary, and decided to let the matter go, figuring that people would recognize it as a typo. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I get that it's a typo, I just wanted to joke around with you. --O-M-GOSH! 21:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User Lepintin is at it again

Dear respected Flier 22 Frozen, I noticed weird redirects from a person you warned before; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lepintin they deleted your warning and have resumed weird editing. Best Wishes! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)