Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 18 April 2013

This user may sometimes share an IP address with Halo Jerk1.

Welcome to my talk page. I have been editing Misplaced Pages since 2007. If you want to know more about me, see my user page. My work, like a lot of others, has been complimented and criticized. And in March 2012, I was even blocked. See the block cases. Having WP:GA articles and honors, and the trust of many Wikipedians, does not matter if some of the site's editors believe you have abused Misplaced Pages. Your and others' insistence that you have not abused Misplaced Pages hardly matters. And it's during that first block case that I learned a lot about WP:Assume good faith and who you can count on to be there for you; that experience has made me more acrimonious towards Misplaced Pages, and this feeling was intensified with my second block case (again, refer to the block cases link). Still, I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (it's almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible.

Any questions, compliments or criticism of my work, feel free to leave me a message here on my talk page or email me. If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.

Archive

• Archive 1 (from May 8, 2007 - June 20, 2007)
• Archive 2 (from June 24, 2007 - November 3, 2007
• Archive 3 (from December 20, 2007 - November 4, 2008)
• Archive 4 (from November 10, 2008 - June 6, 2009)
• Archive 5 (from June 10, 2009 - October 9, 2009)
• Archive 6 (from October 9, 2009 - March/April 2010)
• Archive 7 (from April 2, 2010 - January 20, 2011)
• Archive 8 (from January 21, 2011 - July 27, 2011)
• Archive 9 (from July 27, 2011 - March 20, 2012 )
• Archive 10/block cases (from March 21, 2012 - July 24, 2012, for block case 1; December 12, 2012 - December 19, 2012, and to December 24 concerning extra comments, for block case 2)
• Archive 10 in general (April 25, 2012- August 31, 2012)
• Archive 11 (September 4, 2012 - January 30, 2012)

Statement by Flyer22

Hey Flyer22. I noticed that your statement is 986 words long, but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request. Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Hahc21. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) — ΛΧΣ 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is fine, correct? One difficulty cutting parts in my word count tool is that the Misplaced Pages links and diff-links add to the word count. Also, does the 500-word limit only apply to the initial comment? I ask because I see others adding comments under their initial comment, usually when replying to others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you left a message with another editor that addresses adding additional comments, so it seems that I have my answer about that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I used Microsoft Word to get the count without the diffs. And, yes, you should keep your section below 500 words including the additional comments and responses, not only the initial statement. Usually, statements are to provide a short overview of your perspective to the arbitrators; the whole thing will be provided in the evidence page of the case of the arbitrators accept. — ΛΧΣ 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. And about calculating the word count, I had realized that I could simply remove the WP:Pipe linking and the diff-links to see how many words I truly have. I didn't do that at the time because once I got low enough in the 500 word-count range, it was easy to calculate that the word count without the diff links is within the limit. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note for archive: This is what my statement looks like now after different tweaks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Female promiscuity

Hi Flyer,

If at your leisure would you please place looking at this article at the bottom of your to-do list. I see the article as all over the place. The article feels more like an over-cited opinion piece. But what bothers me is how many times the word "study" is used. Well anyway take a look if you can.--Wlmg (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen it and some concerns you expressed with it. I've now made a mental note to help out with that article at your request, but it is definitely somewhere at the bottom of my to-do list. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why hello

Thanks for your message, I hope you're doing well too. :) Siawase (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

I think every woman likes sweets. I only want to thank you very much for your article about asexuality. The topic is of paramount interest to me. Your work allows me to become familiar with the state of research in this new area of sexology. I should certainly learn English. Such materials as your article give me information that I can’t get in my native language. Many thanks indeed! SU ltd. (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Aw, thank you, SU ltd. You're welcome. It's not my article, since we don't get to own any articles at Misplaced Pages, but I understand what you mean. And like I stated here, you know English sufficiently enough (I just read your last reply in that section, by the way). But I understand about improving. And I wish that I spoke several different languages. Barring any illness that prevents us from doing so, it's never too late to learn more languages, but it does get more difficult as we age. It's significantly easier on the brain to learn multiple languages when just starting to learn one's native language, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		Thank you for helping the Asexuality article reach GA status. Well, I know this article doesn’t belong to you. And yet you’ve added some very interesting sourced and information. I’m just looking for these sources on the Web and reading them with great interest. (Unfortunately, you don’t always add url, so that I have to search for the articles indicated by you.) The article is very interesting indeed. --SU ltd. (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're welcome. As for the urls, I usually add urls if they are available. The exception is when the url isn't helpful, such as when it doesn't go to a page in the book...but rather just the description page (sometimes with snippets that aren't too helpful or aren't helpful at all). So sometimes, I don't add the url in those cases. Most of the references in the article were already there before I started significantly working on the article; the urls not being there for any of those instances are because others didn't add them.

Again, thanks. And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Serial Killer punctuation

Thank you for correcting my punctuation on the Serial Killer article, My writing skills aren't have declined over the years, and I'm not completely update to date on the new policies. Thanks «»Who?¿? 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Blonde article

Why do you keep reverting the page? The content I removed is unsourced information. Leave it alone. SwediePie (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I and others keep reverting you at the Blond (not Blonde) article because you keep removing valid images that actually are sourced on their description pages and are only doing so because you don't believe that black/African people can have naturally blond hair (without substantial white/European blood). Your relatively small edit history shows that you've been repeatedly reverted on this matter since last year; one would think that you would have learned not to remove the images by now. But given my prior experience with you at the Adolescence article, I should not be surprised by your lack of understanding regarding the way things are supposed to work here at Misplaced Pages. If you do not revert yourself soon, or if you revert again during the current 24 hours shall someone else revert you, I will report you at the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; you have already violated the WP:3RR policy and will most assuredly be blocked if reported.

Also start signing your user name (not just signing it, but signing it properly), as I've just done for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you watching this article so closely anyway? SwediePie (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not about watching the article "so closely"; it's about watching it, period, just as many (likely most) Misplaced Pages editors watch certain Misplaced Pages articles. My main reason for having taken an interest in this article, after wanting to see what it looks like, is seeing all the WP:OR (unsourced) text, personal commentary, vandalism or other unconstructive edits, being added to the article. I have clearly remembered your persistent removal of the one image (when it was just one image of a black person instead of two, if these individuals are more accurately categorized as black). But it's none of your business why I am watching the article. Just know that I am, as you already do, and that I will not tolerate your invalid removals.

And you still did not sign your user name properly. You aren't supposed to do it manually, giving a different time than the Misplaced Pages time. To sign your user name, and as SineBot has told you more than once, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I've just corrected your timestamp. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving this piece here for a note of your sockpuppeting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Currently resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my page! It's true though, I do revert quite a few funny posts in articles... Lova Falk talk 06:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And LOL. I was going to mention that revert to you there on your talk page, but then I decided to wait because it occurred to me that you may be watching your user page (which means that your talk page is also automatically watched by you). The main reason others used to spot vandalism to my user page before I did is because I didn't have my user page/talk page on my watchlist. I've only recently, since some point in January of this year, started using a watchlist again after almost two years of having stopped using it. There were a lot of articles I had to drop from it, considering that my watchlist was in the 3000s. It's currently in the 1000s, but most of the articles apparently aren't that active because I don't have too many articles popping up and overwhelming me at this time. Instead of removing most of the remaining articles from my watchlist all at once, I'm removing articles individually, gradually as they pop up (the ones that I don't want to watch and/or am confused about why they were ever on my watchlist). Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do watch my user page! My watchlist is presently 3,433 pages and growing, even though I try to unwatch whenever I can. But then again, there is so much that I find interesting... Lova Falk talk 08:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

About my sources in the Asexuality article

Thx a lot for your proofreading, Flyer22. It’s very nice of you. I’m always grateful to anyone who corrects my grammar errors, so helping me with my English. It’s difficult for me to learn your native language, but I need it very much.

As for my sources, I’m quite aware of the fact that they aren’t reliable just as an anonymous author’s book “Asexuality: A Brief Introduction” is not a scientific investigation :-) But I only wanted to point out some recent events that were of paramount importance in the asexual community. Besides, I don’t always think much of the sources I add. This must also be said of the so-called reliable sources. For example, I disapprove David Jay’s attitude to the LGBT community and disagree with those researchers who consider asexuality a sexual orientation. Of course, asexuality can’t be a sexual orientation just as the absence of delusion is not a particular form of delusion. In contrast to various sexual sins and orientations, asexuality is a normal state, the inborn virtue of chastity. Unlike the members of AVEN, I was not asexual from the very beginning. I had been struggling against sexual drive for many years before I achieved (unlike Anatoly Wasserman and other unmarried people) the state of asexuality. But WP is not meant for original research. Taking this rule into account, I have to add bibliographical items to WP independently on my personal opinion about them. I very often add external links to WP simply because I’m interested in them myself. --SU ltd. (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

SU ltd., like I stated on the Asexuality talk page before, now seen at Talk:Asexuality/Archive 4, I'm sure that reason it's considered part of the sexual orientation category by some researchers is because it has to do with sexual orientation (how people feel towards sexual activity, etc.). "It's an orientation that strays away from sex, therefore making it a sexual orientation." I'm not completely sure whether or not I personally consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation, considering that asexuals, for example, can also be heterosexual or homosexual (what they call heteromomantic or homoromantic, the romantic aspects of those sexual orientations). In this case, I use "homosexual," a word some take offense to, because it goes better with the heterosexual counterpart than the words "gay men and lesbians" and to better demonstrate the alternative term "homoromantic."

As for sources, the aforementioned text and sources you added, SU ltd., should be removed until WP:Reliable sources can be found to support it. That's just the way that this site works. The only thing I can do to help you on that is advise you not to add such poor sourcing anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and to help you look for suitable sources. If I don't find any, that text and its sources will be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't concerned with the book you used; I am concerned with the fact that you used WordPress.com as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

James Dean

Hi! I am curious, and not questioning you. Was there a reason why you didn't warn User:The Twilight Zone Spiral after your revision of his mass deletion? This guy looks like trouble to me, and if it was an oversite on your part I will be happy to follow up on it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gtwfan52. When I reverted that user, he or she had already been sort-of warned by ClueBot NG and I knew that an editor would warn him or her soon, which is what happened. I often do my part by helping to revert in cases such as these and leave the warning messages up to others. My reasons for doing so come down to knowing that the matter will be covered soon by another editor, my sometimes being too lazy to issue a warning, and my being aware that edits like the ones The Twilight Zone Spiral made are not being made with a WP:VANDALISM intention. Sometimes, I will leave an article and let others repeatedly revert; this is because when it's not vandalism, repeatedly reverting can leave me in the position of the type of WP:Edit warring that can possibly get me blocked. In the case of The Twilight Zone Spiral, who is also obviously this IP that I reverted, WP:Disruption obviously applies; but like I stated, others already had it covered. I sometimes will warn a user, especially in the case of vandalism, and I did so recently, as seen in this link, but not usually when I know that someone else will soon. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, he will be gone soon enough i figure. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

thefreedictionary.com

I understand your reasoning; but why do we have to cite a no-name Internet dictionary for that purpose? Why not use one of the established ones, like Merriam-Webster? Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Nyttend. Like I stated, my point was "to show that 'child' is generally defined, by dictionaries at least, as 'between birth and puberty.'" Citing one dictionary, unless it uses the word "generally" for the information, doesn't show that this is the usual, non-legal definition that is given. But citing a source that shows more than one dictionary defining it that way does. And the Oxford English Dictionary source that's there doesn't use the exact wording "between birth and puberty." Their definition of "a young human being below the age of puberty" for the biological aspect is close, but not very close, and you know how some people at this site are very strict, or odd rather, about things being supported by the source. Simply because the word "birth" isn't used, they might state "Wording not supported by the source" (though I can understand removing "birth" in that case). One might even remove "biologically," even though the definition dealing with puberty is about biology while the legal definition is about being legally deemed no longer a child. I don't understand the rationale that wording in a Misplaced Pages article needs to be word-for-word the wording used in the source, which would be a WP:COPVIO unless it's put in quotation marks or is so generic (like "between birth and puberty") that it doesn't need to be (for example, limited close paraphrasing may be permitted), but I have seen such editors seemingly display that rationale (even if not a word-for-word rationale, but rather a "words not used in the source shouldn't be used" rationale that is not applied in a way that is supported by WP:Verifiability or WP:Original research) and I'd rather avoid dealing with them. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

creating controversial content

I wrote an essay inspired by another editor's past effort to add new sexual orientations. Edit or post as you see fit. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice essay, Nick. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Check Out My --Contributions

Could you help me out by checking out my wiki --contributions-- where I have begun to create articles for notable people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.9.177 (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. I take it that you spotted me at the Michael Malone article after I tweaked things following your edit to it. Checking out your contributions, I see that you mean soap opera-related articles. While I used to be heavily involved in editing soap opera articles or soap opera-related articles, I don't edit them much these days. And I never edited a lot of biographies having to do with soap operas. But I might follow your contributions and help with a few things. You should also take the advice left on your talk page about creating new articles. Make sure the people meet our WP:NOTABILITY guideline first and foremost.

Also, remember to sign your user name when you comment. To sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

pedophilia and jurisdictions

hi, thanks! I'm not an expert in this field, I just stumbled upon this paragraph, when looking for some data related to a debate in Poland I read about yesterday. Thank you for adding the source, I know it may look like an overkill, but I am a good example of someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages and still found it lacking. Even now I see the statement as problematically vague: beyond any doubt, the article makes a claim about some particular jurisdiction (no-one has the data for convictions worldwide), and since many American states treat the age of consent as a hard-and-fast rule (that is, a 18-year old person hitting on a 17-year old person is a child molester), I intuitively suspect that the numbers reflecting convictions in this claim are representative to some country(ies) only, while are read as a statement about all nations. However, I don't know how to amend this, I have no better sources, and since the claim is a direct quote, let's lay the blame for the vagueness on the source itself, and not try to fix it on Wiki :) Pundit|utter 07:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you left the same response on your talk page. The only thing I feel the need to state to you is that pedophilia (the sexual attraction) is not the same thing as child sexual abuse (the act); that section addresses this. And even in America, most people don't consider an 18-year-old guy with his 17-year-old girlfriend to be pedophilia. It's usually when the guy or woman is at least in his or her 20s or much older than the 17-year-old that some people confuse age of consent/age of majority issues with pedophilia. Like the article is very clear about, however, a sexual attraction to or sexual preference for post-pubescents is not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm replying on your talk page to alert you to my reply as a courtesy, but I leave a copy on my own discussion to keep the discussion in one place for the ease of following it. I AM NOT adding your talk page to my watched pages! (the reason being having too many pages watched; also most wikis I know use the talk page communication regularly, that is by replying only on the disputant's page, and not making attempts to keep everything in one place). Now, the only thing I find problematic is the part stating that "female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders". What I find problematic is the lack of context: we do not know IN WHICH COUNTRY these numbers are accurate, but quite likely these stats do not reflect a worldwide average (other data seems to reflect the American reality; the age of consent and the actual enforcement in a given country definitely has to influence the number and proportions of convictions). So when we're giving percentages of convictions, but we do not know which jurisdiction they apply to, the data is misleading. If these stats are accurate worldwide and come from some international representative study, it would be equally important to state so. Pundit|utter 08:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand about double posting, but I prefer to keep the discussion in one spot. I usually check back when I post to someone's talk page, though I know that you can't know that unless I've told you. As for prevalence, it's not just that part of the text that is tricky. Like the link I posted to your talk page about that section shows, nailing down the percentages for this topic (whether pedophilia or child sexual abuse) can be tricky. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

arbitration comment

I saw your email (I think from Sunday) about half an hour ago and I'll take a look. It may be a few days before I can post about it. Jokestress was not who I had in mind; there was another editor. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, like I stated, I wanted to know what you thought about an aspect of the case since you've been involved in sexology topics. I knew that my focus may of course be different than yours, which you've now stated that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Lova Falk talk 08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there!

I owe you emails! :) I've not forgotten, just that I'm really busy IRL right now - Alison 04:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Alison. And, yes, as we've discussed, you're usually very busy. So no worries on getting back to me late. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User:HappyLogolover2011

Hey. Yep, I do keep an eye on all of their edits. They are all problematic, just some less so than others. I believe good faith is there, just not a firm grasp on the policies, guidelines, and style of Misplaced Pages.

And thanks for noticing my efforts elsewhere. Spending most of one's WP time doing RCP and reverting vandalism is generally a pretty thankless job. Yet one I cannot seem to quit. SQGibbon (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that the editor is acting in good faith. And what appears to be some kind of language barrier when the editor makes ungrammatical edits, or gives ungrammatical reasoning, is not the editor's fault. But WP:COMPETENCE is important when editing Misplaced Pages; that essay should be a policy or guideline, but it's used as one or the other often enough when deciding to indefinitely block an editor.

And no problem about the compliments on your work. You should have a lot more barnstars for your work around here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:AnimeRonin regarding the inclusion of "Fuck" in the See Also section of the Sexual intercourse article

Thanks for redirecting my attention to the talk page regarding the inclusion of Fuck in the See Also section of the Sexual intercourse article. It would appear that a compromise was reached upon, and that I concur with it. Animeronin (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Animeronin. I was just typing up a message to you when I took a break from typing and saw that you had left me a message here. So I'll reword my message a bit. Like I stated in this edit summary when reverting your removal of "fuck", it was added as a compromise. You've seen this discussion, where an editor was demanding that we add "fuck" to the article. He even wanted it in the lead. While I objected to it being in the lead for the reasons I stated there, I was fine with including it in the lower body of the article. But WP:CONSENSUS seemed to be not to add it in the main body of the article at all, and the editor added it to the See also section as a compromise. No one objected to it being added to the See also section. Two of us were already worn-out from debating with the editor.

Maybe you'd be interested in commenting in the discussion to let others know why you don't feel that the word "fuck" should be in the main body of the article? In my original message to you, I was going to add "and/or the See also section," but now I see that you are okay with it being in the See also section as a compromise. I'd rather the term "fuck" stay linked there instead of being removed from there, as to avoid any further conflict with the editor in question. But now, since anyone may find the "fuck" link irrelevant to that section at any time and remove it, I may do like I was going to do as a compromise and add it briefly (to the Definitions and stimulation factors section) by summarizing that there are various vulgar and/or slang terms and euphemisms for sexual intercourse/other sexual activity (such as the word "fuck"). Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged" in 2011 Tucson shooting article

Hi Flyer. I didn't see your null edit previously about further instances of "alleged" in the article till just now by chance, so I went back through and removed four instances of it. Should be good now... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that edit summary came after our tweaks to make the article post-conviction compliant.. Thanks for removing the instances of "alleged." Better late than never (sometimes anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Tribadism talk page

Just a quick glance at that talk page there are still topics there from 2004! I can see some value in letting low activity talk pages move slowly, but in this case surely the article has changed enough since then that many comments are no longer relevant. If anything archiving at least the most obsolete/stale topics might help bring fresher, more relevant feedback. Siawase (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, that's why I addressed you about it. If you want to go ahead and archive, I obviously won't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being a vandal fighter.--I dream of horses @ 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being a vandal fighter as well; you've fought vandalism more substantially than me, and I have always greatly appreciated seeing you pop up just in time or sooner than later to remove that mess. I will be using WP:Huggle soon, so I will be able to help fight vandalism better and more often when that happens. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wish I could use huggle more efficiently. As it is, I'm a mac user, so I can use it, but it's very slow. I use Igloo when it works. Since it doesn't work at the moment, I use STiKi.

By the way, next time, you can just use {{talkback}} template without also putting a message noting the fact that you've used it. ;-) --I dream of horses @ 18:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I usually see people using STiKi, so I should probably use that instead. As for the message I left, yeah, it was redundant since you'd know why I left you a talkback template; sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no. My impression is that huggle is good if you're using Windows. :-) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I use Windows. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Petition Asking Surgeon cardiologist.

D's Hi, i hope you doing good ! I'm just curios , cause my uncle pass by a surgery , he got a bypass surgery 3 (bypass). and i was wondering if you guys are doing your surgery's with the patient over an orthopedic bed, i explain , a bed with angles of 60 degree down on both edge's and in the middle of the bed exactly where the vertebrates rest has a standard plane , for resist the column's bone's and maker easier and comfortable to the patient's , after D's open's pectoral's and thorax eliminating the reaction over the column and contraction's on back muscle's after D's open thorax and install the safety bar's , operating using that angle the bone's will open easier because that angle on bed going to help the back muscle's movement and thorax will open putting less energy in your hand's .

thank you very much, i will appreciate answer's from you D's ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbassa14 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Who is it do you think I am? And how did you find this page? Whatever the case for querying me, this is Misplaced Pages; and on that note, see Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal from Pansexuality article

In a sense I agree with the deleter and I don't. I included those sources because I was trying to show that while it was popularly repeated that Jack was omnisexual, he was simply bisexual in a sci-fi context. (I think there is an article in the idea that outside of the show, RTD and Barrowman prefigured bisexuality as a scifi concept to make a mostly-gay bisexual hero palatable, and then later used Torchwood to explore other gradations of bisexuality, but this is OR.) The remover, who is annoyed that "men, women and aliens" is used is quite right from a "realistic" sense, especially when those aliens are always male or female-encoded. The only attempt the show has made to honour pansexuality as a concept, which I'm not sure it really intended to starting out, was Captain John (James Marsters) joking about finding a poodle sexually attractive - but this was in a way shock humour. I think it could probably also stay on the basis that it shows how a production team used the term omnisexual---perhaps outside of its understood usage---with the actor commenting that it was in fact a portrayal of bisexuality (and gay-leaning bisexuality at that!), but there might need to be an additional source included to make that leap more explicit to the reader (who might otherwise conclude it based on what was there).Zythe (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what else to state on the matter, other than what I stated on your talk page about it. I don't agree with the removal because of those reasons or see how the remover is "quite right" from any sense, especially because Jack is apparently having sex with aliens who make themselves appear to be male or female humans (which doesn't relate to any sexual attraction to something that doesn't look human). But I'm also not hard-pressed on the material being added back, and, obviously, I felt that you should know about the removal because you added the material. Flyer22 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And to answer your question, I'm with the section being removed. Upon seeing your removals, I thought that the section in its entirety should go ahead and be removed. And just now, some minutes later, I saw that you suggested it in that edit summary (I hadn't fully read your edit summary until now). Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

·Add§hore· 01:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your welcome message to me

Hi Flyer 22, I am in fact working on the Sexual Orientation page as part of a project for a university seminar class. I was supposed to put all of my information in my Sandbox before editing the actual Misplaced Pages page. For that reason, I have removed all of the information I have added and placed it in my Sandbox. After it is marked, I will re-launch it onto the Misplaced Pages page. Sorry about that. Thank you. 8sjg2 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Make sure that when you add back the text you removed, that you add it back in its appropriate format (the WP:Manual of Style formats I explained to you). The same goes for any new text you add to the Sexual orientation article or any other Misplaced Pages article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Kim Leine

Why did you change De gyldene Laurbaer - it is right!!! Have a look at the german page f.e. I´ll fix it again. Is it english: "For romanen"??? --46.244.205.100 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --46.244.205.100 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Star767

I noticed you have had some issues with Star767. He/she has now been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet see User_talk:Star767#Blocked.--Penbat (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because I was watching Star767's talk page (but will cease to do so when it looks like no further comments related to the block will be posted there), I'd seen your posts there and the block that resulted from that. I'd also seen your post in the Blocked section before I stopped editing Misplaced Pages for several hours. Very soon after the Blocked section was started, I considered posting in that section about the editor not seeming like MathewTownsend, who, like Star767, was confirmed as a sockpuppet of Mattisse, but I decided not to. Mattisse was referred to by female pronouns, and MathewTownsend (given the name "Matthew" and maybe because the editor also identified as male) was referred to by male pronouns, and MathewTownsend edited psychology articles every now and then. So that matter is confusing, like one can't be completely sure of anything regarding it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the vandalism from the article about Harrison, Arkansas.

I went in today to fix it, and noticed you had already been there.

I tried to send you an email, but the "send this user an email" option wasn't available. You seem pretty good with Misplaced Pages, and it would be nice to have a Wiki friend who can answer some of my questions.

Take care,

Richard. Richard apple (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, Richard apple. You're welcome. When I reverted this, I initially didn't know what was going on with that edit. But the kkk addition to the URL was a dead-giveaway that it was vandalism.

Earlier this year, due to limited email abuse, I disabled the option that allows others to email me. I won't be re-enabling it any time soon for longer than a few minutes; if asked, and if the request is valid, I will re-enable it for a few minutes in order to give an editor a chance to email me. But the editor can just as easily allow me to email him or her, and then email me back that way.

As for experience with Misplaced Pages and help, I see that you are still relatively new (having registered for a Misplaced Pages account on December 22, 2012). I (as the top of my user page currently states) have been editing Misplaced Pages since 2007 (maybe tried to edit it as an IP address at one point before then) and I understand what you mean about it being good to have a Misplaced Pages friend/someone willing to help you on Misplaced Pages. There aren't many, or even several, Misplaced Pages editors I'd call my friends, however, on or off Misplaced Pages. Still, you may ask me for help about anything concerning Misplaced Pages whenever you feel like it.

I signed your user name for you above. Judging by your user page, it doesn't seem that you need to be told that all you have to do to sign your user name is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. But your signature should provide a link to your account. If you have your signature formatted so that it doesn't do that, you should fix it so that it does. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to send me an email. I'm very curious about you. Richard Apple 04:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson appearance

Dear Flyer, I agree with you it did not fit. But thing is and there's also another source I can give you that this person also gave other statements about MJ and later under oath she admitted she did not see anything. So how do you know the comment that is posted here is correct? I don't know who had the idea for this page and why. But the health of an individual ist sth. very private and people should be very careful with what they write. As far as health is concerned tabloids are not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines for its editors to follow. Yes, this clearly does not belong there. And I clarified that a bit more in this edit summary. As long as what you add to the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article is reliably sourced and is about Jackson's health and/or physical appearance, I likely won't have much of or any problem with what you add to that article. Like I stated earlier the previous hour on that article's talk page: "When I cleaned up article on January 10, 2013‎, I returned and added neutrality to and removed crap." This edit by an IP undid that. That article is of WP:GA status and should stay that way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it loses that status at some point, given the IPs and registered users who continue to add or re-aad junk to it every now and then in order to bias it. Like Bookkeeperoftheoccult stated on its talk page, because it's no longer a WP:BLP article, concerning Michael Jackson at least, it is no longer afforded the high degree of protection against the type of junk that the aforementioned IP added back. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As you know by now, I'd already replied, Stefan2. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

IP 76.97.240.220

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Young_adult_(psychology)&diff=next&oldid=550197519

I think you warned him enough :) JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen the IP's edit and was about to report him or her just before you left me this message. I have reported the IP at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The reason that I warned the IP at least twice is because I did not want my report to be turned away with some annoying "IP was insufficiently warned" comment. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good :) forgot to sign first time JDHuff185 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

* A barnstar for you! *

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being here, for working so hard and so well, for your help, support and encouragement. ♥ Lova Falk talk 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Aw, thank you, Lova Falk!! It's very much appreciated coming from you, with how hard you work at this site and how kind and assisting you are. Thank you. I'm here a little too much these days, with barely any sleep because of my off-Misplaced Pages Internet work and because I'm battling my insomnia more than I have in the past, but knowing that my work here is appreciated by some people and that they believe I'm making a great difference is one way that I know it's not necessarily a waste of time editing Misplaced Pages. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, you deserve it. And from the sound of it, you still need lots of hard work in case you ever feel like becoming a wikisloth. Lova Falk talk 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Child abuse article

Dear Flyer 22, Well, you stated that my adding abortion is not valid due to no links with it, now, in the first 2 paragraphs in the child abuse writings in Misplaced Pages, there also has not been any source added except only in a few circumstances, now, in the line "There are four major categories of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, including abortion, psychological or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse.", none of these forms of abuse words have any relaible source to validate them, now I am getting the feeling that even if I would provide reliable source (despite the other forms of abuse are not linked in any sources) you would still be removing them as unreliable sources, to be honest, it this because you are personally pro abortion? Nayan Mipun, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but if you check the two sentences below the heading Types, you'll see that there is a source for the four major categories of child abuse. Also the subsections have lots of sources. When there are sources in the article, the sources don't always need to be repeated in the lead. Also, the lead should be a summary of the article, and there is no text on abortion in the article. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

: Nayanmipun, you are not the first to suggest that I have, or accuse me of, some sort of bias (regarding a topic in question) for following Misplaced Pages policies and/or guidelines, and you won't be the last. Most of what I have to state to you about the Child abuse article is what I stated on your talk page about it. The forms of child abuse that you claim have no sources to validate them are sourced lower in the article, in the sections about them. Per WP:LEAD, they do not have to be sourced in the lead if they are sourced lower in the article. It remains that your text is not sourced at all, and should not be in the article unless added in the way that I described to you.

Also, never again post at the top of my talk page, or at the top of any Misplaced Pages talk page unless replying to a discussion post. New posts go at the bottom. And you can start a new section by clicking "New section" at the top of any Misplaced Pages talk page (unless the option to post to that talk page has been disabled). And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Misplaced Pages talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Biology and sexual orientation

It's biology and sexual orientation. Shouldn't it include biology-related statements specifically? --Scientiom (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You've been reading the talk page, I'm sure. You know what the current consensus is about what that article should mention. Of course the Biology and sexual orientation article should not give the false impression that scientists generally think that sexual orientation is only caused by biology, which is why I reverted you. Should that article mostly be about biology? Sure. But when it comes to reporting what scientists generally think on the matter, we should report accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)