Hello. FYI, see the recent discussion on my talk page here. Apparently the issues with "John" and his obstreperousness as a WP "deletionist" on the Brad Pitt article are not unique. ;) Centpacrr ( talk) 20:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- John ( talk) 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm EatsShootsAndLeaves. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Flyer22 that didn't seem very civil, so it should be removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AFlyer22&diff=572932075&oldid=572931110 This was wholly inappropriate, and you already know that. ES &L 10:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Noting here (especially for the archive) actual personal attacks, brought to us by the lovely John, with responses from me: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Oh, and assuming good faith is not something that has ever led me to any serious trouble in the past. A lot of, if not most, Wikipedia editors have had a problem assuming good faith at Wikipedia at one point or another. I'm an extremely good judge of character, am right about 98% of the time (as many Wikipedia editors here can attest to, especially when it concerns problematic editors and/or predicting their editing behavior). And I was/am absolutely right about John. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You're going to want to slow down and let the ANI thread develop (weekends are slow on WP). You've got a clear consensus at BLP/N. Don't let the discussion be sidetracked by something you post in haste.
Also, if you find an editor's GF effort to help not helpful to you it's generally acceptable to post a polite request they cease posting on your talk page.
NE Ent
13:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
We say a lot of things in the heat of the moment. I can dig out edits on WP that I have personally looked at and said to my monitor, "yeah, and **** you too". The absolutely essential thing you have got to do is never ever transfer that thought onto a keyboard. All it takes is for one person to see you calling John "stubborn" and "disruptive" ( [5]), and people will think "well, it's tit for tat, they're as bad as each other, no action required". I don't think that's your desired outcome from this, is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
All over AN/I I see editors being blocked for ignoring community consensus. But, all of a sudden, when an administrator is against community consensus, edit wars against community consensus, and calls another editor a "dumbass," it's the editor who raises the issue, the "dumbass," who is at fault, and WP:Consensus and WP:Administrators no longer have meaning. It's like a mobile phone company, only one party is held to the contract. Very disappointing.
I don't think John would have blocked you; there is no evidence he has done that before (someone would have provided a diff if he had). I disagree with you about People, it should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. I will discuss that on the BLP sources board.
Try to let this one go. User:John has promised to continue disrupting editing by ignoring community consensus. Other editors will get tired of his disruption and name calling. People will then cite this AN/I report as evidence that he continues to be disruptive.
Please continue bringing differences of consensus to community boards where the issues can be discussed by the community. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
Despite what I recently said on ANI, I really don't deliberately go around and upset people - honest! It's just that threads tend to generate lots of hot air and drama, and sometimes improving an article can take your mind off it and clear your head a bit. How about, say, taking Romantic orientation to GA, or even B class? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: I've started this section; it is simply documentation here on my talk page of John's continued less-than-desired behavior.
Those at WP:ANI or elsewhere asserting that John would not have blocked me were wrong. This is an instance where I feel the need to state "Told you so." Not too long after my unpleasant interactions with John, he blocked someone that he was in a dispute with; that person was unblocked because of the rationale that John was WP:INVOLVED. Like me, that editor made an observation that John is on a power trip. Clearly, the Daily Mail is not a good source to use, especially for biographies of living persons, but there are still some experienced Wikipedia editors who are iffy on its use and therefore John blocking that editor for his or her repeated reversions of him on that matter was inappropriate. If repeatedly reverting the editor is generally considered prevention of a WP:BLP violation, then I wouldn't classify that as WP:INVOLVED; I wouldn't because reversions of WP:BLP violations are, for example, exempt from WP:3RR. A different administrator took the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) not only because of the block, but because John has continued to remove sources and the text the sources support...even though others may not categorize such sources as tabloids. From what I see, however, John has mostly continued to remove the Daily Mail. The Wikipedia article on it calls it a tabloid newspaper, but the word tabloid is WP:Pipelinked with the Tabloid (newspaper format) article; that article makes it clear that "tabloid format" does not necessarily mean "tabloid" and that many valid newspapers use that format. Either way, the administrator who took the matter to WP:AN removed the report from WP:AN and has been discussing the matter on John's talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
| ||
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using
STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
Just wanted to say thanks for your help in removing the ongoing vandalism of this page. It's turning into daily upkeep with a vandal adding irrelevant references to The Exorcist and demons. Sigh. Longchenpa ( talk) 07:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't disappoint you too much, but the items on User:Flyer22#Favorite reads on Wikipedia aren't original. They're part of the large collection of Chuck Norris facts, merely re-attributed. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry for talking to you bad, but that idea still angers me. Anyway, the real reason I came to this page again, is the gender card.
OK, he's the worst asshole in Europe, at least, but I've finished. -- Nmgscp74 ( talk) 4:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I recently edited the Komi Grammar page and found that you reverted my edit as a "good faith" reversion. In reading the STiki page, I notice that Good-faith Reverts are for edits which are "clearly unconstructive, but lack the intent and malice that characterizes vandalism." My edit was not clearly unconstructive, and as such I have since undone your reversion and provided a citation for my original edit. Please do not hesitate to ask for citations!
I also cannot help but notice that your reversion count using STiki has gone from 1,000 STiki reversions on 05:41, 10 September 2013 to 5,000 reversions on 05:08, 19 September 2013. I am aware I do not have a user account, but that does not mean my contributions are as such "clearly unconstructive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.165.84 ( talk)
(do not tell anyone what its contents is) -- Lesbiangirl123 ( talk) 11:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Happy to. Hopefully you can keep an eye on him elsewhere and we can nudge him toward learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22: You removed my note of warning posted on a pernicious "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" page [6] posted in support of over 3,000 words (by my count) of pollution dumped onto the G.W.F. Hegel page [7] by I-don't-know-whom. How would you suggest I flag this content as highly speculative and deriving from a single author (who was an economist, not a philosopher, I have discovered)? Those hoping to learn something about Hegel should not be exposed to this controversial speculation as if it were true and widely-accepted, when, in fact, it has been refuted. Thanks. JBurke01 ( talk) 02:33, 25 September 2013
I deleted the page at the request of the person it was about. Zzebra138 ( talk) 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi flyer22, in pwbradley07, can I please ask why you keep undoing my edits to the Kippax Knights wiki page???? All the changes I have had are true to many locals in our village. My dad & grandfather played for Kippax, I myself play for Kippax, a pride myself on kippax's history in rugby league. Many locals saw my changes and said they were as accurate as ever, and illustrated our history in good order, so I don't see how Iv violated any codes. I feel you were wrong to undo my changes. Thank you for reading this. P W Bradley. Pwbradley071178 ( talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Dear Flyer22,
Why don't you like fun?
63.139.2.226 ( talk) 13:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight. That sentence was not constructive as I forgot to include a very important part. It should have read " The expression is often uttered whilst observing failing Pakistani restaurants through binoculars from the 5th floor of an Upper West Side apartment. I will change it immediately and then there will be no need for you to edit again.
THANKS!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanthecaddy ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your notes in the edit summaries for the Blond article. I also thought it was likely that the IP 41.96.x.x is a sock of محبةالكتب. The edits are of a similar nature but not exactly the same so I'm not really sure. The intent seems to be the same but usually the socks I run across just keep making the exact same edits instead of trying to change it up. Editor Samer154 is also making edits from a similar position (a kind of anti-Western thing, maybe?) but again there's some room for doubt. But given the grammatical issues and the general tone of the edits they do seem to be quacking rather loudly. SQGibbon ( talk) 13:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am currently working on a school project, and I was wondering if you could provide my group with some assistance. I noticed you gave some assistance to some of my colleagues who are working on the Wikipedia page on Marissa Cooper. Our group is working on the Verizon FiOS page, and we are looking for some advice. Would you be able to take a look at our talk page and comment on something that we should improve upon? Are our suggestions good for the topic or is there anything else we should add/remove? If possible, can you comment on the talk page for Verizon FiOS? We appreciate your help! Andrew.prafder ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday I read the article on Marina Oswald Porter. I noticed that it stated that the "backyard photos" taken by Marina of Lee Harvey Oswald were manipulated. This is a viewpoint held by fringe conspiracy theorists that has been thoroughly disproven. Every reputable expert who has examined those photos has verified them as being genuine, including those consulted by the Warren Commision and the HSCA. The article also stated that Marina told the Warren Commision that she had taken a "single" photo with the word "single" emphasized for some reason. In fact, she initially told the WC that she only remembered taking one photo, then later said she may have taken two. She later said she probably did take all four. She told the FBI after the assassination that she had taken all four. Again, only fringe conspiracy theorists claim that Marina only took one photo. The source given for this information is Robert Groden, a discredited conspiracy theorist who was torn to shreds when he testified for the defense in the OJ Simpson trial when he testified that photos of Simpson were manipulated. There was no disclaimer regarding the comments informing the reader that the claims of photo manipulation by conspiracy theorists have been disproven by experts, the comments are simply presented as undisputed fact. I removed the spurious statements and you reverted my changes claiming it to be vandalism. If you are going to present the claims of fringe conspiracy theorists as fact, why not change your 9/11 article to state unequivocally that Bush was behind it? Why not change Barack Obama's birthplace to Kenya, or for that matter remove Elvis' date of death since some believe he is still alive?
Please get rid of the conspiracy related nonsense. Or, if you are going to present it, at least indicate that the info is strictly the view of conspiracy theorists and is not supported by the mainstream. This is about the fourth JFK assassination related article I have tried to clean up after conspiracy theorists have edited it to present their outlandish allegations as fact. 122.150.255.112 ( talk) 00:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I was notified of your use of my quote, and I appreciate that you found it useful. I did notice that the diff you used is not to the original location, so I took the liberty of substituting the original diff. Please look at my edit and the edit summary. I hope you don't mind. I don't usually edit other people's comments, but I felt this would improve the content in a manner which you would find to be okay. If not, please accept my apology and just revert my edit. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi flyer. I was undoing someone's "rm test edit" by re-bolding one of the headers. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojo1498 ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
On the page for My Best Friend's Girl (2008 film), I recently changed the name "Brad Garret" to its proper spelling, Brad Garrett. You changed it back because it was "not constructive". Why is it not constructive to change the name to its proper spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.159.135 ( talk) 05:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for informing Cecildeed for us about edit warring on The Matrix article. Good job noting that he/she is engaging in edit warring. Some people are either meat/sockpuppets, clueless, in denial that trans were once male, or they want to feel important about knowing that Larry is Lana now - forget the fact that The Matrix WAS directed by Larry Wachowski. Active contributors on that article constantly battle this for ages, and it's nice to see some fresh help. I sincerely thank you. Anthonydraco ( talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not know why but there seems to be a certain vandalism or subtextual POV pushing in articles about hair color. I noticed you addressed
Blond (though there is still some odd information on that piece) but
41.96.66.186 did some unconstructive edits to
Black hair a week ago...can you use your rollback powers to bring it back to the last good version?
I really don't understand why hair color is seen as some kind of point of pride or an anatomical aspect that reflects on ones ethnic or national pride. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. Thanks so much for continuing to edit the Wikipedia page we are working on for Marissa Cooper. I'm here to ask you a question regarding citations and references. When following the guidelines, my additions appear in red text. I believe that you corrected the issue we encountered in the "Character's Exit" section. Now, we are facing this issue under references. Do you have any suggestions for us? Thank you for helping us - we really appreciate the time and effort you're putting into this page. JLieberman31 ( talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, but I'm wondering about sources. The sources I can see in the article only mention penetrative relations. Regarding the pic and edit summary, I think the pic makes it non-neutral, as it represents a comparatively small group in the lead (in effect elevating them to a position not attained in sourcing or practise of the act). 2.102.187.114 ( talk) 14:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Circumcision is a cultural phenomenon which is also sometimes a medical procedure. Therefore your substituting a medical source over the lead USA dictionary plain english definition may be misguided .--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
i dont know to talk to you but i had guests over that were on the computer, so i am deeply sorry for any problems they caused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.77.12 ( talk • contribs)
I'm sorry for the table thing. I didn't think it would actually post. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:50C0:F200:F2B4:79FF:FE17:4E3F ( talk) 04:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
| ||
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using
STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Flyer22,
I edited the page on Moon Festivals and removed the alternate name Mooncake Festival. The page has reverted because "it did not appear constructive." Sincere apologies; there is no offence meant. This is the first time (and probably the only time) that I tried editing anything on Wikipedia as this is the only entry my organisation feels strongly about.
We still maintain that the term is incorrect. Is there a way to just remove the term? This is becoming some sort of a cycle: some people started using Mooncake Festival, and they started thinking it was correct. And then it was put on Wikipedia, and then more and more people think it is correct. The closest analogy that I could think of is the American holiday of Thanksgiving where the traditional food is turkey. Just as it will never be and should never be called the turkey festival (which will connote that the turkey is being celebrated), a festival that celebrates the Moon and the Mid-Autumn harvest should not be called after a cake.
The entry affects all the users who want to find out about the Mid-Autumn Moon Festival. More and more people (students, stores, corporations, media) are using Mooncake Festival - still doesn't make the term correct.
Thank you and I hope you understand the dilemma :-)
Bahaytsinoy ( talk) 10:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Meah Ang See, Director, Bahay Tsinoy, museum of Chinese in Philippine life
Dear Flyer22,
Apologies if I have been the cause for any confusion with regard to recent changes to the Wael Hallaq article. I am not an expert Wikipedia editor, having only authored and edited this one article. I will now detail and explain my changes here, so that we might resolve the issue.
1) the identification "non-Muslim Arab" in the opening sentence, though true, has the effect of stereotyping Wael Hallaq and his academic contributions. Although the fact that he is a non-Muslim and an Arab may be of interest to some readers, stating the fact at the outset gives it undue precedence; this wrong emphasis is a disservice to the living subject of the article and to the reader, and, as I have said, comes off as a an attempt to stereotype. Imagine, for example, if the article on Reza Aslan opened with "Reza Aslan is a non-Christian Persian," or the article on Muhammad Ali opened with "Muhammad Ali is a non-Christian African."
2) For the above reason, I chose to remove "non-Muslim Arab" (which, along with its citation, had been added by another editor), and to insert the term "non-Muslim" into the third sentence of the second paragraph. In this way, the fact may be known to those who, for whatever reason, deem it important, but not in such an essentializing and stereotyping manner. As for "Arab," so much should be evident through the combination of his name and birthplace; it need not be stated at the outset as a defining characteristic--the effect, again, is stereotyping.
3) As for my choice of the word "prominent" to replace "non-Muslim Arab," this is not POV requiring citation. The facts related in the article are eloquent testimony to Wael Hallaq's prominence in Islamic Studies: three decades in the academic field, two highly-sought-after and influential professorships, nine authored volumes, and some sixty other publications are evidence enough of prominence in an academic field. Prominence is not proven by citing a text which links the subject to the word "prominent;" rather, it is evidenced by the subject's many and influential accomplishments and publications. Scholars and students in the field of Islamic Legal Studies--my own area of study, authorship, and teaching--know the name Wael Hallaq very well.
I hope I have explained myself adequately. Please let me know if you have any other causes or concerns.
Best, RaHHaal ( talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reported Anarchistdy to the edit warring noticeboard, if you'd like to comment. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you need the good wishes here too, not just at home. Hope you don't mind. I added you to this list. [12] I know you don't like it when your birthday comes around, but try to cheer up. Maybe this message makes up for this [13] and the lack of help you're getting from that article's watchers? Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Good day!
I can understand why my recent edit might not seem constructive, but it is actually true and correct information. The naming of the new wing was a matter brought before the Lovett College Central Committee, referenced in the article, and the proposal to name it "Stinky Leebron" was passed by a majority vote of the eligible elected officers.
If you're interested I can go into more details, but suffice it to say: I would greatly appreciate working with you to include this piece of information in the article. I think there might be a better place to put it, but what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.245.37 ( talk) 23:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in providing evidence regarding Anarchistdy. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you for recently undoing the vandalism to Syrian Emergency Task Force. The same vandalism recently reoccurred and I have undone it. It appears the organization is in the process of folding and re-branding itself (its website has just gone offline and its phone is disconnected) and, I suspect, an attempt is being made to scrub its history as part of a fresh start. I don't know it's necessary to request page protection yet, however, I'll keep watching it and very much appreciate your attentiveness and assistance. BlueSalix ( talk) 07:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thanks for cleaning that up.
I left my browser open and another friend walked over to make a revision without my knowledge
btw chirs is a dumbass.....
keep up the good work.....
Josh 165.249.0.62 ( talk) 15:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually a student at this high school, and as a member of ASB, I know that my mascot's names are Wolfie and Wolfette. Wolfie is the male wolf while Wolfette is the female wolf. I request that I reedit the page to have the correct information. Snowshredder140 ( talk) 04:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Just to clarify, I'm well aware that women can (and often do) achieve orgasm through cunnilingus; but the partner performing the cunnilingus doesn't normally orgasm themselves as a direct result of performing the cunnilingus! -- Taohinton ( talk) 16:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't responded to you I don't use that e-mail anymore but I'm so confused as to what the problem is with the Brad Pitt article, I barely edit anymore. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
How is the information regarding someone being a registered sex offender not considered proper information? Epsecially if the person is paying off victims to not speak about the crime. The man is a registered sex offender and the information should stay as long as he is registered as one. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein-settles-seven-more-la/nL7jm/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.53 ( talk) 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
ˈtɛlʊɡuː is not right. it means టెలుగూ. "తెలుగు" is the proper usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saughmraat ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you undid my edit to List_of_Freezing_episodes, and gave me a warning for vandalism on a previously unused talk page. I added episode 3's English name as soon as it was released when Ep. 2's subbed version streamed. I also added a summary for episode 2. yes i added a note at the end for FonFon Alseif to feel free to replace my temporary summary when he gets around to editing it in a few days. if the note at the end shouldn't be there, then quit being lazy and just quickly revising it, and actually edit the page and selectively delete the part that was unnecessary. When someone adds info to multiple areas, and you undo the whole thing just because one little part wasnt quite "up to snuff" which also deletes a lot of perfectly good information, could also be considered vandalism.
Now im stuck with the 1st thing on my talk page being a post about me being a vandal, and that makes me sad and is insulting.
WA-Zergslayer ( talk) 05:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Kindly approve these Portal support pages
What a Great Help! Thank you very much for the support! - Regards Selvasivagurunathan m ( talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22, I saw you are one of the most recent editors to make substantive contributions to the Whitney Houston article. It seems like it could be an easy GA pass. Given it's one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia, I'm hoping to persuade you to nominate it. I'd be happy to review it there, but it wouldn't be right for me to nominate it given I haven't edited it at all. What do you think? Maybe we can even get it up to FA and have it featured on the main page. Best, Lemurbaby ( talk) 02:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
hello sir, i edited the article LIBIDO with some new information two three days ago with my account named as ed beerman... sir, the purpose of my editing was primarily to come out of my anxiousness. Under the point PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING LIBIDO, a very important factor was the time gap between two ejaculations..generally if a male is on a short term abstinence from any sexual act( that involves ejaculation), he feels a higher sexual desire..but wikipedia missed this important factor.. sir, my question is that can you please analyse and tell why was it not there in that article...i have really been anxious..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
yes ma'm, i have come to know about all you said :) but ma'm my question here is different.. All i request you is to please either check,analyse or tell me with your experience that what can be the reasons that the Point i mad was not mentioned in the physical facotors affecting libido.. Or please direct me to some administrator who is expert of these mdical and health pages..the only reason i am disturbing you is that i am really anxious about this and wanna do my further research being a medical student..hope you spare some time to analyse..many thanks ..ed beerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
"however, stronger odors (whether a person likes them or not) emanate from the vulva than they do from the male genitals; most often (and this is going by WP:Reliable sources) male genitals have no noticeable odor."
Which sources are you talking about here please? Or is there another wikipedia page because I cannot find any reference in the cunnilingus page itself:
"Women may consider personal hygiene before practicing oral sex important, as poor hygiene can lead to bad odors, accumulation of sweat and micro-residue (such as lint, urine or menstrual blood), which the giving partner may find unpleasant. Some women remove or trim pubic hair, which may enhance their oral sex experience."
... nor on vagina, or vulvovaginal health. I have found these references on this matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15355367 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21964208 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22383853 but I would be interested to read the other sources you speak of above. This is not on topic to that discussion so I asked here instead. Thank you in advance. 212.183.128.27 ( talk) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
14:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Hello there I came here after noticing your edits at Football Manager 2014. You might know that earlier was written in an.advertisement manner. I cleaned the article up by reorganizing it and rewriting the promotional text to a neutral point of view. Therefore I think the issues template in the template should be removed as the issues mentioned in the article have been solved. Can you please tell me whether there is a process for getting it removed or if a user can remove it himself if the issues have been solved? Thank you. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my omission of the word "not." I believe when it's referred to as a "peaceful war," that they may have formally declared war but not actually engaged in combat. Cheers, - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
hello excuse me you said my edits are not constructice?!? i noticed you removed my edit from the page why? Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Will Never Say Never! ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you fix it? Monica I Will Never Say Never! ( talk) 01:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi There. Could I ask why you removed text from my company page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchamp_(clothing) ? This is a true reflection of the brand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.148.129 ( talk) 13:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but if you read sources on serial killers you'll see that "lust", despite being the usual nomenclature, is a misleading term. Rape is not motivated by (normal) lust, and if you read the Causes of sexual assault article that I linked to, specifically the Groth typology you'll see that the so-called "lust" murders are the actions of the type of rapist described by Groth as the "Sadistic rapist", whereas the serial killers who are not "lust" murderers are described as "Power rapists". In rewording the article, I was attempting to draw a distinction between the two, and to avoid perpetuating the harmful myth that rape is the inevitable product of normal sexual desire. I admit my wording is a bit clumsy, and including information on the Groth typology in the article itself would probably help. Asarelah ( talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that we must necessarily always stick to the precise wording of the source. After all, don't we paraphrase things on Wikipedia all the time? To describe an individual as committing rape out of "lust" is misleading to a layperson and furthers rape myths. Surely we can reach some compromise rather than rigidly sticking to the original wording? Sorry it took a while to get back to you, I've been busy. Asarelah ( talk) 17:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Please watch those 3RRs. Take it to dispute resolution. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I don't suppose you could take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/How to Lose Your Virginity (film)? It's queued up in the list of AFC submissions, and I honestly can't tell if it's notable or not. Since I believe this is your subject area of expertise, I thought you might be able to give a better opinion on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22 - just to say thank you for your tactful prompt, and I guess the result is that between the two of us we've improved what was there. (The sentence "Rose endures arduous routes to free Jack." really did not cheer my editor's heart!) Alfietucker ( talk) 21:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It says that you changed my edit of LHOOQ because it didn't add anything productive. My edit to the page was a reversion of an inaccurate and possibly vandalizing edit. The edit before mine had to do with what the letters "LHOOQ" sound like when read out in French. All sources say it is supposed to read "Elle a chaud au cul", which translates to "She has a hot ass". That is the factual, literal translation of how it was intended to be interpreted, as backed by all of the sources of the page. The edit changed it to "elle est jolie" which sounds nothing like "èl ache o o qu" and does not agree with any of the sources given on the page. I understand a bot may have detected bad words or something, but I was reverting that edit to the previous, accurate information. 65.29.239.115 ( talk) 02:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you saw this and knew nothing you wrote bothered me. -- NeilN talk to me 15:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop in and say thanks... I was making some edits to quantitative easing, and checked the history to see what had happened recently. What to my wondering eyes should appear, but Flyer22 and the stiki-wiki reindeer! :-) Appreciate it. Also, note that the anon you reverted was definitely intending to delete the entire history-subsection of the article -- their edit-comment was "section blank". It seems unlikely that was a beginning-editor mistake, since it is the only edit from that IP, knew to use an edit-comment, and surgically excised just that one exact section, according to the contribs button. Do you have checkuser, to see if there are other IPs or usernames the same entity may be editing from? Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As referred to by you, It is not my personal opinion that the term disgraced to be used in the initial reference to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju. Numerous articles and newspapers including Press Trust of India, Associated Press referred to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju as disgraced. Please do not see this as name calling but rather a truth of matter. As Dwpaul said, a simple search would reveal several thousand sources. Neil2000 ( talk) 16:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm shocked to learn that a self-admitted accounting fraudster who ripped off millions of investors and employees alike would be called anything other than a disgraced. More so by your assertion that not everyone agrees to that characterization. No wonder that considering anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information. Neil2000 ( talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello flyer, may I present to you this triad of queries.
proposal concerning channeling destructive vandalism, into more useful... or at least non-destructive... pursuits, by turning it into an online videogame of sorts
|
---|
Still... most of the wiki-vandals are schoolkids, trying to spray-paint their name on the water-tower. Some of them want to get away with it... and if we were to publicize the times and dates and geolocations of their vandalisms, sooner or later they would not get away with it, because a local teacher, parent, or cop would catch them in the act. Others are more like Herostratus-the-historical-vandal, not doing it to get away with it, but doing it for fame. Maybe we can feed that desire, and channel the destructive vandalism, into semi-constructive vandalism... satisfy the desire for fame... and perhaps, with luck, convert some of the former semi-constructive vandals into actually-constructive editors, at some point. In a nutshell: why don't we invent the Non-Destructive Humorous Vandal Barnstar? Once a year, the winner of the most NDHVB awards that year will be given the chance to rewrite the blurb of their choice on the wikipedia mainpage (suggest we pick 1st April as the award-day), without being reverted, no holds barred, they can say *anything* they want short of BLP libel and copyvio. (Technically speaking, we might even be able to swing copyvio, as long as we respond within 24 hours to the DMCA takedown notice.) Of course, we only award NDHVB for something which *added* a paragraph, or image, or similar, to wikipedia, without removing anything. If you draw a mustache on the *main* picture at the mona lisa article, you were destructive... but if you add a *second* picture, with the caption 'recently biospectrosopy analysis revealed a previously-invisible portion of the famous painting which was overpainted in the 1700s by museum officials' then you were adding without deleting anything. Any destructive actions you make will *subtract* from your count of NDHVB awards for that year... but at the end of every year, your subtractions are cancelled out. When something ironic, humorous, interesting, or otherwise potentially worthy of an NDHVB award is added to some wikipedia article, rather than immediately reverting it on sight, it would instead be given a special ((ndhvb top)) ... ((ndhvb bottom)) template-wrapper. Regular users, and even regular editors, would not need to see such things -- by default, the wrapper-tags would make the ndhvb candidate invisible. Editors that *did* opt in to the ability to see ndhvb content, would see the content with some kind of squiggly red outline, or something... and a button at the bottom, which can be clicked to award the author with an ndhvb on their talkpage. Of course, default-hidden would *not* apply to the annual winner of ndhvb; their mainpage article would be visible to all, and most likely not marked with red squiggles either (though probably a sentence at the end saying 'april fools!' would be mandated by arbcom). Finally, note that although the editors who participated in awarding and subtracting ndhvb stars would have to opt-in, the *vandals* would not opt-in... we just judge their 'work' as to whether it deserves an hdhvb star, or instead deserves a negative-ndhvb-star, and put our decision on their talkpage. Next time they visit wikipedia, they have 'new messages'... and find out they are involved in a contest, with a tantalizing prize. We have a leaderboard with the current high scores, a daily high score winner, a map of all the recent positive and negative ndhvb counts, a list of articles currently containing ndhvb candidates sorted by highest current individual score to zero-but-trying-hard score (sub-zero counts of destructive vandalism-examples are *never* displayed at all). WP:MMORPG. Anyhoo, I'm not actually suggesting this is a good idea. It might be a terrible idea, with horrible unintended consequences. We don't want to glorify vandalism, and end up with a bunch of aspiring vandals. On the other hand, we already have tons of vandals, from what I can tell. So maybe this idea is not so crazy, especially if we manage to bring the more-creative vandals onto our side... after all, if they edit from their school IP, trying to win ndhvb for the year, and some other kid is destructively vandalizing, and getting their hard-earned ndhvb awards subtracted away.... Anyways, hope you find this interesting. Mull it over, and let me know if you find any holes, please, or have suggestions (to include of course fur-get-dabout-it). |
Danke 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
p.s. ((later update)) There is in fact a long tradition, which stretches back before recorded edit-history even, of this sort of non-destructive-humorous-vandalism collection. It was sorta-ended by sorta-consensus circa 2007, due to worries that the practice sorta-encouraged vandalism. May I present, the most inspired citation needed policy shortcut of all time: WP:-) One highlight, from a discussion about whether one particular not-very-appetizing-looking image-file of an orange-colored fruit may, or may not, have been posted in violation of WP:COI by competitors..... "I am not about to accuse you of being the person who posted the offending picture or of being involved in the apple industry, but my antenna is up." Alrighty-then. Carry on. — 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: The Angelina Jolie section that I reference in this section was deleted per WP:BLP concerns. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you have summarily undone the changes that I have made in good faith, in the third gender article. This is against the "rights to undo" that you have been asigned. I am willing to discuss the changes that I have made and provide citations and delete where there is a controversy/ lack of citation.( Masculinity ( talk) 08:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
http://www.google.co.uk/#q=when+was+mariah+carey+born it says 1970. D to the ina, R to the ae☻ My Talk Page 15:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi - why did you revert my edit to 'A30 road', calling it unconstructive, which was the addition of the name of the exit at the junction with the A395 called 'Kennards House'? This is the proper name of the exit and is named as such on the signposts. I live locally and use this exit regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.63.160 ( talk) 19:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm...based on lengthy discussions on the talk page for circumcision, I was told that we "do not use any Commentary articles as sources for biomedical information" in response to my suggestion that we use one. So which is the case? -- (Moshe) מֹשֶׁה 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Response to reverting The battle of great bridge By thel33teditor's team.
Hey mister why did u revert my post on the battle of great bridge i found it to just long drawn and so i just decided to make it shorter... cause the truth is everyone died... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thel33teditor ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
22:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Hi Flyer, I have just left a message for the editor who has been harassing you to stop doing it. I suggest that you keep as far a distance as you can as well, don't edit their User Talk page and avoid any other unnecessary interaction.
Zad
68
03:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Dark Mistress is almost certainly banned user John254. Thought you'd want to know that! OSTheRobot ( talk) 15:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What's with that guy? Did you see Harm OCD? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer, I left a note on User talk:50.171.11.116 about removing the persondata and proper way to discuss changing something. I also undid User talk:Radiohist change of birthyear to 1969 and birth place of Greece. Radiohist used a whitepages service to find a Cody in Henrietta, but I don't see any source stating she lives there. There is not any RS on it, but IMDB does say 1975. I left Radiohist a note too. Not sure what is going on here. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Soap Operas for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I edited and restored the para I deleted. Hopefully, the para is a bit more clear now. Also, added a couple of references. Memills ( talk) 04:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Has there ever been an SPI on User:L'Origine du monde? It's interesting that, because of my previous interest in that user, my huge watchlist, currently at 8,640, contains the types of articles edited by that user, and I did notice that IP's first edit appear on my watchlist before leaving my computer. I even paused to think that there was something oddly familiar about it. Now I'm back, and find that you have contacted that IP. All very interesting. If User:L'Origine du monde starts socking, we may find much more activity on these types of articles, because a fetish/compulsion can be hard to resist, and I truly believe that User:L'Origine du monde has such a disorder. I also suspect they are male, but I notice that some seem to think they are female. Why? -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I knew a bit about the rule, but if there is no archive what's the point of having a dead link if a content is not verifiable any longer? If its better, I will substitute the dead link with an existing one, but then I would need to change the whole link, (publisher, date, its access, etc.)-- Mishae ( talk) 20:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Flyer22, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 12:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
You removed *one* (not many) duplicate links I didn't see at that small section. Was that such a big deal to have to send me a second note? Just remove the one duplicate link, which you did, without having to rub it in with another note. "Thought you were done at a few, but then you kept going." Yes, after I found others, although some were duplicates I didn't see placed earlier in the article. There is nothing wrong with "then kept going" in a long article with many nouns and terms that I thought were unlinked and important to link. Nobody's perfect, and if I unknowingly made a duplicate error, just silently remove it without a snarky comment, and keep going to another page to look for duplicate links or errors. Katydidit ( talk) 19:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
A drawing is a depiction of an act, not the real actual act, but a photo shows the reality, and as an educational encyclopedia I'd think we better show the reality. Many other articles have photos. Cogiati ( talk) 03:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't access the dailymail site so scanning google search page 1 gave me poor. The actual articles say none. I wonder if he can still smell ammonia. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer,
I noticed your contrib to genital modification and mutilation. I am surprised that you challenged my minor edit when there is so much more work that needs to be done on the page.
Anyway, I always appreciate the challenge of criticism, if it is constructive. Would you like to contribute to a new page: Child's right to genital integrity/autonomy movement?
/info/en/?search=User:DavidHGrateful/sandbox
DavidHGrateful ( talk) 10:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If it doesn't stop, report it to WP:ANI, or let me know and I'll do it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: The IP has continued on a different IP range, as IP 202.67.40.24; the IP also somewhat reminds me of Atotalstranger's "race"/ethnicity/nationality editing. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Sir, the INS Vikramaditya Aircraft carrier is already commissioned into the Indian Navy and is not long a "Future" Aircraft carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.180.205 ( talk) 12:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22, Thanks for the heads up concerning the edits I made on the Refractory period (sex) article on [ 09:59, November 16, 2013]. I am aware of Wikipedia's Policy on Overlinking and Underlinking, the reason I added the links to oxytocin and prolactin was to aid in the understanding of the article, as WP:UNDERLINK states:
While I was reading the article, I did notice that the words oxytocin and prolactin were linked in the beginning of the article, but they were not linked later on (and it was later on in the article that I needed to click on those terms to better understand the article). So, while I understand your point on WP:OVERLINK, I think linking things more than once is justified under WP:UNDERLINK because linking the words oxytocin and prolactin (even if they're linked more than once) aids in the understanding of the article, because oxytocin and prolactin are technical terms. It's a lot easier to click on a link for oxytocin and prolactin whenever a question arises rather than going back to the top of the page to find the original link. I think it was ok to add in these links because they were helpful. I think helping the readers is probably more important than following some of these rules word for word. If Wikipedia isn't helpful, then people won't use it, and if people won't use Wikipedia, then all our editing becomes rather pointless. Does that make sense? Wikipedia talks a little bit about this on their Policies and Guidelines article. Also, Wikipedia's Ignoring all Rules – A Beginner's Guide even says that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I'm still sort of new to editing, so I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or something, I just know that it was difficult for me to get motivated to edit stuff until I saw articles that encouraged breaking rules when its done in the right spirit and for the right reasons. (P.S. I added this message to your talk page is because I don't know if wikipedia notifies users to comments made on a former posting.) Crice88 ( talk) 20:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi you revoked a change I made to this page /info/en/?search=Lori_Petty I removed a link that was not referenced, that I would consider a very strong thing to say without evidence, that a film about abuse, rape, drugs, prostitution etc was biographical - there is no mention of this on the film wiki page no on imdb etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lori_Petty&oldid=579590663&diff=prev can you explain further or revoke your decision? thanks Annax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missannafjmorris ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your username twice for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Hello, Flyer22. The article Avatar (2009 film), in which you edited the most, has been nominated to be a featured article. If you would like to become co-nominators with the nominator to work together to fix issues, or discuss what needs to be done, please join in the conversation that is happening now. Thank You! Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This article recently passed through Articles for creation and while I think it's a legitimate topic, it seems to be in a very sorry state. I could just go in and hack out all unreferenced content, but that would be akin to a bull in a china shop or saying to John "I think this cite from the Daily Mail might resolve the dispute". Could you take a look and suggest improvements? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As the most active person on that page (and Ive encountered you before if memory serves), ive posted to the talk page under "Edit suggestion regarding Treatment (not NPOV)" and "Broader scope" which would need attention. Appreciate your input .
As for the the latter, Ive mentioned on other talk pages about expansion here which I can do in about a month
ps- If you wouldnt mind, could comment on the last 2 sections at Talk:War rape( Lihaas ( talk) 20:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)).
This user has contributed to Man of Steel (film) good articles on Wikipedia. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Man of Steel (film), which recently was promoted to WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok. I misread it. I thought it was saying the vagina was visible which would have been consistent with the common misuse of the term to mean vulva. Robert Brockway ( talk) 14:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, in the article on Nucular you reverted an IP contribution to the effect that the form is a “common alternative pronunciation”. While it is certainly true that “nucular” is widely regarded as a “mispronunciation” (the earlier, and restored, version), both views are in fact possible. As early as 2002 Jeff Nunberg, while emphatically calling the form a mispronunciation, indicated that it seemed to be used intentionally by certain people in certain registers ( http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/nucular.html). I therefore propose a different version, which I have added to the article. Hope you don’t disagree. Bessel Dekker ( talk) 19:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Gold STiki Barnstar of Merit
| ||
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 25,000 classification threshold using
STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC) |
If you click on the picture, it will enlarge to fill the screen. Daguerre took this picture out of his window and the traffic was moving during the long exposure, and didn't register on the daguerreotype plate. The only figures that can be seen are a bootblack/ shoeshine boy polishing the shoes of a gentleman wearing a tail coat.
I put the caption in and called the shoe shiner a "bootblack" or was it a "shoe shine boy" (?) Then it seemed others came and changed it, and it became "two men, one servicing the other" which was regarded as having unfortunate connotations, and changed.
Now it is: the two men at lower left ((one apparently having his boots polished by the other) remained still long enough to be distinctly visible
What's wrong with bootblack? That was the term in Victorian England, and this is Paris of the 1850s. Don't seem like any accident to me who was polishing whose boots. RPSM ( talk) 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You really ought to try reading what people post sometime. I didn't change the meaning of the policy, I just made it clearer. It shouldn't be controversial - although I see that you are no stranger to controversy. So in that case, just assume good faith for once. OK? Harfarhs ( talk) 20:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, hi... This is my first time trying to use a talk page, so pardon my awkwardness... I took a peek at your deleting of my Monster High edit. I have seen all the webisodes, read all the character bios, watched all the movies but one, and read all the books in the series by Lisi Harrison. I know all that information was correct. I am using combined knowledge of books and web site. If you want me to change it back, I will, but I will leave it alone for now. Thanks for your understanding! I don't have an account, but you can call me Beebef! Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.160.241 ( talk) 00:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You have, I think three times now, edited out the hyperlink on the page to the twitter page of Paul Cohen (also known as me). As far as I can tell, this isn't a style issue surrounding linking names to personal websites (a good number of the other committee members on the page are linked to their social media accounts) so why are you continually removing that one hyperlink? I hope to hear a response soon and resolve this issue with you.-- 86.162.96.219 ( talk) 00:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You reverted 3 edits on Satoshi Nakamoto. Can I ask why? As you'd said in the edit summary, they were good faith edits. And in line with the consensus on the talk page. 14.203.128.226 ( talk) 12:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Your participation as a (former) soap opera editor is required here. Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Your participation as a soap opera editor is required here. Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 02:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In that case, Category:LGBT actors isn't a container category as it is professed to be.-- ukexpat ( talk) 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
...that it was already covered in WP:IRS.--v/r - T P 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
``` Buster Seven Talk 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
...about user 24.38.134.185's edits James A. Bayard, Jr. I see that you have reverted them already here. Pburka and I have been reverting them for the past day or so. Epicgenius ( talk) 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I was looking up the Fairness Doctrine and noticed a bot had tried to remove an orphan ref tag, but it inadvertently erased the first part of the ref tag, making the contents of said tag appear on the main page instead of the reference link. I completed the sentence as previous good edits had it, and fixed the ref tag. Im not a regular contributor, so feel free to change it as you see fit, but what you reverted to looks sloppy with exposed formatting code. Did you even see the article view of what you reverted to? ( 96.235.0.188 ( talk) 13:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC))
In regards to this edit, whether we're doing indents the way Wikipedia would like us to (i.e., WP:INDENT, which I was already well aware of) or whether we're doing them the way most people actually do them (one more than the last until someone decides to {{ od}}), AnonMoos's post should be indented at least one, since he's replying to JRhorstman. Or have I missed something? – RobinHood70 talk 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have learned that one of my edits had been reverted by you. May I ask why? It was a minor edit. I just added a description for the IPA symbol in the article. G4sponge ( talk) 22:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As you did here. It's probably in a guideline somewhere, but even better than that, it's common courtesy. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 16:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvolved third-party, might I suggest that the best course of action might be to discontinue this converation, or take it to
dispute resolution?Nevermind, I suppose, in light of the last part of Flyer's comment, but I wish you both could have chilled out rather than continuing to push each other. Godspeed.
DonIago (
talk)
19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: Matter taken here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nathan Johnson refusing to stay off my talk page, edit warring over a longstanding practice, inappropriately templating a regular, and demanding a retraction. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Adonis Stevenson, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. The editor was attempting to adopt a more neutral POV in the article, and the edit was properly sourced. Gagnon88 ( talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
For your kind attention: [15] [16]. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.130.159 ( talk) 02:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Flyer22; Your edits on the DSM-5 edit page indicated you might have the actual manual available. On the Schizophrenia Talk page, there is a list of DSM-5 transition edits identified for upgrade from DMS-4 residual edits still on the old version of the Page being currently displayed. This is one of the few FA psychology pages and can use a little help or comment. Things have been slowed down in making the DSM-5 transition edits there since not all the editors at that wikipage actually have the DSM-5 in hand. Could you glance at this? BillMoyers ( talk) 16:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
By mathematical impossibility I just meant that in hetero relationships both sexes have exactly the same number of partners. This is simple math [ [17]] Bhny ( talk) 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit on Talk:Sexism. I appreciate that you're looking out for me and that you took the time to give your view on the topic. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
I'm not seeing how it's non-constructive? The brand was bought out of liquidation and is now on sale at Sports Direct - NOT the home of superior casual menswear! -- 82.41.251.96 ( talk) 22:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I apologize. My mistake. Obviously I was confused and blamed the wrong IP party. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Referring to your quick revert and edit comment here. I have no objections to your revert, even though I thought it was relatively uncontroversial, as it merely reflected Jimbo's, and I thought, consensus view. I DO object though to your rather snarky edit summary. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would try to be more polite. If you leave comments like this, you will just create unnecessary friction. A relatively neutral comment like, "please discuss on the talk page first" would have been much better. LK ( talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22, to explain, I have sent the following to MrX and I feel that I should explain to you also. I do not mean to cause any offense and if I have done so please accept my apology as it would have been totally unintentional. I apologize again as I did not understand the revert and I hope I now explain the reason why I am trying to add to the paragraph in question.
Focusing on MrX and Josh3580 notes, I feel what I am trying to say is not tangential since there is a statement that refers to Buddhism in this article and also refers to an “integral part of Buddhist monastic life”. It is thus within the context of the text to provide the balanced view of the Buddhist monastic code that must be followed by Monks and Nuns and laity including in Japan. This code is what is referenced from the Pali Canonical texts and prescribes the monastic life. This code is not my opinion, it is what Buddhist must follow to be called a Buddhist especially for those that live a monastic life. This code includes refraining from sexual intercourse and is relevant to any form of intercourse including sexual behavior between members of the same sex such as may be the case in homosexuality.
The generalized terms in the paragraph I am trying to add to, especially “integral part of ” and “This same-sex love culture” denotes that this is the normal, when in fact it is the reverse and such practices are not advocated. Such statements may mislead the reader if not balanced. To balance the text I provided the following source –
Wallace, Alan B. (2002), ‘The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West’, Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, Charles Prebish & Martin Baumann (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Page 37, paragraph 2, lines 1 to 9 state:
‘Over the course of daily life, lay Theravada Buddhists may occasionally take the eight precepts for a period ranging from one day to a week, during which time they may stay in a temple and devote themselves to religious practices, including meditation and chanting. The eight precepts include the more common five lay precepts of refraining from (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) false speech, (4) sexual misconduct, and (5) the use of intoxicants, in addition to the three precepts of refraining from (6) eating after midday, (7) enjoying worldly amusements, and (8) indulging in luxurious sleeping arrangements and sexual intercourse.’
Here, it is seen that when staying in a temple, similar to but less strict than observing monastic life, one must refrain from sexual intercourse. This is a strict code for Buddhists and is referenced from the Canonical texts.
I have been told that this citation is not reputed so I have found the following text that references the five and eight precepts directly from the Tipitaka (Canonical texts). The Tipitaka is the direct teaching from the Buddha that Buddhist Monks, Nuns and laity are required to adhere to be Buddhist.
The source is,
[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.
This article can be accessed using the web version located at - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html
Please note the following page, paragraph and line numbers refer to the pdf document version that can be found using Google scholar.
From this source, Page 26, paragraph 2, line 6 states that the “pañcasila”, also known as the five precepts includes the training rule, ‘(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;’
Page 26, Paragraph 3, states that this is one of the five precepts that forms a minimal ethical code that binds Buddhist laity. Here the term “sexual misconduct” means sexual relationships or conduct not within or before marriage.
On page 36, paragraph 5, lines 1 to 4 it states, ‘Beyond the five precepts Buddhism offers a higher code of moral discipline for the laity consisting of eight precepts (atthasila). This code of eight precepts is not entirely different in content from the fivefold code, but includes the five precepts with one significant revision. The revision comes in the third precept, where abstaining from sexual misconduct is changed to abstaining from incelibacy.’
This means that an un-ordained Buddhist who does not live in a monastery and lives an ordinary life, like you and me, and who observes the eight precepts must practice celibacy.
To reach this level an ordinary Buddhist must abide or live in what is known as the Three Refuges. To first enter into abiding by the three refuges, Page 2, Paragraph 1, lines 5 to 9 says that,
‘If one has sincerely become convinced of the truth of the Buddha's teaching, and wishes to follow the teaching, it is preferable, when possible, to conform to the prescribed way of going for refuge that has come down in the Buddhist tradition. This way is to receive the three refuges from a Bhikkhu’. A Bhikkhu is ‘a Buddhist monk who has taken full ordination and remains in good standing in the monastic Order.’
It is clear that to take the precept of celibacy, meaning to abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, one must first take the refuges from a Buddhist Monk that leads a monastic life in the monastic order. It is clear that for a Buddhist Monk or Nun to live a monastic life the Monk or Nun must also follow the precept of celibacy, otherwise the Monk or Nun would have broken this precept or code of conduct and would be required to disrobe and enter normal life.
It is clear from the referenced texts that what is integral to the Buddhist monastic life with any link to sexual relations is celibacy. This contradicts what is written in the paragraph that I am trying to balance. This also brings into question the documented evidence, paintings and literature that is stated in this paragraph.
Please review the following proposed addition to this paragraph,
“However, it may be argued that such documented evidence would have given rise to such paintings and literature. Further, it may be argued as to the authenticity of such literature that sought to document Buddhist and Samurai traditions. This assertion is supported by the Buddhist practice that advocates refraining from sexual misconduct in ordinary life and advocates a strict code of celibacy in monastic life.[1]”
[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.
If you like I can enter this as a separate paragraph that follows on. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this as I would not want to mislead the reader in anyway. I feel the article handles well what may be seen by some as sensitive, and I respect its content. This is why I want to give the reader as much information as possible so any question of misinformation does not arise. As recommended I will also begin look to start a new section on the article's Talk Page. However, I wanted to contact you directly before doing so. Sorry if I have written a lot on this, however, I wanted to explain what happened. I thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Tdmdb ( talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not a sign of good health when you join an online virtual community and you use phrases such as "my enemy", "i dislike him/her", etc. Please remember that we are all unpaid volunteers and we are bound to get disagreements. Don't make a minor content dispute personal please. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 20:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the heads up/confirmation. I've been watching pass a method for a while, and his/her edits are extremely biased towards very specific pov, depending on the article. EzPz ( talk) 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
hello Flyer22, funny you should say the comments are not constructive as i, Lewis Leopold Gardner am the brother of the greatest superstar that has ever graced the face of this earth! so therefore i think that i would know a little better than you! so please leave my further additions to my brother alex's page alone!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisgardner93 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
After reading your revert comment and viewing the original link and comparing with my link, it appears I misunderstood the original page. I thought it linked to the verb, and not adjective. Sincere apologies on my part. Thanks for catching my mistake. 5chris100 ( talk) 01:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you read the text of these laws passed in Russia? Their real text, not Interpretations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.214.197 ( talk) 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've marked it as such on the talk page and explained why she is not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awhitenoisemaker ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Check completed, no sleepers apparent. NativeForeigner Talk 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I read the whole article and didn't find anything that concerns about how to edit the box office gross of a film. So I highly doubt your statement that Betty Logan was acting as per WP:FILM. In that case if you are incorrect then my statement was completely correct that she was overstepping her limits. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 14:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. FYI, see the recent discussion on my talk page here. Apparently the issues with "John" and his obstreperousness as a WP "deletionist" on the Brad Pitt article are not unique. ;) Centpacrr ( talk) 20:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- John ( talk) 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm EatsShootsAndLeaves. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Flyer22 that didn't seem very civil, so it should be removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AFlyer22&diff=572932075&oldid=572931110 This was wholly inappropriate, and you already know that. ES &L 10:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Noting here (especially for the archive) actual personal attacks, brought to us by the lovely John, with responses from me: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Oh, and assuming good faith is not something that has ever led me to any serious trouble in the past. A lot of, if not most, Wikipedia editors have had a problem assuming good faith at Wikipedia at one point or another. I'm an extremely good judge of character, am right about 98% of the time (as many Wikipedia editors here can attest to, especially when it concerns problematic editors and/or predicting their editing behavior). And I was/am absolutely right about John. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You're going to want to slow down and let the ANI thread develop (weekends are slow on WP). You've got a clear consensus at BLP/N. Don't let the discussion be sidetracked by something you post in haste.
Also, if you find an editor's GF effort to help not helpful to you it's generally acceptable to post a polite request they cease posting on your talk page.
NE Ent
13:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
We say a lot of things in the heat of the moment. I can dig out edits on WP that I have personally looked at and said to my monitor, "yeah, and **** you too". The absolutely essential thing you have got to do is never ever transfer that thought onto a keyboard. All it takes is for one person to see you calling John "stubborn" and "disruptive" ( [5]), and people will think "well, it's tit for tat, they're as bad as each other, no action required". I don't think that's your desired outcome from this, is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
All over AN/I I see editors being blocked for ignoring community consensus. But, all of a sudden, when an administrator is against community consensus, edit wars against community consensus, and calls another editor a "dumbass," it's the editor who raises the issue, the "dumbass," who is at fault, and WP:Consensus and WP:Administrators no longer have meaning. It's like a mobile phone company, only one party is held to the contract. Very disappointing.
I don't think John would have blocked you; there is no evidence he has done that before (someone would have provided a diff if he had). I disagree with you about People, it should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. I will discuss that on the BLP sources board.
Try to let this one go. User:John has promised to continue disrupting editing by ignoring community consensus. Other editors will get tired of his disruption and name calling. People will then cite this AN/I report as evidence that he continues to be disruptive.
Please continue bringing differences of consensus to community boards where the issues can be discussed by the community. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC))
Despite what I recently said on ANI, I really don't deliberately go around and upset people - honest! It's just that threads tend to generate lots of hot air and drama, and sometimes improving an article can take your mind off it and clear your head a bit. How about, say, taking Romantic orientation to GA, or even B class? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: I've started this section; it is simply documentation here on my talk page of John's continued less-than-desired behavior.
Those at WP:ANI or elsewhere asserting that John would not have blocked me were wrong. This is an instance where I feel the need to state "Told you so." Not too long after my unpleasant interactions with John, he blocked someone that he was in a dispute with; that person was unblocked because of the rationale that John was WP:INVOLVED. Like me, that editor made an observation that John is on a power trip. Clearly, the Daily Mail is not a good source to use, especially for biographies of living persons, but there are still some experienced Wikipedia editors who are iffy on its use and therefore John blocking that editor for his or her repeated reversions of him on that matter was inappropriate. If repeatedly reverting the editor is generally considered prevention of a WP:BLP violation, then I wouldn't classify that as WP:INVOLVED; I wouldn't because reversions of WP:BLP violations are, for example, exempt from WP:3RR. A different administrator took the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) not only because of the block, but because John has continued to remove sources and the text the sources support...even though others may not categorize such sources as tabloids. From what I see, however, John has mostly continued to remove the Daily Mail. The Wikipedia article on it calls it a tabloid newspaper, but the word tabloid is WP:Pipelinked with the Tabloid (newspaper format) article; that article makes it clear that "tabloid format" does not necessarily mean "tabloid" and that many valid newspapers use that format. Either way, the administrator who took the matter to WP:AN removed the report from WP:AN and has been discussing the matter on John's talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
| ||
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using
STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) |
Just wanted to say thanks for your help in removing the ongoing vandalism of this page. It's turning into daily upkeep with a vandal adding irrelevant references to The Exorcist and demons. Sigh. Longchenpa ( talk) 07:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't disappoint you too much, but the items on User:Flyer22#Favorite reads on Wikipedia aren't original. They're part of the large collection of Chuck Norris facts, merely re-attributed. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry for talking to you bad, but that idea still angers me. Anyway, the real reason I came to this page again, is the gender card.
OK, he's the worst asshole in Europe, at least, but I've finished. -- Nmgscp74 ( talk) 4:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I recently edited the Komi Grammar page and found that you reverted my edit as a "good faith" reversion. In reading the STiki page, I notice that Good-faith Reverts are for edits which are "clearly unconstructive, but lack the intent and malice that characterizes vandalism." My edit was not clearly unconstructive, and as such I have since undone your reversion and provided a citation for my original edit. Please do not hesitate to ask for citations!
I also cannot help but notice that your reversion count using STiki has gone from 1,000 STiki reversions on 05:41, 10 September 2013 to 5,000 reversions on 05:08, 19 September 2013. I am aware I do not have a user account, but that does not mean my contributions are as such "clearly unconstructive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.165.84 ( talk)
(do not tell anyone what its contents is) -- Lesbiangirl123 ( talk) 11:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Happy to. Hopefully you can keep an eye on him elsewhere and we can nudge him toward learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22: You removed my note of warning posted on a pernicious "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" page [6] posted in support of over 3,000 words (by my count) of pollution dumped onto the G.W.F. Hegel page [7] by I-don't-know-whom. How would you suggest I flag this content as highly speculative and deriving from a single author (who was an economist, not a philosopher, I have discovered)? Those hoping to learn something about Hegel should not be exposed to this controversial speculation as if it were true and widely-accepted, when, in fact, it has been refuted. Thanks. JBurke01 ( talk) 02:33, 25 September 2013
I deleted the page at the request of the person it was about. Zzebra138 ( talk) 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi flyer22, in pwbradley07, can I please ask why you keep undoing my edits to the Kippax Knights wiki page???? All the changes I have had are true to many locals in our village. My dad & grandfather played for Kippax, I myself play for Kippax, a pride myself on kippax's history in rugby league. Many locals saw my changes and said they were as accurate as ever, and illustrated our history in good order, so I don't see how Iv violated any codes. I feel you were wrong to undo my changes. Thank you for reading this. P W Bradley. Pwbradley071178 ( talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Dear Flyer22,
Why don't you like fun?
63.139.2.226 ( talk) 13:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight. That sentence was not constructive as I forgot to include a very important part. It should have read " The expression is often uttered whilst observing failing Pakistani restaurants through binoculars from the 5th floor of an Upper West Side apartment. I will change it immediately and then there will be no need for you to edit again.
THANKS!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanthecaddy ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your notes in the edit summaries for the Blond article. I also thought it was likely that the IP 41.96.x.x is a sock of محبةالكتب. The edits are of a similar nature but not exactly the same so I'm not really sure. The intent seems to be the same but usually the socks I run across just keep making the exact same edits instead of trying to change it up. Editor Samer154 is also making edits from a similar position (a kind of anti-Western thing, maybe?) but again there's some room for doubt. But given the grammatical issues and the general tone of the edits they do seem to be quacking rather loudly. SQGibbon ( talk) 13:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am currently working on a school project, and I was wondering if you could provide my group with some assistance. I noticed you gave some assistance to some of my colleagues who are working on the Wikipedia page on Marissa Cooper. Our group is working on the Verizon FiOS page, and we are looking for some advice. Would you be able to take a look at our talk page and comment on something that we should improve upon? Are our suggestions good for the topic or is there anything else we should add/remove? If possible, can you comment on the talk page for Verizon FiOS? We appreciate your help! Andrew.prafder ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Yesterday I read the article on Marina Oswald Porter. I noticed that it stated that the "backyard photos" taken by Marina of Lee Harvey Oswald were manipulated. This is a viewpoint held by fringe conspiracy theorists that has been thoroughly disproven. Every reputable expert who has examined those photos has verified them as being genuine, including those consulted by the Warren Commision and the HSCA. The article also stated that Marina told the Warren Commision that she had taken a "single" photo with the word "single" emphasized for some reason. In fact, she initially told the WC that she only remembered taking one photo, then later said she may have taken two. She later said she probably did take all four. She told the FBI after the assassination that she had taken all four. Again, only fringe conspiracy theorists claim that Marina only took one photo. The source given for this information is Robert Groden, a discredited conspiracy theorist who was torn to shreds when he testified for the defense in the OJ Simpson trial when he testified that photos of Simpson were manipulated. There was no disclaimer regarding the comments informing the reader that the claims of photo manipulation by conspiracy theorists have been disproven by experts, the comments are simply presented as undisputed fact. I removed the spurious statements and you reverted my changes claiming it to be vandalism. If you are going to present the claims of fringe conspiracy theorists as fact, why not change your 9/11 article to state unequivocally that Bush was behind it? Why not change Barack Obama's birthplace to Kenya, or for that matter remove Elvis' date of death since some believe he is still alive?
Please get rid of the conspiracy related nonsense. Or, if you are going to present it, at least indicate that the info is strictly the view of conspiracy theorists and is not supported by the mainstream. This is about the fourth JFK assassination related article I have tried to clean up after conspiracy theorists have edited it to present their outlandish allegations as fact. 122.150.255.112 ( talk) 00:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I was notified of your use of my quote, and I appreciate that you found it useful. I did notice that the diff you used is not to the original location, so I took the liberty of substituting the original diff. Please look at my edit and the edit summary. I hope you don't mind. I don't usually edit other people's comments, but I felt this would improve the content in a manner which you would find to be okay. If not, please accept my apology and just revert my edit. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi flyer. I was undoing someone's "rm test edit" by re-bolding one of the headers. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojo1498 ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
On the page for My Best Friend's Girl (2008 film), I recently changed the name "Brad Garret" to its proper spelling, Brad Garrett. You changed it back because it was "not constructive". Why is it not constructive to change the name to its proper spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.159.135 ( talk) 05:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for informing Cecildeed for us about edit warring on The Matrix article. Good job noting that he/she is engaging in edit warring. Some people are either meat/sockpuppets, clueless, in denial that trans were once male, or they want to feel important about knowing that Larry is Lana now - forget the fact that The Matrix WAS directed by Larry Wachowski. Active contributors on that article constantly battle this for ages, and it's nice to see some fresh help. I sincerely thank you. Anthonydraco ( talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not know why but there seems to be a certain vandalism or subtextual POV pushing in articles about hair color. I noticed you addressed
Blond (though there is still some odd information on that piece) but
41.96.66.186 did some unconstructive edits to
Black hair a week ago...can you use your rollback powers to bring it back to the last good version?
I really don't understand why hair color is seen as some kind of point of pride or an anatomical aspect that reflects on ones ethnic or national pride. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. Thanks so much for continuing to edit the Wikipedia page we are working on for Marissa Cooper. I'm here to ask you a question regarding citations and references. When following the guidelines, my additions appear in red text. I believe that you corrected the issue we encountered in the "Character's Exit" section. Now, we are facing this issue under references. Do you have any suggestions for us? Thank you for helping us - we really appreciate the time and effort you're putting into this page. JLieberman31 ( talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, but I'm wondering about sources. The sources I can see in the article only mention penetrative relations. Regarding the pic and edit summary, I think the pic makes it non-neutral, as it represents a comparatively small group in the lead (in effect elevating them to a position not attained in sourcing or practise of the act). 2.102.187.114 ( talk) 14:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Circumcision is a cultural phenomenon which is also sometimes a medical procedure. Therefore your substituting a medical source over the lead USA dictionary plain english definition may be misguided .--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
i dont know to talk to you but i had guests over that were on the computer, so i am deeply sorry for any problems they caused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.77.12 ( talk • contribs)
I'm sorry for the table thing. I didn't think it would actually post. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:50C0:F200:F2B4:79FF:FE17:4E3F ( talk) 04:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
| ||
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using
STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Flyer22,
I edited the page on Moon Festivals and removed the alternate name Mooncake Festival. The page has reverted because "it did not appear constructive." Sincere apologies; there is no offence meant. This is the first time (and probably the only time) that I tried editing anything on Wikipedia as this is the only entry my organisation feels strongly about.
We still maintain that the term is incorrect. Is there a way to just remove the term? This is becoming some sort of a cycle: some people started using Mooncake Festival, and they started thinking it was correct. And then it was put on Wikipedia, and then more and more people think it is correct. The closest analogy that I could think of is the American holiday of Thanksgiving where the traditional food is turkey. Just as it will never be and should never be called the turkey festival (which will connote that the turkey is being celebrated), a festival that celebrates the Moon and the Mid-Autumn harvest should not be called after a cake.
The entry affects all the users who want to find out about the Mid-Autumn Moon Festival. More and more people (students, stores, corporations, media) are using Mooncake Festival - still doesn't make the term correct.
Thank you and I hope you understand the dilemma :-)
Bahaytsinoy ( talk) 10:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Meah Ang See, Director, Bahay Tsinoy, museum of Chinese in Philippine life
Dear Flyer22,
Apologies if I have been the cause for any confusion with regard to recent changes to the Wael Hallaq article. I am not an expert Wikipedia editor, having only authored and edited this one article. I will now detail and explain my changes here, so that we might resolve the issue.
1) the identification "non-Muslim Arab" in the opening sentence, though true, has the effect of stereotyping Wael Hallaq and his academic contributions. Although the fact that he is a non-Muslim and an Arab may be of interest to some readers, stating the fact at the outset gives it undue precedence; this wrong emphasis is a disservice to the living subject of the article and to the reader, and, as I have said, comes off as a an attempt to stereotype. Imagine, for example, if the article on Reza Aslan opened with "Reza Aslan is a non-Christian Persian," or the article on Muhammad Ali opened with "Muhammad Ali is a non-Christian African."
2) For the above reason, I chose to remove "non-Muslim Arab" (which, along with its citation, had been added by another editor), and to insert the term "non-Muslim" into the third sentence of the second paragraph. In this way, the fact may be known to those who, for whatever reason, deem it important, but not in such an essentializing and stereotyping manner. As for "Arab," so much should be evident through the combination of his name and birthplace; it need not be stated at the outset as a defining characteristic--the effect, again, is stereotyping.
3) As for my choice of the word "prominent" to replace "non-Muslim Arab," this is not POV requiring citation. The facts related in the article are eloquent testimony to Wael Hallaq's prominence in Islamic Studies: three decades in the academic field, two highly-sought-after and influential professorships, nine authored volumes, and some sixty other publications are evidence enough of prominence in an academic field. Prominence is not proven by citing a text which links the subject to the word "prominent;" rather, it is evidenced by the subject's many and influential accomplishments and publications. Scholars and students in the field of Islamic Legal Studies--my own area of study, authorship, and teaching--know the name Wael Hallaq very well.
I hope I have explained myself adequately. Please let me know if you have any other causes or concerns.
Best, RaHHaal ( talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reported Anarchistdy to the edit warring noticeboard, if you'd like to comment. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you need the good wishes here too, not just at home. Hope you don't mind. I added you to this list. [12] I know you don't like it when your birthday comes around, but try to cheer up. Maybe this message makes up for this [13] and the lack of help you're getting from that article's watchers? Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Good day!
I can understand why my recent edit might not seem constructive, but it is actually true and correct information. The naming of the new wing was a matter brought before the Lovett College Central Committee, referenced in the article, and the proposal to name it "Stinky Leebron" was passed by a majority vote of the eligible elected officers.
If you're interested I can go into more details, but suffice it to say: I would greatly appreciate working with you to include this piece of information in the article. I think there might be a better place to put it, but what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.245.37 ( talk) 23:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in providing evidence regarding Anarchistdy. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you for recently undoing the vandalism to Syrian Emergency Task Force. The same vandalism recently reoccurred and I have undone it. It appears the organization is in the process of folding and re-branding itself (its website has just gone offline and its phone is disconnected) and, I suspect, an attempt is being made to scrub its history as part of a fresh start. I don't know it's necessary to request page protection yet, however, I'll keep watching it and very much appreciate your attentiveness and assistance. BlueSalix ( talk) 07:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thanks for cleaning that up.
I left my browser open and another friend walked over to make a revision without my knowledge
btw chirs is a dumbass.....
keep up the good work.....
Josh 165.249.0.62 ( talk) 15:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually a student at this high school, and as a member of ASB, I know that my mascot's names are Wolfie and Wolfette. Wolfie is the male wolf while Wolfette is the female wolf. I request that I reedit the page to have the correct information. Snowshredder140 ( talk) 04:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Just to clarify, I'm well aware that women can (and often do) achieve orgasm through cunnilingus; but the partner performing the cunnilingus doesn't normally orgasm themselves as a direct result of performing the cunnilingus! -- Taohinton ( talk) 16:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry that I haven't responded to you I don't use that e-mail anymore but I'm so confused as to what the problem is with the Brad Pitt article, I barely edit anymore. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
How is the information regarding someone being a registered sex offender not considered proper information? Epsecially if the person is paying off victims to not speak about the crime. The man is a registered sex offender and the information should stay as long as he is registered as one. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein-settles-seven-more-la/nL7jm/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.60.53 ( talk) 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
ˈtɛlʊɡuː is not right. it means టెలుగూ. "తెలుగు" is the proper usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saughmraat ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you undid my edit to List_of_Freezing_episodes, and gave me a warning for vandalism on a previously unused talk page. I added episode 3's English name as soon as it was released when Ep. 2's subbed version streamed. I also added a summary for episode 2. yes i added a note at the end for FonFon Alseif to feel free to replace my temporary summary when he gets around to editing it in a few days. if the note at the end shouldn't be there, then quit being lazy and just quickly revising it, and actually edit the page and selectively delete the part that was unnecessary. When someone adds info to multiple areas, and you undo the whole thing just because one little part wasnt quite "up to snuff" which also deletes a lot of perfectly good information, could also be considered vandalism.
Now im stuck with the 1st thing on my talk page being a post about me being a vandal, and that makes me sad and is insulting.
WA-Zergslayer ( talk) 05:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Kindly approve these Portal support pages
What a Great Help! Thank you very much for the support! - Regards Selvasivagurunathan m ( talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22, I saw you are one of the most recent editors to make substantive contributions to the Whitney Houston article. It seems like it could be an easy GA pass. Given it's one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia, I'm hoping to persuade you to nominate it. I'd be happy to review it there, but it wouldn't be right for me to nominate it given I haven't edited it at all. What do you think? Maybe we can even get it up to FA and have it featured on the main page. Best, Lemurbaby ( talk) 02:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
hello sir, i edited the article LIBIDO with some new information two three days ago with my account named as ed beerman... sir, the purpose of my editing was primarily to come out of my anxiousness. Under the point PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING LIBIDO, a very important factor was the time gap between two ejaculations..generally if a male is on a short term abstinence from any sexual act( that involves ejaculation), he feels a higher sexual desire..but wikipedia missed this important factor.. sir, my question is that can you please analyse and tell why was it not there in that article...i have really been anxious..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
yes ma'm, i have come to know about all you said :) but ma'm my question here is different.. All i request you is to please either check,analyse or tell me with your experience that what can be the reasons that the Point i mad was not mentioned in the physical facotors affecting libido.. Or please direct me to some administrator who is expert of these mdical and health pages..the only reason i am disturbing you is that i am really anxious about this and wanna do my further research being a medical student..hope you spare some time to analyse..many thanks ..ed beerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
"however, stronger odors (whether a person likes them or not) emanate from the vulva than they do from the male genitals; most often (and this is going by WP:Reliable sources) male genitals have no noticeable odor."
Which sources are you talking about here please? Or is there another wikipedia page because I cannot find any reference in the cunnilingus page itself:
"Women may consider personal hygiene before practicing oral sex important, as poor hygiene can lead to bad odors, accumulation of sweat and micro-residue (such as lint, urine or menstrual blood), which the giving partner may find unpleasant. Some women remove or trim pubic hair, which may enhance their oral sex experience."
... nor on vagina, or vulvovaginal health. I have found these references on this matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15355367 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21964208 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22383853 but I would be interested to read the other sources you speak of above. This is not on topic to that discussion so I asked here instead. Thank you in advance. 212.183.128.27 ( talk) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
14:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Hello there I came here after noticing your edits at Football Manager 2014. You might know that earlier was written in an.advertisement manner. I cleaned the article up by reorganizing it and rewriting the promotional text to a neutral point of view. Therefore I think the issues template in the template should be removed as the issues mentioned in the article have been solved. Can you please tell me whether there is a process for getting it removed or if a user can remove it himself if the issues have been solved? Thank you. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my omission of the word "not." I believe when it's referred to as a "peaceful war," that they may have formally declared war but not actually engaged in combat. Cheers, - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
hello excuse me you said my edits are not constructice?!? i noticed you removed my edit from the page why? Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Will Never Say Never! ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you fix it? Monica I Will Never Say Never! ( talk) 01:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi There. Could I ask why you removed text from my company page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchamp_(clothing) ? This is a true reflection of the brand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.148.129 ( talk) 13:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but if you read sources on serial killers you'll see that "lust", despite being the usual nomenclature, is a misleading term. Rape is not motivated by (normal) lust, and if you read the Causes of sexual assault article that I linked to, specifically the Groth typology you'll see that the so-called "lust" murders are the actions of the type of rapist described by Groth as the "Sadistic rapist", whereas the serial killers who are not "lust" murderers are described as "Power rapists". In rewording the article, I was attempting to draw a distinction between the two, and to avoid perpetuating the harmful myth that rape is the inevitable product of normal sexual desire. I admit my wording is a bit clumsy, and including information on the Groth typology in the article itself would probably help. Asarelah ( talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that we must necessarily always stick to the precise wording of the source. After all, don't we paraphrase things on Wikipedia all the time? To describe an individual as committing rape out of "lust" is misleading to a layperson and furthers rape myths. Surely we can reach some compromise rather than rigidly sticking to the original wording? Sorry it took a while to get back to you, I've been busy. Asarelah ( talk) 17:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Please watch those 3RRs. Take it to dispute resolution. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I don't suppose you could take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/How to Lose Your Virginity (film)? It's queued up in the list of AFC submissions, and I honestly can't tell if it's notable or not. Since I believe this is your subject area of expertise, I thought you might be able to give a better opinion on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22 - just to say thank you for your tactful prompt, and I guess the result is that between the two of us we've improved what was there. (The sentence "Rose endures arduous routes to free Jack." really did not cheer my editor's heart!) Alfietucker ( talk) 21:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It says that you changed my edit of LHOOQ because it didn't add anything productive. My edit to the page was a reversion of an inaccurate and possibly vandalizing edit. The edit before mine had to do with what the letters "LHOOQ" sound like when read out in French. All sources say it is supposed to read "Elle a chaud au cul", which translates to "She has a hot ass". That is the factual, literal translation of how it was intended to be interpreted, as backed by all of the sources of the page. The edit changed it to "elle est jolie" which sounds nothing like "èl ache o o qu" and does not agree with any of the sources given on the page. I understand a bot may have detected bad words or something, but I was reverting that edit to the previous, accurate information. 65.29.239.115 ( talk) 02:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you saw this and knew nothing you wrote bothered me. -- NeilN talk to me 15:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop in and say thanks... I was making some edits to quantitative easing, and checked the history to see what had happened recently. What to my wondering eyes should appear, but Flyer22 and the stiki-wiki reindeer! :-) Appreciate it. Also, note that the anon you reverted was definitely intending to delete the entire history-subsection of the article -- their edit-comment was "section blank". It seems unlikely that was a beginning-editor mistake, since it is the only edit from that IP, knew to use an edit-comment, and surgically excised just that one exact section, according to the contribs button. Do you have checkuser, to see if there are other IPs or usernames the same entity may be editing from? Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
As referred to by you, It is not my personal opinion that the term disgraced to be used in the initial reference to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju. Numerous articles and newspapers including Press Trust of India, Associated Press referred to Byrraju Ramalinga Raju as disgraced. Please do not see this as name calling but rather a truth of matter. As Dwpaul said, a simple search would reveal several thousand sources. Neil2000 ( talk) 16:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm shocked to learn that a self-admitted accounting fraudster who ripped off millions of investors and employees alike would be called anything other than a disgraced. More so by your assertion that not everyone agrees to that characterization. No wonder that considering anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information. Neil2000 ( talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello flyer, may I present to you this triad of queries.
proposal concerning channeling destructive vandalism, into more useful... or at least non-destructive... pursuits, by turning it into an online videogame of sorts
|
---|
Still... most of the wiki-vandals are schoolkids, trying to spray-paint their name on the water-tower. Some of them want to get away with it... and if we were to publicize the times and dates and geolocations of their vandalisms, sooner or later they would not get away with it, because a local teacher, parent, or cop would catch them in the act. Others are more like Herostratus-the-historical-vandal, not doing it to get away with it, but doing it for fame. Maybe we can feed that desire, and channel the destructive vandalism, into semi-constructive vandalism... satisfy the desire for fame... and perhaps, with luck, convert some of the former semi-constructive vandals into actually-constructive editors, at some point. In a nutshell: why don't we invent the Non-Destructive Humorous Vandal Barnstar? Once a year, the winner of the most NDHVB awards that year will be given the chance to rewrite the blurb of their choice on the wikipedia mainpage (suggest we pick 1st April as the award-day), without being reverted, no holds barred, they can say *anything* they want short of BLP libel and copyvio. (Technically speaking, we might even be able to swing copyvio, as long as we respond within 24 hours to the DMCA takedown notice.) Of course, we only award NDHVB for something which *added* a paragraph, or image, or similar, to wikipedia, without removing anything. If you draw a mustache on the *main* picture at the mona lisa article, you were destructive... but if you add a *second* picture, with the caption 'recently biospectrosopy analysis revealed a previously-invisible portion of the famous painting which was overpainted in the 1700s by museum officials' then you were adding without deleting anything. Any destructive actions you make will *subtract* from your count of NDHVB awards for that year... but at the end of every year, your subtractions are cancelled out. When something ironic, humorous, interesting, or otherwise potentially worthy of an NDHVB award is added to some wikipedia article, rather than immediately reverting it on sight, it would instead be given a special ((ndhvb top)) ... ((ndhvb bottom)) template-wrapper. Regular users, and even regular editors, would not need to see such things -- by default, the wrapper-tags would make the ndhvb candidate invisible. Editors that *did* opt in to the ability to see ndhvb content, would see the content with some kind of squiggly red outline, or something... and a button at the bottom, which can be clicked to award the author with an ndhvb on their talkpage. Of course, default-hidden would *not* apply to the annual winner of ndhvb; their mainpage article would be visible to all, and most likely not marked with red squiggles either (though probably a sentence at the end saying 'april fools!' would be mandated by arbcom). Finally, note that although the editors who participated in awarding and subtracting ndhvb stars would have to opt-in, the *vandals* would not opt-in... we just judge their 'work' as to whether it deserves an hdhvb star, or instead deserves a negative-ndhvb-star, and put our decision on their talkpage. Next time they visit wikipedia, they have 'new messages'... and find out they are involved in a contest, with a tantalizing prize. We have a leaderboard with the current high scores, a daily high score winner, a map of all the recent positive and negative ndhvb counts, a list of articles currently containing ndhvb candidates sorted by highest current individual score to zero-but-trying-hard score (sub-zero counts of destructive vandalism-examples are *never* displayed at all). WP:MMORPG. Anyhoo, I'm not actually suggesting this is a good idea. It might be a terrible idea, with horrible unintended consequences. We don't want to glorify vandalism, and end up with a bunch of aspiring vandals. On the other hand, we already have tons of vandals, from what I can tell. So maybe this idea is not so crazy, especially if we manage to bring the more-creative vandals onto our side... after all, if they edit from their school IP, trying to win ndhvb for the year, and some other kid is destructively vandalizing, and getting their hard-earned ndhvb awards subtracted away.... Anyways, hope you find this interesting. Mull it over, and let me know if you find any holes, please, or have suggestions (to include of course fur-get-dabout-it). |
Danke 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
p.s. ((later update)) There is in fact a long tradition, which stretches back before recorded edit-history even, of this sort of non-destructive-humorous-vandalism collection. It was sorta-ended by sorta-consensus circa 2007, due to worries that the practice sorta-encouraged vandalism. May I present, the most inspired citation needed policy shortcut of all time: WP:-) One highlight, from a discussion about whether one particular not-very-appetizing-looking image-file of an orange-colored fruit may, or may not, have been posted in violation of WP:COI by competitors..... "I am not about to accuse you of being the person who posted the offending picture or of being involved in the apple industry, but my antenna is up." Alrighty-then. Carry on. — 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: The Angelina Jolie section that I reference in this section was deleted per WP:BLP concerns. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you have summarily undone the changes that I have made in good faith, in the third gender article. This is against the "rights to undo" that you have been asigned. I am willing to discuss the changes that I have made and provide citations and delete where there is a controversy/ lack of citation.( Masculinity ( talk) 08:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
http://www.google.co.uk/#q=when+was+mariah+carey+born it says 1970. D to the ina, R to the ae☻ My Talk Page 15:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi - why did you revert my edit to 'A30 road', calling it unconstructive, which was the addition of the name of the exit at the junction with the A395 called 'Kennards House'? This is the proper name of the exit and is named as such on the signposts. I live locally and use this exit regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.63.160 ( talk) 19:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm...based on lengthy discussions on the talk page for circumcision, I was told that we "do not use any Commentary articles as sources for biomedical information" in response to my suggestion that we use one. So which is the case? -- (Moshe) מֹשֶׁה 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Response to reverting The battle of great bridge By thel33teditor's team.
Hey mister why did u revert my post on the battle of great bridge i found it to just long drawn and so i just decided to make it shorter... cause the truth is everyone died... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thel33teditor ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
22:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Hi Flyer, I have just left a message for the editor who has been harassing you to stop doing it. I suggest that you keep as far a distance as you can as well, don't edit their User Talk page and avoid any other unnecessary interaction.
Zad
68
03:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Dark Mistress is almost certainly banned user John254. Thought you'd want to know that! OSTheRobot ( talk) 15:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What's with that guy? Did you see Harm OCD? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer, I left a note on User talk:50.171.11.116 about removing the persondata and proper way to discuss changing something. I also undid User talk:Radiohist change of birthyear to 1969 and birth place of Greece. Radiohist used a whitepages service to find a Cody in Henrietta, but I don't see any source stating she lives there. There is not any RS on it, but IMDB does say 1975. I left Radiohist a note too. Not sure what is going on here. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Soap Operas for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I edited and restored the para I deleted. Hopefully, the para is a bit more clear now. Also, added a couple of references. Memills ( talk) 04:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Has there ever been an SPI on User:L'Origine du monde? It's interesting that, because of my previous interest in that user, my huge watchlist, currently at 8,640, contains the types of articles edited by that user, and I did notice that IP's first edit appear on my watchlist before leaving my computer. I even paused to think that there was something oddly familiar about it. Now I'm back, and find that you have contacted that IP. All very interesting. If User:L'Origine du monde starts socking, we may find much more activity on these types of articles, because a fetish/compulsion can be hard to resist, and I truly believe that User:L'Origine du monde has such a disorder. I also suspect they are male, but I notice that some seem to think they are female. Why? -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I knew a bit about the rule, but if there is no archive what's the point of having a dead link if a content is not verifiable any longer? If its better, I will substitute the dead link with an existing one, but then I would need to change the whole link, (publisher, date, its access, etc.)-- Mishae ( talk) 20:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Flyer22, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 12:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
You removed *one* (not many) duplicate links I didn't see at that small section. Was that such a big deal to have to send me a second note? Just remove the one duplicate link, which you did, without having to rub it in with another note. "Thought you were done at a few, but then you kept going." Yes, after I found others, although some were duplicates I didn't see placed earlier in the article. There is nothing wrong with "then kept going" in a long article with many nouns and terms that I thought were unlinked and important to link. Nobody's perfect, and if I unknowingly made a duplicate error, just silently remove it without a snarky comment, and keep going to another page to look for duplicate links or errors. Katydidit ( talk) 19:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
A drawing is a depiction of an act, not the real actual act, but a photo shows the reality, and as an educational encyclopedia I'd think we better show the reality. Many other articles have photos. Cogiati ( talk) 03:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't access the dailymail site so scanning google search page 1 gave me poor. The actual articles say none. I wonder if he can still smell ammonia. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer,
I noticed your contrib to genital modification and mutilation. I am surprised that you challenged my minor edit when there is so much more work that needs to be done on the page.
Anyway, I always appreciate the challenge of criticism, if it is constructive. Would you like to contribute to a new page: Child's right to genital integrity/autonomy movement?
/info/en/?search=User:DavidHGrateful/sandbox
DavidHGrateful ( talk) 10:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If it doesn't stop, report it to WP:ANI, or let me know and I'll do it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: The IP has continued on a different IP range, as IP 202.67.40.24; the IP also somewhat reminds me of Atotalstranger's "race"/ethnicity/nationality editing. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Sir, the INS Vikramaditya Aircraft carrier is already commissioned into the Indian Navy and is not long a "Future" Aircraft carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.180.205 ( talk) 12:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22, Thanks for the heads up concerning the edits I made on the Refractory period (sex) article on [ 09:59, November 16, 2013]. I am aware of Wikipedia's Policy on Overlinking and Underlinking, the reason I added the links to oxytocin and prolactin was to aid in the understanding of the article, as WP:UNDERLINK states:
While I was reading the article, I did notice that the words oxytocin and prolactin were linked in the beginning of the article, but they were not linked later on (and it was later on in the article that I needed to click on those terms to better understand the article). So, while I understand your point on WP:OVERLINK, I think linking things more than once is justified under WP:UNDERLINK because linking the words oxytocin and prolactin (even if they're linked more than once) aids in the understanding of the article, because oxytocin and prolactin are technical terms. It's a lot easier to click on a link for oxytocin and prolactin whenever a question arises rather than going back to the top of the page to find the original link. I think it was ok to add in these links because they were helpful. I think helping the readers is probably more important than following some of these rules word for word. If Wikipedia isn't helpful, then people won't use it, and if people won't use Wikipedia, then all our editing becomes rather pointless. Does that make sense? Wikipedia talks a little bit about this on their Policies and Guidelines article. Also, Wikipedia's Ignoring all Rules – A Beginner's Guide even says that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I'm still sort of new to editing, so I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or something, I just know that it was difficult for me to get motivated to edit stuff until I saw articles that encouraged breaking rules when its done in the right spirit and for the right reasons. (P.S. I added this message to your talk page is because I don't know if wikipedia notifies users to comments made on a former posting.) Crice88 ( talk) 20:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi you revoked a change I made to this page /info/en/?search=Lori_Petty I removed a link that was not referenced, that I would consider a very strong thing to say without evidence, that a film about abuse, rape, drugs, prostitution etc was biographical - there is no mention of this on the film wiki page no on imdb etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lori_Petty&oldid=579590663&diff=prev can you explain further or revoke your decision? thanks Annax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missannafjmorris ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. A bot signed your username twice for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Hello, Flyer22. The article Avatar (2009 film), in which you edited the most, has been nominated to be a featured article. If you would like to become co-nominators with the nominator to work together to fix issues, or discuss what needs to be done, please join in the conversation that is happening now. Thank You! Blurred Lines 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This article recently passed through Articles for creation and while I think it's a legitimate topic, it seems to be in a very sorry state. I could just go in and hack out all unreferenced content, but that would be akin to a bull in a china shop or saying to John "I think this cite from the Daily Mail might resolve the dispute". Could you take a look and suggest improvements? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As the most active person on that page (and Ive encountered you before if memory serves), ive posted to the talk page under "Edit suggestion regarding Treatment (not NPOV)" and "Broader scope" which would need attention. Appreciate your input .
As for the the latter, Ive mentioned on other talk pages about expansion here which I can do in about a month
ps- If you wouldnt mind, could comment on the last 2 sections at Talk:War rape( Lihaas ( talk) 20:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)).
This user has contributed to Man of Steel (film) good articles on Wikipedia. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Man of Steel (film), which recently was promoted to WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok. I misread it. I thought it was saying the vagina was visible which would have been consistent with the common misuse of the term to mean vulva. Robert Brockway ( talk) 14:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, in the article on Nucular you reverted an IP contribution to the effect that the form is a “common alternative pronunciation”. While it is certainly true that “nucular” is widely regarded as a “mispronunciation” (the earlier, and restored, version), both views are in fact possible. As early as 2002 Jeff Nunberg, while emphatically calling the form a mispronunciation, indicated that it seemed to be used intentionally by certain people in certain registers ( http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/nucular.html). I therefore propose a different version, which I have added to the article. Hope you don’t disagree. Bessel Dekker ( talk) 19:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Gold STiki Barnstar of Merit
| ||
Congratulations, Flyer22! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 25,000 classification threshold using
STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC) |
If you click on the picture, it will enlarge to fill the screen. Daguerre took this picture out of his window and the traffic was moving during the long exposure, and didn't register on the daguerreotype plate. The only figures that can be seen are a bootblack/ shoeshine boy polishing the shoes of a gentleman wearing a tail coat.
I put the caption in and called the shoe shiner a "bootblack" or was it a "shoe shine boy" (?) Then it seemed others came and changed it, and it became "two men, one servicing the other" which was regarded as having unfortunate connotations, and changed.
Now it is: the two men at lower left ((one apparently having his boots polished by the other) remained still long enough to be distinctly visible
What's wrong with bootblack? That was the term in Victorian England, and this is Paris of the 1850s. Don't seem like any accident to me who was polishing whose boots. RPSM ( talk) 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You really ought to try reading what people post sometime. I didn't change the meaning of the policy, I just made it clearer. It shouldn't be controversial - although I see that you are no stranger to controversy. So in that case, just assume good faith for once. OK? Harfarhs ( talk) 20:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, hi... This is my first time trying to use a talk page, so pardon my awkwardness... I took a peek at your deleting of my Monster High edit. I have seen all the webisodes, read all the character bios, watched all the movies but one, and read all the books in the series by Lisi Harrison. I know all that information was correct. I am using combined knowledge of books and web site. If you want me to change it back, I will, but I will leave it alone for now. Thanks for your understanding! I don't have an account, but you can call me Beebef! Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.160.241 ( talk) 00:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You have, I think three times now, edited out the hyperlink on the page to the twitter page of Paul Cohen (also known as me). As far as I can tell, this isn't a style issue surrounding linking names to personal websites (a good number of the other committee members on the page are linked to their social media accounts) so why are you continually removing that one hyperlink? I hope to hear a response soon and resolve this issue with you.-- 86.162.96.219 ( talk) 00:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You reverted 3 edits on Satoshi Nakamoto. Can I ask why? As you'd said in the edit summary, they were good faith edits. And in line with the consensus on the talk page. 14.203.128.226 ( talk) 12:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Your participation as a (former) soap opera editor is required here. Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Your participation as a soap opera editor is required here. Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 02:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In that case, Category:LGBT actors isn't a container category as it is professed to be.-- ukexpat ( talk) 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
...that it was already covered in WP:IRS.--v/r - T P 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
``` Buster Seven Talk 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
...about user 24.38.134.185's edits James A. Bayard, Jr. I see that you have reverted them already here. Pburka and I have been reverting them for the past day or so. Epicgenius ( talk) 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I was looking up the Fairness Doctrine and noticed a bot had tried to remove an orphan ref tag, but it inadvertently erased the first part of the ref tag, making the contents of said tag appear on the main page instead of the reference link. I completed the sentence as previous good edits had it, and fixed the ref tag. Im not a regular contributor, so feel free to change it as you see fit, but what you reverted to looks sloppy with exposed formatting code. Did you even see the article view of what you reverted to? ( 96.235.0.188 ( talk) 13:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC))
In regards to this edit, whether we're doing indents the way Wikipedia would like us to (i.e., WP:INDENT, which I was already well aware of) or whether we're doing them the way most people actually do them (one more than the last until someone decides to {{ od}}), AnonMoos's post should be indented at least one, since he's replying to JRhorstman. Or have I missed something? – RobinHood70 talk 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have learned that one of my edits had been reverted by you. May I ask why? It was a minor edit. I just added a description for the IPA symbol in the article. G4sponge ( talk) 22:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As you did here. It's probably in a guideline somewhere, but even better than that, it's common courtesy. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 16:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvolved third-party, might I suggest that the best course of action might be to discontinue this converation, or take it to
dispute resolution?Nevermind, I suppose, in light of the last part of Flyer's comment, but I wish you both could have chilled out rather than continuing to push each other. Godspeed.
DonIago (
talk)
19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: Matter taken here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nathan Johnson refusing to stay off my talk page, edit warring over a longstanding practice, inappropriately templating a regular, and demanding a retraction. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Adonis Stevenson, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. The editor was attempting to adopt a more neutral POV in the article, and the edit was properly sourced. Gagnon88 ( talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
For your kind attention: [15] [16]. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.130.159 ( talk) 02:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Flyer22; Your edits on the DSM-5 edit page indicated you might have the actual manual available. On the Schizophrenia Talk page, there is a list of DSM-5 transition edits identified for upgrade from DMS-4 residual edits still on the old version of the Page being currently displayed. This is one of the few FA psychology pages and can use a little help or comment. Things have been slowed down in making the DSM-5 transition edits there since not all the editors at that wikipage actually have the DSM-5 in hand. Could you glance at this? BillMoyers ( talk) 16:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
By mathematical impossibility I just meant that in hetero relationships both sexes have exactly the same number of partners. This is simple math [ [17]] Bhny ( talk) 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit on Talk:Sexism. I appreciate that you're looking out for me and that you took the time to give your view on the topic. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
I'm not seeing how it's non-constructive? The brand was bought out of liquidation and is now on sale at Sports Direct - NOT the home of superior casual menswear! -- 82.41.251.96 ( talk) 22:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I apologize. My mistake. Obviously I was confused and blamed the wrong IP party. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Referring to your quick revert and edit comment here. I have no objections to your revert, even though I thought it was relatively uncontroversial, as it merely reflected Jimbo's, and I thought, consensus view. I DO object though to your rather snarky edit summary. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would try to be more polite. If you leave comments like this, you will just create unnecessary friction. A relatively neutral comment like, "please discuss on the talk page first" would have been much better. LK ( talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22, to explain, I have sent the following to MrX and I feel that I should explain to you also. I do not mean to cause any offense and if I have done so please accept my apology as it would have been totally unintentional. I apologize again as I did not understand the revert and I hope I now explain the reason why I am trying to add to the paragraph in question.
Focusing on MrX and Josh3580 notes, I feel what I am trying to say is not tangential since there is a statement that refers to Buddhism in this article and also refers to an “integral part of Buddhist monastic life”. It is thus within the context of the text to provide the balanced view of the Buddhist monastic code that must be followed by Monks and Nuns and laity including in Japan. This code is what is referenced from the Pali Canonical texts and prescribes the monastic life. This code is not my opinion, it is what Buddhist must follow to be called a Buddhist especially for those that live a monastic life. This code includes refraining from sexual intercourse and is relevant to any form of intercourse including sexual behavior between members of the same sex such as may be the case in homosexuality.
The generalized terms in the paragraph I am trying to add to, especially “integral part of ” and “This same-sex love culture” denotes that this is the normal, when in fact it is the reverse and such practices are not advocated. Such statements may mislead the reader if not balanced. To balance the text I provided the following source –
Wallace, Alan B. (2002), ‘The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West’, Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia, Charles Prebish & Martin Baumann (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Page 37, paragraph 2, lines 1 to 9 state:
‘Over the course of daily life, lay Theravada Buddhists may occasionally take the eight precepts for a period ranging from one day to a week, during which time they may stay in a temple and devote themselves to religious practices, including meditation and chanting. The eight precepts include the more common five lay precepts of refraining from (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) false speech, (4) sexual misconduct, and (5) the use of intoxicants, in addition to the three precepts of refraining from (6) eating after midday, (7) enjoying worldly amusements, and (8) indulging in luxurious sleeping arrangements and sexual intercourse.’
Here, it is seen that when staying in a temple, similar to but less strict than observing monastic life, one must refrain from sexual intercourse. This is a strict code for Buddhists and is referenced from the Canonical texts.
I have been told that this citation is not reputed so I have found the following text that references the five and eight precepts directly from the Tipitaka (Canonical texts). The Tipitaka is the direct teaching from the Buddha that Buddhist Monks, Nuns and laity are required to adhere to be Buddhist.
The source is,
[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.
This article can be accessed using the web version located at - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html
Please note the following page, paragraph and line numbers refer to the pdf document version that can be found using Google scholar.
From this source, Page 26, paragraph 2, line 6 states that the “pañcasila”, also known as the five precepts includes the training rule, ‘(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;’
Page 26, Paragraph 3, states that this is one of the five precepts that forms a minimal ethical code that binds Buddhist laity. Here the term “sexual misconduct” means sexual relationships or conduct not within or before marriage.
On page 36, paragraph 5, lines 1 to 4 it states, ‘Beyond the five precepts Buddhism offers a higher code of moral discipline for the laity consisting of eight precepts (atthasila). This code of eight precepts is not entirely different in content from the fivefold code, but includes the five precepts with one significant revision. The revision comes in the third precept, where abstaining from sexual misconduct is changed to abstaining from incelibacy.’
This means that an un-ordained Buddhist who does not live in a monastery and lives an ordinary life, like you and me, and who observes the eight precepts must practice celibacy.
To reach this level an ordinary Buddhist must abide or live in what is known as the Three Refuges. To first enter into abiding by the three refuges, Page 2, Paragraph 1, lines 5 to 9 says that,
‘If one has sincerely become convinced of the truth of the Buddha's teaching, and wishes to follow the teaching, it is preferable, when possible, to conform to the prescribed way of going for refuge that has come down in the Buddhist tradition. This way is to receive the three refuges from a Bhikkhu’. A Bhikkhu is ‘a Buddhist monk who has taken full ordination and remains in good standing in the monastic Order.’
It is clear that to take the precept of celibacy, meaning to abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, one must first take the refuges from a Buddhist Monk that leads a monastic life in the monastic order. It is clear that for a Buddhist Monk or Nun to live a monastic life the Monk or Nun must also follow the precept of celibacy, otherwise the Monk or Nun would have broken this precept or code of conduct and would be required to disrobe and enter normal life.
It is clear from the referenced texts that what is integral to the Buddhist monastic life with any link to sexual relations is celibacy. This contradicts what is written in the paragraph that I am trying to balance. This also brings into question the documented evidence, paintings and literature that is stated in this paragraph.
Please review the following proposed addition to this paragraph,
“However, it may be argued that such documented evidence would have given rise to such paintings and literature. Further, it may be argued as to the authenticity of such literature that sought to document Buddhist and Samurai traditions. This assertion is supported by the Buddhist practice that advocates refraining from sexual misconduct in ordinary life and advocates a strict code of celibacy in monastic life.[1]”
[1] Bodhi, B (1981), ‘Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts’, The Wheel Publication No. 282/284, Buddhist Publication Society.
If you like I can enter this as a separate paragraph that follows on. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this as I would not want to mislead the reader in anyway. I feel the article handles well what may be seen by some as sensitive, and I respect its content. This is why I want to give the reader as much information as possible so any question of misinformation does not arise. As recommended I will also begin look to start a new section on the article's Talk Page. However, I wanted to contact you directly before doing so. Sorry if I have written a lot on this, however, I wanted to explain what happened. I thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Tdmdb ( talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not a sign of good health when you join an online virtual community and you use phrases such as "my enemy", "i dislike him/her", etc. Please remember that we are all unpaid volunteers and we are bound to get disagreements. Don't make a minor content dispute personal please. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 20:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the heads up/confirmation. I've been watching pass a method for a while, and his/her edits are extremely biased towards very specific pov, depending on the article. EzPz ( talk) 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
hello Flyer22, funny you should say the comments are not constructive as i, Lewis Leopold Gardner am the brother of the greatest superstar that has ever graced the face of this earth! so therefore i think that i would know a little better than you! so please leave my further additions to my brother alex's page alone!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisgardner93 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
After reading your revert comment and viewing the original link and comparing with my link, it appears I misunderstood the original page. I thought it linked to the verb, and not adjective. Sincere apologies on my part. Thanks for catching my mistake. 5chris100 ( talk) 01:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you read the text of these laws passed in Russia? Their real text, not Interpretations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.214.197 ( talk) 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I've marked it as such on the talk page and explained why she is not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awhitenoisemaker ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Check completed, no sleepers apparent. NativeForeigner Talk 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I read the whole article and didn't find anything that concerns about how to edit the box office gross of a film. So I highly doubt your statement that Betty Logan was acting as per WP:FILM. In that case if you are incorrect then my statement was completely correct that she was overstepping her limits. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 14:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)