Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary. Use the article talk page (and ping me if you think I'm not watching the article), unless it's necessary to leave a message here on my talk page. Email me if you need to talk to me about anything other than editing here, or if it's a matter better discussed off Wikipedia (for example, in cases where editors do not want to call someone a POV-pusher on Wikipedia, I sometimes get emails about POV-pushing edits on a contentious topic, and I sometimes get emails about a personal life issue). It might be days before I check my Wikipedia email, though. If you don't see me for two or more days, it is because I'm attending to personal or business matters, or because I need those two or more days off from Wikipedia since editing here can be stressful for me and since I've found myself wanting to spend less time here. I, however, may pop up at any time, especially if seeing an edit I feel needs to be attended to right then or because of a concern someone has emailed me about.

Doc James, Alanscottwalker, Silver seren, EvergreenFir, Trystan, Anthonyhcole, DESiegel, Masem, WhatamIdoing, Yobol, CFCF, NeilN and Ian.thomson, I visited that article yesterday (April 5th in real time, not Wikipedia time), and I have to state that it was tough for me reading through that article with that lotus image there. Once I saw the image, I broke out in goosebumps and had the urge to scratch. They were goosebumps, not hives. And that lasted for hours. Seeing such images has caused that reaction in me since I was age 5; I think it first happened when I first saw Pinhead. Although I no longer have such a reaction when viewing Pinhead, I do have the same reaction when seeing patterns like that lotus image. Googling "trypophobia" brought up different unpleasant images for me yesterday, and I went right to the Wikipedia article. I had come across that article before, but I think it was before the image was there. It's been tough getting the image out of my head. Anyway, I saw that you all were a part of a debate about the image. Had I known of the discussion, I would have weighed in because I agree with what Wongba stated with this commentary about the reality of this condition. Just because it's not in the DSM or ICD-10 does not mean it's not real. Maybe it shouldn't be called a phobia, but it's certainly a condition, and only those who know have experienced it truly know what it's like. I've never understood how people are afraid of clowns, but I don't question that the fear exists. That fear is not in the DSM or ICD-10 either. I'm not so much afraid of images like the lotus image, but the reaction is unpleasant enough that I'd rather avoid them. I'm not arguing that the image should be excluded (although I don't really see that the WP:Consensus was against removal or collapsing); I just wanted to document my experience with the matter somewhere here on Wikipedia. As someone who has supported maintaining a self-harm lead image at the Self-harm article, I've now had my first "image triggering" experience on Wikipedia and it has me second-guessing myself about including triggering images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you were distressed, Flyer. Thanks for sharing your experience here. I don't think that we are very good at deciding how to handle that kind of content with compassion for the real effects that real people experience. If it were a lengthy article, then we would probably move the image down, "below the scroll", but the realistic alternatives are very limited on a one-(desktop-size)-screen article: either we include it, or we don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WhatamIdoing. I very much appreciate what you stated in the debate. Yeah, the fact that it's such a short article made it so that the image was right there in my face the whole time. The same would have been the case if I was just reading the lead too, of course. Like I stated, I immediately got goosebumps and the urge to scratch. After that, the image stayed in my head and I kept having goosebumps on and off, felt a little panicky, and was more sensitive to other images with irregular patterns, even if they weren't holes or bumps. For example, while watching episodes of Reign, a series that I recently started watching, I kept paying attention to patterns on the nobles' clothing, and, in some cases, I would get goosebumps and think about the triggering lotus image again. I just wanted to stay curled up in bed and forget the image; it was hard to sleep. It's a very strange and unpleasant feeling. Even though Pinhead might have been what first triggered my trypophobia (I imagined my arms being cut into slits like his face/body and it freaked me out), I knew for certain that I felt distress over certain patterns when I would see the molded, papule-like bumps in my elementary school teacher's coffee mugs. She would drink coffee and let the remaining bits mold. Instead of cleaning out the one she had, she would get a new one and the cycle would repeat. The mugs would line the ledge near her window. I remember her being perplexed by (and possibly laughing at) my reaction to one mug that I spotted. Either way, this feeling when seeing images like these is definitely real. Even Yobol noted that he had a noticeable reaction and that it was very strange when he looked at the lotus image; see here and here. I know that Yobol is editing very sparingly these days, but perhaps he will weigh in here on what he experienced when he saw that lotus image. I'll leave this section on my talk page for a few weeks or months. I've also watchlisted the Trypophobia article in case some debate I'm interested in comes up on that article's talk page.

I think that the researchers that studied this phobia/condition are on to something (and, actually, it's not off to call it a phobia when looking at the definition/criteria for "phobia"). I definitely don't see that it's logically explained as social or psychological conditioning. Too many people instinctively have the same reactions to images like these, and often from a very early age, which is something I've seen documented in person and on the Internet. And I'm not talking about a simple disgust reaction, which is a very understandable reaction when seeing a photoshopped image of the lotus pattern on human skin. I'm talking about goosebumps, skin crawling or similar, a somewhat panicked state, and being mentally stuck on the image afterward. I think it is an evolutionary thing, as is the case with tasters and supertasters (I'm a supertaster, by the way). And I wonder why some people experience it and some don't. I've yet to see if anyone else in my immediate family has trypophobia, but I think my mom does. I don't want to trigger any of them; so, unless they are open to seeing an image, I'll ask instead of showing an image. But seeing such images is a better indicator of whether one has the condition or not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyers22, thanks for the ping. I had a similar reaction to you - goosebump sensation, vague - but noticeable - nausea/lightheadedness, a sense of what I can only describe as "dread" about the picture, and almost reflexive need to turn away from it yet still weird fixation on it in my head. Having never heard about this before, it was surprising to me that I had that reaction. I still believe that the picture should be at the very least collapsed, because many of the people who would be going to that page might have that particular reaction. It likewise seems prudent that there is no picture of a menacing clown on the coulrophobia page. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol, thanks for commenting. Yeah, that is exactly the reaction that I am talking about. It's obviously a real reaction. Like Wongba stated, we aren't making this up. I also thought about the fact that there is no clown image on the Coulrophobia article. I looked at the talk page of that article and saw the justification for removal. It seems to me that people feel that the lotus image needs to be there on the Trypophobia article to help people understand the type of images being described. After all, we don't mean any type of holes or bumps. I can make an irregular pattern of holes in my eraser right now, and I would not get the reaction I get when looking at an image like that lotus image. I completely understand how you feel and, like I noted above, I did not see consensus that the image should remain. Sorry if I triggered you again, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that image gives many people a feeling of unease. We have a number of options for hiding images[1]. We are using a very tame image to illustrate the concern. Many use much much more graphic images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, it's nice to see you back from your trip. Given my and others' reactions to the lotus image, I'm not sure I'd call it "a very tame" example, but I know that there are worse triggering trypophobia images. I have so far refused to look at YouTube videos about this topic; this is because, in addition to not wanting the effects that come with viewing such images, I don't want such videos popping up in my "suggested videos" feed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if desensitisation is effective for this or not. I imagine it would be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, some have tried it and it hasn't worked for them. I think the reaction is too instinctual to overcome by desensitization. I'm not willing to try it just yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of heights is also instinctual and can be partly overcome (at least temporarily). Was not suggesting you try it though. Most of the time I imagine it can be avoided easily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, I might try desensitization someday. There are so many different types of images that can trigger those who have trypophobia, though, that I don't think I'd be entirely cured of it even if desensitization were to work. But, yeah, such images are usually avoidable. It's rare that I get such a reaction from viewing something. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll forgive me for intruding, I have to say this is fascinating. I'd never heard of trypophobia before, and the image in question has no effect on me at all. This morning I was in a waiting room, and the chairs had this pattern on them that immediately made me think trigger. I wondered if anyone had experienced problems there and, if so, what they could do about it except try hard not to look. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, c'mon, you know you're not intruding. We've shared matters via email; so I see no restriction when it comes to you sharing matters with me out in the open on my talk page. It's sort of amazing to me that the lotus image and similar images have no effect on some people. This is because the lotus image, for example, immediately causes a reaction in me that I can't control and it seems like it's meant to be that way; it feels so innate. I take it that the image has no effect on WhatamIdoing and Doc James either, unless they'd rather not say. But because my reaction to images like these feel so innate, I'm not even sure I'd want to be "cured" of it. In some cases, we have phobias for valid reasons. I think that fear of heights (to some degree) and fear of snakes, for just two examples, are for our own good. They are so universal for a reason. When it comes to trypophobia, maybe it is an evolutionary thing that was helpful in the case of dangerous plants or similar. Either way, like I noted above, I think that the researchers who studied it are on to something. As for what you experienced, I take it that you don't mean you were triggered? There are certain patterns that are not holes or bumps that can trigger me a little, but they have to be disease-looking in some way, like how mold can look. Mold grows in bumps in a number of cases, but I mean even mold patterns that look fuzzy instead of bumpy, and especially if they are covered with white, patchy circles or similar such circles. It's not enough to trigger me like the lotus image or the aforementioned coffee mug mold, but it's a trigger. If you Google "trypophobia," and none of those images freak you out in a "I have goosebumps, or crawling skin, or am panicking a bit" way, you don't have trypophobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the "lotus pattern on skin" image naturally freaks people out, more in a mild "that's gross" way. For trypophobes, that image is far worse. It's probably the top trypophobia triggering image. If not the top, it's a close second. I'm sure I saw it at some point, but it's currently vague in my mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a trigger for me, but it looked like it might be for you. And, in looking at a variety of trypophobia-inducing images, it occurs to me that these patterns or textures aren't exactly rare either in nature or among everyday objects in the developed world. It's possible that I don't really see what you're seeing, though. Do color and shape factor into it at all? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, I don't know how to explain trypophobia other than what I've stated above. I rarely see trypophobia-triggering images. Like WhatamIdoing stated in the aforementioned debate, it's just not common to see them. I guess this applies to trypophobes like me, though. Others might be triggered by more things than me. But it's not simply a matter of irregular patterns. Irregular patterns alone are not the trigger, at least for most trypophobes (going by most of what I've read of others' experiences). Mainly, irregular patterns of holes or bumps, clusters or indentations that are disease-looking or "uneasy-looking" (whatever that means) in some way. That lotus image is disease-looking to me in a way I can't adequately explain to non-trypophobes. And, for me, it's usually the patterns on or from live creatures (such as the lotus plant, the coffee mold case, and when I see the Surinam toad doing its birthing thing). A piece of paper with such a drawing is unlikely to have a trypophobia-triggering effect on me unless it's realistic-looking. Looking at a honeycomb image doesn't have much effect on me; I can feel a little something at times. For others, a honeycomb image is definitely trypophobia-triggering. And, contrary to what I told Doc James above, some trypophobes have said desensitizing works, "depending on how you do it." (Note: I linked to this article above.) I'm not sure that the trypophobes were completely "cured." Again, there are a number of images that could be trypophobia-triggering. Being repeatedly exposed to Pinhead seems to have desensitized me to his appearance. And maybe I didn't like honeycomb imagery at some point as a child; my memory on that is vague. I had no issue with eating the honeycomb cereal, I know that much (LOL). Regarding non-living things, ant bed patterns were sometimes triggering for me as a child. I would have the urge to stomp on them, and did in some cases (although I wouldn't do that now). It wasn't so much a matter of goosebumps when looking at ant beds (in some cases, I think anyway), but more so a matter of them somehow annoying me. And, at some point in my life, after one of my brothers would take a bath or shower, the soap would have this irregular bumpy pattern on it that would give me goosebumps (maybe that's too much information). I wondered how that pattern got there, but didn't want to ask. Color doesn't matter.

Regarding what you stated in this edit summary, don't be when it comes to my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Doc James, Alanscottwalker, Silver seren, EvergreenFir, Trystan, Anthonyhcole, DESiegel, Masem, WhatamIdoing, Yobol, CFCF, NeilN and Ian.thomson, this may be interesting to some, but I no longer have the same reaction while looking at the lotus flower image. I saw an image of it on the back of a girl's neck today on a social media site and then came to look at the image on Wikipedia. I still have a reaction to it (goosebumps), but not as severe as before; I think this is because I got desensitized to it after it kept flashing in my head before and because of the aforementioned aftereffects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Wikipedia as therapy :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, even though less severe, I did have the same aftereffects, though, except this time it was mainly the new image that stayed on my mind. And is still on my mind. I think this is because it's new stimuli. The brain gets bored with old stuff. Also, this new image may last longer in my head because it was a picture of the lotus image merged onto human skin. I keep looking at my arms sometimes seeing the image. It seems that the trypophobia process will start over with every new trypophobia-triggering image. So, all that stated, I'm sure I'll have to deal with trypophobia for the rest of my life. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that I have intrusive thoughts certainly does not help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of maintaining those "icky" hard to describe articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Herostratus submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Flyer22 Reborn is a veteran ten-year editor (come May 5) and has been active that whole time: over 252,000 edits. Wow! She does a lot and has put up with a lot. She is one of the very few editors who watches "icky" articles such as Pedophilia etc. We still get difficult editors on this and other contentious subjects -- and some of the editors are erudite and have refs and are persistent. Flyer22 Reborn engages these editors and is able to argue with them on equal terms and keep these articles in control. This takes knowledge, persistence, and patience, and it has to be done over and over, and she is almost the only one doing this important work. But that's just a small part of it -- she also does tons of other stuff too, all over the encyclopedia. Lots of stuff, but I don't keep up with all of it. And not to imply she's just working on talk pages, the great majority of her edits (63%) are in article space and she is an avid user of the edit summary (97%). She had a bad time here a couple years ago...we need her so lets show her a little appreciation.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 15:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Herostratus and Buster7. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flyer. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Bruce Alan Wallace is horrible. It has gone through many iterations. The current iteration seems to be more about expressing how Novella doesn't agree with his positions. The changes I made attempted to make the page focus more on the subject matter. For instance, quantum woo is quoted, but no citation is given, where as quantum mysticism has its own page and might be more appropriate. It is odd that his view on consciousness, and Novella's views of his view, are listed at the top of the page. Neuroscientist 221 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how I am supposed to start a discussion in talk page when I don't know why my disputing party opposes me. (That's you, by the way.) Care to elaborate? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand, you added what you consider to be two exceptions. It is a substantial change to the guideline. Because it is a substantial, undiscussed change to a guideline, it is something that should be proposed on the guideline's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that your decision to revert was a purely bureaucratic one and you have otherwise no objection to the merit of what I did? Hmmm... Disappointing. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand. No, I am stating that, like many other Wikipedians, I feel that substantial changes to our guidelines and policies should be discussed first. This is why these pages have the "edits should have consensus" tag at the top of them. This is not simply a WP:BURO matter. Substantial changes to our guidelines and policies affect the community as a whole. Because of this, I prefer to hear what others think before such changes are made. You acting like this is not a valid reason for objecting, and that I must analyze your change on my own, is something I disagree with. I repeat: If you want the change made, make your case at the guideline talk page. My talk page is not the place for this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 Jim1138 (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you pinged me but with all the long-winded discussions interrupting the survey section, I cannot find your comment to reply to. Perhaps someone can hat these threads so that the survey is left alone, while still allowing the editors to comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL, you can see the comment here, which shows the first editor to respond to it. And I would hat that bickering, if I was not likely to be reverted on it by the editor I was bickering with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I recently had eye surgery for a detached retina and I'm not wading into that mess. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL, LOL. Fair enough. Sorry to hear about the surgery, though. All is well, it seems? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit blurry and searching through the tiny type of edit mode is still doable but that page is so bad I fear it will undo the surgeon's repair. Lol. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wish you a speedy recovery. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You can put me down as not seeing any manipulation of the RfC. I thought the question was well formed, etc. You could move this comment there if it will help. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've sent me a message saying that my recent revision of the Photogrammetry page was promotional. Can you then explain how come these companies got into this page, and why the descrimination? Either delete all of the commercial names from this page, or allow any company which products are defined as "photogrammetry software" to be mentioned in this section:

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry

Applications

A somewhat similar application is the scanning of objects to automatically make 3D models of them. Some programs like RealityCapture, Acute3D's Smart3DCapture, now part of Bentley Systems and renamed ContextCapture, Pix4Dmapper, Photoscan, 123D Catch, Bundler toolkit,[12][13] PIXDIM, and Photosketch[14] have been made to allow people to quickly make 3D models using this photogrammetry method. It should be noted though that the produced model often still contains gaps, so additional cleanup with software like MeshLab, netfabb or MeshMixer is often still necessary.[15]

~~Liel~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.1.22 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted you here and here. I reverted per WP:External linking and WP:Spam. Read those pages. Stop adding such links. You were also reverted by KH-1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer,

I wouldn't know whether leaving you a message on an essay page requires an apology or not, but here it is, just in case.

As for the edit that prompted the message, I got my answer, in any case thanks for your patience.

79.18.123.177 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-add this bit that I reverted. Stating "romantic relationship" is pure POV and is not at all supported by the WP:NPOV policy. An editor was already warned about adding such wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Nevertheless, you have not substantiated your concerns. I looked at the discussion you referenced and found no mention of the phrase "romantic relationship". So I am uncertain what you are referring to. Please be aware that WP:NPOV is not a vehicle for allowing personal bias into articles. The policy explicitly states a preference for "nonjudgmental language". Perhaps more to the point, WP:BLP states regarding "Attack pages" that "Pages that are ... negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once ...". No matter how unseemly the subject of an article is, WP must always strive to treat the subject in an unbiased manner. Turning the lead sentence into an attack is not consistent with this philosophy.

Please restore my edits or offer some constructive alternative.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

Let's see. The previous editor added "child lover" and also added "the illicit liaison." Both edits were reverted by SarekOfVulcan. And then I warned the editor. Similarly, you added "having a romantic relationship with." And I reverted you, and then warned you. To most of the public, and when looking at most of the sources about Mary Kay Letourneau, she is known as the woman who committed statutory rape by having sex with her 12-year-old student. It is not usually framed as a romance, but rather as a crime. If is it being biased to frame the matter as a crime first and foremost, then that is only because the literature is mostly biased in this regard. We go by Wikipedia's rules. What was there before you edited the article is not judgmental language; it is reporting the facts. The language you added, which is framing/judging their interaction as romantic, is far more problematic. And I see no need to restore the rest of what you added, but I did restore this bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Addressed on the article talk page as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why do you think it is vandalism? The current hatnote has no indication as to why suss (disambiguation) should even be considered for other uses of "Singapore University of Social Sciences". The reason is that SUSS redirects there. But that is not indicated in the current hatnote.

So why is this considered vandalism to indicate why some random disambiguation page is indicated in the hatnote if the pagename does not match the disambiguation page?

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already reverted myself on warning you. And I'd already left a note in the article's edit history that your edit wasn't vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the new message. I only got the message of your newer revert after I saved this message. Thanks for reverting yourself -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don´t change bio content as we are Official Steve Norman team and don´t like current bio. We are working on a new biography and pics. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loregraphic (talk • contribs)

The edit summary on this old edit might provide an interesting bit of context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, regarding what I stated there, I'm speaking of its recent "supplement" title. Not that long ago, it plainly stated "essay." Because of some type change that has effected essay pages on a mass scale, certain essay tags now state "supplement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page hasn't changed since 2008; the template has (again, since that was the problem identified in the 2008 edit summary). User:Moxy could tell us the goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello....I am not sure what is being asked here? Did I change some tag or something? --Moxy (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you changed the tag back in December, to remove the reference to "essays". This is probably not unreasonable overall, but it appears that some pages (e.g., BRD) had deliberately chosen the supplement tag because it explicitly defined the page as an essay (i.e., not a guideline/not something even remotely mandatory), and therefore some of the pages are probably wrongly tagged now. I don't know whether it's better to un-fix the tag or to manually review all the uses (and probably to have a fight about changing the tags on various pages, because there's little agreement on what these various classifications ultimately mean). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We did review the pages and made changes (more can be done)...if it was not the norm and/or not linked from P/G we added {{|Essay|interprets=}}. We can add the word back but then it will be the same as {{Essay}} ....We followed your lead on this WhatamIdoing... per this and and this. I see that some think some sort of promotion was involved.....thus why we linked WP:CONLEVEL that clearly states "have no more status than an essay" this is also outlined at {{Supplement}} and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL.--Moxy (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: when you say "we did...." who are the other editors? Did the work involve changes other than your 2016 changes to Template:Supplement and Wikipedia:Project namespace and related redirects? Can you point to discussion thread(s) where those changers were agreed/coordinated? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going through and tagging untagged essays and info pages were a few editors - but mostly I was stuck doing it as I am the one aware of all of them. As for the Template:Supplement change it was the only template in Category:Wikipedia information pages linking to the essay page after my edit to link the essay page in the info template was reverted (as linked above).... I agreed with the reasoning behind its removal. I have zero problem if the link is restored.....as both links explain what the pages are - no change in level of merit was introduced. As for the regurgitated text added to Wikipedia:Project namespace, noting new there .....just consolidation with links of existing P/G info related to project pages - was reviewed by another trusted editor :-). Since the Project namespace page was brought up.... I agree with WhatamIdoing - wrongly promoted (User talk:WhatamIdoing#Wikipedia:Project namespace) - this really is just an info page, as there is no "rules" that aren't covered by the pages attributed at Wikipedia talk:Project namespace. We should go through the WP:HISTORICAL process for this page.--Moxy (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer,

I hope you don't mind, but it seems to me that the asexuality article may be an article that is as near and dear to you, as it is to myself. I see you have done a great deal of work in Wikipedia, as have I. I feel that many of the points you used in justifying what I called your "mass-revert" of my work there seemed reasonable to me. Also, admittedly I felt that some of them were hard for me to understand. Nobody is perfect, and least of all myself. I believe that we both have Wikipedia's best interest's at heart, and that by working together, we may both be able to help make that article better than either one of us could have done by ourselves.

Thanks,

Warrenfrank (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Warrenfrank. I've replied on the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we suppose to put his full name? 24.162.134.57 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I argue that it should be in the lead, especially since I don't see a field for it in the infobox. Also see WP:QUOTENAME. Maybe the name of the article doesn't need to be in the lead. But then again, I think that not having it there would result in someone changing the article to his full name, which would be in violation of WP:Common name (going by the sources that use initials for his name). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got your ping. In a nutshell, what's wanted at this point? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL, well, as I noted farther down the talk page, the RfC closed with consensus for mentioning the "interest in" aspect in the lead (although not for it being in the lead sentence). Edits have been made since the RfC, but the lead still does not yet specifically mention the "accused of flirting with or whistling" at aspect. We are discussing what is the best wording to use and how to place it in the second paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...on the sexual ethics talk page. I read through some of your user page and you seem like a really interesting person, and it's also clear that you're a well-seasoned editor. I don't want to alienate myself from a potential mentor over an argument about whether I'm a newbie or a fake newbie. (I AM a longtime Wikipedia lurker and have occasionally made edits in the past, but I haven't previously had an account--does that mean I'm not a newbie? If so, then sure, I'm not a newbie.) I am working on some improvements for the sexual ethics page, and I hope you'll give me advice if I propose some changes. Again, sorry if I came off wrong. Best wishes. Wandajjune (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wandajjune, no worries. I simply have a difficult time trusting newbie-presenting editors whose editing screams "not new" to me. This is due to my history with returning disruptive and/or disgruntled editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to see how much content was removed from the rape article. I just never have enough nerve to do it. What appears to be a mass reversion of my edits is a good clean-up.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps you broke some references, do you want me to help put them back in?

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), I didn't mass revert you. I simply reorganized content you added or moved. What references do you think I broke? I didn't see that I broke any. However, when it comes to this material that I reorganized days ago, you can see that the "Most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male-female forms of rape." paragraph is not really sourced. At some point, you removed the sources and replaced them with would-be references that look like this: [1] [2]. That content still needs to be sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content to which you refer was only moved by me, not sourced or unsourced. If it is unsourced, then it should be removed, so feel free. I tried to go over the references and checked most of them out and may have missed checking all the refs.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), please pay better attention to your edits. This is not the first time that you have stated that I have done something that I have not. Nor is it the first time that you have added or removed content and stated that you did not add it or remove it. I'm not sure how you get tripped up on your edits, but you do. This is what the Statistics and epidemiology section looked like before your June 24 2017 edits. On June 27th, you removed the aforementioned "Most rape research and reports of rape are limited to male-female forms of rape." paragraph. In the next edit, you moved it to the Research section you created; that move clearly shows that you copied and pasted the outside text instead of the internal text, which is why the sources were removed and replaced with would-be references that look like this: [1] [2]. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, I take full responsibility for any and all edits that I make. But at least in this case, the simple cut, move and paste did not work as planned. These two edits were within one minute of each other with little time for me to make such purposeful, erroneous edits. Something went wrong here on my computer, deep in the guts of WP computers, or most likely of all, with one of the many scripts I use while editing. Chalk it up to carelessness if you wish, but it is rather uncharacteristic of my editing and is obviously an exception. If this is an error, then thank you for catching it. If this is a suggestion that this is not the first time I tripped up, of course you are correct and only need to read my talk page to see how many mistakes I routinely commit. I don't need to be scolded by you. I will no doubt, continue to make mistakes and have accepted this. I correct my mistakes when I find them and you are welcome to do the same. Actually, I have become a better content creator because of your oversight of my work and the interest you show in my editing.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), thanks for explaining. I was not trying to scold, and I mean that. I prefer us on better terms. I was only asking you to be more careful because you have made this type of mistake before -- adding or removing content and being unaware that you did -- and I'm not sure why it keeps happening. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, you mentioned on my talk page that my IP vandalized a page. This is a home IP, and my family doesn't use wikipedia. Do you think somebody hacked my modem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.208.77 (talk • contribs)

IPs can be assigned to different people over the course of their existence. A note of this is made in my warning to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flyer. Just noting that this edit is probably not neutral and deserved to be reverted, but it's also not vandalism either. (Loomer was actually paid to protest.) Dunno if you want to mention something at User talk:67.161.91.153. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman, that seems to be a POV-pushing edit to me, and I reverted it with disruptive editing in mind. WP:STIKI is for WP:Disruptive editing in addition to vandalism, but there is no "disruptive editing" button on WP:STIKI. It seems like a POV-pushing WP:LABEL matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts for the Physical attractiveness article:

• [3].

But a lot has changed since the Wallace 1999 commentary. Technology has greatly changed since then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [4] Wallace.

• [5] Swami.

hoi flyer, look - linking something isn't vandalism. Instead of debating what yaoi is and is not, take a look at the bigger picture. wikipedia is supposed to be a complete information resource. instead of trying to block something you don't understand, try looking into it first. Yaoi is a japanese art form in which two males are involved in a romantic relationship. regarding the sexual aspect of anime (also known as hentai, the japanese word for pervert), adding a link to Hentai after referring to said sexual aspect of an anime relationship only makes sense. reverting a simple expansion on information is pure fascism. also, I refuse to make an account for a simple (see hentai).. wikipedia is full of knowitall pompous pricks like yourself I dont particularly enjoy dealing with. if you disagree with the placement of it feel free to move it to another place immediately following the sexual anime reference, but since that's what anime sex IS.. it belongs there. or feel free to replace the link to human sexuality with a link to Hentai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.245.58 (talk • contribs)

Call it WP:Vandalism or WP:Disruptive editing, I do not care. The problem is that your edit is wrong. You are adding a link in a way that gives the impression that yaoi is automatically hentai. Even if you are only focusing on the "sexual" part, sexual activity in yaoi does not automatically make that yaoi hentai. In the context, your edit is unsourced and is WP:Original research. It seems that you are the one who does not know what you are talking about. If you pay attention to the History and general terminology section, you can see that we already state the following: "In the West, the term hentai yaoi is sometimes used to denote the most explicit titles." Note that it states "In the West" and "most explicit titles." I have reverted you again. The Hentai article itself is clear that the term means "a perverse sexual desire" in Japan. If you are trying to argue something about how Japan views homosexuality, your edit is inadequate since many Japanese people do not automatically consider homosexual behavior a perverse sexual desire. It's odd that you added all those "citation needed" tags for content that is already sourced below (well, most of it is sourced below anyway), while it is your unsourced edit that is the problem. The lead does not necessarily need inline citations, if the material is sourced lower in the article; see WP:CITELEAD. If you keep making your "hentai" edit, I will bring WP:Manga in on this and/or report you for disruptive editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you must know whether or not I'm very familiar with yaoi or Japanese culture in general, I am very familiar with Japanese culture and I have studied/analyzed yaoi, but I have not truly been able to get into yaoi. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The ANI thread mentioned above can be found here. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ad Orientem. I see that the matter has been resolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, my contribution has been changed and considered as a vandalism, I can not understand why. I changed something wrong, pejorative, sexist and transphobic (Tomgirl (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Tomgirl, you were WP:Edit warring over the Tomgirl link; the edits were WP:Disruptive. See Talk:Tomboy#Proposed merge with Tomgirl. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Make your case there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, you only reverted once; so I personally wouldn't call that WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some ingregious removals on the Ambrosusus Aurelianus page as to my editals. I would like to know why as no resson was given.

Thank you kind sir, BouledeSuif (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) BouledeSuif (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BouledeSuif, because as seen here and here, you are editing WP:Disruptively. It matters not if you were that IP correcting your misspellings and squished spellings, there is still the fact you are changing wording throughout to diaeresis.

And if you want to play this game, just know that it will not be ending well on your part.

And I am not a "sir," by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at your "well" additions. What in the world are you doing? And changing quotes when the changes are not supported by the sources is another problem. See MOS:QUOTE. With all the "well" additions and grammar issues, I doubt that your changes are supported by the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do transfperhapsmed, Uther Pïndragoon, survïvperhapss and "(Uther does marry hïs brother's wïdow, though), well," even mean? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to the editor's talk page. 350 repetitions of "well", changing quotes, etc. CIR? Doug Weller talk 10:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see they were blocked, made a very literate unblock plea saying they were hacked. Unblock was denied as we don't unblock compromised accounts normally. Doug Weller talk 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, there's an issue on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. Plus, Masem is not helping solve the problem and is only not getting the clear picture. It is on this section of the article's talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lengthy discussion; I will need to read through it before weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BattleshipMan, I'll need to get back to this later. I took a break, then got busy with other stuff on Wikipedia, and I'm now taking a break again. Been on this site for many hours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are trying to do but please stop reverting factually incorrect population figures in the British Columbia article. The population of the province is 4 million and change, and certainly not 14 million. That information is available in the very references for the numbers you are trying to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.137.108 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about that, IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interested? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS), that is a very intriguing topic. It's important as well. I trust that you'll write an article on it. I've never been much of an article creator; just more of an article improver. And I don't devote as much time to Wikipedia as I once did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you aren't able to contribute as much as you have in the past. I will create content and you work your magic on it. You have great skill in finding references. Paste them here on the draft page I have begun if you would like. I won't begin for a couple of days so there is no urgency. Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Stuff like this, this, this and now this indicates that we cannot truly work together. If it's always going to be the case that after you make an edit that is problematic or has some type of issue and I challenge it, showing that I know what I'm talking about with sources, and then you just shrug your shoulders and/or act like I'm overreacting and/or that you are being the good editor who contributes so much while I spend all my time on talk pages not doing a thing for this site, working with you clearly is not an option for me. I mean, do go over your claim that the anus is a part of the vulva again; see just how stubborn you sound. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I hold your work here on human sexuality in the very highest regard. I think that you know how aware I am of the harassment you have received over the years, and how deeply I oppose that type of behavior. All of that makes your expression of support for me very precious. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cullen328. I felt that I may have scared you off a bit with that email about my health, but I realize that it's not an easy thing to respond to. I am glad to see that you are now an admin. You really are one of the best RfA choices I've seen. NeilN was another. I would have stated more in your RfA, but others had already stated pretty much everything that I could possibly state. I could have noted your unwavering support of me, but I didn't want to make it about myself, LOL. I'll see you around. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, I have searched my email archives several times and have no record of an email from you. Please feel free to email me at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, the email exchange was back in April; it doesn't matter now. It was more so about an article matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've just mentioned you in another discussion, I'd just like to endorse what Cullen328 said above - you have a very impressive corpus of article work and dedication to the project. That you continue to contribute despite a level of grief and harassment I can only dream of makes it even more remarkable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ritchie333. I miss talking with you. The harassment has become part of the job; I'm numb to it, but I obviously do report some cases. I don't like to be stalked by editors I have a very bad or tempestuous relationship with, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got your ping on Talk:Vagina, but it's not really my area of expertise. I was partly responsible for putting Vaginal steaming on the main page though, and some of the contributors on that article's talk page may be able to help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, the editor I'm currently in dispute with was (and still is) questioning neutrality, and the questioning is not supported by anything in the WP:Neutral policy. Since you are one of the editors who understands WP:Neutrality and is familiar with my work (you used to help at the Asexuality article, for example), you are one of the editors I pinged. And considering this and this, I knew that pinging some editors would be a good idea. Rivertorch is thankfully helping right now. As for the Vaginal steaming article, that is a cultural topic that doesn't have any scientific backing, but I'm glad that the the topic is being taken care of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are my additions "opinionated"? Please further elaborate, as I think my "opinion" is that boi is no longer an actively used term in the LGBTQIA+ community. Thanks <3 Willboy122 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Willboy122, read WP:Verifiability. What you think does not matter in this case; verifiability does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for your comments on the talk page earlier. Did you get a chance to look at my response to your concerns about MERDS and Common. I quoted info from each of those policy pages in order to clarify why the sources are compliant. I also added a lot more sources per requests from other users, in order to demonstrate that this is the common nomenclature used around the world. UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.
Would be happy to hear some reasons you left behind your revert done to my contribs here or see a wiki policy I've presumably violated at least.
Thanks. 109.206.156.72 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you here because the image you added was an unnecessary addition. The are enough images in the article, ranging from ages 2 to 14. I don't see that your image added anything. Furthermore, there are two IP-hoppers who continue to WP:Edit war over where the age range should stop. Are you one of the IP hoppers who keeps adding images to that section? I've been thinking of removing the gallery. It's become a problem, just like the problem concerning gallery additions at the Blond article. But displaying the different types of blond hair is more encyclopedic than the children images since children can vary in their look regarding whatever age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>because the image you added was an unnecessary addition

Well, it sounds like something unreasonable. 😒

I just come across this photo on the wiki commons and then decided to add to the article to make it more friendly when

discovered there some stale and poor quality photos that could be replaced by existing or new ones just like mine.

>Are you one of the IP hoppers who keeps adding images to that section?

Surely I'm not. You can check out my contributions by clicking onto my ip address.😑

>I've been thinking of removing the gallery.

I don't think it is necessary.

I would consider to delete captions in that gallery that denote the children's age but

anyway when you are going to delete something long-standing it is better to discuss it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.206.156.72 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP, do you want me to ask the community, via some form of WP:Dispute resolution, whether an image of a child with mud on their face is beneficial to the article? Because I will. I don't see how the image you want to add improves anything. As for replacing one of the existing images with that image, the current gallery includes children by age. I don't see that the age of the child is included on the image you want to include. If you just want images that include children without listing their ages, you can propose that on the article talk page, but such a setup will lead to an out-of-control image gallery, because the criteria will no longer be one image of a child for every age up to a certain age range. People will be adding all types images of children (doing whatever) just because. As for checking your contributions, notice that I stated "IP-hoppers"? This means editors whose IPs change. It's often the case that a person does not have just one IP. I can be WP:Bold and remove the entire gallery, especially given what WP:Gallery states. The only ones who would object are the IPs who are interested in adding images of children to that article. As for what is long-standing, you can go back in history, via the contributions, and see how long that gallery has been there. By the way, I did not revert your edit as not being good-faith. I simply reverted it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>Because I will. ... Because I will.

No I don't. Just thought that revert was like your out-of-rules self-admitted decision. I'm not gonna challenge it by discussion or try to revert it back anyway.

>but such a setup will lead to an out-of-control image gallery

Alright. That's the same thing I wanted to hear. Why didn't you have specified that in the revert message? What a waste of time ...

>I stated "IP-hoppers"? This means editors whose IPs change

Surely I've noticed and my answer is still the same as above.

>I can be WP:Bold and remove the entire gallery

Just because your are bold enough, right? I already heard it somewhere.

>By the way, I did not revert your edit as not being good-faith. I simply reverted it.

You haven't consulted that WP:GOODFAITH article before revert right?

Well it would be good to discuss update of article's existing gallery with new fresh images at least. Wiki commons have many pretty photos out there waiting for their use.

Thanks for reply anyway. 109.206.156.72 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was not "out of the rules"; consider what WP:Bold states. You made a bold edit and I validly reverted. Also see what WP:Gallery states. A gallery is not mandatory or standard, and the image you added did not improve the article. You have not given a reason showing how it did. As for "IP-hopper," it means an editor's IP that changes naturally or an editor who has gained access to a different IP via some other means. So how am I to know that your IP does not change or that you did not have access to an IP via some other means a month or months ago? Either way, you gave your answer on the IP matter. I think it is you who has not "consulted" the WP:GOODFAITH guideline; it is not an article. If you did "consult" it, you would know that it is not a WP:GOODFAITH violation to revert an edit that does not improve an article. It is not like I reverted you because you are an IP. Your edit did not improve the article, period. If anything, you did not assume good faith for the revert and still have not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear I do not know more about creating an article on a person named Suratha Pani (Pani Babu). He is a great Bible teacher in Odisha, especially in the District in Gajapati. According to Census 2011, Govt of India, the percentage of Christianity in Gajapati is 38. Christianity (Baptist) in Odisha generally mean Gajapati District.

So, Suratha Pani is the key person with whom the Canadian Baptist missionaries formed the Sammilani (Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani).

There are books written by the Sammilani on him too. One book also there named “Sammilani Itihas” where his role is elaborated. I have also an unpublished book written on the life and ministry of Suratha Pani. So, there are lots of things which contribute the worthiness of Suratha Pani to be placed in Wikipedia. I tried a few times but received notice of deletion because of unconstructive. Please explain me how to do it constructive? Why should I write in a sand box and why not directly create an article on his life and his role in the Christian community? Please explain me elaborately and help me create the page constructively.

Regards

HaronaPani (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted the two undiscussed moves you requested, but I just wanted to let you know that you can probably do them yourself. As long as it's still a simple redirect with no subsequent edits, any editor with move capability can move the article back over the redirect. Just fyi in case it happens again. Station1 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Station1, thanks. I know that I can revert them myself (if there is no cut and paste move, or similar, that requires an administrator), but the editor in question has not been responsive, except for this revert, and I did not want the editor to automatically revert again; I wanted an uninvolved editor to make the mistake clear in the edit history, and I felt that this might drive home the point better to the editor. Although I am sure that the editor is not a newbie (and I see that there is currently a sock investigation on the editor), I do think that the editor is inexperienced as far as Wikipedia protocols go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Apparently, Jd22292 notified the editor of a sock investigation without starting one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. The investigation is here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Hello dear fellow User:Flyer22 Reborn: hereby this badge is awarded to you, in recognition of your long-time anti-vandalism contributions. I want to inform you of it that we appreciate it so much. Thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I got your message on the editing page. Thanks. Squaredroot —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed my edit and now there are again just round up lies about Madame Blavatsky, she never used "The Sleep of Siloam" in this context, she used it only as a name for an ancient Egyptian initiation ritual where people where put to sleep for three days and tied on a Tau cross, and awaken by putting them in the sunlight, she refers to Hebrew manuscripts, Siloam was a well for washing feet in Jerusalem. She also never recommended to take drugs or do sexual gymnastics. If its because I said "supposedly" is because the context of the page 251 of my original Blavatsky text reference is all about dreaming and dream state, but Madame Blavatsky did not say that specifically in the by me from Dutch to English translated back sentence. OK its not violating the spirit of the sentence by leaving that "supposedly" part out. That Blavatsky never used sexual gymnastics or drugs excess or recommended it for getting a narcoleptic state, I got this from the search function of The Dutch Theosophical Society which has all Blavatsky's books in Dutch online. So lets make it: Helena Blavatsky may also have taught the technique, she said for example in Isis Unveiled that the more exhausted the body is, the more vivid are the impressions coming from the soul. OK? And leave all that bullshit from the others out. OK? galien8 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan van der Galien (talk • contribs)

Johan van der Galien, I was clear why I reverted you. You engaged in WP:Editorializing and we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. You added, "However one cannot find mentioning or references, in any of her published books, of use of sexual gymnastics or drugs excess induced sleep deprivation for getting the required exhausted body in order to enter the here so called 'eroto-comatose lucidity' narcoleptic state of mind." That is your personal commentary. We don't add our personal commentary in articles. Click on the WP:Reliable sources page to understand what I mean by reliable sources in Wikipedia's terms. Per WP:Primary sources, you can change the material to what she stated, if the source supports it, but that does not mean that other material needs to be removed or that you should add your own personal commentary to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn Is reasonable! I will say: "Helena Blavatsky gave the spiritual explanation of the technique, she said for example in Isis Unveiled that the more exhausted the body is, the more vivid are the impressions coming from the soul." with the reference I gave earlier (from Blavatsky her self, a original source) OK? galien8 04:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn ...and we let the rest have there say too! I can live with that. galien8 04:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. Go for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be responding there any more -- you are entering bludgeoning territory. And while I am quite content to let you carry on making an exhibition of yourself, I would suggest that you actually propose a topic-ban or something rather than this endless circling around the same old "issues": Shit or get off the pot, basically. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbillyholiday, on the contrary, this is me building evidence against you. In this way, when a future WP:ANI case is made against you (and it will be), the case against your disruptive editing will be even stronger. You are doing all the work for me, really. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good ol' oppo -- cornerstone of any collaborative endeavour. Well, good luck, I suppose. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbillyholiday, if you knew my success rate in cases like these, you wouldn't be wishing me good luck. If I can't get your disruptive behavior stopped now, I will get it stopped later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pointer - this user is abusively using different accounts to hide the real level of their editing. See Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Same editing style and operates at different times on the same day.

92.18.51.228 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that he is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit times (and style) make me suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.51.228 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my memory, experience with recognizing socks, and knowledge of how humans behave in certain situations, I can easily recognize editing patterns (and that includes the way an editor interacts with others), and changed editing patterns. This is why I recently identified a sock who supports Hillbillyholiday. I do not see that Hillbillyholiday and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are the same person. Keep in mind that I have experience with both. You can start a WP:Sock investigation if you have evidence, though. I am open to being wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not up on Wikipedia processes so I won't be pursuing anything - I just caught all the hoo-hah over this user, and it reminded me of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who I felt displayed a very similar edit pattern. Both account have the same "aim" with an obsession with removing alleged gossip. Good cop/bad cop springs to mind, but you seem to have a better grasp on all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.51.228 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes a lot of unsourced, WP:SYNTH, WP:Copyvio and WP:Non-free content criteria stuff (commonly stating "fails NFCC#8"). This is a broader range than Hillbillyholiday. Yes, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removes "briefly dated" stuff. Sometimes he might remove "currently dating" stuff, but he usually leaves in clearly significant personal life material, such as a married couple or a life partner, or other long-term couple, and the fact that they have children. He only cuts the Personal life section when it is a BLP violation (and that includes poorly sourced material) and/or when it only includes "dated in the past" material. Look at this bit he deleted. It was poorly sourced material based on a lot of rumors. Hillbillyholiday edits from an "I don't like it" viewpoint significantly more often than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also more careful with his cutting than Hillbillyholiday is, and has a better understanding of BLP than Hillbillyholiday does. He's not out there complaining about primary sources, or supposed primary sources, and asking or demanding academic sources for celebrity articles, when, like I stated at WP:ANI, "most of the book sources on celebrities are unauthorized biographies, tell-all books, or some other type of book source that is of relatively poor quality. For celebrities, the best sources are going to be media sources." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is more willing to listen and engage when challenged. And given that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a significantly more established editor, with support from some editors, one would need to wonder why he would create the Hillbillyholiday account. Sure, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been blocked for disruptive editing before, but his tone is different; I don't see him going out of his way to mock/belittle editors. He can get frustrated and state something less than civil, but he would not have started a section like this one started by Hillbillyholiday. This section was started by Hillbillyholiday because, even though he hoped he was untouchable, he was a little worried and he was frustrated. It was meant to mock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz also focuses on cleaning up the porn actor articles and related articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this bit again, which was restored by a different editor, I see that it includes AllHipHop, The Source and Complex as sources. I think, other than the relationship being a past matter, the issue for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is the allegations of cheating, and maybe being unfamiliar with the first two sources and other sources in the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's incredible that you don't think or atleast suspect that they're the same person particularly after they magically turned up during the latest discussion. It must be easy to adopt a (ableit in reality, slightly) different persona per account. At the end of the day - both accounts have the same aim but adopt a slightly different style in terms of edit summaries etc, clearly watch an article after they've removed swathes of text (and that they've never contributed to or edited before) and edit war with anyone that doesn't agree with what they've done.

Also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norma_Stitz_(3rd_nomination)

I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not and I don't think that's relevant, but this is an article twice nominated for deletion by Hillbillyholiday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has edited that article over a number of years. Coincidence I'm sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.114.69 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept that in mind; I always keep slight changes in behavior in mind when it comes to a person being a sock. I've publicly made this aspect of catching socks clear times before. Notice that I stated "and changed editing patterns" above? These two also have different signature styles; Hillbillyholiday uses the two dashes while Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not. One of the biggest ways I've caught socks is their signature style aligning with everything else because it remains consistent. That stated, my suspicion was piqued (from the small "it's possible" level of interest I had before) after Hullaballoo Wolfowitz showed up at WP:ANI, but I considered that he had been alerted to the matter via email (because someone figured it was a sure thing that he would vote "oppose" to any of the proposed sanctions, especially if given a skewed side of the situation), or via watching John's talk page, or because he watches WP:ANI. This is why I briefly questioned how he wound up there. With some sock cases, you need to weigh all the possibilities. You can ask Tenebrae and/or AlexEng to look further into this. Or do go ahead and request that someone start that sock investigation for you. I also think it may be a good idea for Tenebrae or AlexEng to start an RfC on the Michael Michael matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to keep in mind that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz might have looked at Hillbillyholiday's contributions after the Norma Stitz AfD (which I was aware of and mentioned at WP:ANI as part my case that Hillbillyholiday tries to get rid of anything he does not like). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far from perfect. Maybe mentioning it here will help. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Quixotic Potato, LOL, yes, I guess a person named Flyer22 should know. I'll make some edits to the article to improve it. I won't promise any huge improvements.

As for anyone watching this page perhaps helping, I do have a decent number of watchers, but, these days, my talk page isn't as active as it used to be. This is partly because of my "Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary" message at the top, which also used to start off by me stating that I'm not interested in social networking here, and because I was removing all new messages, and because I began taking days off from editing Wikipedia. So I really did give off an "I don't want to be bothered" vibe. Once I started allowing messages again, people stopped minding the "Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary" piece. And I plan on removing that piece soon. But I'm not sure that any of my watchers would want to take on the Flying ointment article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We potatoes are quite down-to-earth, with some rare exceptions. Have you seen my editnotice? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit notice, I just clicked on one to see what would happen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should log which ones get clicked the most. I have tried to find appropriate images for each of them, but Wikimedia Commons has a limited supply of "thank you" related images. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your recent efforts at ANI. Thank you for fighting for integrity, fairness and basic common sense on Wikipedia. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]