You do not agree that tribadism includes her partner's chest and/or breasts? 129.107.225.207 ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
With respect to your recent postings on my talk page, I would answer as follows. - I am not sure that 'commonly known by' is more neutral, if anything I suspect it is less clear. On the other hand, I do think it (as written) is typically what people will believe/understand/know it to be. I would argue that 'common' is less neutral as it is often used to imply that something is less than favourable, though I do not believe that was the implication here. Referring to the understanding, it is not that it is harder to understand, it is that the typical understanding people have is of the 'scissor' position -- rather like the typical understanding (or better still 'first thing imagined when the term is used') of heterosexual intercourse is missionary postion, even though many others are well documented. - I think 'it is usually uderstood to mean' is reasonable -- it is both true, neutral and reamins appropriate even in the event that it may not *actually* be true and is there fore a misconception. - I did add erroneously, yes, in order to deineate between masturbation and tribadism. Naturally one should describe the two dispassionately but it seems reaonsable to delineate between them and thus remain clear, e.g. readers should not be given to thinking it could refer to a woman plerasuring herself with a pillow (or even a man, come to that), where the term actually refers to two women having sex. I think that without 'erroneously' it would be easy to read that refers to both sex and masturbation, which of course it does not. Showjumpersam ( talk) 19:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Showjumpersam ( talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22
Thanks for letting me know the reason why you reverted the changes I tried to make to the Dean article on Wikipedia. I hadn't looked at the article in a long time, and I was concerned to see what a gossipy mess it appears to have become over the past months. Everyone seems to have added their two cents worth. Even though references are given, some of them are to books which frankly are simply gossip mongering tomes written for fans rather than serious works.
I was particularly disturbed by the fact that Dean's, shall we say more well established and documented relationships, had become mixed up with the section concerning speculations about his sexual orientation, which I would agree should come secondary to the bare facts of his life.
Dean, unfortunately, like all icons, has become public property, which means everyone has a claim on his or her version of what he was "really" all about. However, I think quite obviously a biographical article should stick to sources that are actually known to have known, and been a part of, the life of the subject, rather ideas spun by third parties, amongst whom I would definitely include gossip columnists.
The Wikepedia article as it now stands is an inaccurate and amateurish hodgepodge. If I can't clear it up, maybe you, or some moderator, could do Dean this service?
Sincerely,
KitMarlowe3
Hi Flyer22, i am Jivesh from Mauritius. I am the one who fixed the article and i am sincerely very happy that someone has appreciated my work. I am here almost exclusively for Beyonce, i rarely contribute to other pages). I have fixed 8/10 singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce. And i am expanding singles from (B'Day). I will be very happy to work with you one day. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You reverted my paragraph split in Whitney Houston lead, citing 4-paragraphs rule from WP:LEAD. While I totally agree it should be this way, I think now it's too much things put together and that was my way to start showing this fact and eventually slimming the lead down a bit.
A career history is not a strict definition of who it is. Maybe her relatives belong to the first para, because they're also famous, but the rest does not - "Houston began..." should be next sentence and a paragraph.
Now we have way too long introduction, with 2. and 4. para being just a list of her achievements - it should be joined and cut to the most important. Alternatively we can make the 4. paragraph a separate "Awards" section and cloning the sentence about Guiness record to the first paragraph (as a general proof that she is very important artist, which should be reflected in this shortest summary - 5. here). But please don't pretend it all still fits in the lead just by squeezeing all the materials to the "demanded" amount of paragraphs.
What do you think about how to resolve this the best way? -- kocio ( talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
All important articles tend to have bloated lead, which I think is understandable, but still a flaw. People try to catch every important thing here, but - as we know it - in some cases you end up making neverending lists, because on some topics we have many facts to note, while on the others just a few. My feeling is the most important we want is comprehension in the lead, which means we have to be more picky and think more meta-level in some superimportant articles.
While MJ or WH can be 1000 times more rich in world-important details than the average singer, we should still keep the leads as 4 short, logical paragraphs, even if we lose some details here, because what we want is to gently introduce a reader, not forcing him/her to parse the text. Instead we have to summarize more tightly and have better generalized things. For example instead of writing here all achievements as a singer, actor and dancer, we should just say that he was important artist in all these areas, maybe with some most notable, one in each field. All details should go to the sections or even separate entries, if needed.
What I see in such cases most of the time is overloaded stories as a lead. The first paragraph should be the core definition on its own - then lead as a longer overview - and then sections for details. Reader can then always adjust any topic, no matter how big and important, to his personal time frame: fast skipping (few seconds, not even leaving the first para), overviewing (let's say less than a minute, but still skipable), then detail-picking in relevant, well planned sections.
When we make the lead "a story", we stop making summary and it tends to grow out of control. We lose clarity also - in MJ case we had too many para, but you could tell at once what they were about and skip those you're not interested into. Now our nutshell definition (first paragraph) suddenly ends not as what it should be - some general facts are connected with the beginning of his career, which is totally different level of abstraction. And this is when the reader gets puzzled and has to read all the story and can't skip paras, because a story in the lead is not logically split into paragraphs - we just try to have 4 paragraphs, not caring if they are still logically separate parts.
I think we have to think more what is the lead for and how it could be more useful for people, not just how much paragraphs it will take. I like killing too long leads very much (look at my page =} ), but I believe the first step to do it properly is to create logically separate paragraphs. Then you have some structure, which you can slim down by generalizing. This is why I prefer too many simple "one-aspect-at-the-time" paragraphs in MJ and a template claiming it is too long, than the proper amount of them, but with "a novel" approach, when you have to follow the writer from the beginnig to the end if you try to find something. It is hard to maintain in the long perspective, since the story is one big and not very clear construct.
That's why I think it's better to explicitely show why it is too long (too many separate topics gathered here, not well generalized) than simply hide this fact, making it even harder to manage. kocio ( talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The main problem here is that this part of text wasn't structured, IMHO it's just a long "praising" section. =} Whatever we do, there will be some uncosistences and subjectivities in trying to sort the things out, until someone makes a brave rewrite and cuts some quotes. I'm not that fluent in English to make such things myself.
I just thought this 2 paragraphs summarize this praising, so it's good to remove them from the long enough Influence section, especially since it all sounds like telling all the same in different words and I don't like such duplication. You can combine it back if you feel it'd be better - or maybe cut some not-essential-enough stuff by the way?
The Voice section - here we have at least some hard facts and some other quotes, which concentrate mostly on the voice, not just on the influence. I believe it has some justification to be separated. However, it still is praising and does not differ clearly from the rest, so if you feel... etc.
One thing I really don't want to be removed is more fine grained paragraphs I made this time - at least most of them - because they give some breath to the reader's eye. kocio ( talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree more or less with your recent edits on the article, I don't think that when the example of the Texas Statutes is given, changing the language of the precise statute is appropriate. Perhaps finding another example from another state would change the language appropriately without removing the quoted citation? Atom ( talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The word actor is, verbatim fom the statute, as is the other wording. Yes, it is strange, but they use it in legal jargon to basically mean a person initiating the action. The bias that they seem to assume the guilt of the person because they are older is strange, but it is from Texas. As I said, maybe other state statutes say it in a less biased way for the article? Atom ( talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
With this notice, I think you hit the wrong talk page. The Google Project is not the doctors' mess. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.queerty.com/what-does-maggie-gallagher-think-about-anal-sex-20110128/
I totally understand feeling protective of articles that I have worked on. DCX ( talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the BRD process. I made what I felt was a constructive change, and you reverted. No problem. This is the discuss part. "Anal sex is perhaps most often associated with male homosexual behavior, ranging from monogamous same-sex relationships, in which anal sex may be the central focus of lovemaking, to less consensual male-male sexual activity, such as male-male rape, in which anal sex is an act of aggression." Your edit comment was. "Atomaton, I'm thinking it was added because anal sex is most often associated with male homosexuality, which is sourced below" I looked through the references,[2] through [7] and I did not see that quote. Are you sure that this is not just speculation, or opinion offered by one editor? Which reference said that? Atom ( talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my comments in the anal sex talk page. I explained my reasoning, and I believe it is sound. You say that the words sound like weasel words, and yet they are the opinion of the author whom you cited, and in fact, put the sentence in proper context. I'd rather that you had discussed it, rather that reverting me. It seems to me that you and I have a great deal in common. I will not get in a revert battle with someone whom I respect. If you look at my comments in the article, perhaps you will have a change of heart. Atom ( talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
But, I did comment on the talk page. How can you say that the author you yourself cited is using "weasel words"? The quite you disagree with about heterosexual anal sex being larger in number is a direct quote from the author you cited. Atom ( talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say, but you misunderstand what I am trying to say. If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers. If instead someone were to say that "a larger percentage of homosexuals participate in anal sex than other groups" then your comments would be valid. Percentage would certainly be more important there. But, that isn't the case. The misconception seems to be, according to Dr. John Dean, "anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men.". Don't you think that when I quoted Dr. Dean again by saying "It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." that I was countering that premise to dispel that misconception?
I will keep the discussion over in the article after this. Best to you, Atom ( talk) 00:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
'Twas nice of you to say that. I appreciate it. Tvoz/ talk 04:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22! Thank you for reverting the unsourced additions. I'm guessing you're a Whitney fan? Novice7 | Talk 10:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey if you're talking about the X-factor performance then I removed that because its one performance. Can you imagine if every performance she did had some kind of review to it? The article would be ridiculously long. I mean, she did over 100 performances in 1986 alone. Should each of those have some kind of sourced critisicm (good or bad)? Do we really need that kind of detail? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shoop85 (
talk •
contribs) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I replied now, because I only saw it now, I haven't been visiting often lately. That performance was just a regular performance, it wasn't her "comeback performance". Her comeback performance would be the Good Morning America concert, (which also had bad reviews and was NOT removed by me, so your theory that I only remove negative criticism is incorrect. Also, I am the one that had to constantly re-add all the drug talk, and that is also "negative"). And for an OVERALL reception of her comeback, how about her FIRST worldwide tour in a decade? I just don't see the point in highlighting a random performance. I also removed the POSITIVE reception from the Italy X-factor performance, because, again, it is a random performance. So again, please don't accuse me of "removing all criticism". Check my edits again, and I'm honestly not trying to be rude here though it may sound like it, but check ALL the edits and not just selectively with all due respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoop85 ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, flyer22. I don't really like having discussions on my talk page (I am going to remove the comments their as I standardly do with matters germane to articles rather than my own actions) and I cannot claim expertise on the topic, but my understanding from watching a cable documentary on artificial insemination is that properly executed stimulation of the prostate is a sure-fire way to induce ejaculation in males whether human or bovine, is standard in animal husbandry and captive breeding programs, and that it is pretty much involuntary and automatic - hence the use with bulls. The source for the article is not exactly the most authoritative imaginable, and I doubt this wisdom of drawing any conclusions from it, since it was not written to address the specific question you raised. μηδείς ( talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me make myself as clear as possible, so as not to have to repeat myself. There is no identified class of otherwise healthty sexually mature males who cannot, except due to some abnormal condition, or perhaps the intentional lack of effort, reach orgasm or ejaculation by this means. Of course there are men who cannot orgasm, just as of course it is possible to ejaculate without orgasm by penile stimulation. These caveats are all standard. An analogy to these objections would be responding to the claim that men can walk tippy-toed with complaints that some people are amputees or that some people would rather crawl on all fours. μηδείς ( talk) 04:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi flyer if you have the time could you take a look at this edit I made here [1] I feel I sufficiently warned the editor and was warranted when they slipped into 1st person plural. It could have been a close paraphrase, but looking at the whole article I don't think so. -- Wlmg ( talk) 11:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22... I am extremely grateful for the time and effort you've put into answering the objections and nit-picking of "Mijopaalmc" et al.! (I sort of understand where he's coming from, since "Frot Granddaddy" Bill Weintraub is so fanatically opposed to sticking anything up the wazoo that his site forbids discussion of butt plugs and those "Aneros" thingamajigs, even though such toys may be much safer for rectal penetration than a man's penis. But on the other hand, Weintraub is a Lone Voice In The Wilderness wailing against a tsunami of anal-oriented gay pr0n, with bareback stuff accounting for 25% of sales, by some estimates -- so I'm inclined to forgive his fanaticism.) Anyway, I especially appreciate your efforts because you're a chick and don't have a prostate, so it must've been tempting for you to recuse yourself from the whole debate on the "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. But you didn't, and I thank you. Throbert McGee ( talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, F22. Thanks for your compliment. I agree with your tweaks to my rework of that section, with one minor and one moderate exception you'll see if you check the article history. I'm heading over to the talk page to start a discussion about how best to deal with Weintraub. — Scheinwerfermann T· C22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I never opposed it, I was the one who added it in the first place. I don't mind if you remove it, I only added it back because nobody gave a reason as to why it was removed before. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I added it back once, I think. Either way, I agree with your reasoning, I'll remove it. Jayy008 ( talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Flyer22 I have edited the one tree hill page and worked really hard on the season one thing and i felt i was good and to see that you deleted everything i wrote made me upset. I am not trying to be rude and i kept all of your work. Did i do somthing in the writing that was bad could we work together on this because i really love one tree hill and know almost everything about and really want to write about it too. Sincerly Mkaylach.
I have changed and fixed all gramar mistakes and i say that it is a summary of the first season talking about what happened to each character and i dont care what you think because everytime you take it off i will put it back on. I have saved my summary on my computer so all i need to do is copy and paste it. i tryed not to be rude but since you think you are the keeper of wikipedia i will contiue to add what i like. so yea it aint gonna go anywhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.232.8 ( talk) 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
OK so if my grammar is so bad then why did word help me change all mispelled words and i have used other sites to check my grammar i my not be able to spell the best but at least i know not to be rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.232.8 ( talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Flyer22 I have read over my lastest notes to you and found that i have been rude. I am sorry for that. I have now put my summary of season 1 under 7.1 Summaries of the seasons I hope this is better for and ask that is stays there and again i am sorry for how rude i have been. But please look at the way you said somethings too. Yes it my look like i am new but i have been on here for 7 years but i lost my password and had my account shut down. I hope we can get pass this and not contiue to go agaist each other.
I never asked to apologize i was just saying that i would like you to look at the way you said somethings. I went back and looked at my comments from a different view and saw it was rude. I have changed the things about Nicki and would like your help to get a welcome tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaylach ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear flyer22 i belive that we may have stepped off on the wrong foot but would like to get on the right one. I here to ask you if you would mind adopting me as a user and i am also asking your help on how to adopt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaylach ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have seen you contributed the screen shot of Gillian Andrassy her pouty expression makes her look like her pet puppy just died. I have created an alternate screen shot where she's smiling http://tinypic.com/r/2qmd7nn/7 I have also endeavored to expand the Esta TerBlanche article going as far to consult the Afrikaans wikipedia and she's surprisingly read ink. sigh another dead end. -- Wlmg ( talk) 08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you tell me in a nutshell what is the deal with this article? Sorry, I'm just having trouble getting my head around this. Is Illumnato pushing POV, or is he being ganged up on by POV pushers, or what? (I've had run-ins with Atom elsewhere, which doesn't prove that he's not the good guy here.)
What is the purpose of this article? What is it supposed to be? What do you think it should be? I trust your judgment and highly value your view of things like this. Herostratus ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a vexing problem. "Themself" is disputed in this usage because it is ungrammatical; it is a plural pronoun and therefore not applicable to a singular referent. Your present form is also ungrammatical; we don't use "hisself" or "his self". It would want to be The best opponent for one who sees him- or herself as justice is another who also does.. But the more elegant solution is probably to bring the mountain to Mohammed since the other way isn't working: The best opponents for those who see themselves as justice are others who also do. — Scheinwerfermann T· C00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think the penetration dab page makes the two meanings (generic and criminal charge) clearer. So I would prefer that sexual penetration redirects there. But I don't really mind your proposed change and wont object either way. Grant | Talk 08:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The Human Sexuality Barnstar | ||
Thank you for improving the problematic Frot article, Simon Speed ( talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
I would like to make it clearer that Hebephilia is the sexual attraction for early - mid adolescent. (11 - 13 year old, early adolescent) (14 - 15 year old, mid adolescent). VickNad ( talk) 5:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of style, I shy away from formulations like "revealing that..." or "the scene opens with..." or "the movie closes on..." because I find them slightly redundant. The facts about what we see in the picture should speak for us -- partly to avoid speculative conclusions. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but if we believe that Ross had the diamond all along, we should be able to provide the reader with the facts that require that conclusion. In that way, we provide a summary that obviously avoids OR. So, maybe I could ask you: how are you so sure she had it all along? I would like to include that information in the summary instead of our conclusion that she had it all along. That's what I was trying to do but maybe in this case it doesn't help. Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
[3] → Please do not use edit summaries as null edits for the sole purpose of communicating with others. If you're going to make a comment to someone or a general comment, use that user's talk page or the article's talk page. Thank you, – MuZemike 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the good word - may have gone a bit OTT by the end, but at least there's no "creative vandalism"! Jacobisq ( talk) 11:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22. I'm sorry for the delay, but I have finally had a change to reply to your question on
my talkpage. I hope you've been well.
— James Cantor (
talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response:- I have repeatedly tried to follow the debate but just not succeeded. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't we have enough sourced discussion to place them under "gay males" categories? The cited synthesis from AfterElton does a really good job with that case. The 'ambiguity' is only in the characters' own reticence to adopt labels; their real world reception, and the significance of Brokeback Mountain, all recognise them as important depictions of gay males. The bisexual category, as applied by some editors, is well-meaning but misconceived. 'Settling' for 'LGBT characters' seems so too.~ Zythe Talk to me! 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello my dear Flyer, please relax and do not be sad or angry. I'm male and was born in 82 also and i hope you be the best my friend. I think terms like enormous was a little puerile, what is your idea about this your copy edit version? My darling are you have any protest?-- Bakhshi82 ( talk) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Titanic | 11 | 14 | - | 25 |
2 | Ben-Hur | 11 | 12 | - | 23 |
3 | The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King | 11 | 11 | - | 22 |
? | All About Eve | 6 | 14 | - | 20 |
Ha ha ha... That was not fun??? get it?-- Bakhshi82 ( talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Siawase ( talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to tie up a loose end - you (and I agreed) id'd a sock that wasn't confirmed at the time - remember? I had suspicions that he was not only socking with another pair on the talk page but actually part of a notorious sockfarm. Well, we were right - the account was blocked last night. Eventually they get found out - I wouldn't care as much if the accounts didn't disrupt, but he typically eventually does. Tvoz/ talk 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for any confusion caused by or deception implied by my failure to follow WP:CLEANSTART. I have not properly availed myself of the procedure, which I should have done. Mjpam ( talk) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I agree we need a major slate cleaning. Count me in. Feel free to let me know if I'm messing with your head. I promise if it happens, it's an accident. Cheers. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I sort of believe the IPs might not be Bakhshi because it didn't seem like his vocabulary. Not that it matters either way. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Flyer, have you ever heard of "Jack rolling"? It's recreational gang rape In South Africa. My attempt to create an article was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax despite having the reference [4] Any thoughts on the matter?-- Wlmg ( talk) 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Trespassing again: hope we're cool Jacobisq ( talk) 04:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer. As mentioned before, I admire the work you did a while back on several One Tree Hill articles, particularly the love triangle section of the show page (if that was you). I recently created a similar section in the Blair Waldorf article (though I rarely watch the show). If you ever have any advice on how it might improve, I'd appreciate your input. Take care. -- James26 ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
As per your notification replied here, hope we can sort out the phrasing. Disputing your correction, I think there would be a means of conveying the predominance and superior ease of it without implying it is the exclusive means for anyone, which there is no proof for. Proving negatives is harsh and such conclusivity would be well known and easy to source. DB ( talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, but you didn't really need to explain your edits. I've currently been trying to think of some ways to expand on the sections, etc, so yeah, it was kind of messy. I see you've edited her articles before, and if you'd like to, feel free to help out on the sandbox I made for her upcoming single. ℥ nding· start 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Chime in. I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Flyer, I appreciate your invitation to comment on Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue; but I'm going to beg off on this one for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I have deliberately pulled back on my investment in WP because over the last five years I have learned it really doesn't pay to care too much what happens here: you work hard to build a consensus or write a well-crafted article, then tomorrow some new, clueless butthead rolls in and messes the hell out of everything you sweated over. I simply don't need that kind of frustration and upset, and I'm not dealing with it anymore. I use WP as a place to edit/write about topics that engage my interest, when I have the time for that - a hobby that is only as good as the enjoyment I get out of it. We don't get paid for our labors, so if it's not fun - why do it?
For another thing, the Heterosexualization article has some content & source problems. The over-long lede defines the concept as if it is a widely accepted, somewhat scientific point of view, with practically no verification, and the rest of the article (as well as the majority of citations) seems to discuss bullying and harrassment. But the last two things are not the same as the first; and the first seems a bit puffed up to me, lacking enough reliable sources to be established as a mainstream, not a fringe, point of view.
Now I am most certainly totally opposed to homophobia and bullying and all that, make no mistake. I am also opposed to loose talk and frail logic; the article makes it sound like heterosexualization (what a mouthful, huh?) is a devious plot by nefarious forces, when of course it's just a subcategory of human conformity - which exists in many, many guises and operates much of the time on a subsconscious level, I think. As you may have read, the latest report from the Williams Institute comes up with only 1.7 percent gay population in the U.S. That might be a percentage point or two low, IMO, but nevertheless: when 95 percent of the world does something a certain way - anything you care to name - it's rather natural to assume the other 5 percent will feel mighty pressured to go with the flow. That's human nature, and it's an old, old story.
As a gay man, I of course have suffered from this attitude, as has everyone else in the LGBT community. In a private essay I might expatiate upon those effects at length, and with feeling. But WP is an encyclopedia; the task here is to present not our personal feelings and views, but what reliable, expert sources have said, not giving undue weight to one side or the other.
So the article, as I see it, needs to be rewritten, cut way down (bullying and homophobia already have their own articles), and better sourced on the use and origin of the term itself. I skimmed over the talk page, but having been through such long, dragged-out dogfights before, a futile exercise for reasons I already stated above, I really don't want to go there. But I hope these reflections are of some value to you, and thanks again for the invite. Perhaps another time, another article. Textorus ( talk) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right, millions of uncritical people turn to Wikipedia and take whatever they read as gospel truth; even a few courts around the world have cited WP articles in their decisions, which is appalling. But the problem with Jimbo's original concept is that if you have an encyclopedia "anybody can edit," then Anybody and Everybody will edit it - but not everybody and his kid brother should, for several glaringly obvious reasons. Real encyclopedias employ well-trained writers, skilled researchers, and an army of fact-checkers to ensure the quality of the final product. Unless WP decides to start hiring a paid crew to do those things, or devises some way of locking in place a really well done article - then it will always be deeply flawed and unreliable, minute by minute.
There's simply no point breaking your heart over an unfixable problem the magnitude of WP - which is why I advocate don't-give-a-fuckism. I add or repair what I conveniently can, when I can, to the extent that I find it pleasurable to do so, not a drag or an upset. Even so, I can't take the madness for more than a few weeks a year - why stay in a constant inner turmoil over what you can never fix? My energies are better spent in more constructive ways online and in the real world. So having spent more than 2 cents on this topic, I think I'm going to shut up now; everyone has to decide for himself what the best use of his time and talents is. I made that decision a good while back. Textorus ( talk) 00:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I think the domestic violence info should be mentioned first. The part where it mentions Brown began work on Grafitti in 2008 should be removed. I don't think its needed there and its probably mentioned on the album's article. Ozurbanmusic ( talk) 07:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you see WP:THREATS against you in my comments now?? OK. I'm very busy now, but i will be there as soon as possible.-- Bakhshi82 ( talk) 15:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Dude, seriously? That's a little creepy. Millahnna ( talk) 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Flyer. If you do remove these comments, can you make sure to get mine too so I doesn't look like I'm calling you creepy? That keeps really bothering me during this whole mess, if you see what I mean. Millahnna ( talk) 13:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
You've got mail.
Rivertorch (
talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to note that you have one from me also - a day or so ago?
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 13:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Flyer22 for overall excellence - for being just a really, really good editor, for contributing to the Wikipedia in a number of fraught and difficult areas, and for generally being a credit to the Wikipedia. We should all strive to be as dedicated and talented as Flyer22. Herostratus ( talk) 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
I would like to second the above barnstar, thanks for your excellent work! I have added Titanic (1997 film) to my watchlist and will notice any further nonsense there. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes that would be great. So many of these articles are written by fans. In this case the fan base is even less scholarly than usual sometimes. I first got involved in the article when I saw some edits like this: "[name of character] is the real slut! She lied about who the father is! She doesn't take care of her baby! She deserves to get beat up!" (corrected for grammar and spelling). This, mind you, in the body of the article, LOL. Ummm thank you for encyclopedic contribution, OK.
My main interest in the article now is the minor points of removing any slander or invasion of privacy, and trying to ensure that references to the actors use their last names. This is per the WP:MOS and the dignity of the actors, we don't say "Bobby led the Confederates at Gettysburg" and these actors deserve the same respect.
As I had mentioned, I have gone on a sort of Wikibreak, just to chill and get away from it all a bit. I will still be here and editing but not as active, and this may last a only few days or perhaps. But I will see any messages on my talk page. Cheers, Herostratus ( talk) 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22; I hope you've been well.
The
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers has just come out with a comprehensive review of the research behind sex offender policies. It is quite readable and provides summaries and citations of the relevant science. I thought you might find its contents helpful (and a relevant EL on several WP pages):
http://atsa.com/pdfs//ppReasonedApproach.pdf
— James Cantor ( talk) 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's shaven. Perhaps someone altered the picture. I do remember altering such a caption when a vulva clearly had hair. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually I did not have it in my list. Thanks for alerting me. Now the good news is on investigation, it looks like a post-and-run. That account hasn't done anything in a month. Hopefully it will stay that way and we can quietly let it fade away. Legitimus ( talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, F22. We appear to have a recurrence of Christianist POV-pushing; see here and here. Oy vey! — Scheinwerfermann T· C23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If the first image of Babe is of Alexa Havins, and not her recast, should the first image for Lily Walsh Snyder be Martha Byrne instead of her recast? -- DrBat ( talk) 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
is not a new user... [10] a_man_alone ( talk) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
m Gender identity disorder; 18:39 . . (+45) . . Flyer22 (talk | contribs) (→Controversy: Bonze blayk, you reverted your own changes.) Oops! That'll teach me to open a Reflinks window while still in the middle of an edit!
BTW, there's an excellent WP:SPS addressing the topic I was editing on there, regarding skepticism as to whether brain-sex research is actually helpful, by an (anonymous) trans woman, "Quinnae Moongazer" at Raiders of the Lost Etiology. Disclaimer: I'm a fan: great writing affects me that way.
Anyway, thank you very much for correcting my "over-edit"! -- bonze blayk ( talk) 00:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, good work on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. Previously there has been a "Casey Anthony" section on that article. As some people were interested in having her own article perhaps we could re-instate the Casey Anthony section about her. If you find that suggestion OK I can fix it back and you perhaps can update it properly with your skills? And ofcourse you can just remove it if you dont find it to be of any use for the article. Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 09:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on my discussion page. However, I disagree with the assertions you made in your edit comment when you reverted my edit.
Frottage is the term it comes from and its meaning is applicable to all combinations of sexual activity and identification etc. The sexual identity of those who partake in the activity is irrelevant. " Frot" is simply a shortened version of the word, and its meaning is identical. This is different to the term "sword-fighting", for example, which is obviously quite specific. While the shortened version of the word may well be more commonly used amongst gay men, it is probably not solely used by that group. It's quite likely that the shortened version is not used by all gay men, and it is probably used by some heterosexuals and lesbians. The word itself had been quite 'technical', and it may well have entered the common psyche by increase in usage amongst gay blokes, but I doubt that group can claim sole 'ownership'.
I believe that distinguishing this is unnecessary, other than perhaps a short note in the article on non-penetrative sex. I also tagged the article with a suggestion to merge with Non-penetrative sex.
I would suggest also that, unless we can prove that the shortened version of the word is used exclusively and frequently amongst only gay men, we should mention the usage amongst other groups. Many people speak (or write) in short-hand, shortening longer words and creating 'slang'.
Frottage is a general sexual term or activity that can be applied to everyone and anyone who is sexually active with others.
It might be worthwhile discussing this on the article's talk page and/or on the article talk page for Non-penetrative sex. -- 86.153.35.156 ( talk) 22:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
86.153.35.156 is right. Leave him or her alone. Former homosexual ( talk) 05:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, some nerves seem to be touched here! I'd like to apologise to you Flyer, for any sense of exasperation you may be suffering from "being accused" of ownership. I do not know your history here of relations with other editors and, with respect, I don't really care. But I assure you that it was not my intention to indicate bad faith on your part, or that of anyone else.
For Scheinwerfermann, I'd like to suggest that you forget everything you think you know about me. Disregard the assumptions you've made about me with regard to the only solid fact you know about me: that I have edited without a registered account. Disregard your prejudice which seems to make you think that anyone who makes edits without a registered account is somehow either stupid, has no knowledge of how Wikipedia works, or both. Also disregard your prejudice as far as making such dismissive comments as suggesting I have an unhealthy point of view. To me that only suggests that you certainly have a point of view and it is one which differs from mine, and that you are unwilling to discuss my own point of view - to the extent that you make accusations which could be taken as not only dismissive but insulting as well.
I have only skimmed through these replies, and not read them critically yet. However, I would like to point out to you, Scheinwerfermann, that you have contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you suggest that the article writing process "is not centred around a majority-rules vote or popularity contest". Yet on the other hand you suggest that I get familiar with the majority-rules guideline of Wikipedia.
I have not gone to any great length, by the way, other than the two minutes it took me too access a couple of webpages, on top of the time it took me to write a response or two here.
I don't know how you (or FH) arrived at this discussion page, though I do think that this debate should probably be taken to the article itself or a related project page.
For Former Homosexual, please understand that I do not wish to be left alone: I edited the article and responded to Flyer specifically because I wanted to communicate my ideas, and try to understand her ideas, in an effort to persuade one or other of us, or get to a third option whereby everyone can be happy with the work we've done.
It's called debate. And it's healthy, not 'megalomaniacal'.
Having got those points out of the way, I will perhaps get back to the topic and debate itself, if I feel there is anything further to add. Once I've had more time to read (fully) these last responses, that is, and perhaps I'll attempt to expand on where I'm coming from, if you'll excuse the cheap pun.
Once again Flyer, thank you for your time and for hosting this discussion on your talk page. If you feel it should be moved to the article's talk page or elsewhere, please leave a note here or on my IP's talk page. -- 86.153.35.156 ( talk) 05:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
First off, it's always a thrill to come to your talk page to see what salacious sexual acts are being discussed here. Secondly, I saw that you left Dane97 a piece of advice about new articles. He or she hasn't started any new articles, but they have taken on the favorite past time of casual soap opera editors... moving articles! Random hyphens seem to be his preference. Keep an eye on Babe Carey, Kristina Davis, and David Vickers. Hope this finds you well. AniMate 06:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone added to the words of Judge Perry in his sentencing where he explains the difference in the guilty counts. There is only one video that shows his full explanation. It i the one that last 5.17 minutes. It can be found here as referenced. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/07/07/exp.CaseyAnthonySentenced.hln?iref=allsearch I though it was important not to add or change his words. I did shorten the words but only the insignificant words. Someone ADDED to his words something he did not say. Judge Perry never said she NEVER worked at Universal Studiosthere in Count Six but that she did not work there at the time she stated to law enforcement officials that she did. I think I heard during the court case that she actually did work there several years before taking photos or something, but regardless that is not what the Judge state during sentencing. I deleted it. The article loos great You did a great job. It is a very good article. Going back to 1356 now. Mugginsx ( talk) 10:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
You removed the common usage of ABDL over Paraphilic infantilism . Do you disagree that ABDL is the more commonly used term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.191.208 ( talk) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I don't know if I have it in me to get involved there again, to tell you the truth. Glad Bugs stepped up. Promise I'll try though. Tvoz/ talk 17:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I restored it. See why right here. Thanks. Hashem sfarim ( talk) 19:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be addicting. Don't fret over it too much. It's the "encyclopedia any moron can edit", and many do, every day. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here [11] wrt including anal sex in medicine. Have removed as it is only tangentially related to medicine. There are many risk factors we do not include and there is a project that better covers this article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is a difficulty. Will be offering a scholarship to UBC health science students this coming fall for the person who makes the greatest contribution. This is a pilot project which will hopefully be expanded to other universities / topic areas is successful. Am also working on partnership with a number of institutions that benefit both Wikipedia and these institutions. But it is slow and we are so few. Other ideas? http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Main_Page Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the wording current wording that uses ("media obsession") on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. I believe you are however misunderstanding and misusing WP:WEASEL to support the change from "intense". "Intense" is not, in any clear way, functioning as a weasel word here and I fail to comprehend the reasoning to classify it as such. "Weasel words" are intended to make a statement true regardless of the truth of the content promoted by the statement. They seek to weaken the content of a statement. In this case, "intense" is qualifying a statement and therefore making it stronger (because now if one can argue that the coverage was not intense then the previously general statement is now false). In any case, it's no wonder that Wikipedia has gained a reputation as being run by a cabal of controlling editors when even such minor changes are aggressively reverted. This is especially true, in light of me politely asking for discussion to support your notion that "intense" is a weasel word. Your second revert comment merely suggested it "sounded [to you] like a weasel word". That argument is vacuous especially since it appears to me that you don't actually know what weasel words are and how they function. I guess my point is to be less controlling of articles, question your own point of view a little more, and edit in a way that isn't so off-putting to newcomers. I'm not a newcomer but I'm sure if I was — simple one-word edits are probably a major channel for beginning editors to start editing — you would have turned me off to the project, especially in light of the slightly insulting tone of the word "weasel". Jason Quinn ( talk) 05:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
F22: [12] re [13] — Scheinwerfermann T· C07:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22- It's too bad the Caylee Anthony image couldn't be retained. I suppose the admin didn't find the various arguments in favor of retention very convincing. I tried to be concise, straightforward, and factual in my comments. I really thought the "public domain" argument was all of that, plus a convincing reason to keep it. As for the main article page, keep up the good fight. Boneyard90 ( talk) 15:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
chris † ianrocker90 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Flyer, and other editors: I would not restructure as per the CA Talk Page suggestion. I believe that if you do, the article will lose the continuity of the events as they happened. This is a story, afterall and most readers will understand it best in that context. Further, it will lose any natural ebb and flow it now has and look like a bunch of facts rather than a readable article - the style which is overwhelmingly used in Wiki. The article has been produced by a great collaborative effort that has thus far not been in dispute by the majority of the editors. The few exceptions, the title, the photo, the timeline (now settled), are outside of the restructuring suggested here. Slight changes are one thing - a great re-structure into all of these subheadings out of time and context would be quite another thing altogether. Also left this message on the CA talk page. Mugginsx ( talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I could use your help to make a decision on pictures for the yaoi article - I've started a discussion here. -- Malkinann ( talk) 22:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
My edits to Death of Caylee Anthony should not have been reverted. Text such as "some people felt" or "others said" are weasel words, even if they are attributed in the citation because they need to be attributed right there in the prose. Putting 5 footnotes at the end of a sentence does not count as proper attribution. That would simply be citing the information, which is different than attributing it. Your revert also removed a tag from quote that had no attribution or citation whatsoever. Please avoid reverting in the future and do it only when necessary in terms of remove vandalism or other inappropriate content. It should not be used to remove tags from articles. – Dream out loud ( talk) 17:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey flyer, wondering what you think about this -- it's on the topic of why symmetry is related to beauty. My friend Gary and I were hashing about it -- do you know if its original research or whether it's been written about before -- and wondering whether it's true.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There were discrepancies on several pages, some list 11-12 and others list 12-13. I don't know which one is right. Negativecharge ( talk) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, the only thing I can think of is that I changed his name to "Psycho Derek" for Wikipedia:CommonName purposes. Or he's in guest stars? Jayy008 ( talk) 10:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply. It's all fixed now! Jayy008 ( talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Tasty stuff Negativecharge ( talk) 10:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | |
Bakhshi82 ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Flyer: I do not know how to do this but isn't there something that is done once a vote is completeled to preserve the material. I see that it looks different and states that it should not be edited or deleted. Do you know how to do this on the recent CA vote? Mugginsx ( talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about adding the signature on the article. I reverted that as soon as saw it. My addition was oddly worded, but I was attempting to distinguish between the biological aspects of sexual intercourse as opposed to its lovemaking aspects. From a strictly biological point of view, there is nothing wrong with premature ejaculation, as it gets the job (i.e. reproduction) done as quickly as possible. John Paul Parks ( talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you did not send messages directly to my user page. If you wish to discuss my contributions please do so on the article's talk page. As for your latest message - I do not regard my edits as silly. If I thought they were silly I wouldn't make them. I have better things to do, thank you very much. Ewawer ( talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Drmies ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There are alot of good people on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are also alot of idiots. Don't let the latter get the best of you. Rest for a few weeks if you want, I have done it myself, but don't leave permanently over a few jerks. You are too valuable to Wikipedia as you strive for perfection. That is bound to give you grief from these few editors, but please do not give it up completely. Mugginsx ( talk) 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please leave. You are a great editor, but you are also a person and not the sum of your contributions (and certainly not the aggregate of your perceived "failures") and you deserve to find out how you feel about not believing you need to make "just one more edit" to the project. Of course, I hope that you will find that you rediscover the appetite to contribute - but what I want most of all is for the encyclopedia to be a place where people derive pleasure from helping build the resource. If it cannot be that for you, then I do not think it is worthy of your efforts; I am sure that the skills you have brought here can be used in other beneficial ways, and in places where you may feel less pressurised. So, may I say, it has been a pleasure to lurk upon your talkpage, engage in a few discussions, and read what you have written. Adieu! Mark / LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
There are many banners that fit your work. I chose this one for personal reasons. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
You do not agree that tribadism includes her partner's chest and/or breasts? 129.107.225.207 ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
With respect to your recent postings on my talk page, I would answer as follows. - I am not sure that 'commonly known by' is more neutral, if anything I suspect it is less clear. On the other hand, I do think it (as written) is typically what people will believe/understand/know it to be. I would argue that 'common' is less neutral as it is often used to imply that something is less than favourable, though I do not believe that was the implication here. Referring to the understanding, it is not that it is harder to understand, it is that the typical understanding people have is of the 'scissor' position -- rather like the typical understanding (or better still 'first thing imagined when the term is used') of heterosexual intercourse is missionary postion, even though many others are well documented. - I think 'it is usually uderstood to mean' is reasonable -- it is both true, neutral and reamins appropriate even in the event that it may not *actually* be true and is there fore a misconception. - I did add erroneously, yes, in order to deineate between masturbation and tribadism. Naturally one should describe the two dispassionately but it seems reaonsable to delineate between them and thus remain clear, e.g. readers should not be given to thinking it could refer to a woman plerasuring herself with a pillow (or even a man, come to that), where the term actually refers to two women having sex. I think that without 'erroneously' it would be easy to read that refers to both sex and masturbation, which of course it does not. Showjumpersam ( talk) 19:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Showjumpersam ( talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22
Thanks for letting me know the reason why you reverted the changes I tried to make to the Dean article on Wikipedia. I hadn't looked at the article in a long time, and I was concerned to see what a gossipy mess it appears to have become over the past months. Everyone seems to have added their two cents worth. Even though references are given, some of them are to books which frankly are simply gossip mongering tomes written for fans rather than serious works.
I was particularly disturbed by the fact that Dean's, shall we say more well established and documented relationships, had become mixed up with the section concerning speculations about his sexual orientation, which I would agree should come secondary to the bare facts of his life.
Dean, unfortunately, like all icons, has become public property, which means everyone has a claim on his or her version of what he was "really" all about. However, I think quite obviously a biographical article should stick to sources that are actually known to have known, and been a part of, the life of the subject, rather ideas spun by third parties, amongst whom I would definitely include gossip columnists.
The Wikepedia article as it now stands is an inaccurate and amateurish hodgepodge. If I can't clear it up, maybe you, or some moderator, could do Dean this service?
Sincerely,
KitMarlowe3
Hi Flyer22, i am Jivesh from Mauritius. I am the one who fixed the article and i am sincerely very happy that someone has appreciated my work. I am here almost exclusively for Beyonce, i rarely contribute to other pages). I have fixed 8/10 singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce. And i am expanding singles from (B'Day). I will be very happy to work with you one day. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You reverted my paragraph split in Whitney Houston lead, citing 4-paragraphs rule from WP:LEAD. While I totally agree it should be this way, I think now it's too much things put together and that was my way to start showing this fact and eventually slimming the lead down a bit.
A career history is not a strict definition of who it is. Maybe her relatives belong to the first para, because they're also famous, but the rest does not - "Houston began..." should be next sentence and a paragraph.
Now we have way too long introduction, with 2. and 4. para being just a list of her achievements - it should be joined and cut to the most important. Alternatively we can make the 4. paragraph a separate "Awards" section and cloning the sentence about Guiness record to the first paragraph (as a general proof that she is very important artist, which should be reflected in this shortest summary - 5. here). But please don't pretend it all still fits in the lead just by squeezeing all the materials to the "demanded" amount of paragraphs.
What do you think about how to resolve this the best way? -- kocio ( talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
All important articles tend to have bloated lead, which I think is understandable, but still a flaw. People try to catch every important thing here, but - as we know it - in some cases you end up making neverending lists, because on some topics we have many facts to note, while on the others just a few. My feeling is the most important we want is comprehension in the lead, which means we have to be more picky and think more meta-level in some superimportant articles.
While MJ or WH can be 1000 times more rich in world-important details than the average singer, we should still keep the leads as 4 short, logical paragraphs, even if we lose some details here, because what we want is to gently introduce a reader, not forcing him/her to parse the text. Instead we have to summarize more tightly and have better generalized things. For example instead of writing here all achievements as a singer, actor and dancer, we should just say that he was important artist in all these areas, maybe with some most notable, one in each field. All details should go to the sections or even separate entries, if needed.
What I see in such cases most of the time is overloaded stories as a lead. The first paragraph should be the core definition on its own - then lead as a longer overview - and then sections for details. Reader can then always adjust any topic, no matter how big and important, to his personal time frame: fast skipping (few seconds, not even leaving the first para), overviewing (let's say less than a minute, but still skipable), then detail-picking in relevant, well planned sections.
When we make the lead "a story", we stop making summary and it tends to grow out of control. We lose clarity also - in MJ case we had too many para, but you could tell at once what they were about and skip those you're not interested into. Now our nutshell definition (first paragraph) suddenly ends not as what it should be - some general facts are connected with the beginning of his career, which is totally different level of abstraction. And this is when the reader gets puzzled and has to read all the story and can't skip paras, because a story in the lead is not logically split into paragraphs - we just try to have 4 paragraphs, not caring if they are still logically separate parts.
I think we have to think more what is the lead for and how it could be more useful for people, not just how much paragraphs it will take. I like killing too long leads very much (look at my page =} ), but I believe the first step to do it properly is to create logically separate paragraphs. Then you have some structure, which you can slim down by generalizing. This is why I prefer too many simple "one-aspect-at-the-time" paragraphs in MJ and a template claiming it is too long, than the proper amount of them, but with "a novel" approach, when you have to follow the writer from the beginnig to the end if you try to find something. It is hard to maintain in the long perspective, since the story is one big and not very clear construct.
That's why I think it's better to explicitely show why it is too long (too many separate topics gathered here, not well generalized) than simply hide this fact, making it even harder to manage. kocio ( talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The main problem here is that this part of text wasn't structured, IMHO it's just a long "praising" section. =} Whatever we do, there will be some uncosistences and subjectivities in trying to sort the things out, until someone makes a brave rewrite and cuts some quotes. I'm not that fluent in English to make such things myself.
I just thought this 2 paragraphs summarize this praising, so it's good to remove them from the long enough Influence section, especially since it all sounds like telling all the same in different words and I don't like such duplication. You can combine it back if you feel it'd be better - or maybe cut some not-essential-enough stuff by the way?
The Voice section - here we have at least some hard facts and some other quotes, which concentrate mostly on the voice, not just on the influence. I believe it has some justification to be separated. However, it still is praising and does not differ clearly from the rest, so if you feel... etc.
One thing I really don't want to be removed is more fine grained paragraphs I made this time - at least most of them - because they give some breath to the reader's eye. kocio ( talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree more or less with your recent edits on the article, I don't think that when the example of the Texas Statutes is given, changing the language of the precise statute is appropriate. Perhaps finding another example from another state would change the language appropriately without removing the quoted citation? Atom ( talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The word actor is, verbatim fom the statute, as is the other wording. Yes, it is strange, but they use it in legal jargon to basically mean a person initiating the action. The bias that they seem to assume the guilt of the person because they are older is strange, but it is from Texas. As I said, maybe other state statutes say it in a less biased way for the article? Atom ( talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
With this notice, I think you hit the wrong talk page. The Google Project is not the doctors' mess. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.queerty.com/what-does-maggie-gallagher-think-about-anal-sex-20110128/
I totally understand feeling protective of articles that I have worked on. DCX ( talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the BRD process. I made what I felt was a constructive change, and you reverted. No problem. This is the discuss part. "Anal sex is perhaps most often associated with male homosexual behavior, ranging from monogamous same-sex relationships, in which anal sex may be the central focus of lovemaking, to less consensual male-male sexual activity, such as male-male rape, in which anal sex is an act of aggression." Your edit comment was. "Atomaton, I'm thinking it was added because anal sex is most often associated with male homosexuality, which is sourced below" I looked through the references,[2] through [7] and I did not see that quote. Are you sure that this is not just speculation, or opinion offered by one editor? Which reference said that? Atom ( talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my comments in the anal sex talk page. I explained my reasoning, and I believe it is sound. You say that the words sound like weasel words, and yet they are the opinion of the author whom you cited, and in fact, put the sentence in proper context. I'd rather that you had discussed it, rather that reverting me. It seems to me that you and I have a great deal in common. I will not get in a revert battle with someone whom I respect. If you look at my comments in the article, perhaps you will have a change of heart. Atom ( talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
But, I did comment on the talk page. How can you say that the author you yourself cited is using "weasel words"? The quite you disagree with about heterosexual anal sex being larger in number is a direct quote from the author you cited. Atom ( talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say, but you misunderstand what I am trying to say. If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers. If instead someone were to say that "a larger percentage of homosexuals participate in anal sex than other groups" then your comments would be valid. Percentage would certainly be more important there. But, that isn't the case. The misconception seems to be, according to Dr. John Dean, "anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men.". Don't you think that when I quoted Dr. Dean again by saying "It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." that I was countering that premise to dispel that misconception?
I will keep the discussion over in the article after this. Best to you, Atom ( talk) 00:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
'Twas nice of you to say that. I appreciate it. Tvoz/ talk 04:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22! Thank you for reverting the unsourced additions. I'm guessing you're a Whitney fan? Novice7 | Talk 10:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey if you're talking about the X-factor performance then I removed that because its one performance. Can you imagine if every performance she did had some kind of review to it? The article would be ridiculously long. I mean, she did over 100 performances in 1986 alone. Should each of those have some kind of sourced critisicm (good or bad)? Do we really need that kind of detail? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shoop85 (
talk •
contribs) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I replied now, because I only saw it now, I haven't been visiting often lately. That performance was just a regular performance, it wasn't her "comeback performance". Her comeback performance would be the Good Morning America concert, (which also had bad reviews and was NOT removed by me, so your theory that I only remove negative criticism is incorrect. Also, I am the one that had to constantly re-add all the drug talk, and that is also "negative"). And for an OVERALL reception of her comeback, how about her FIRST worldwide tour in a decade? I just don't see the point in highlighting a random performance. I also removed the POSITIVE reception from the Italy X-factor performance, because, again, it is a random performance. So again, please don't accuse me of "removing all criticism". Check my edits again, and I'm honestly not trying to be rude here though it may sound like it, but check ALL the edits and not just selectively with all due respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoop85 ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, flyer22. I don't really like having discussions on my talk page (I am going to remove the comments their as I standardly do with matters germane to articles rather than my own actions) and I cannot claim expertise on the topic, but my understanding from watching a cable documentary on artificial insemination is that properly executed stimulation of the prostate is a sure-fire way to induce ejaculation in males whether human or bovine, is standard in animal husbandry and captive breeding programs, and that it is pretty much involuntary and automatic - hence the use with bulls. The source for the article is not exactly the most authoritative imaginable, and I doubt this wisdom of drawing any conclusions from it, since it was not written to address the specific question you raised. μηδείς ( talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me make myself as clear as possible, so as not to have to repeat myself. There is no identified class of otherwise healthty sexually mature males who cannot, except due to some abnormal condition, or perhaps the intentional lack of effort, reach orgasm or ejaculation by this means. Of course there are men who cannot orgasm, just as of course it is possible to ejaculate without orgasm by penile stimulation. These caveats are all standard. An analogy to these objections would be responding to the claim that men can walk tippy-toed with complaints that some people are amputees or that some people would rather crawl on all fours. μηδείς ( talk) 04:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi flyer if you have the time could you take a look at this edit I made here [1] I feel I sufficiently warned the editor and was warranted when they slipped into 1st person plural. It could have been a close paraphrase, but looking at the whole article I don't think so. -- Wlmg ( talk) 11:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22... I am extremely grateful for the time and effort you've put into answering the objections and nit-picking of "Mijopaalmc" et al.! (I sort of understand where he's coming from, since "Frot Granddaddy" Bill Weintraub is so fanatically opposed to sticking anything up the wazoo that his site forbids discussion of butt plugs and those "Aneros" thingamajigs, even though such toys may be much safer for rectal penetration than a man's penis. But on the other hand, Weintraub is a Lone Voice In The Wilderness wailing against a tsunami of anal-oriented gay pr0n, with bareback stuff accounting for 25% of sales, by some estimates -- so I'm inclined to forgive his fanaticism.) Anyway, I especially appreciate your efforts because you're a chick and don't have a prostate, so it must've been tempting for you to recuse yourself from the whole debate on the "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. But you didn't, and I thank you. Throbert McGee ( talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, F22. Thanks for your compliment. I agree with your tweaks to my rework of that section, with one minor and one moderate exception you'll see if you check the article history. I'm heading over to the talk page to start a discussion about how best to deal with Weintraub. — Scheinwerfermann T· C22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I never opposed it, I was the one who added it in the first place. I don't mind if you remove it, I only added it back because nobody gave a reason as to why it was removed before. Jayy008 ( talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I added it back once, I think. Either way, I agree with your reasoning, I'll remove it. Jayy008 ( talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Flyer22 I have edited the one tree hill page and worked really hard on the season one thing and i felt i was good and to see that you deleted everything i wrote made me upset. I am not trying to be rude and i kept all of your work. Did i do somthing in the writing that was bad could we work together on this because i really love one tree hill and know almost everything about and really want to write about it too. Sincerly Mkaylach.
I have changed and fixed all gramar mistakes and i say that it is a summary of the first season talking about what happened to each character and i dont care what you think because everytime you take it off i will put it back on. I have saved my summary on my computer so all i need to do is copy and paste it. i tryed not to be rude but since you think you are the keeper of wikipedia i will contiue to add what i like. so yea it aint gonna go anywhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.232.8 ( talk) 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
OK so if my grammar is so bad then why did word help me change all mispelled words and i have used other sites to check my grammar i my not be able to spell the best but at least i know not to be rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.232.8 ( talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Flyer22 I have read over my lastest notes to you and found that i have been rude. I am sorry for that. I have now put my summary of season 1 under 7.1 Summaries of the seasons I hope this is better for and ask that is stays there and again i am sorry for how rude i have been. But please look at the way you said somethings too. Yes it my look like i am new but i have been on here for 7 years but i lost my password and had my account shut down. I hope we can get pass this and not contiue to go agaist each other.
I never asked to apologize i was just saying that i would like you to look at the way you said somethings. I went back and looked at my comments from a different view and saw it was rude. I have changed the things about Nicki and would like your help to get a welcome tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaylach ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear flyer22 i belive that we may have stepped off on the wrong foot but would like to get on the right one. I here to ask you if you would mind adopting me as a user and i am also asking your help on how to adopt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaylach ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have seen you contributed the screen shot of Gillian Andrassy her pouty expression makes her look like her pet puppy just died. I have created an alternate screen shot where she's smiling http://tinypic.com/r/2qmd7nn/7 I have also endeavored to expand the Esta TerBlanche article going as far to consult the Afrikaans wikipedia and she's surprisingly read ink. sigh another dead end. -- Wlmg ( talk) 08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you tell me in a nutshell what is the deal with this article? Sorry, I'm just having trouble getting my head around this. Is Illumnato pushing POV, or is he being ganged up on by POV pushers, or what? (I've had run-ins with Atom elsewhere, which doesn't prove that he's not the good guy here.)
What is the purpose of this article? What is it supposed to be? What do you think it should be? I trust your judgment and highly value your view of things like this. Herostratus ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a vexing problem. "Themself" is disputed in this usage because it is ungrammatical; it is a plural pronoun and therefore not applicable to a singular referent. Your present form is also ungrammatical; we don't use "hisself" or "his self". It would want to be The best opponent for one who sees him- or herself as justice is another who also does.. But the more elegant solution is probably to bring the mountain to Mohammed since the other way isn't working: The best opponents for those who see themselves as justice are others who also do. — Scheinwerfermann T· C00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think the penetration dab page makes the two meanings (generic and criminal charge) clearer. So I would prefer that sexual penetration redirects there. But I don't really mind your proposed change and wont object either way. Grant | Talk 08:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The Human Sexuality Barnstar | ||
Thank you for improving the problematic Frot article, Simon Speed ( talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
I would like to make it clearer that Hebephilia is the sexual attraction for early - mid adolescent. (11 - 13 year old, early adolescent) (14 - 15 year old, mid adolescent). VickNad ( talk) 5:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of style, I shy away from formulations like "revealing that..." or "the scene opens with..." or "the movie closes on..." because I find them slightly redundant. The facts about what we see in the picture should speak for us -- partly to avoid speculative conclusions. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but if we believe that Ross had the diamond all along, we should be able to provide the reader with the facts that require that conclusion. In that way, we provide a summary that obviously avoids OR. So, maybe I could ask you: how are you so sure she had it all along? I would like to include that information in the summary instead of our conclusion that she had it all along. That's what I was trying to do but maybe in this case it doesn't help. Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
[3] → Please do not use edit summaries as null edits for the sole purpose of communicating with others. If you're going to make a comment to someone or a general comment, use that user's talk page or the article's talk page. Thank you, – MuZemike 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the good word - may have gone a bit OTT by the end, but at least there's no "creative vandalism"! Jacobisq ( talk) 11:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22. I'm sorry for the delay, but I have finally had a change to reply to your question on
my talkpage. I hope you've been well.
— James Cantor (
talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response:- I have repeatedly tried to follow the debate but just not succeeded. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't we have enough sourced discussion to place them under "gay males" categories? The cited synthesis from AfterElton does a really good job with that case. The 'ambiguity' is only in the characters' own reticence to adopt labels; their real world reception, and the significance of Brokeback Mountain, all recognise them as important depictions of gay males. The bisexual category, as applied by some editors, is well-meaning but misconceived. 'Settling' for 'LGBT characters' seems so too.~ Zythe Talk to me! 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello my dear Flyer, please relax and do not be sad or angry. I'm male and was born in 82 also and i hope you be the best my friend. I think terms like enormous was a little puerile, what is your idea about this your copy edit version? My darling are you have any protest?-- Bakhshi82 ( talk) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Titanic | 11 | 14 | - | 25 |
2 | Ben-Hur | 11 | 12 | - | 23 |
3 | The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King | 11 | 11 | - | 22 |
? | All About Eve | 6 | 14 | - | 20 |
Ha ha ha... That was not fun??? get it?-- Bakhshi82 ( talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Siawase ( talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to tie up a loose end - you (and I agreed) id'd a sock that wasn't confirmed at the time - remember? I had suspicions that he was not only socking with another pair on the talk page but actually part of a notorious sockfarm. Well, we were right - the account was blocked last night. Eventually they get found out - I wouldn't care as much if the accounts didn't disrupt, but he typically eventually does. Tvoz/ talk 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for any confusion caused by or deception implied by my failure to follow WP:CLEANSTART. I have not properly availed myself of the procedure, which I should have done. Mjpam ( talk) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I agree we need a major slate cleaning. Count me in. Feel free to let me know if I'm messing with your head. I promise if it happens, it's an accident. Cheers. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I sort of believe the IPs might not be Bakhshi because it didn't seem like his vocabulary. Not that it matters either way. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Flyer, have you ever heard of "Jack rolling"? It's recreational gang rape In South Africa. My attempt to create an article was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax despite having the reference [4] Any thoughts on the matter?-- Wlmg ( talk) 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Trespassing again: hope we're cool Jacobisq ( talk) 04:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer. As mentioned before, I admire the work you did a while back on several One Tree Hill articles, particularly the love triangle section of the show page (if that was you). I recently created a similar section in the Blair Waldorf article (though I rarely watch the show). If you ever have any advice on how it might improve, I'd appreciate your input. Take care. -- James26 ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
As per your notification replied here, hope we can sort out the phrasing. Disputing your correction, I think there would be a means of conveying the predominance and superior ease of it without implying it is the exclusive means for anyone, which there is no proof for. Proving negatives is harsh and such conclusivity would be well known and easy to source. DB ( talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, but you didn't really need to explain your edits. I've currently been trying to think of some ways to expand on the sections, etc, so yeah, it was kind of messy. I see you've edited her articles before, and if you'd like to, feel free to help out on the sandbox I made for her upcoming single. ℥ nding· start 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Chime in. I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Flyer, I appreciate your invitation to comment on Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue; but I'm going to beg off on this one for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I have deliberately pulled back on my investment in WP because over the last five years I have learned it really doesn't pay to care too much what happens here: you work hard to build a consensus or write a well-crafted article, then tomorrow some new, clueless butthead rolls in and messes the hell out of everything you sweated over. I simply don't need that kind of frustration and upset, and I'm not dealing with it anymore. I use WP as a place to edit/write about topics that engage my interest, when I have the time for that - a hobby that is only as good as the enjoyment I get out of it. We don't get paid for our labors, so if it's not fun - why do it?
For another thing, the Heterosexualization article has some content & source problems. The over-long lede defines the concept as if it is a widely accepted, somewhat scientific point of view, with practically no verification, and the rest of the article (as well as the majority of citations) seems to discuss bullying and harrassment. But the last two things are not the same as the first; and the first seems a bit puffed up to me, lacking enough reliable sources to be established as a mainstream, not a fringe, point of view.
Now I am most certainly totally opposed to homophobia and bullying and all that, make no mistake. I am also opposed to loose talk and frail logic; the article makes it sound like heterosexualization (what a mouthful, huh?) is a devious plot by nefarious forces, when of course it's just a subcategory of human conformity - which exists in many, many guises and operates much of the time on a subsconscious level, I think. As you may have read, the latest report from the Williams Institute comes up with only 1.7 percent gay population in the U.S. That might be a percentage point or two low, IMO, but nevertheless: when 95 percent of the world does something a certain way - anything you care to name - it's rather natural to assume the other 5 percent will feel mighty pressured to go with the flow. That's human nature, and it's an old, old story.
As a gay man, I of course have suffered from this attitude, as has everyone else in the LGBT community. In a private essay I might expatiate upon those effects at length, and with feeling. But WP is an encyclopedia; the task here is to present not our personal feelings and views, but what reliable, expert sources have said, not giving undue weight to one side or the other.
So the article, as I see it, needs to be rewritten, cut way down (bullying and homophobia already have their own articles), and better sourced on the use and origin of the term itself. I skimmed over the talk page, but having been through such long, dragged-out dogfights before, a futile exercise for reasons I already stated above, I really don't want to go there. But I hope these reflections are of some value to you, and thanks again for the invite. Perhaps another time, another article. Textorus ( talk) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right, millions of uncritical people turn to Wikipedia and take whatever they read as gospel truth; even a few courts around the world have cited WP articles in their decisions, which is appalling. But the problem with Jimbo's original concept is that if you have an encyclopedia "anybody can edit," then Anybody and Everybody will edit it - but not everybody and his kid brother should, for several glaringly obvious reasons. Real encyclopedias employ well-trained writers, skilled researchers, and an army of fact-checkers to ensure the quality of the final product. Unless WP decides to start hiring a paid crew to do those things, or devises some way of locking in place a really well done article - then it will always be deeply flawed and unreliable, minute by minute.
There's simply no point breaking your heart over an unfixable problem the magnitude of WP - which is why I advocate don't-give-a-fuckism. I add or repair what I conveniently can, when I can, to the extent that I find it pleasurable to do so, not a drag or an upset. Even so, I can't take the madness for more than a few weeks a year - why stay in a constant inner turmoil over what you can never fix? My energies are better spent in more constructive ways online and in the real world. So having spent more than 2 cents on this topic, I think I'm going to shut up now; everyone has to decide for himself what the best use of his time and talents is. I made that decision a good while back. Textorus ( talk) 00:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I think the domestic violence info should be mentioned first. The part where it mentions Brown began work on Grafitti in 2008 should be removed. I don't think its needed there and its probably mentioned on the album's article. Ozurbanmusic ( talk) 07:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you see WP:THREATS against you in my comments now?? OK. I'm very busy now, but i will be there as soon as possible.-- Bakhshi82 ( talk) 15:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Dude, seriously? That's a little creepy. Millahnna ( talk) 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Flyer. If you do remove these comments, can you make sure to get mine too so I doesn't look like I'm calling you creepy? That keeps really bothering me during this whole mess, if you see what I mean. Millahnna ( talk) 13:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
You've got mail.
Rivertorch (
talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to note that you have one from me also - a day or so ago?
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 13:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Flyer22 for overall excellence - for being just a really, really good editor, for contributing to the Wikipedia in a number of fraught and difficult areas, and for generally being a credit to the Wikipedia. We should all strive to be as dedicated and talented as Flyer22. Herostratus ( talk) 03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
I would like to second the above barnstar, thanks for your excellent work! I have added Titanic (1997 film) to my watchlist and will notice any further nonsense there. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes that would be great. So many of these articles are written by fans. In this case the fan base is even less scholarly than usual sometimes. I first got involved in the article when I saw some edits like this: "[name of character] is the real slut! She lied about who the father is! She doesn't take care of her baby! She deserves to get beat up!" (corrected for grammar and spelling). This, mind you, in the body of the article, LOL. Ummm thank you for encyclopedic contribution, OK.
My main interest in the article now is the minor points of removing any slander or invasion of privacy, and trying to ensure that references to the actors use their last names. This is per the WP:MOS and the dignity of the actors, we don't say "Bobby led the Confederates at Gettysburg" and these actors deserve the same respect.
As I had mentioned, I have gone on a sort of Wikibreak, just to chill and get away from it all a bit. I will still be here and editing but not as active, and this may last a only few days or perhaps. But I will see any messages on my talk page. Cheers, Herostratus ( talk) 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22; I hope you've been well.
The
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers has just come out with a comprehensive review of the research behind sex offender policies. It is quite readable and provides summaries and citations of the relevant science. I thought you might find its contents helpful (and a relevant EL on several WP pages):
http://atsa.com/pdfs//ppReasonedApproach.pdf
— James Cantor ( talk) 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's shaven. Perhaps someone altered the picture. I do remember altering such a caption when a vulva clearly had hair. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually I did not have it in my list. Thanks for alerting me. Now the good news is on investigation, it looks like a post-and-run. That account hasn't done anything in a month. Hopefully it will stay that way and we can quietly let it fade away. Legitimus ( talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, F22. We appear to have a recurrence of Christianist POV-pushing; see here and here. Oy vey! — Scheinwerfermann T· C23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If the first image of Babe is of Alexa Havins, and not her recast, should the first image for Lily Walsh Snyder be Martha Byrne instead of her recast? -- DrBat ( talk) 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
is not a new user... [10] a_man_alone ( talk) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
m Gender identity disorder; 18:39 . . (+45) . . Flyer22 (talk | contribs) (→Controversy: Bonze blayk, you reverted your own changes.) Oops! That'll teach me to open a Reflinks window while still in the middle of an edit!
BTW, there's an excellent WP:SPS addressing the topic I was editing on there, regarding skepticism as to whether brain-sex research is actually helpful, by an (anonymous) trans woman, "Quinnae Moongazer" at Raiders of the Lost Etiology. Disclaimer: I'm a fan: great writing affects me that way.
Anyway, thank you very much for correcting my "over-edit"! -- bonze blayk ( talk) 00:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, good work on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. Previously there has been a "Casey Anthony" section on that article. As some people were interested in having her own article perhaps we could re-instate the Casey Anthony section about her. If you find that suggestion OK I can fix it back and you perhaps can update it properly with your skills? And ofcourse you can just remove it if you dont find it to be of any use for the article. Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 09:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on my discussion page. However, I disagree with the assertions you made in your edit comment when you reverted my edit.
Frottage is the term it comes from and its meaning is applicable to all combinations of sexual activity and identification etc. The sexual identity of those who partake in the activity is irrelevant. " Frot" is simply a shortened version of the word, and its meaning is identical. This is different to the term "sword-fighting", for example, which is obviously quite specific. While the shortened version of the word may well be more commonly used amongst gay men, it is probably not solely used by that group. It's quite likely that the shortened version is not used by all gay men, and it is probably used by some heterosexuals and lesbians. The word itself had been quite 'technical', and it may well have entered the common psyche by increase in usage amongst gay blokes, but I doubt that group can claim sole 'ownership'.
I believe that distinguishing this is unnecessary, other than perhaps a short note in the article on non-penetrative sex. I also tagged the article with a suggestion to merge with Non-penetrative sex.
I would suggest also that, unless we can prove that the shortened version of the word is used exclusively and frequently amongst only gay men, we should mention the usage amongst other groups. Many people speak (or write) in short-hand, shortening longer words and creating 'slang'.
Frottage is a general sexual term or activity that can be applied to everyone and anyone who is sexually active with others.
It might be worthwhile discussing this on the article's talk page and/or on the article talk page for Non-penetrative sex. -- 86.153.35.156 ( talk) 22:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
86.153.35.156 is right. Leave him or her alone. Former homosexual ( talk) 05:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, some nerves seem to be touched here! I'd like to apologise to you Flyer, for any sense of exasperation you may be suffering from "being accused" of ownership. I do not know your history here of relations with other editors and, with respect, I don't really care. But I assure you that it was not my intention to indicate bad faith on your part, or that of anyone else.
For Scheinwerfermann, I'd like to suggest that you forget everything you think you know about me. Disregard the assumptions you've made about me with regard to the only solid fact you know about me: that I have edited without a registered account. Disregard your prejudice which seems to make you think that anyone who makes edits without a registered account is somehow either stupid, has no knowledge of how Wikipedia works, or both. Also disregard your prejudice as far as making such dismissive comments as suggesting I have an unhealthy point of view. To me that only suggests that you certainly have a point of view and it is one which differs from mine, and that you are unwilling to discuss my own point of view - to the extent that you make accusations which could be taken as not only dismissive but insulting as well.
I have only skimmed through these replies, and not read them critically yet. However, I would like to point out to you, Scheinwerfermann, that you have contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you suggest that the article writing process "is not centred around a majority-rules vote or popularity contest". Yet on the other hand you suggest that I get familiar with the majority-rules guideline of Wikipedia.
I have not gone to any great length, by the way, other than the two minutes it took me too access a couple of webpages, on top of the time it took me to write a response or two here.
I don't know how you (or FH) arrived at this discussion page, though I do think that this debate should probably be taken to the article itself or a related project page.
For Former Homosexual, please understand that I do not wish to be left alone: I edited the article and responded to Flyer specifically because I wanted to communicate my ideas, and try to understand her ideas, in an effort to persuade one or other of us, or get to a third option whereby everyone can be happy with the work we've done.
It's called debate. And it's healthy, not 'megalomaniacal'.
Having got those points out of the way, I will perhaps get back to the topic and debate itself, if I feel there is anything further to add. Once I've had more time to read (fully) these last responses, that is, and perhaps I'll attempt to expand on where I'm coming from, if you'll excuse the cheap pun.
Once again Flyer, thank you for your time and for hosting this discussion on your talk page. If you feel it should be moved to the article's talk page or elsewhere, please leave a note here or on my IP's talk page. -- 86.153.35.156 ( talk) 05:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
First off, it's always a thrill to come to your talk page to see what salacious sexual acts are being discussed here. Secondly, I saw that you left Dane97 a piece of advice about new articles. He or she hasn't started any new articles, but they have taken on the favorite past time of casual soap opera editors... moving articles! Random hyphens seem to be his preference. Keep an eye on Babe Carey, Kristina Davis, and David Vickers. Hope this finds you well. AniMate 06:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone added to the words of Judge Perry in his sentencing where he explains the difference in the guilty counts. There is only one video that shows his full explanation. It i the one that last 5.17 minutes. It can be found here as referenced. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/07/07/exp.CaseyAnthonySentenced.hln?iref=allsearch I though it was important not to add or change his words. I did shorten the words but only the insignificant words. Someone ADDED to his words something he did not say. Judge Perry never said she NEVER worked at Universal Studiosthere in Count Six but that she did not work there at the time she stated to law enforcement officials that she did. I think I heard during the court case that she actually did work there several years before taking photos or something, but regardless that is not what the Judge state during sentencing. I deleted it. The article loos great You did a great job. It is a very good article. Going back to 1356 now. Mugginsx ( talk) 10:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
You removed the common usage of ABDL over Paraphilic infantilism . Do you disagree that ABDL is the more commonly used term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.191.208 ( talk) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I don't know if I have it in me to get involved there again, to tell you the truth. Glad Bugs stepped up. Promise I'll try though. Tvoz/ talk 17:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I restored it. See why right here. Thanks. Hashem sfarim ( talk) 19:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be addicting. Don't fret over it too much. It's the "encyclopedia any moron can edit", and many do, every day. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is here [11] wrt including anal sex in medicine. Have removed as it is only tangentially related to medicine. There are many risk factors we do not include and there is a project that better covers this article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is a difficulty. Will be offering a scholarship to UBC health science students this coming fall for the person who makes the greatest contribution. This is a pilot project which will hopefully be expanded to other universities / topic areas is successful. Am also working on partnership with a number of institutions that benefit both Wikipedia and these institutions. But it is slow and we are so few. Other ideas? http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Main_Page Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the wording current wording that uses ("media obsession") on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. I believe you are however misunderstanding and misusing WP:WEASEL to support the change from "intense". "Intense" is not, in any clear way, functioning as a weasel word here and I fail to comprehend the reasoning to classify it as such. "Weasel words" are intended to make a statement true regardless of the truth of the content promoted by the statement. They seek to weaken the content of a statement. In this case, "intense" is qualifying a statement and therefore making it stronger (because now if one can argue that the coverage was not intense then the previously general statement is now false). In any case, it's no wonder that Wikipedia has gained a reputation as being run by a cabal of controlling editors when even such minor changes are aggressively reverted. This is especially true, in light of me politely asking for discussion to support your notion that "intense" is a weasel word. Your second revert comment merely suggested it "sounded [to you] like a weasel word". That argument is vacuous especially since it appears to me that you don't actually know what weasel words are and how they function. I guess my point is to be less controlling of articles, question your own point of view a little more, and edit in a way that isn't so off-putting to newcomers. I'm not a newcomer but I'm sure if I was — simple one-word edits are probably a major channel for beginning editors to start editing — you would have turned me off to the project, especially in light of the slightly insulting tone of the word "weasel". Jason Quinn ( talk) 05:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
F22: [12] re [13] — Scheinwerfermann T· C07:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22- It's too bad the Caylee Anthony image couldn't be retained. I suppose the admin didn't find the various arguments in favor of retention very convincing. I tried to be concise, straightforward, and factual in my comments. I really thought the "public domain" argument was all of that, plus a convincing reason to keep it. As for the main article page, keep up the good fight. Boneyard90 ( talk) 15:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
chris † ianrocker90 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Flyer, and other editors: I would not restructure as per the CA Talk Page suggestion. I believe that if you do, the article will lose the continuity of the events as they happened. This is a story, afterall and most readers will understand it best in that context. Further, it will lose any natural ebb and flow it now has and look like a bunch of facts rather than a readable article - the style which is overwhelmingly used in Wiki. The article has been produced by a great collaborative effort that has thus far not been in dispute by the majority of the editors. The few exceptions, the title, the photo, the timeline (now settled), are outside of the restructuring suggested here. Slight changes are one thing - a great re-structure into all of these subheadings out of time and context would be quite another thing altogether. Also left this message on the CA talk page. Mugginsx ( talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I could use your help to make a decision on pictures for the yaoi article - I've started a discussion here. -- Malkinann ( talk) 22:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
My edits to Death of Caylee Anthony should not have been reverted. Text such as "some people felt" or "others said" are weasel words, even if they are attributed in the citation because they need to be attributed right there in the prose. Putting 5 footnotes at the end of a sentence does not count as proper attribution. That would simply be citing the information, which is different than attributing it. Your revert also removed a tag from quote that had no attribution or citation whatsoever. Please avoid reverting in the future and do it only when necessary in terms of remove vandalism or other inappropriate content. It should not be used to remove tags from articles. – Dream out loud ( talk) 17:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey flyer, wondering what you think about this -- it's on the topic of why symmetry is related to beauty. My friend Gary and I were hashing about it -- do you know if its original research or whether it's been written about before -- and wondering whether it's true.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There were discrepancies on several pages, some list 11-12 and others list 12-13. I don't know which one is right. Negativecharge ( talk) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, the only thing I can think of is that I changed his name to "Psycho Derek" for Wikipedia:CommonName purposes. Or he's in guest stars? Jayy008 ( talk) 10:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply. It's all fixed now! Jayy008 ( talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Tasty stuff Negativecharge ( talk) 10:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | |
Bakhshi82 ( talk) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Flyer: I do not know how to do this but isn't there something that is done once a vote is completeled to preserve the material. I see that it looks different and states that it should not be edited or deleted. Do you know how to do this on the recent CA vote? Mugginsx ( talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about adding the signature on the article. I reverted that as soon as saw it. My addition was oddly worded, but I was attempting to distinguish between the biological aspects of sexual intercourse as opposed to its lovemaking aspects. From a strictly biological point of view, there is nothing wrong with premature ejaculation, as it gets the job (i.e. reproduction) done as quickly as possible. John Paul Parks ( talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you did not send messages directly to my user page. If you wish to discuss my contributions please do so on the article's talk page. As for your latest message - I do not regard my edits as silly. If I thought they were silly I wouldn't make them. I have better things to do, thank you very much. Ewawer ( talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Drmies ( talk) 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There are alot of good people on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are also alot of idiots. Don't let the latter get the best of you. Rest for a few weeks if you want, I have done it myself, but don't leave permanently over a few jerks. You are too valuable to Wikipedia as you strive for perfection. That is bound to give you grief from these few editors, but please do not give it up completely. Mugginsx ( talk) 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please leave. You are a great editor, but you are also a person and not the sum of your contributions (and certainly not the aggregate of your perceived "failures") and you deserve to find out how you feel about not believing you need to make "just one more edit" to the project. Of course, I hope that you will find that you rediscover the appetite to contribute - but what I want most of all is for the encyclopedia to be a place where people derive pleasure from helping build the resource. If it cannot be that for you, then I do not think it is worthy of your efforts; I am sure that the skills you have brought here can be used in other beneficial ways, and in places where you may feel less pressurised. So, may I say, it has been a pleasure to lurk upon your talkpage, engage in a few discussions, and read what you have written. Adieu! Mark / LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
There are many banners that fit your work. I chose this one for personal reasons. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |