The article Todd Manning you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Todd Manning for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I responded there in the GA review just now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, I appreciate that. :) It came from a long time of hard work, but it paid off. So, how you been? Long time no talk. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to stay in a good mindset. I deal with depression a lot. Also, busy with work outside of Wikipedia. You? Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel ya on that [good mindset and depression]. Yeah, me too. School and my job are stressful things I deal with, as well as here. I'm good, just celebrating my b-day today, and enjoy the day. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, happy birthday! You enjoy the day as much as you can. Good wishes to you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you. :) I will, I have so many wishes that I need for them to come true. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did with the two sentences. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I learn from you as well. You are so excellent at tweaking and tightening things...that I feel your skills help others, because we learn from you. Some things can really be cut down, and you are great at that. So thank you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks ... : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered here again.--RobSchop [just shout!] 10:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested Avatar (2009 film) to be peer reviewed. Since I saw you were on of it's main contributors, I thought you should let you know. Feel free to fix any of the problems brought up on the peer review page. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the heads up, Guy546. Good to have you now helping out the article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and yes I'd like to discuss more changes to Gender. I would like to describe the 5 different types of "gender" (of individuals) usage (genetic, biological appearance, social, legal, and self-identification). The article also seems to me to go into too much detail in some of the sections, some of the content of which could be moved to sub-articles.

As I first step, I moved out the overlapping material to Grammatical gender and Gender of connectors and fasteners, and added a dablink at the top for those. Grammatical gender is mentioned in the Gender#Etymology section, although I think that section could be made clearer and simpler. We should also probably at least have one sentence on the extension of the concept of gender to "connectors and fasteners" with an inline link.

So yes, if I make further changes I'll discuss them on the talk page. (Except for the Gender#Linguistics section, which I think anyone can feel free to merge into the Grammatical gender article - I didn't want to just delete it because I think it may have useful info not already in Grammatical gender).

Thanks for the feedback, Facts707 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. If you are speaking of the lead in regards to description, it already describes "gender" in the genetic, biological appearance, social, and self-identification ways. The only thing missing is the legal aspect. So when you say "describe," do you mean go into more detail? If so, it cannot be in the way you did before, as I stated on the Gender talk page, per WP:LEAD. I am definitely willing to work with you on what you feel would be the best lead, but the lead should only summarize. The rest of the article is for going into more detail. Yes, I like the lead as it currently is, but I am open to a little change; I would not mind you starting with the legal aspect. If it needs tweaking, we'll tweak it (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I just got word from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project that they want to know which of the externally edited articles are ready for translation to other languages, which means I have to give them my opinion on which ones are close to GA status. I think the sexual intercourse article can be ready if the references are updated to primary/secondary sources (rather than news articles) as mentioned in the review. I am going to go ahead and work on that, but wanted to give you a heads up before making direct edits because you are the most active and current leading editor for this article. If time permits, I may also implement some of the recommended changes that you indicated you agreed with. I won't make any that are still a matter of debate though. Hope all this is OK with you! If not, drop me a line so we can chat about it.

BSW-RMH (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, BSW-RMH. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't want to clutter Moonriddengirl's talk page so here I am. :) I appreciate that you also gave her some more input about the Serial Killer article. Something seemed so wrong to me when I saw the big chunks added to the article. What seemed wrong that sent up flags for me was that everyone of those editors added large bits to the article but not one of them went back to do a minor edit, like fix a misspelt word or put in a bracket or whatever. I've been here for a long time now and even with using the preview I still find I have made errors that need to be fixed. I tried to check for cut/paste in one section but I couldn't find the right way to do it I think. I'm not bad at searching but in some things I am bad in searching because I don't use the right search words or terms. Moonriddengal is really good at find copyright problems so I thought I'd again go and ask for help to make sure the article is ok with at least copyright issues. You did real good though cleaning up more after I was done, thank you. Feel free anytime to pop over to my page. I've seen you around, we've just not had the opportunity to interact. Thanks again for your help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well, Crohnie. You have been an excellent help with the article. Every day I see you reverting vandalism, errors, and cleaning up there I appreciate it. So, yes, thank you very much. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Red flags go up when large chunks of info is added to article, esp. when there is no correction edits made like what was done there. Do you know, is there a tool that can be used to find cut/paste additions like the awesome work that Moonriddengirl did to clean up that article? I was so impressed with how the two of you cleaned it up. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl uses some kind of tool. I cannot remember the name of it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "Anti-pedophile activism." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the AfD process, please visit the page created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your input would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You play go? About what strength are you? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Stevertigo. Yes, I really like Go. I would say my strength is about a 2-dan, and I have been studying Lee Chang-ho's games quite a bit. Why? You play? Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I play, though not much for the past few years. I'm ~1k. I'm familiar with Chang-ho, and was actually looking for some of his games to study not long ago (no Gobase account). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too - what a fantastic game! I'm 5kyu (2 kyu on a very good day).

Wondered if you two had come across this:

おねがいします Trafford09 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trafford09. Nice to see another fello Go player. Yes, it's an awesome game. And thanks for the Go banner. I'll find some place to put it on my user page right now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. Are you in the AGA? I'm in the BGA. Trafford09 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not in AGA. Plenty of Go players (here in the United States and elsewhere) have stated that I should be, and that I should have made this game more prominent in my life, but I reply that I just didn't have the time for it in the way that some people live, breathe and eat it. You play online? Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I play on the KGS Go Server sometimes, yes. You've done extremely well to reach 2-dan, without being in the AGA, and without it being prominent in your life. Did you have strong opponents &/or mentors, in real life? Trafford09 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it was prominent in my life in my earlier years (as was math and science). On my user page, you see a brief mention of what my parents wanted me to do/be with my "gifts" and how I chose a different path. I really am more into creating, such as screenwriting. I also used to love drawing. But artistic stuff is not what my parents wanted for me.

Do you watch anime, by the way? I got completely addicted to the Go anime Hikaru no Go. I didn't think I would, and I am not into watching animes when they focus on young children (I prefer teenage and adult driven animes, because of more mature themes), but I really loved it. Plus, they age and do not stay young children forever. It is a carefully designed anime, backed up with good Go accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I watch much anime, but the one exception is Hikaru no Go. I've seen some of the episodes, and have printed Vols. 1-3. That anime's been very successful, hasn't it, in spreading Go to a younger (& not so young!) audience, worldwide. It even merits its own page on our BGA website. BTW, I also left you a reply on my talk page. Trafford09 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, I did kinda take away a bit too much. I have made a few adjustments though to yours. I've added that it was renewed for an eight season (all shows have the renewal until the next season has started). Also I've added a small sentence of how the ratings have decreased since the two left, I thought it was important as it is a huge drop off. So avoid edit-conflict we should have a discussion about how to make it perfect. Jayy008 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Jayy. And your tweaks are fine. I'm just glad to have more help with that article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, there's alot of vandals on that direct their attention to that page. Btw, it was only Chad that opted to leave, Hilarie wanted to stay. But I only think there's the YouTube video as a source, which isn't allowed? Jayy008 (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I've been looking after that article for some time now; it's just that I can go a week or more without checking in on it. Sorry about not being there more often to help out.

You're saying that Hilarie Burton was kicked off the show? That is difficult to believe. In that first source, Mark Schwahn even says that all the main cast members had opted to come back (renewed their contracts) except for Chad Michael Murray and Burton. Will you direct me to the YouTube video you are speaking of? If it gives the source, we can reference that information to that specific source...rather than to YouTube. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) ‎[reply]

I heard they didn't want to break up Lucas/Peyton. So when Chad decided not to accept their offer, they creatively decided to let Hilarie go. In the video she says "I wish I had creative control over the show you guys but I don't, if I did OTH would be on for a billion years and Peyton Sawyer would cry for ya all the time" or something like that. Just type in "Hillarie Burton season 7" it's kinda cryptic though how she describes things but you can definitely see she didn't want to leave. I think Chad Michael Murray just got greedy because Schawahn said they was both offered "great things". Anyway you can judge for youself. Let me know what you think. It's just a webcam video of her in her house if you type that in theres 2 of the same at the top. PS. yeah lol, it's easier for me now as I have just watch-listed the page and revert all vandalism. Jayy008 (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. But it definitely is not enough to say she was fired, especially with Schwahn saying something different. Although...Schwahn may have been talking about the situation at first. These two contract disputes went on for quite a bit, after all. Maybe she was upset about the direction the show was going to go in and said that she would only stay if they came up with a better storyline/solution? I just don't know. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, it's weird situation and nobody knows how it all went down. My personal opinion is that Chad got greedy, but behind closed doors The CW might have tried to cut his wages in half or something, so you just never know. Season 7 was great still but my issue was with all the stuff that happened to Haley, Lucas would have never left them to deal with that all on her own. They should have made it so he atleast phoned to see if she was okay, little things like it. Did you enjoy season 7 without them? Jayy008 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about this edit? The three current sources demonstrate people not knowing exactly what was going on behind the scenes, except for that Murray and Burton would not be returning. Considering what you reported about Burton, I felt it was better to tweak it. I don't want to restore it to the "would not be returning" wording, though, because I don't want people thinking they were fired.

As I stated in my edit summaries, I am also going to further fix up the article. I might as well go ahead and get it (fixing it up) off my checklist, LOL. I'll add some information on the themes, such as basketball, love, the love triangles, betrayal...and an actual Critical reception section. That article is long overdue for one that does not only consist of ratings information.

As for the show, I stopped watching it somewhere in Season 6, though I watched a bit of that season. I know I have some catching up to do, and I will (eventually), but I was busy with a lot of other stuff at that time. I have read the main complaints about Season 7, though, ones like yours included. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol it definitely needs it! I'll help out best I can. I like what you put about stories varying, I think that's essential to have! But yeah I don't blame you for it not being a priority, season 5 went downhill slightly! Can you show me some complaints? Jayy008 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints are just random things I have read while Googling, LOL. The answers.yahoo.com source is usually the most prominent at first. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, oh got ya! Btw, I meant season 6, season 5 was my favourite. Just thought I'd correct myself. Btw not going to be on here for a few days but any help you need with the OTH page just post on my talkpage and I'll reply asap! Jayy008 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayy, turns out Burton did have some extensive stuff to say about her exit; according to her, it was her decision to leave, as seen with this long edit of mine. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh :S, that's strange. Now I'm even more confused, she chose to leave yet she does a video saying how Peyton would cry for us all the time if it was her choice. I really want to know how this all went down! Too many conflicting stories! PS. Love the edits to the page, it needed that big overhaul. Jayy008 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is most confusing. I even added what you stated about Murray wanting more money because it was/is so rampant of a story. Burton also kind of touches on that, but if that part needs a better source, I will get it. And thanks for the compliment on the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object if you don't find a better source, everything is written that's needed so people can make up their own mind. That video from Hilarie is actually on her official YouTube page aswell, which is allowed so maybe we could include that part where she says on the video if it was her choice she'd be back? Jayy008 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. THANK YOU for adding that speech from Mark Schwahn!! In season 7 it doesn't actually tell you where Lucas/Peyton are or why they left. But what you added is fine, it makes the show make sense. Like why Lucas/Peyton don't come back during disasters, because they're not in one place, they're all around and it would be difficult. Now I know why they didn't sell their house etc. Jayy008 (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a better source for the implication that Murray wanted more money. But, yeah, you can add the YouTube source for Burton...since it is from her official YouTube page.

As for the information that Lucas and Peyton are traveling the world, I am glad it helped you out. It definitely seems that they should have simply said that in the show. People who do not come online or to Wikipedia will not know what the heck is going on there. 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Flyer22 (talk)

Oh yeah, I will do, it'll take me a while to find it as I stumbled across it by accident and the official one is the only one I can't find when I'm looking lol. Yeah, exactly now I understand why the first ep is called "4:30am (Apparantly they were travelling abroad)" as you said would have been better to say it in the show! Jayy008 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer

I hope you don't mind, added your name to this list:

User talk:Risker#Editors who should have Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer activated ASAP

It looks like your reviewer status was activated today.

(User rights log); 16:46 . . Amalthea (talk|contribs) changed rights for User:Flyer22 from Rollbackers to Rollbackers and Reviewers (trusted user)

The trial of the reviewing feature is just getting started. It might not apply to articles you're working on, but in case something comes up you'll have the needed tool.

More info here: Wikipedia:Reviewing

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jack. And I know that it might sound cheesy to say I'm honored...but I am. You have always been excellent in your work ethic here at Wikipedia, and I appreciate your trust and respect. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer. Thanks for your message. It really doesn't matter whether someone's a main character or a minor character; to have a Wikipedia article, they need to have received significant media coverage.

I'm glad that you plan on finding sources that establish notability for Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer (though I don't know why those articles need to be restored in the meantime). As I mentioned to Jay008, I had hoped that editors like yourself would come along and handle this. Examples of notability can be found here (in case you needed one). Anyway, I'll keep an eye out for notability in these articles. Good luck with them. -- James26 (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, James. Yes, with my editing of various soap opera articles, I am quite aware of WP:Notability, LOL. I learned about that my first day here. As for letting the Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer articles exist in the meantime, I felt it was only fair...since all of the other main ones have not yet been redirected.

Thanks for your time and patience. I hope you are satisfied with my changes to those two articles...once I do fix them up. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate something I told Jayy...

Just to let you know, I've tried making a few efforts to improve the pages myself (so no one thinks I'm on a purely destructive streak). I searched through the L.A. Times, Entertainment Weekly, Yahoo!, and People magazine sites for notable coverage of these five characters -- in episode guides or elsewhere -- and didn't really find anything yet. Could be I wasn't thorough enough, so you may find something I didn't. Of course, there are other places to look as well, so again, best wishes with the articles. -- James26 (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But, in regards to Lucas Scott, perhaps you weren't looking in the right places/for the right title of things? I'm not sure about Peyton Sawyer, but there have been plenty of People and teen magazine articles centering on the popularity of the Lucas Scott character (though also focusing on the popularity of Chad Michael Murray). Sometimes, you can get good critical reception of fictional characters just by looking for reviews of the show/show's seasons, as various reviews of the show or seasons as a whole also review the characters. I may not be able to get significant media coverage for both or either, but as long as I display some level of notability in their articles, that will be fine. One thing is for sure, I can and will provide stellar (okay maybe not "stellar," but good enough) Character creation/Development sections for both characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the series article expansion. It's clear you've really put a lot of work into that. -- James26 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks, James. I try to do my best work while here, though it does not always work out that way. There are still sources that I need to find, such as The WB taking away basketball from Season 2 of the show because they felt that the show was too male-oriented, but I know I'll get that source soon (or eventually). Anyway, thanks again. I really appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when reviewing shows, people usually mention opinions on the characters too, if you could add all that to the characters' pages when you overhaul them? That would be good. I'll try find some too. Jayy008 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I'm planning. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good good, any help you need just ask. Also, I replied above. Jayy008 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Departures[edit]

I forgot to ask, what is your opinion on everything, like how do you think it all went down? (Just curious) Jayy008 (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well...as I said before, I really don't know. I don't even have a strong feeling either way about what happened, except that it does not seem right that the show is still going on without them. But if I had to guess, I'd say... Though Burton may not have wanted more money (and I believe her on that), Murray probably did. Burton, it seems, just wanted her storyline to go in a different direction than what the writers probably had in mind (I doubt she wanted Lucas and Peyton to break up, though, since she loves working with Murray and loves that couple). I hate to say it, but it usually always comes down to money in cases such as these. Either the show felt that Murray was getting paid too much (I'm not sure if his salary is more than the others) and they wanted to cut his salary somewhat...or Murray wanted more money. It did not seem to be a storyline issue on his part. Burton got caught up in it all somehow; she weighed her options, whether or not she wanted to continue with the show, what they were offering for her character, and ultimately decided to leave. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very clear way to put it actually and I also agree about the show still going although it's good. The season 6 finale was a great way to end it. Jayy008 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTH main page[edit]

Hello, underneath the part in the lead where it says about 8th renewal. I've added a part with an interview from Schwahan about a possible next season as The CW didn't announce this as the last like they did with Smallville. I also mentioned that this is the last season the original cast are contracted for. Any objections? Jayy008 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

wanna take a look?

Talk:Sexual_intercourse#Sheep_and_sexual_intercourse

89.132.187.179 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I replied there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, No problem.Malke2010 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, somebody removed the photo. What do you think of adding it back?Malke2010 00:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. On the talk page, that person made a pretty good case for removing it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just remembered he's an admin, so his opinion has more weight. If an admin doesn't think it belongs, then it probably doesn't.Malke2010 01:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, a Wikipedia administrator's opinion does not have more weight than anyone else's in cases such as these. It just so happens that I agree with this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flyer, let me clarify. I meant that an admin would know more in the way of rules, etc. I was asking your opinion about putting it back because I liked having a photo on the article. It's so bare now without it. Maybe another one can be found?Malke2010 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. And, yes, I would be okay with you or anyone else adding a different image...as long as it is with the same problems as the previous image. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, the Charlie Chaplin page links to the Ephebophilia page. I do not think the piece of pottery is an ideal example of Ephebophilia. That pic is also used on the French wikipedia love and homosexuality pages. Imho the pic best illustrates Pederasty. Is there anything we can do to find in the public domain something similar to this: http://fredvidal.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/charlie_chaplin-paulette-goddard1.jpg that would more clearly demonstrate the topic in a more modern fashion? Also the Rebecca Budig article still has no pic, and I have no ideas to locate one. Wlmg (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wlmg. Long time, no see. You'd have to bring up the ephebophilia issue on Talk:Charlie Chaplin. It would be better discussed there. As for the Budig article, yeah, I have no idea where to get a free image for her article either. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to talk about it. There's reliable references naming him an ephebophile. As for a pic of Ms. Budig, I give up. Hopefully an R.B. fan who also edits wikipedia will get a non-stalking pic of her.Wlmg (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. You're talking about the main image of the Ephebophilia article? I thought you were talking about some pottery image in the Charlie Chaplin article. In that case, you should bring this up on the Ephebophilia talk page and see if others agree with you to remove the image. I'm not quite sure what could be used to replace it. And LOL about a "non-stalking pic" of Budig. Yes, soap opera fans can be quite stalkerish, can't they? But then again, so can fans of other genres. The Twilight cast is very familiar with this, I'd say. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up my seat on the bus so that two ladies from OLTL could sit together. They hesitated at first, but I immediately said, "you're soap actresses you can have my seat", and the whole bus laughed.Wlmg (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Love it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that bus runs down Broadway and practically stops in front of ABC Studios on West 66th St. Wlmg (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent age[edit]

Flyer. Your sources are well done for the article on Ephebophilia. I do however agree with the user who said "I do not think the piece of pottery is an ideal example of Ephebophilia."

I humbly disagree with your definition of 'adolescent.' For boys and girls it is generally accepted that 'adolescence' is actually exited at about 14 years of age. Fifteen is pushing it. By 18 or 19 years old, many individuals are married by this age and the filling of breasts and growing of pubic hair occurs between the ages of 12-14 for most healthy human beings. This is defined as 'adolescence.' A 'teenager' [13 to 19] is NOT an 'adolescent' and a 'young adult' [19-21] is NOT an adolescent either.

Your sources cover well much of what is written. But your definition of the word 'adolescent' cancels itself almost as an oxymoron [a word that contradicts itself and simply cannot exist in spoken English] When it is said "Adolescent" and "14 to 19."

In most countries -- 18 years of age signifies adulthood. An adult is not an 'adolescent.'

-Someone who wants to help

You are wrong about the definition of adolescence/adolescent. How is it generally accepted that "adolescence is actually exited at about 14 years of age" when 15-19 year-olds are commonly considered adolescents as well? Turning 18 does not suddenly make them not an adolescent. Adolescence is not only about legal adulthood. And, yes, someone can be a legal adult and adolescent at the same time. If you are going to go on legal adulthood as defining adolescence, then what about the countries that grant legal adulthood much earlier than 18? Those teenagers are not adolescents simply because the law says so? No, this source pretty much sums up adolescence: "Adolescence is roughly considered to be the period between 13 and 19 years of age. The adolescent experiences not only physical growth and change but also emotional, psychological, social, and mental change and growth." These sources back me up as well.[1][2] What sources back you up? We go by reliable sources here at Wikipedia. There is a such thing as early adolescence, mid adolescence and late adolescence. 16-19-year-olds are classified as late adolescents, just as we specify with the Pedophilia article as well. Because of what you just stated, I will also be further tweaking the lead of the Adolescence article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer an old school rationale for adolescence ending at or about 20-years-old. This is when the distal phalanges of the pinky finger unite marking the end of skeletal development. My 2¢. Wlmg (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your 2¢, Wlmg. I just don't see how anyone could say that adolescence ends at age 14; I mean, a teenager that age is still dealing with all the transitional stuff (child into an adult). Recent research has even shown that the reasoning part of our brains is not even complete until about age 25. Adolescence is not just about puberty and legal adulthood. For example, people who go through precocious puberty are not usually considered adolescents. And are we saying that teenagers who have dealt with delayed puberty aren't adolescents? I went ahead and further tweaked the lead, to this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want include a separate section on the extension of adolescence into the mid-twenties in parts of Europe, The United States, Japan, and possibly China (the "Little Emperors"). I've heard the spectrum of evangelical ministers to economists weigh in on this phenomenon. This link is a reliable source, a little old, a bit opinionated, but there's some good stuff in there. Wlmg (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I just don't see how anyone could say that adolescence ends at age 14", almost 14-year-old Juliet Capulet would, so how did it work out for her?  ;) Wlmg (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, I just really couldn't think of a different word! Jayy008 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Star
		For being attacked by Miafina at Talk:Orgasm and remaining civil, I award you this Purple Star Zonafan39 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks, Zonafan39. I really appreciate it!! Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added some reception to Lucas and Peyton. It's a very very difficult task as I don't know where to look. Any ideas? Jayy008 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your additions to the Peyton Sawyer article. Do not stress it. I will handle it, as I promised. Those two articles will get a big overhaul by me. I'm leaving the Nathan Scott, Haley James Scott, and Brooke Davis articles to you, until I eventually get around to those. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that's good. At least you'll get around to them though lol, they'll probably be harder. Also I think the Brooke Davis article for Season 7 and COB is far too detailed what's the template that says to shorten the article? Jayy008 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was just wandering if you live in the U.S, is The CW hard to find? Like why are their ratings so low. Do they not have their own TV Channel? Just curious as I live in the UK. Reply when you can, thanks! Jayy008 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the U.S., and, no, The CW is not difficult to find. As for their ratings being low, I specified that in the Ratings section: The CW attracts a fraction of the audience its broadcast competitors do. "So the strategy is super-serving a young coveted demographics. The network's sweet spot is women 18-34 and with a viewer median age of 33, it boasts the youngest audience among its broadcast competitors by almost a dozen years."[3] Regarding their ratings being lower this year, I have no idea why. And, yes, they have their own TV channel. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks for the info Jayy008 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, I'm darkening your doorway once again. I was thinking The Cramer Women could make a good standalone article. As it stands The Cramer Women is a section within the Kevin Buchanan article. I have a couple of secondary sources for The Cramer Women, but an article would necessitate some degree of original research. What chance do you think an article would stand against speedy deletion? Am I looking down a blind alley, or is a soap opera confederacy primarily composed of daughters and nieces(and grand nieces & great grand nieces 4th gen. Hope) of the show's primary antagonist noteworthy? Regards Wlmg (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you're not darkening my doorway. Um, the only way I could see a Cramer Women article getting past deletion is either if it were needed, in the way that we are sometimes allowed to make split-off articles consisting of nothing but plot (a list of characters type of thing)...or if it is backed up by plenty of reliable sources. As long as you can find TV Guide type of sources to go along with the Soap Opera Digest type of sources, all should be fine. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, I can't find much on The Cramer Women, and I went deep into the google news archives. If my article is supported by references that merely contain the term "Cramer Women" without deeper explication it's going to look like a joke. I haven't created an article since this debacle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blieder_Drive I put a lot of work into Blieder Drive and felt I was burned badly. I dunno maybe I'll go the original research route on The Cramer Women, and let the chips fall where they may. Wlmg (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wlmg, were you looking for sources based on the wording Cramer Women? If so, that is not the way to go. All you need to do is gather reliable sources about each of the Cramer women characters, and build the article that way. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...that you thought carefully enough about your edit summary here, in particular the latter section? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, LessHeard vanU. Been sometime since I have seen you. Checking up on me every now and then is nice. But on the subject at hand, "technical virginity" goes along with the strict definition of sexual intercourse -- vaginal sex (as that section in the Virginity article notes). This is also addressed in the Anal sex article; it was so long before my improvements to it. Do you feel this is also employed by gay and lesbian individuals? If anything, it is an insult to most gay and lesbian people because it suggests that "their sex" is not "real sex." I would not have specified it to heterosexuals if it was something commonly done by the gay and lesbian community as well. In the case of a gay man, I cannot imagine him saying he is still a virgin "unless having engaged in vaginal sex." The only "technical virginity" gay men employ would be frotting, or oral for some others. But even in those cases, the ones who prefer frotting or oral over anal usually consider it real sex. And "frotting" (the genital-to-genital definition in regards to males) is not usually included in the "technical virginity" category, though I could look for reliable sources about that. In the case of a lesbian woman, I cannot imagine most of them saying they are still a virgin "unless vaginally penetrated by a man" (though I have heard a few joke about it). If you mean lesbians use oral and anal sex as technical virginity, that is not true either (at least in the case of most; I can only imagine a very butch lesbian feeling that she is not taking away a woman's virginity unless she is penetrating her with fingers or an object...such as a sex toy). Can you specify what you feel I should question myself on in regard to that edit? Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would rather I not specify technical virginity to heterosexuals, I cannot say I agree with that. Without that specification, it comes off as though this is something likely used by the gay and lesbian community as well, as though oral sex and anal sex is not "real sex" to them. But I can see it relating to gay men (frotting and oral) more than I can see it relating to lesbians. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I was making a little joke about your choice of wording in your edit summary; viz "and to lower body about "maintaining virginity" (my underlining). Nevermind, it just struck me as funny... I have no problem with your work as regards the article(s) - and, anyway, since they are doubtless well referenced any issues I might have would be irrelevant. However, since you brought the matter up I would comment that a friend of mine considers himself a virgin since he abhores penetration in any context, but is otherwise sexually active (he is gay, also, which may allow him a freedom of sexual expression that does not include penetrative sex yet be fulfilling otherwise - he is certainly comfortable with his lot). Alas, I am just someone with a dodgy sense of humour and a collection of interesting acquaintances and not citable. Keep up the good work and don't mind about me - I just keep an admin eye on your page in case someone with issues does turn up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Sorry about that. And in regard to your friend and other gay men, I just made these edits: [4][5]

I thank you for your dodgy sense of humor; it has made the article more accurate, LOL. I'll add a source or two to it later, if people feel it is needed. I'll probably do that anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised. That's great! I couldn't find nearly as much information. How long did it take you? It would be a great help if afterwards you'd have a go at the other 3. By the way the image I added I thought was good for the article because until Chad left the show, it was about two brothers starting out as enemy's and forming a friendship. That was the first time they became friends, a pivitol moment in the show, why don't you think it should be shown? Jayy008 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the wardrobe section, I have a thing to add. Chad said in an interview he wanted Lucas's wardrobe after the jump to be rugged like Keith's or something like that. I'll try and find a source, I think that's good character development that he wanted to be an Uncle just like Keith. Jayy008 (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that I will add more real-world information to the Lucas Scott article. It took me a few days to gather all the stuff already there, mainly because I am busy with various other things off Wikipedia. I had help, through e-mail (as I sometimes do), from friends of mine who have held on to some Lucas Scott/Chad Michael Murray stuff. I knew it would not be difficult to establish some level of notability for Lucas, given all the teen articles and magazines he and his portrayer have been featured in. As I stated, I will move on to the Peyton Sawyer article next. I am thinking that providing notability for her article (other than the popularity of her pairing with Lucas) will not be too difficult either, given the many interviews Hilarie Burton has given about the character and the character's artwork being promoted in certain things for the show. A suggestion for you is to mix wording up in various ways when Googling for information on these characters, do that for Google Books as well.

As for the brother image, it is not that I do not want it in the article; it is rather what I stated on your talk page about it. It would be seen as an "unneeded" image and would be nominated for deletion sooner or later. If I could have it my way, believe me that I would decorate the article with more "unneeded" images.

And it is good to know that you have some stuff to add to the Personality and wardrobe section.

Oh, and do you think it is best that we put Lucas and Peyton are traveling together with their daughter in the "Reason for leaving" part of the infobox? I know that is what the creator said is going on (as I provided a reference for that), and people already figure something like that is the case from watching the last episode of Season 6, but the thing is...it was not stated in the show. I also feel that it is spoilerish for people who just come to those articles looking for basic information about the characters without having seen the show, or most of it. But then again, so is putting Peyton's married name in the intro (LOL), and we all know Wikipedia is not censored when it comes to spoilers. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that a lot of information can also be found on YouTube. If the YouTube video has the date and the source of the video, then you are set. For example, for the information on Lucas's wardrobe (C., Jason, 2008-01-19. "Mark Schwahn, creator of One Tree Hill, at Macy's.". TheCWSource.), I got that from this YouTube video. Of course I cannot link to it through YouTube in the article. If I can find it on The CW site, then I will link to it that way. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The brother image I was trying to explain. I thought images in articles were the show pivitol scenes or moments in the show. It is easier to describe "He kissed Brooke" that how him and Nathan said goodbye, for the first time. It's difficult to explain, but to me that was one of the top moments in the show, not just with Lucas. As for the infobox, I think it should be there simply because it helps people. People may come to Wikipedia to find out where they have gone, like myself. If you'd seen the season 6 finale you'd understand that when they left you thought it was just "a drive" not a permanent exit. Even though you say typing something different, I can NEVER find things. I know this may be a stupid question, but maybe Googling stuff from a U.S. TV show from the U.S. gives you more information? Thanks for the YouTube info though, I'm sure that will help. I'm currently on Brooke Davis and Nathan Scott. I will overhaul them, shorten all the misc info and add as many sources as I can for when you get around to it. Jayy008 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Do you think Chad and Hilarie (Just Hilarie would do) will be back for Brooke's wedding? I don't think I could watch it anymore if not. It would be totally ridiculous if Peyton wasn't at her wedding. Jayy008 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Second PS; It would be greatly appreciated if you give me a few tips on things you might type in Google. I usually type things like Brooke Davis, Brooke Davis reception etc. Jayy008 (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just one more thing about The CW. Why is it different in every/state country? Like theres CWTV.com which has it's primetime shows. But when I click on their affiliates there's daytime and stuff. I'm really confused as to what this network is and why there's a completely separate website for it's primetime shows. Any help would be appreciated as in the UK we have a TV Channel and a website to go with it and that's it. Jayy008 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use images are not usually for pivitol scenes or moments. "Pivotal" is often subjective, for one thing. An exception would be the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss; that image was up for deletion...but was kept because it is of a famous moment and is substantially discussed in the article. Generally, fair-use images are for images which significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the subject or moment. The Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer image is seen to do this. Ask yourself does the brother image significantly enhance the reader's understanding of Lucas and Nathan's hug? Likewise, the images of Lucas kissing Peyton and Brooke are not needed. I only left them in for the reasons I stated on your talk page.

Regarding the "Lucas and Peyton traveling together" bit, I get what you are saying, but people could just as easily skip to the end of the Storylines section to find out where they have gone. I am just worried about what I stated above regarding that information. And a lot of people are likely to think that a fan simply added it (assumption or wishful thinking), since it was never stated in the show. Because of all these reasons, I say we should definitely just leave it at "Left Tree Hill." But there is a way we can provide them with the information you want provided to them through the infobox...without being as obvious. We can simply pipe-link the Season 6 information with the wording "Left Tree Hill." When people see that "Left Tree Hill" is a link, they will click on it, and it will take them to the very end of the Storylines section where it says how they left and what they are doing now.

I feel that Burton may return, as she stated in that Entertainment Weekly source, "never say never." I have also recently included mention of this in the One Tree Hill (TV series) article.

For Google, I types things like..."Lucas Scott Chad Michael Murray teen magazine" (or some specific magazine he has been featured in), "Chad Michael Murray One Tree Hill" (this typically being all that is needed for Google Books)," "Chad Michael Murray Lucas portrayal," "Chad Michael Murray acting as Lucas," "Chad Michael Murray Lucas popular," "Season 1 One Tree Hill review" (etc.), "Lucas and Peyton star-crossed," "Supercouple Lucas and Peyton." Stuff like that. Sometimes I get crazy with it, mixing up several words that are related to the subject.

Not sure about The CW website/channel stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, hey, I finished Season 6 very early this morning (2-something). And, yes, it would be ridiculous if Peyton did not return for Brooke's wedding. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea of hyper linking the exit part. Because you're right stupidly they didn't mention it in the show so technically it shouldn't be there. I'm inclined to agree now I think the Love-Triangle is more important for the Lucas page, what about the image from the main page with Peyton, Lucas and Brooke on a white background, maybe we could have a small section itself on the love-triangle on his character page? I'm just throwing ideas, I'll leave the final decision up to you on that as you've made the page good as it is. What about Nathan's article? should the image stay there, I think it's a more important moment for his character than Lucas's. Also I thin there should be an image of him/haley/Jamie instead of the wedding reception.

If Hilarie Burton returned, I would love that! She definitely left things on good terms with the Network. I'd love for both of them back as Special Guests for Brooke's wedding though but I seriously doubt he'd ever consider it now (Shame). What do you think they would have offered her character if Chad left? I seriously doubt they would have killed him off, but that would have been the only "happy" ending. They probably wanted him to have an affair or something, I have a lot of respect for her giving up her job for the shows quality. I still think it's his fault though and she'd be on the show if he stayed, but that's just my opinion.

Ah, that's good. There are alot of things there I didn't think to type, so I'll get moving and probably do the Brooke Davis article later, it's just hard shortening info judging what's important and what's not. What I'm going to do is go through and shorten Haley, Brooke and Nathan articles, then add as much reception as I can. Then will you take a look and give them a small overhaul and add development sections?

No worries about The CW, you still helped a lot above, just one more things like for ABC is that literally you press "1" in every state and it's there all day 24/7. Whereas The CW is on a different Channel everywhere? Sorry, I'm just fascinated by how things work in the America, sadly lol.

Oooooo! Did you enjoy it? For me, that was my least favourite season as they just let Lucas and Peyton go to the sidelines. Only one Brother moment, Hardly any Haley/Lucas and best friends. Season 7 was so much better aside from it not including them. I thought however at the end of season 6 it was very good the wedding, Peyton's condition etc. Jayy008 (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Seeing that Hilarie Burton interview (I read it after I posted all that). I'm even more confused because she's so damn crpytic! I think she's just putting a brave face on about it and although in the end everyone was agreeable that it was a good idea for her to leave, I think she'd still love to be on the show. I was reading some of the comments everyone is very supportive of her but hating on Chad a lot. I think when something makes you into a star abondoning it because of money isn't right. How much money could he expect to be paid on The CW? It's a small network! Jayy008 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also considered including all the love triangle information in the Lucas article, but ultimately I came to the conclusion that it is more important to the main article; this was a huge staple of the show after all, and people had much to say about it. That information should definitely be in the main article. Some of it should also be in the Lucas article, of course, which is why added a bit about it there with it initially leading people to more information about it through a pipelink. I would not be opposed to including all the same information in the Lucas article, but it would just be too redundant and is really not needed when we can simply pipelink to it. I also thought about adding the love triangle image to his Personality and wardrobe section, but that section is not big enough right now for another image.

I don't mind you letting the brother image stay in the Nathan article. It would just be too many unneeded images if left in the Lucas article, given the Lucas kissing Brooke and Peyton images. I just want you to be aware of unneeded images; I like how you removed one from the Peyton Sawyer article. There is bound to be some editor who is strict on images here at Wikipedia who might nominate one of the unneeded images you approve of...for deletion. It has happened to me, and it made me understand Wikipedia's policy of fair-use images a lot better.

Yes, I will do what I can to help with you with the Nathan Scott, Haley James Scott, and Brooke Davis articles. I promise.

I liked Season 6 somewhat. Regarding Lucas and Peyton being on the sidelines, what do you mean? Plenty of episodes focused on them. What I was disappointed with about Season 6 was not seeing enough Lucas and Peyton sex scenes (LOL!). No, no, I'm not dirty; it's just that they went through so much to get to that point, and I would have appreciated a full-on love scene between them, something like Jake and Peyton had. I still don't get why Jake and Peyton got to have such a raunchy sex scene, but Lucas and Peyton have not gotten the same. Sure, they have gotten great "almost sex scenes" and nice "after sex scene" moments, but why not a complete one? Ah well. Nathan and Haley fans ask the same, and Brooke and Lucas only had a "blink and you miss" one. So I still say Lucas and Peyton have had the best sex scenes on the show (with the exception of Jake and Peyton's), given their makeout sessions have been explicit. Sadly, we didn't even get an explicit makeout scene between Lucas and Peyton in Season 6. I loved their wedding, though. And I was happy Nathan finally got to the NBA. The Season 6 finale really seemed like a series finale.

I started Season 7 late last night (currently on Episode 3). It's different, but I am giving it a chance. That Clay character reminds me a lot of Lucas. I knew he was Lucas's replacement, but I did not expect him to remind me this much of Lucas.

About Burton, I was thinking of adding that she said "everyone was agreeable" about her leaving, but it sounds so...sad, and still does not negate her saying it was her choice. Besides, from what was further stated by her, it sounds like everyone was not originally agreeable with the situation. I still don't know what to make of what actually happened. But I hope that Murray did not cause her being dismissed as Peyton. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a lookout for 77.168.22.151. He or she fiercely hates Lucas and Peyton as a romantic couple, and has been reverted in regards to that various times. I will try to find some positive reception on the Brooke and Lucas romance to add to the Lucas Scott article to even it out, given the love triangle and its fanbases. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) ‎[reply]

I agree about the love-triangle etc and all the image stuff you said and I appreciate help on the other articles (Trying to keep it short).

About the L&P on the sidelines now I've watched season 6 for a second time I do think they had a lot of air time, this usually happens when I watch something a second time I appreciate it more. LOL, no no you're right, I've only bought them recently (first time watching was DVD) and the Jake/Peyton sex scene in season 2 was the most raunchy on the show and Lucas and Peyton deserved that. As for Nathan and Haley I think there one was Lucas and Peyton's wedding "slutty wedding sex" lol, for Haley anyway that was very raunchy. Also about it being the finale, I totally think it should have ended for good there, it ended on a high, no with ratings it'll be one of those shows that gets forced out and cancelled; It doesn't deserved that!

I'm also glad you agree about what to make of the situation but I stand by that she lost her job due to Chad, apparantly his nickname on set is "Chad Michael Money" but maybe that was someone making a joke. Someone said in the comment section that they know someone who worked on there and that Chad wanted to leave to go on to do more movies, but eventually agreed to stay for a certain amount of money (Like explicit ammount that The CW could never afford). He wanted more than the other 4 and they wouldn't do it. On a finale note, I don't think we'll ever know what happened. But if Lucas and Peyton don't go to Brook's wedding, I'm done with the show, for good. But if Peyton goes on her own, I'll be fine with that, there are many ways to get around Lucas not being there. PS, I'll keep a look out for him! Jayy008 (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw Nathan and Haley "get it on" at Lucas and Peyton's wedding. How could I not, LOL? I guess that is as explicit as they have ever been. What I got a kick out of regarding that is that it was Haley pulling Nathan to "go there." But I suppose it would have been seen as too perverted if Nathan had been the one insisting. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, deffo! Anyway, let me know how season 7 goes! Jayy008 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished watching season 6 (second time around- just now), don't you think it was weird Chad/James had no scenes together? Since it was the last ever time they'd be together and their story was the nature of the show? (As it says in the lead of the article OTH originally followed the lives of two half brothers and the brothers on/off on again relationships with other female leads). Jayy008 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, that is the last question on the topic, LOL! Jayy008 (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed that they did not have any scenes in that season. I did see a Season 6 deleted scene between them the other day on YouTube, though. And don't worry about chatting with me about the show. I welcome it; You have sort of become a friend to me on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the UK DVD's, do you know which episode the deleted scene is on? If not can you link me please. It's not the season, they had a couple of nice scenes, I just meant in the finale, the last ever episode with Chad "The Scott Brothers". I thought they would have had at least one scene, where Nathan sees the baby. And yeah I agree, definitely a good Wiki friend :). Jayy008 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it was a Season 5 deleted scene between them I was talking about. You meant only in the finale? LOL, careful with your wording there. Yes, it is strange how they had no scenes in the finale. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've seen that seen and I really liked it, it was a nice moment between those two. There are a lot of deleted scenes that should have been kept. Lol yeah I did, sorry I should have made it more clear. But they made up for it in season 7 when Nathan speaks about Lucas (I'm not trying to spoilt anything it's just you've editing his article so you know the part I've added). PS. Do you think in the infobox it should still list people that are dead, after marriage. Lucas married Peyton after her mother died, does that still make her his adoptive mother in law? Sorry, that may seem like a stupid question! Jayy008 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a stupid question; one that is confusing me, actually. I would say things like "adoptive mother in law" is not needed. It is just overcrowding, but I do not mind either way what you decide on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, I do think if it is how he's related to her it should remain in full, as that's the title, even though it doesn't look very nice. I will try and Google to see if Family members that are dead, still get related to you after marriage. Jayy008 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Sawyer[edit]

The Peyton Sawyer article is ready, and it looks great, but I have not permanently transferred it here to Wikipedia yet. The reason is that my Internert cord for my main computer is out. I am at different computer right now, and my disk drive at this one is not currently working. I will see what I can do. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! That's fine, I'm sure you've put loads of work into it either way. We've got a long while before it comes up for deletion again anyway, no rush! I can't wait to see! Jayy008 (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The scenes with Jake/Peyton were when the show aired on The WB. Obviously that was a more successful network and The CW probably don't want to do anything that will offend anyone and potentially lose viewers. Well, that's a conclusion I've drawn. Jayy008 (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jake and Peyton sex scene may have been due to what is stated in this. As I noted in the article with that source, Season 2 was partly about "sex sells." I don't feel that sex scene would offend anyone, really, except parents who don't want their kids watching it and really conservative people in general. It is the type of sex scene that used to be shown on American soap operas all the time until the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. Exactly what date did that Jake and Peyton sex scene air? Maybe the less tame sex scenes (after that) were due to the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. Either way, Nathan and Haley's sex scenes and makeout scenes always being downplayed does not really have anything to do with it, because Schwahn has always been like that with them. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know any of that. It was early 05 I think, not too sure though! That Super bowl thing was an accident wasn't it? I don't see the big deal. Jayy008 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been an accident, but it was widely speculated that it was on purpose. The evidence that it was on purpose? The fact that Timberlake removed that piece of Jackson's clothing as soon as he said, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song." That, and the fact that she had on a nipple shield; it goes to reason, "Why would she wear a nipple shield under that outfit if she did not intend to show it?" Whether or not they intended to show as much as they did or not, all evidence definitely points to them attempting to show something when Timberlake reached for her breast. But, anyway, most of America made a big deal about it, as the article says. Keep in mind that America is more conservative than some other parts of the world. I could understand some of the anger from parents, though; having their very young child see that. (Not that breasts are "dirty," but it leads to all these discussions parents are not ready to have with their children.) But then again, some argued that very young children (generally kids 13 and under) should not be up at that time of night anyway. The incident covered our news stations for weeks afterward (all that over an exposed nipple), and there was a serious sex scene crackdown on non-cable television (Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy#Censorship and regulation of broadcasting). The Jake and Peyton sex scene was probably filmed before the incident, and Schwahn was like, "We can't let this go to waste."

Also, The WB/UPN/The CW have all been pretty much the same in regards to popularity. The WB and UPN were always behind the other big stations when it came to ratings; this is part of the reason they combined and made The CW, in the hopes of making a more profitable network. From what I have seen, The CW is not much different than The WB in popularity and ratings, and so I would say the sex scene issue is certainly not due to that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that, I can see what they mean about being on purpose, but I can also see that children shouldn't be up that late anyway. Yeah I see what you mean about The WB. But UPN? Star Trek has over 20 million at one stage, 27 million for The Next Gerneration, The CW has never had a show reach over 10 million? Jayy008 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Star Trek: Voyager got over 20 million viewers? If so, no, The CW has never gotten that many viewers for a show. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Star Trek Voyager, I can't find ratings for that or Deep Space Nine. But Star Trek The Next Generation had over 27 million viewers at one stage (maybe one season). Maybe it's because it appeals to more people, The CW is very glamorous driven and for young people, that's the only reason I can think of why people don't watch it. Jayy008 (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find TNG info now, but it seems that wasn't UPN. UPN aired DSN, Voyager and Enterprise. The Enterprise season premiere was watched by 12 million. Jayy008 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Alyn Woods[edit]

I thought it was better to simply separate this as it's a separate topic, I've still replied a long section above though so don't forget that! :). Basically as you know she guest starred in season 5 and then returned as a series regular in season 6. What I don't get is why bother for 8 eps? She was in 6 eps then disappeared until ep 17 (Still on the credits) then after ep 18 disappeared very qietly, without a mention and off the credits. If she was only going to be in two episodes after the mid-season break, why not just have her as a guest star for those last two eps? This is another fishy CW axe. I've looked online, nothing from Mark Schwahn, The CW, any media giving any details about what happened. All I can find is a CW blog made by the public asking where she's gone. Did you notice she disappeared? Jayy008 (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have noticed that she is gone. Weird that there is no information about that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weird, she was my favourite aswell :/ Jayy008 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on getting the clarification on the vegetarianism page. It was annoying me and I was at a loss of how to go any further.Dooga16 (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am glad that you are pleased. It was exactly vegetarians like yourself I was worried about. Though, as also admitted on the talk page, my obsessive–compulsive personality disorder had something to do with it as well. Never let a gang of editors frustrate you enough to where you decide to just give up. If you're "giving up" because of a lack of sources to further your point or because consensus is against you, that is different. But even with consensus being against me, I knew I had made valid points, and, since they were asking for sources, my point could be included in the lead if added with a reliable source or two. At least one editor there was kind enough to help out with our concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar about any established concensus about the Bianca Montgomery image, could you link me to the previous discussion? CrackedLeo (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that can be found in my archive. Here: User talk:Flyer22/Archive 6#Eden Riegel interview. It should have taken place on the talk page of the Bianca Montgomery article, though. So far, three editors (myself included) are for the Riegel image staying. Consensus can change, and registered editors and IPs who want Lind as the main image would have to speak up on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate does not state his view on the image issue right there, but his view is demonstrated in the article's edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I selected to Review Jennifer's Body for GA status. I was about to start the review, but wanted to see if there were any ongoing issues being discussed. I noticed that, as the main contributor to the article, you wanted to make some possibly larger edits (a Marketing section was mentioned, for example) and had the article nominated perhaps prematurely.

If you would like I have no qualms about keeping the article on-hold if you wish to continue editing the article. It would be unfair to yourself to put it through the works if you do not feel it is up to scratch. How does this sound? SkarmCA (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. But I know that it does not need a Marketing section in order to be good enough for GA. Thus, I would rather you go ahead and review it, and let me know what issues you have with it during the review, and I will try to tackle those issues as soon as possible. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you put it like that, I see what you mean. I removed it because it was the other love triangle that made the show and attention shouldn't be focusing on a brief thing especially since Brooke didn't cheat on Feelix with Lucas. I have no objection to adding it back! Jayy008 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am okay with you having reverted that IP. I just wanted to comment to you about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep yep, I appreciate the comment :). Jayy008 (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've met User:ShadowReflection. Don't worry, I don't think they're your problem anymore... looking at their contribs it seems that, having completed enough edits to get autoconfirmed, they've commenced editing our policy pages on banning policy and sockpuppetry - this is a pattern I've seen before, and no prizes for guessing why. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, SheffieldSteel. Good to see you. Thanks for the info. How are things going for you? Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cooking with gas doing fine... how about you? Trolls keeping you on your toes? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! And, yes, trolls are always around. I'm doing fine these days, I suppose. If you ever need anything, let me know. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen thing gets confusing. As I understand it, the rule (guideline?) is that if in the context of the sentence "American" alone would be a noun (e.g. "Barack Obama is the first true American to be elected President."), then the modifier "African" is a separate adjective, like "true" in my example; since a noun and its adjective are not usually joined by a hyphen, a sentence would read "Barack Obama is the first African American to be elected President.".

OTOH, if "American" is used as an adjective ("She is the first American woman to win the title."), adding "African" is either an adverb or makes a compound adjective (I don't remember which) that requires the hyphenation. There's something about this in WP:MOS, but I can never seem to find what I'm looking for there when I need it. You might amuse yourself by checking out List of African-American firsts, which constantly jumps back and forth between the two uses. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured that after asking the question in my edit summary (LOL). Thanks for the explanation, though. And LOL about the List of African-American firsts. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Barbara Alyn Woods be moved to "additional cast" rather than original cast? Because she wasn't on the original credits and didn't become "starring" until mid-season. Jayy008 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I'm more worried about what was stated on the talk page about the design of the Cast section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if we were to keep the title "Original cast," she should stay there...because she was one of the main adults on the series. And, besides, Brooke was not in the first episode (the pilot) and was originally just going to be a side character. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you put it like that; agreed. Jayy008 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer22! I did indeed plan on reviewing this, however I have one last big project due before my final this Friday of a summer class I'm taking. The joys of spring and summer University session, I'm afraid. The good news, though, is that I'll have the entire Friday afternoon and weekend to review the article to my satisfaction. I have done the preliminary reading and thus, obviously, have judged it to pass the "auto-fail" criteria :p.

The article does look good at first glance though, and I hope it continues to do so the more in-depth I look. Thanks for your patience! SkarmCA (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, SkarmCA. Just remember to let me know any tweaks the article needs if you are considering failing it at any moment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The review is done - it was a fairly easy decision to pass the article. Thank you for all the work you've put into it. I think the few comments and suggestions I left for improvement you had already mentioned on the talk page for the article. Those mainly being reducing the number of direct quotes in certain sections. Take care and thanks for your patience! SkarmCA (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well, SkarmCA. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember about the P.Sawyer articles; are you not back on your normal PC yet? And that's fine, I mean the James26 was the only user that's attempted redirects the whole time, and he's assured me he'll wait until we get around to them, so it should be okay. I put on OTH season 8 article about Chad and Hilarie returning, do you think Entertainment Weekely are being to bold making a claim like that? Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at my second PC. For my usual one, the problem is...I still use floppy disks (out of habit), and my floppy disk drive for this second PC does not recognize the format (it always says that it is not formatted; I need to format it). And, of course, I would use my usual PC if my Internet cord was working for it; something happened with it (the cord) two weeks ago or so due to lightning, and it has been out since. My second PC works without the cord, but, as I said, the floppy disk drive is the problem.

Entertainment Weekly is being bold with that claim, but you should go ahead and add it to the main article as well (to the Departures of Murray and Burton section). Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the chances of the cord being fixed? Or are you just going to format the floppy and not bother with the chord? And okay, I'll go ahead and add it. Even though they're bold, how reliable is EW making a statement like that? Personal opinion or would The CW have said that to him? UK don't have EW. Jayy008 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will just get a new cord eventually. Honestly, I am not sure how to format the floppy disk. When I try to format it, I get the message "Windows was unable to complete the format." I have Googled that message to get answers, but I still have not done the solutions correctly or something. Anyway, I am going to look for one of my laptops that have a working floppy disk drive. If that does not work, I will simply go to the library; they are likely to have computers with floppy disk drives that will correspond with my floppy disks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to be heading into semi-retirement as soon as an article I've nominated for GA is reviewed, so please don't worry about appeasing me. ;). I probably won't be around to re-direct anything, and even if I was, I imagine you'd have it well-improved by then. In all seriousness, I think you and Jayy have displayed some admirable efforts in all of this, and I wish you the best with these articles. -- James26 (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll figure something out Flyer. And thank you James26, will you still be keeping an eye on Naomi Clark? Jayy008 (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James, I'm sure your absence will be felt; I've looked at some of your contributions, and you have done great work here. Come back when you can. And thank you for your patience, as well as your kindness. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nice words. -- James26 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, may I beg you for your wikilawyering skills once again. The edit in question is did I correctly remove the picture of Zsa Zsa Gabor from her biography. It was from one of her films. My understanding is that it is absolutely impermissible to i.e. use an image of Greenlee Smythe and represent it as Rebecca Budig. The problem is the image of Ms. Gabor that was being used is in the public domain. Does this fact affect the aforementioned policy against screen shot use? Regards, WLMG Wlmg (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the editor who reverted you was/is right. It is a free image. If we had a free image of Rebecca Budig on set asGreenlee Smythe, for example, then we could use that as the main image for the Rebecca Budig article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response, Flyer. Wlmg (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Umm err what is this? Would it be possible to get a Budig pic here?Wlmg (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a free image. You could check Wikimedia Commons for a free image of Budig. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Budig pic in the commons that is obvious copyright infringement so end of story :( I'll check again in 6-months or so.Wlmg (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if this request [6] bears any fruit, This guy is good.

Wlmg (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was a scan from a page in a magazine (which belongs to the publisher, not the person who happens to scan and crop it) as opposed to the other picture which was provided by ABC on their website as promotional material. Fixer23 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, did not mean to come across rude or anything. Fixer23 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You did not. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is similar (professionally shot promo image) to the image of JR and Babe version 2, I would think it would be fine. Fixer23 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Regarding the scar photo, it is used with detailed commentary in that page (as opposed to just identification), I believe that can be admissible. Fixer23 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two definitions of Plain Jane: (noun) a plain or simple woman; (adj) It can also mean a person or object that is unadorned or unembellished. You wrote on my Talk Page that a Plain Jane isn't an average woman. Well, a Plain Jane can mean an average or plain woman. Anyway, I'm not going to delete any sentences. ♥ Sweetfornow^{Talk Contribs} 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that a Plain Jane is not an average woman. I said, "As I'm sure you know, not all people who are called Plain Janes are average-looking...face-wise. If anything, that is the bigger stereotype. There are beautiful women out there who have their beauty downplayed by looking frumpy." Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Jane will auto-delete appx. 17&1/2 hrs from the posting of this message.Wlmg (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I can see by your contribs you haven't been here for a couple of days. I know you had some interest in the article anyhow Plain Jane is gone, and Wlmg was the one who nominated her for deletion a wiki first for Wlmg. Wlmg (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it. Thanks for letting me know. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Peyton_Sawyer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Non-free promotional}} tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. Please see the image description page and fill in the necessary information. Thanks, feydey (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image must be known to have come from a press kit or similar source - without the source it cannot be verified as promo image and should not be uploaded. feydey (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In current sourcing the image should be deleted - just give me a note when. feydey (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; that's incredible. Well done! Jayy008 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll explain later how I finally got that stuff uploaded. But right now, I have to go.

If you're willing to while I'm gone, will you use the source in Peyton's article regarding the costume designer for information on Lucas's wardrobe? It has information on all the main characters' wardrobe styles. I would add it for Lucas's article if I did not have to go right now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source has wardrobe info on all the main 5? I'll add it to all of them soon if that's the case. My eyes are going funny right now so I'm not on here long. Jayy008 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find what you mean. Jayy008 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link I was talking about. I felt it would be easy to find since I pointed you to the wardrobe section and mentioned "costume designer." But I also could not provide you the link earlier, because I was working from the Internet option of the Wii. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That webpage is really really long. I'll get around to it eventually! Jayy008 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Lily from cousins, as sister takes president and it's mentioned in brackets that she's also his cousin. I have removed Peyton from romances. My reasoning for Peyton is that she was a fling yes, but now they're married is that relevant? Please give feedback on these two removals. I've removed Deb, but that doesn't really have anything to discuss. As I mentioned earlier on your talk page about people dieing, I can't find the info on Google, should I just remove Peyton's dead relatives from Lucas's page? Jayy008 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added Peyton back as a romance, because she was a romance. Just because she's now his wife does not negate that fact, of course. And listing somebody simply as the wife does not necessarily mean that a true romance was involved. I feel that she deserves credit in the infobox as one of his romances. As for Rachel Gatina, I have to agree with the editor you are edit warring with on that matter. Why should we list the fact that she was his stepmother beside the fact that she was a non-sexual fling? It's like saying Lucas was going after her while she was his stepmother. Everything else? I'm okay with. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have contradicted myself a bit now. Since I removed Deb since she was "ex" then Rachel should have been removed too. My bad. As for Peyton, she was an affair/fling/romance then girlfriend then fiance then wife... So on your logic, shouldn't all of them be listed? In Nathan's article, is Haley listed as a girlfriend as well? Jayy008 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Was Rachel even a fling? They went out that night as played strip basketball but that was because she chose him on that cheerleader thing? Jayy008 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ex-lover" covers "affair/fling," though I hate referring to Peyton as a fling since they both said it was more than that. "Girlfriend" covers romance. There is no need to list Peytron as "wife" in the Romances field, since she is already listed in the Spouses field. "Fiance" is irrevelant. Yeah, Haley can be listed as Nathan's girlfriend. Rachel was not really a fling, no. You can erase her. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit was reverted. I have no idea why they put TW as the reason :S. Have you finished season 7 now? Jayy008 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've corrected that now. No, I haven't finished Season 7 yet. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've also decided against removing Ellie and Rebecca from the infobox. Jayy008 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer22. I was thinking of nominating Titanic (1997 film) for Featured Article since it has greatly improved from the last time it was nominated, but can you please help me consult on the article to make sure it'll be ready for nomination? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll be there when I can. I have to go right now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I'm just giving you a heads up that I'm going to nominate the article either now or tomorrow. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought only regular contributors of the article could nominate it for FA. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was reading the WP:ANI archives when I saw this (although somewhat old). I just want to point out to you that "banned" is not the same thing as "blocked" or "indefinitely blocked". A blocked user or IP address is not allowed to edit from that specific user account or IP address for either a limited or indefinite amount of time. A banned user isn't allowed to edit on Wikipedia at all. If a banned user edits an article, and administrators notices this is a sockpuppet of a banned user, the user will immediately get blocked indefinitely. A ban can be time limited or permanent. If it is permanent, the user in question has to request that his/her ban be lifted so the user is allowed to edit again. In this case you should have written "indefinitely blocked" or "blocked indefinitely" instead of "banned". The banning policy can be read here. A list of banned users can be found at Wikipedia:List of banned users. I am just telling you this for future communication. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all edits a banned user make will be reverted. /HeyMid (contributions) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know all this now (LOL). It was pointed out to me then, though I do sometimes still use the words interchangeably. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. According to the users at the FAC, there's some issues with the citation that need to be fixed, but I have trouble fixing them all, so can you please help me fix them? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be there now. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work overhauling the Lucas Scott article. Jayy008 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work overhauling the Peyton Sawyer article. Jayy008 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jayy. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Did you see my message above about season 7? Hilarie Burton has also reported she wants to come back but they haven't asked her. Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read it and replied. Interesting about the Burton bit. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so Peyton will definitely not be at Brooke's wedding. It's getting farfetched now. Unless everyone is saying they're not coming back to mislead us, but I doubt it. Jayy008 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Peyton wardrobe evolution.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feydey, I already provided the source information. All of it, except one image, are screenshots meshed together. The imagery was created by me for critical commentary, which I have experienced to be quite allowed on Wikipedia. Television screenshots put side by side or together are allowed, as long as they have a decent fair-use rationale. How much more "decent" does my fair use rationale get in this case, considering that the image is being used for significant critical commentary? Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I changed the image; all of the shots are now screenshots. The source information (where I got the screenshots) is also clear, as it has always been. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the user wanted was specifications on where the image came from and that you created it yourself, which is plain to see now. However, the last two images aren't really screencaps :) They're promotional shots. Fixer23 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which last two images, Fixer? You mean the main images I uploaded for Peyton Sawyer, one of which was deleted by Feydey? The wardrobe and artwork creations I created are only of screenshots. I know what Feydey was after, but I did not get why he or she deleted the first promotional image of Peyton or tagged the wardrobe image. I had already provided the source of where I found it. Yes, I could not provide the author and date of the previous promotional image, but that is often the case with promotional images. The fair-use rationale template does not even state that I have to list the author of the image and the date the image was created. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I mean these two [7] [8] can't exactly be considered screenshots, but that's not related to this discussion. It's more of a technicality. As long as the issue has been resolved I would think it would be alright. Fixer23 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are screenshots, though, Fixer. They are shots taken straight from two different episodes; they have not truly been used as promotional images. But I thank you again for all your help. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, like I said, it's a technicality :) Screenshots and Stills. Fixer23 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flyer22. I came by to ask if I should add your name to the "nominator" section because you the one who approved me to do the nomination and that you're helping me fix up the article (and personally, I wnat to add your name up there). Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After much turmoil" seems like it's probably the wrong construction. Is it a summary of the events included in the plot summary as written or a summary of events that we don't take the space to describe? If the former, it can be safely cut (redundant). If the latter, perhaps it would be better to say "Jack and Rose struggle back to the lifeboats, where Cal and Jack persuade Rose to board now and rejoin them later." --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your change and am okay with it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I sent you an email.  :) Mike Allen 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the heads up. I hardly ever check my email these days (bad, I know). I'll check now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't object to this [9], we had a sort of edit conflict when I restored your previous version. Sorry. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I never. UK remember! I only have freeview tv as well and I don't even know if White Collar airs on UK TV, I would check it out just for her though. Have you seen the show before? I had a theory, Sophia and Hilarie are saying L&P aren't coming back maybe because they are and not allowed to talk about it? Possible? Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am going to try and do the Nathan Scott article on Friday. Been very busy recently. Jayy008 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you had not seen the White Collar episode due to where you live. We're in the same boat on that one, since I still have not seen it.

About fixing up more of these main One Tree Hill character articles, this is a good place to look; it's where I found some of my information (interviews and such). It's best to check and see which of the interviews are still online so that you can link to them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, well let me know when you've seen it and if she's good playing anything else. And cool, thanks, I'll definitely check that source out! Jayy008 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: Bethany Joy Galeotti leaving 'One Tree Hill'. I think it's just speculation to be honest, they're contracted for season 8, however many episodes it may be. What do you think? Jayy008 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one wasn't a screenshot, I'll upload a closer screenshot which would not be of the same quality as the first picture (a still camera shot) Fixer23 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Fixer. It's just that it looked/looks like a simple screenshot to me. Thanks for making the current picture a more close-up one. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Fixer23 (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in June 2009 you moved The Narrows (2008 film) to The Narrows (2009 film). Why? Every source I've read (from IMDb to Amazon to TIFF) states it premiered in 2008. Is it because it was first shown in the US in 2009? If so, that may be important for the Academy Awards or something like that, but not for actual dating purposes. Would you reconsider this move? I know I could probably figure out how to do it myself but I'm new and I don't want to step on any toes (especially if there is a good reason). Box99Tube (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I moved it after reading this edit. And because the Production section only mentioned it being released in 2009 (as seen in that link). It was a careless move on my part, because I should have checked to make sure all of that was accurate. Although, I could have sworn that I did check IMDb just to be sure.

Anyway, thanks for letting me know. The article's title has been restored to the correct date. For your troubles, all you have to do to move an article is move your mouse over the downward arrow next to the "View history" option at the top of any article, and the "Move" option will appear. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for the correction and for the information. You fix thing quickly. Box99Tube (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed on User talk:James Cantor that you were playing with the idea to write a bio on him. A few days ago I edited the arctiel on Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment and noticed that Cantor was now editor in chief of that journal. That makes him notable under WP:PROF, so I started a biography in my sandbox. You're welcome to contribute at this stage. I'd like to add a short paragraph on his research before moving this out into article space. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. I would have loved to beat you to it, but I'll tweak and add to the article when I can. Thanks for alerting me. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From you editing history, I get the impression that you're perhaps better placed to start a short section on his research. It's not my field and I'm currently a bit short on time, so it'd be a great help. --Crusio (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. No problem. I wasn't planning on working on his article this month, but I'll go ahead and get started some time later this month or early next month. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Still too busy to start working heavily on this article. Hope I can add in things here and there until I'm free, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article i snow "life" at James M. Cantor. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would not change crucial DSM IV criteria without checking the DSM IV. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it says, or else I wouldn't be working at the article. I was going for consistency. Why should the Diagnosis section say something different than the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. The diagnosis section was wrong, not the lead. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah. And as I said, I know what the DSM IV says (I've read it enough times). I was assuming good faith in this edit made by another editor, feeling he must be going off some other source. The fact that the other usual editors did not revert him back then (and, really, we see everything) led me to believe even more in the reason behind the change. But... Whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Problem solved now. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see. Thanks for that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Armbrust's talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer,

Have you seen anything like this on your watchlist?

"• An automated process is about to commence a mass blanking task affecting approximately ten thousand articles in order to resolve a wide-scale copyright infringement issue. For further information or to discuss, see here. [dismiss]"

I insinuated myself into this and may be blocked for rudeness. My question about whether this message appeared on all editors' watchlists or only those who had contact with the affected articles, was lost amidst my chastisement. Wlmg (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found the answer. Wlmg (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of last nights premiere? I'm glad the credits are back, it's a really nice move considering it could be the final year. Jayy008 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't watch the premiere. Still not caught up (busy, busy). But I am glad the original opening theme is back. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how far are you into season 7? How are you anyway? Haven't spoken to you for a while. Jayy008 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where I was last time we talked, LOL. Yep, that far behind (either on Episode 2 or 3, I can't remember). Not much has been going on with me...other than work. You? Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, wow, very far! I'm less critical of Season 7 now Schwahn has said in an interview that Lucas was at Lydia's funeral, we just didn't see him. Yeah, same really, I never really have time to edit any more, only reversions and stuff. Jayy008 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Just a quick question. If I remember rightly, you reverted somebody's edits before. I can't remember if it was for making Haley James Scott to Haley James or Peyton Sawyer to Peyton Sawyer-Scott. You quoted a rule about the name being used that's been used for longest on the show. Could you point me here please? I need it to make a case on something. Jayy008 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Haley James is commonly called Haley James Scott, and has been known as that throughout most of the show. Peyton Sawyer Scott is not as common. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've been the only consistently active editor on the 16 and Pregnant article and I'd like to see what you have to say regarding some recent edits? Please see the talk page and weigh in if you have the chance. Thank you! 173.166.13.161 (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have time to spare at the moment, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer. You previously predicted that your comments at pedophilia could lead off-wiki attacks. For what it's worth: http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/
— James Cantor (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I have to laugh at it. Because, um, "if you have many sexual explicit fantasies about how you have sex with a 11 year old," you are a pedophile if that child is prepubescent or even looks prepubescent. How could this not cause a person distress? Of course, it is distressing to sexually desire something and not be able to have it. Oh well. Just a blog anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That editor should also take a look at what I stated Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 12#Should we include the wording "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead? before assuming what I consider and don't consider a pedophile. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened to Jack and I have not heard from in a while either. Regarding emailing. I see "E-mail this user" in the toolbox menu for other users including Jack, but I do not see it for you. That's why I asked about it earlier. It is possible that you have switched off the option about e-mailing, and because of that, you can neither send nor receive e-mail in this way. If you go to "My Preferences" at the top, then go the "User Profile" (the first page) and down to the checkbox "Enable e-mail from other users". If that is checked, it might fix the problem.Legitimus (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks. I had to confirm my email address, which was outdated anyway. Even though I'm an experienced Wikipedian editor, I never had to use emailing through Wikipedia because I'd always have my email address on my user page.

We definitely need Jack back. Now I know what he goes through, always keeping things intact/in order on these types of articles. Jeez. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flyer. How are you? Would you be able to do me a favour please? I recently adding a lot of information to the Season 8 article of OTH under the casting section, I was just wandering if you could see if it needs copy-editing as you did a good job on Lucas and Peyton articles. I feel it needs a fan of the show to do this. Jayy008 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No problem. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always! Jayy008 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing my entry. I was tired and just wanted to pop it in there. AlkaloidMan (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]

No problem. I understand. And any further help you can provide with the article would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... that this was the most appropriate edit summary, given the particular subject of the changed content...? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! You have a dirty sense of humor!! Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed! About the Part 2, I mean... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And by "noticed"...if you mean the "dirty sense of humor" part...I learned from Part 1. LOL. I meant to say "took away," though. And it still sort of reads awkwardly, because I included "among human sexual relations" since "sex" can also mean what the Sex article states, but maybe I'm just being too technical. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fixed it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it reads well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:TFD#Characters templates 3. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IP. The matter now seems to be taken care of: Wikipedia:TFD#Characters templates. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for my "agony" comment that you deleted, I have no personal experience in this matter, but if you have ever seen any videos depicting the practice, take a look at the bottom's face. He is usually grimacing, perspiring, gasping for breath, and masturbating furiously. Literature on the subject suggests the same thing.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The content of anal sex videos would to say the least be WP:OR. --Wlmg (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but they verify the statement nonethelessJohn Paul Parks (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They really don't. Porn is an illusion. They select men with large penises who also climax with an above average amount of ejaculate. There is even a hand chart for the female actors so they pass the small hands test as to make the penis appear even bigger in the act of a hand job. As for the bottoms being in agony that's all acting too. I'm interested in what sources in "literature" you have on this. Btw penetrative sex of any orifice can be painful. There exists a constellation of natural and synthetic lubricants to address this problem. --Wlmg (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Parks, I've seen gay male porn before, though I'm not in the habit of watching it. And, no, not every man being penetrated is in pain (and maybe not even most). Certainly not if they are in the habit of being penetrated, where by then the anus has become accustomed to such an act. "The bottom" masturbating furiously is the result of "the bottom" being sexually aroused and needing to be relieved. Most men cannot achieve orgasm through anal sex alone. Orgasm by stimulation of the prostate only works for some men. Most men need stimulation of the penis to orgasm, in the same way that most women need stimulation of the clitoris to do so. So many men are unaware of this fact when it comes to women, focusing too much on penetration of the vagina, or actually believing that the anus is likely to bring the female to orgasm.

In either case, Wlmg is right; you cannot insert original research into Wikipedia articles. This is the main reason I reverted you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page never ceases to surprise me. AniMate 07:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing my ass off!! It surprises me enough too. Good to hear from you; its been awhile. Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate Flyer's talk page for the barnstar of prurient interests.--Wlmg (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bows head. Thank, thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, I have been thinking about creating an article on under-5s. There are more reliable sources than I would have supposed. so there is always the option of creating an article encompassing all soap actor opera categories. Under-5s have always fascinated me. Dyk if an actor has two under-5s then they are a recurrent? Anyhow I am here because I have no good idea for the article title. I am also concerned that the article would be an orphan so ideas for possible future wikilinks from other soap opera articles would be appreciated.

Example of useful stuff out there: As of 11/16/2009 the minimum pay rate for a principal actor on a soap is $913.00 for a 1-hour show, and $683.00 for a 1/2 hour show. As of 11/16/2009 the minimum pay rate for an under-5 actor on a soap is $397.00 for a 1-hour show, and $324.00 for a 1/2 hour show. An "Under-Five" (U/5) actor is an actor who works on a soap opera and has under 5 lines of dialog. As of 11/16/2009 the minimum pay rate for a background actor on a soap is $144.00 for a 1-hour show, and $111.00 for a 1/2 hour show. --Wlmg (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I cannot think of a title either. Flyer22 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't either so I'll go with "Under-Five". --Wlmg (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it's done. Take a look if you please. Under-Five It's a little thin and I have some improvements in mind, but honestly how much can really be said about it? Let's hope some evil admin doesn't speedy delete it.--Wlmg (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - while you should definitely provide edit summaries for the changes you've made to the Vegetarianism‎ article, please try not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack. Sound good? --Yankees76 ^Talk 14:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I just got a bit upset at being called an idiot by that IP, when what I added is sourced and has been extensively discussed on the talk page. I still don't feel I was overly critical or harsh, however. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. I warned the IP on their talk page about WP:NPA - I usually take any insults and vandalism, or controversial edits. from IP users with a grain of salt - they're meaningless, just revert and keep improving the article. --Yankees76 ^Talk 17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I saw. And thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im discussion content, but as you said you dont have issue with the tags as such (where the point of the tag is to discuss) and thus a wholescale revert is unwarranted. please revert the appropriate content you feel so and not eveyrthing it.

I also dont understand the logic behind your definition change on my talk page, but we can discuss it in talkLihaas (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep, were makign good progress now, almost there.Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current version okay? The wording is in, but another editor and me added a tag calling for more in the interim? So case closed? if so can you put a resolved tag on it(Lihaas (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Erik is not a good choice. He doesn't respect the views of others. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a choice of an uninvolved editor you would choose? Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BettyLogan is trustworthy and there are others. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with your ideas anyway. I'm marginal on the Titanic article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already know they aren't my ideas, LOL... Well, discounting the recent one I just posted. And, yes, I've worked with Betty. I agree about her; she's nice to work with and is often about what the sources say. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that from now on, my #1 (or maybe #2, close to #1) mission is to completely wrap up their articles and get them on Good Article status and call it a complete day. You want in? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 19:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danity Kane is the only Danity Kane article I would say has a shot at reaching GA status at this time, mostly because there is a lot to work with regarding that article. The band member articles, with the exception of Aubrey O'Day, are just too small (and even her article would need more info). I'm not saying small articles cannot make GA; I just have never seen small articles in the likes of Aundrea Fimbres make GA. Not sure what other information we could add to significantly beef those articles up. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22. I've altered the 'Pegging' section to be a "female to male" subsection of "heterosexual experience" as per your request. Regarding the article main image. Could you please direct me to the extensive discussion regarding this that you mention in your edit of 16:55, 30 December (i.e. "Should have a main image, which has been discussed extensively.") I can't find it on the article's talk page.

Thanks--TyrS 02:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

I said, "Otherwise, I feel that it should all just be under the subsection title Experience of the Heterosexual section." By that, I meant the Pegging section shouldn't exist at all, and should just go back to being a sentence in the Experience section, if it cannot be expanded beyond a few sentences.

I'll look over what was said about the images. I remember debates about the main image, and one editor who kept changing the main image from the homosexual version...for one of the reasons I stated on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flyer22, Regarding your recent edit We should be presenting only the directly relevant information. The detailed information about the G-Spot and clitoral stimulation (which I removed and you replaced) belongs ithe pages to which it is directly relevant, and where it can easily be found by interested readers specific articles, and does not need to be restated in this article. Perhaps a "see also" is in order.
Please try to be mindful that editors must not let their personal enthusiasm for a particular topic allow them to end up in effect using Wikipedia as a promotional forum for particular practices. It makes the tone of the article completely unencyclopedic. It's important to try to keep objective (especially when the topic is of personal importance) about what is truly relevant, and actually needs to be included in the article itself, particularly when the same material is covered in more specifically relevant articles.--TyrS 03:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

It is directly relevant. This is what I stated on the talk page: We discuss prostate stimulation in that section. It's only natural that we discuss clitoral and G-Spot stimulation in that section as well, since these are the ways that women orgasm and are the things which may lead to a woman achieving an orgasm through anal sex.

I am not sure how you view discussing prostate simulation and where the prostate is located as relevant but not the information about where the G-Spot is located and its connect to the clitoris. Just as knowing where the prostate is...is relevant, the same goes for the G-Spot. The information regarding the G-Spot and clitoris likely being of the same origin is relevant to the topic at hand as well. It is not as though the section goes into a bunch of info on the two topics, which have their own articles. It is just as much information as what is stated about prostate stimulation. I also assure you that I have no personal enthusiasm for anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Flyer22. I'm glad you approve of my image edits.

I have since replied at the article talk page again, but, just to clarify, as with the g-spot/clitoral orgasm details, if the prostate stimulation information is covered elsewhere then the "see also" should be enough. Your stated reason for your edit was "as more research comes up, we are finding that two are most likely the same thing". In other words, the research is ongoing, the results are so far inconclusive, there is no consensus. Sorry, but this isn't a strong argument for including it in such detail when it's available elsewhere. Probably the detailed info on all the types on stimulation should be moved to their relevant articles and the "see also"s can direct people there.

Thanks.--TyrS 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

As I just stated on the talk page: To further explain, I reverted your removal because your version ends with this:

...but a physiological explanation of why some women may find anal stimulation pleasurable is that the clitoris has "legs" that extend along the vaginal lips back to the anus.[23]

It ends with that without touching on what the clitoris or G-Spot is and why they are so important to female sexual stimulation, which is odd, especially given that we touch on what the "male G-Spot is." It seems even more sexist than your concern over some other matters. People get educated right away on the prostate, but they have to go to the Clitoris and G-Spot articles to know what the heck we're talking about on that matter? It is not how good and featured articles are usually done here; and I do strive for something close to that level (Good and Featured articles) with most of my editing at Wikipedia.

You already know what I stated about see alsos: "Let me point out that there is no policy on limiting a topic to just a see also if the information is covered in other articles. If anything, the topic is usually partially discussed in one article with a link pointing to the more in-depth material. That is what I have done. I have made a short paragraph on female sexual stimulation, covering the main points -- how women orgasm and the most important bits of that information. Not seeing how it isn't relevant at all."

The detail in that section on prostate, clitoral and G-Spot stimulation is not much in any way; it is just enough to justify there being a section on stimulation at all, and touch on aspects of sexual stimulation that are related to anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion in regards to this edit to the Avatar (2009 film) article. As frequent editor of the article would you please offer a third opinion at Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Reference_to_Frank_Herbert. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Betty. Will be there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Rights. Do you want to help find a more appropriate subsection heading?--SasiSasi (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better having any discussion you want on the talkpage of the redirect article content, suit yourself but your in a stale location and being pointy. There's nothing at all to un-archive there, the article is gone, history, if you want to discuss, better you re direct whoever you are allegedly discussing with to the redirected talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being pointy? Stale location or not, I am responding to one editor, and I certainly don't want the discussion on my talk page. The editor will find the discussion, and I will leave a note letting him know I replied again. The redirected talk page is not where this discussion was being had.Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being pointy, suit yourself, the contents gone, history, discuss whatever you want there, tidy up what you have finished, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure what you mean by "pointy." And allegedly? It is clear who I am talking to. This person just replied again on January 7, 2011, right before you archived. Why are you so eager to archive a talk page that still has an ongoing discussion? I am perfectly capable of archiving it myself once the discussion is over. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22,
Just thought I'd mention that the wording you changed (and I'm fine with it either way, as long, of course, as the sentence doesn't erroneously imply that "fetal rights" are universally and straightforwardly "real" rights) is quite likely to be changed again by Valknuter, who twice (yesterday ) rv'd it back to "Fetal rights are the legal or ethical rights of fetuses" (or if not him by someone else who either doesn't understand the issues or has a "pro-life" agenda). This is why it ended up saying "some people believe" instead of "refers to the belief". It might help prevent this kind of thing if you were to weigh in here on the talk page if you have time.
Thanks very much! :)
-- TyrS  chatties  10:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and saw the edit war. Be careful about that; some editors are quick to block others because of edit wars (surpassing the three-revert rule)...even when those editors are good editors and temporarily blocking them is not going to solve anything (except maybe end the edit warring). And, yes, I will weigh in on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flyer, it's been a while! How are you? I really think your work on Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer is great, should we nominate for GA? Jayy008 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm glad you aren't an unwanted message. Been getting one too many of those lately. I'm...eh. In my opinion, those articles are not GA level. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. Well, to be honest, if you look at any other character pages, there aren't many as good as those. Jayy008 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer, I like your style on the sex article. I appreciate your comments on that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thank you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero | My Talk 01:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22. You might be interested in participating in this discussion on the Avatar talk page.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the source you put for Burton's definite "non return" is broken but I can't find what's wrong w/it. Jayy008 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it there. Only tweaked the information around it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. My bad. Jayy008 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]