User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

• Archive 1 (from May 8, 2007 - June 20, 2007)
• Archive 2 (from June 24, 2007 - November 3, 2007
• Archive 3 (from December 20, 2007 - November 4, 2008)
• Archive 4 (from November 10, 2008 - June 6, 2009)
• Archive 5 (from June 10, 2009 - October 9, 2009)
• Archive 6 (from October 9, 2009 - March/April 2010)
• Archive 7 (from April 2, 2010 -

You do not agree that tribadism includes her partner's chest and/or breasts? 129.107.225.207 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say nothing about women rubbing their vulvae against their partner's chest/breasts. Stomach, yes. But not breasts. But even without mentioning that, the article already makes clear that tribbing can mean grinding the vulva against any body part. We don't have to mention every instance. For example, we mention thigh, but not knee. This doesn't mean grinding against the knee isn't tribadism, and I doubt anyone would come to that conclusion. "Includes" mean "includes," not "only." Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's fair enough. Rather it be up to the person to figure it out. 129.107.226.173 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, I think it's fairly easy to figure out with lines like "...is a form of non-penetrative sex in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation." and "The term can also refer to a masturbation technique in which a woman rubs her vulva against an inanimate object such as a bolster, in an effort to achieve orgasm."

Thanks for understanding, and addressing me about your concern. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I went ahead and made it clearer by adding "or other body part"...which is backed up enough by the first line simply calling it "non-penetrative sex in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation." Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, "other body part" may lead some to include "the mouth" as well. Though I would think people would know oral does not count as tribadism. Hmm, I'm sure I'll tweak it further later, so that there is no confusion at all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22

Thanks for letting me know the reason why you reverted the changes I tried to make to the Dean article on Wikipedia. I hadn't looked at the article in a long time, and I was concerned to see what a gossipy mess it appears to have become over the past months. Everyone seems to have added their two cents worth. Even though references are given, some of them are to books which frankly are simply gossip mongering tomes written for fans rather than serious works.

I was particularly disturbed by the fact that Dean's, shall we say more well established and documented relationships, had become mixed up with the section concerning speculations about his sexual orientation, which I would agree should come secondary to the bare facts of his life.

Dean, unfortunately, like all icons, has become public property, which means everyone has a claim on his or her version of what he was "really" all about. However, I think quite obviously a biographical article should stick to sources that are actually known to have known, and been a part of, the life of the subject, rather ideas spun by third parties, amongst whom I would definitely include gossip columnists.

The Wikepedia article as it now stands is an inaccurate and amateurish hodgepodge. If I can't clear it up, maybe you, or some moderator, could do Dean this service?

Sincerely,

KitMarlowe3

The speculation about his sexual orientation has been in the article for a long time now. I think since the last time you edited the article, months or a year ago. The talk page is full of complaints about it. What changed was how it was originally a part of his Personal relationships section, as though it is all truth. Everything said about Dean's sexual orientation is someone else's word but not his own, which makes it all claims and speculation. I didn't think it was fair to present these people's words/theories as fact, and so I divided the information, leaving the Personal relationships section to deal with his known relationships...and the Speculated sexual orientation section, which has had something to do with his popularity in the LGBT community, to deal with the claims/speculation. This can be seen at Talk:James Dean#Category:Bisexual actors?. Are you saying you feel that most of what is stated about his sexual orientation should be removed? If so, what would you recommend fill that section? What sources? Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, i am Jivesh from Mauritius. I am the one who fixed the article and i am sincerely very happy that someone has appreciated my work. I am here almost exclusively for Beyonce, i rarely contribute to other pages). I have fixed 8/10 singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce. And i am expanding singles from (B'Day). I will be very happy to work with you one day. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you. Yeah, I noticed it was you who had done the work. I appreciate it indeed. I thank you for that hard and good work. It wasn't awful before your contributions, but it's certainly well-improved now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply. I thought you would reply on my talk-page. I just saw your note on the top of your talk-page. I am sincerely very happy you appreciate my work. May i ask you whether you are a fan pf Beyonce? Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like some of her music, and liked Destiny's Child, but my 21-year-old sister loves her and is a huge fan. I have two sisters and two brothers. My 14-year-old sister likes some of her music too, but, yeah, the 21-year-old is the huge fan.

As for not replying on your talk page, sorry about that. I thought you'd seen the note at the top of my talk page about replying. Sometimes I reply back on the user's talk page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. May i ask if your sisters are on Wikipedia? Please do not get me wrong. Actually, my point is i would have requested them to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not on Wikipedia. Not even that familiar with it, with the exception of having used it much like the general public has, I'm sure. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and i ever i need help, may i ask you? Be frank. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes, as long as it is something I can help with. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you and would you like to join th e Wiki-project? I mean are you interested? Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest and say I'm not interested. These days, I'm not even that active in all of the projects I am a part of. But if you think it will help you.... Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. I understand. I am very happy to know that you will help me when you can and that is important. Thanks for being kind to me. Not everyone is like you. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You reverted my paragraph split in Whitney Houston lead, citing 4-paragraphs rule from WP:LEAD. While I totally agree it should be this way, I think now it's too much things put together and that was my way to start showing this fact and eventually slimming the lead down a bit.

A career history is not a strict definition of who it is. Maybe her relatives belong to the first para, because they're also famous, but the rest does not - "Houston began..." should be next sentence and a paragraph.

Now we have way too long introduction, with 2. and 4. para being just a list of her achievements - it should be joined and cut to the most important. Alternatively we can make the 4. paragraph a separate "Awards" section and cloning the sentence about Guiness record to the first paragraph (as a general proof that she is very important artist, which should be reflected in this shortest summary - 5. here). But please don't pretend it all still fits in the lead just by squeezeing all the materials to the "demanded" amount of paragraphs.

What do you think about how to resolve this the best way? -- kocio (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions seem reasonable or like a good place to start. I only look after that article at times. I don't heavily edit it. I was just wondering why it was made into five sections all of a sudden, which only looked worse to me. The lead I never thought of as too big, because there are good or featured Wikipedia articles with leads that big or bigger. Michael Jackson, for example. The Whitney Houston article's lead was most recently designed by Bookkeeperoftheoccult, who has experience getting such articles to GA or FA status. I'll ask Bookkeeperoftheoccult to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not sure who broke up the Jackson lead into six sections. I'll be addressing that on that talk page soon. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Jackson, I went ahead and reverted, instead of addressing it on the talk page, as it was done by one editor after that lead has been through extensive debate and conformed to the WP:LEAD "no more than four paragraphs" standard. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit the article that much anymore either, so I have no qualms about trying to improve it. Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson and Madonna are all good examples of how to summarize the most important points in someone's career. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These examples are good (shorter, better split to paragraphs), but I don't consider them good enough. They follow the strange pattern of glueing together the nutshell definition with debuting informations, instead of putting generalizations in the first paragraph, and trying to enumarate too many things. I said much more on this topic down here. kocio (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All important articles tend to have bloated lead, which I think is understandable, but still a flaw. People try to catch every important thing here, but - as we know it - in some cases you end up making neverending lists, because on some topics we have many facts to note, while on the others just a few. My feeling is the most important we want is comprehension in the lead, which means we have to be more picky and think more meta-level in some superimportant articles.

While MJ or WH can be 1000 times more rich in world-important details than the average singer, we should still keep the leads as 4 short, logical paragraphs, even if we lose some details here, because what we want is to gently introduce a reader, not forcing him/her to parse the text. Instead we have to summarize more tightly and have better generalized things. For example instead of writing here all achievements as a singer, actor and dancer, we should just say that he was important artist in all these areas, maybe with some most notable, one in each field. All details should go to the sections or even separate entries, if needed.

What I see in such cases most of the time is overloaded stories as a lead. The first paragraph should be the core definition on its own - then lead as a longer overview - and then sections for details. Reader can then always adjust any topic, no matter how big and important, to his personal time frame: fast skipping (few seconds, not even leaving the first para), overviewing (let's say less than a minute, but still skipable), then detail-picking in relevant, well planned sections.

When we make the lead "a story", we stop making summary and it tends to grow out of control. We lose clarity also - in MJ case we had too many para, but you could tell at once what they were about and skip those you're not interested into. Now our nutshell definition (first paragraph) suddenly ends not as what it should be - some general facts are connected with the beginning of his career, which is totally different level of abstraction. And this is when the reader gets puzzled and has to read all the story and can't skip paras, because a story in the lead is not logically split into paragraphs - we just try to have 4 paragraphs, not caring if they are still logically separate parts.

I think we have to think more what is the lead for and how it could be more useful for people, not just how much paragraphs it will take. I like killing too long leads very much (look at my page =} ), but I believe the first step to do it properly is to create logically separate paragraphs. Then you have some structure, which you can slim down by generalizing. This is why I prefer too many simple "one-aspect-at-the-time" paragraphs in MJ and a template claiming it is too long, than the proper amount of them, but with "a novel" approach, when you have to follow the writer from the beginnig to the end if you try to find something. It is hard to maintain in the long perspective, since the story is one big and not very clear construct.

That's why I think it's better to explicitely show why it is too long (too many separate topics gathered here, not well generalized) than simply hide this fact, making it even harder to manage. kocio (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought up some valid points. Would you mind copying and pasting this to the WP:LEAD talk page? I feel that it's something that should be addressed there, as most leads of very well-known people do what you mentioned they do. Bringing this up there is the best way to get things to change. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is that this part of text wasn't structured, IMHO it's just a long "praising" section. =} Whatever we do, there will be some uncosistences and subjectivities in trying to sort the things out, until someone makes a brave rewrite and cuts some quotes. I'm not that fluent in English to make such things myself.

I just thought this 2 paragraphs summarize this praising, so it's good to remove them from the long enough Influence section, especially since it all sounds like telling all the same in different words and I don't like such duplication. You can combine it back if you feel it'd be better - or maybe cut some not-essential-enough stuff by the way?

The Voice section - here we have at least some hard facts and some other quotes, which concentrate mostly on the voice, not just on the influence. I believe it has some justification to be separated. However, it still is praising and does not differ clearly from the rest, so if you feel... etc.

One thing I really don't want to be removed is more fine grained paragraphs I made this time - at least most of them - because they give some breath to the reader's eye. kocio (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rearranging, this is exactly what I think should be done! kocio (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're okay with it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree more or less with your recent edits on the article, I don't think that when the example of the Texas Statutes is given, changing the language of the precise statute is appropriate. Perhaps finding another example from another state would change the language appropriately without removing the quoted citation? Atom (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see where the exact wording was sourced. It alluded to the Texas statutes, but I thought it was just some random editor's wording (paraphrasing). Feel free to revert me, of course. I feel that "actor" is a weird word to use and do not see why we should not use "accused" in its place, but you have a point. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word actor is, verbatim fom the statute, as is the other wording. Yes, it is strange, but they use it in legal jargon to basically mean a person initiating the action. The bias that they seem to assume the guilt of the person because they are older is strange, but it is from Texas. As I said, maybe other state statutes say it in a less biased way for the article? Atom (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I gathered in what way they were/are using the word, but still... We could still use "accused" but in brackets...as [accused]...since we would be changing quoted text. As for what word other statutes use regarding Romeo and Juliet laws, I'm not sure. Romeo and Juliet laws, with the exception of the typical aspects, are actually something I'm not as familiar with as compared to other sexual/relationship topics. I'm also not that motivated to look into what other states may use for the wording. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With this notice, I think you hit the wrong talk page. The Google Project is not the doctors' mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, WhatamIdoing. Yes, let's call it a mistake. The project was related enough to the doctors' mess for me, LOL. I disagree that it has nothing to do with medicine, but I see that it was the wrong project I posted it at months ago. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people at WT:MED probably would have been willing to help, but leaving a note at the underwatched page dedicated to talking to the Google Foundation folks isn't really a useful way of reaching WikiProject Medicine. As you can see, it took several months before anyone noticed the comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.queerty.com/what-does-maggie-gallagher-think-about-anal-sex-20110128/

I totally understand feeling protective of articles that I have worked on. DCX (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Still, she has no bearing on what we do here. All we can do is try and have the article be as neutral as possible. It wasn't about me being protective of the article, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is a powerful anti-gay activist...we shouldn't be writing her material to use against..."us"(?), but she is still pretty ignorant to cite a Wikipedia artcile as a reference (J/K). FYI - Pregnancy is painful, unsanitary, unsatisfying for women and creates unique risks for serious physical injury and death (if you doubt me, go read the Wikipedia entry on the subject)...(lol).DCX (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was citing the negative aspects of anal sex, which, yes, Wikipedia does document, but Wikipedia is not on her side regarding anti-gay or anal feelings. Wikipedia was/is not trying to be anti-gay or anti-anal by reporting health risks of the act. That is what I was trying to get across to you. The woman clearly did not cite the fact that Wikipedia also documents how women can derive pleasure from anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to make a joke and extend an olive branch.DCX (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I know that. Just wanted to make clear those points. In any case, I accept your olive branch. It's nice that you are willing to move on and not hold grudges, the opposite of some Wikipedia editors here. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, your talk page headers never cease to amaze me. --AniMate 08:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no explanation, LOL. Just grins. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better I've often wondered what Maggie Gallagher thought about anal sex. The question has at times kept me up for hours. I can sleep easy now. --AniMate 09:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny!! You often do know how to get a laugh out of me. I appreciate that. I know I just don't want to sound like her on the topic. Sometimes, I am too technical about what sex organs are, for example, completely overlooking the fact that some people view the anus as a sex organ. Anyway, thanks again. I either get called pro-anal or anti-anal working at that article these days. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the BRD process. I made what I felt was a constructive change, and you reverted. No problem. This is the discuss part. "Anal sex is perhaps most often associated with male homosexual behavior, ranging from monogamous same-sex relationships, in which anal sex may be the central focus of lovemaking, to less consensual male-male sexual activity, such as male-male rape, in which anal sex is an act of aggression." Your edit comment was. "Atomaton, I'm thinking it was added because anal sex is most often associated with male homosexuality, which is sourced below" I looked through the references,[2] through [7] and I did not see that quote. Are you sure that this is not just speculation, or opinion offered by one editor? Which reference said that? Atom (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late replying to this here, so this comment is just for readers of this section of my talk page, and clarity once its archived: It's been cleared up on the Anal sex talk page. Two sources cite the misconception. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in the anal sex talk page. I explained my reasoning, and I believe it is sound. You say that the words sound like weasel words, and yet they are the opinion of the author whom you cited, and in fact, put the sentence in proper context. I'd rather that you had discussed it, rather that reverting me. It seems to me that you and I have a great deal in common. I will not get in a revert battle with someone whom I respect. If you look at my comments in the article, perhaps you will have a change of heart. Atom (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments there as well. There is no reason to reply to me here about it, when we are discussing it on the talk page there. I have disagreed with your reasoning, and you should have replied instead of reverting me. I believe my reasons for reverting you are more sound/valid, for the reasons I posted there. Two editors (myself included) disagree with you for those very reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, I did comment on the talk page. How can you say that the author you yourself cited is using "weasel words"? The quite you disagree with about heterosexual anal sex being larger in number is a direct quote from the author you cited. Atom (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me, instead of replying to my addressing you on that matter specifically. It is weasel wording to say "this certainly is not the case," just as it would be weasel wording if we worded any information in a way that encompasses WP:Weasel wording. It doesn't matter if the weasel wording is cited; there is usually always a way to word material without including weasel words, and that is what I did just moments ago.

The other aspect of the cited text is saying that heterosexuals have anal sex more because there are more heterosexuals. This applies to almost everything, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. It's like a "Duh" comment. That is why that addition by you is debated. One can easily state that more heterosexuals play basketball, since there are more. That is why such an addition is silly. It's not like that statement is saying that anal sex is practiced more by individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. And, again, would you keep this discussion in one place? I see no reason to discuss it here and at the Anal sex talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I offered that wording as my opinion, it would be weasel wording. If we are relating what the cited source says, it is not. Paraphrasing may need to avoid weasel words, but direct quotes are the exception.

I understand what you are trying to say, but you misunderstand what I am trying to say. If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers. If instead someone were to say that "a larger percentage of homosexuals participate in anal sex than other groups" then your comments would be valid. Percentage would certainly be more important there. But, that isn't the case. The misconception seems to be, according to Dr. John Dean, "anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men.". Don't you think that when I quoted Dr. Dean again by saying "It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." that I was countering that premise to dispel that misconception?

I will keep the discussion over in the article after this. Best to you, Atom (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel wording is weasel wording, and I already explained why it was not needed.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not see how it is valid at all. You say, "If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers." ...But the problem with that is what I stated above. Like I mentioned on the Anal sex talk page, No source exactly states that anal sex is mostly practiced by heterosexuals. "In absolute numbers" is ridiculous for all the reasons stated above. It's like saying, "In absolute numbers," more white people have sex than black people because there are more white people. Or "in absolute numbers," more heterosexuals eat pizza than homosexuals because there are more heterosexual people in the world. It is deceptive. It is one of the same reasons that stating that most serial killers are white has been debated at the Serial killer article time and time again. "Absolute numbers" means nothing since it is quite clear that there are more white people in the world than black people. The same applies to heterosexuals and sex. What you are stating can apply to oral sex and various other sex acts too, not just anal sex, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I do not get at all why you feel it is needed or logical to mention this "more heterosexuals do it because there are more" stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas nice of you to say that. I appreciate it. Tvoz/talk 04:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only stating the truth. You've been a great help. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22! Thank you for reverting the unsourced additions. I'm guessing you're a Whitney fan? Novice7 | Talk 10:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mother is. Though I do like a lot of Houston's classic songs. I am just someone who looks after certain articles, either often or from time to time. Sometimes, I become concerned with articles that are not that well-watched and have a lot of vandalism, etc. To me, the Whitney Houston article was definitely an article that should have had more people helping to revert stuff. I'm glad that it has that now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I loved Whitney back in the day (and the Bodyguard still an all-time fave), so I'll keep an eye there too. Tvoz/talk 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I also keep an eye on articles abut people I don't love... Tvoz/talk 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks for the help, Tvoz. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm happy to see people clean up Whitney articles. Novice7 | Talk 04:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! So, do you think with enough fixes, Whitney Houston can become a FA or even a GA? Btw, I work on some of her singles and albums too (like the GAs How Will I Know and Why Does It Hurt So Bad). Please keep an eye on them too (I have lots of articles on my watchlist). Novice7 | Talk 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can, just like most articles on Wikipedia. I say "most" because I've never seen a stub article as GA or FA, LOL. As for my watchlist, I haven't looked at it in a long time. It's too frustrating to see all that vandalism or unsourced stuff, and makes me despise Wikipedia. I already have a love-hate relationship with this site. Plus, my watchlist is long, and I can be there all day correcting matters (though I sometimes spend most of my day correcting things on Wikipedia anyway). I check articles by looking at my contributions or just going to the articles, as I usually edit or revert on the same articles over and over again these days. I'm not up for looking after any other article at this time. In my view, Wikipedia should only allow registered editors to edit. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, okay. You're right, some IP edits can be frustrating. Thanks again. Novice7 | Talk 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, flyer22. I don't really like having discussions on my talk page (I am going to remove the comments their as I standardly do with matters germane to articles rather than my own actions) and I cannot claim expertise on the topic, but my understanding from watching a cable documentary on artificial insemination is that properly executed stimulation of the prostate is a sure-fire way to induce ejaculation in males whether human or bovine, is standard in animal husbandry and captive breeding programs, and that it is pretty much involuntary and automatic - hence the use with bulls. The source for the article is not exactly the most authoritative imaginable, and I doubt this wisdom of drawing any conclusions from it, since it was not written to address the specific question you raised. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, Medeis. I'll leave that discussion here with just that link alone, for my archive. Thank you for addressing my thoughts. And, LOL, I know Go Ask Alice! isn't authoritative on the matter. I was just making chatter in wondering which wording is more accurate. "Some men" or just "Men." Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording following the source is most appropriate, and had you not done so I would have made the same change myself.μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And, again, thank you for indulging me in discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not conflate "male orgasm" with "ejaculation of semen." Yes, they usually go hand-in-hand, but prostate massage can trigger an ejaculation without an orgasm. (Conversely, when I was a wee lad of about 11, I figured out how to masturbate myself to a dry orgasm five or six months before I had my first ejaculation.) And as long as I'm in full and candid disclosure mode, my considered opinion as a homosexual man who very occasionally enjoys "bottoming" is that the pleasure from prostate massage is real, but the DEGREE of pleasure has been hugely, enormously, CATASTROPHICALLY oversold within gay male culture. If there is any such thing as the "male G-spot", it is the frenulum region on the underside of the penis shaft, not the prostate. (Which is why I'm a frot advocate.) Throbert McGee (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Throbert McGee. You're mainly replying to Medeis, right? I'll alert Medeis of your reply. And, yes, even the Orgasm article makes clear that "male orgasm" and "ejaculation of semen" are not always related. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make myself as clear as possible, so as not to have to repeat myself. There is no identified class of otherwise healthty sexually mature males who cannot, except due to some abnormal condition, or perhaps the intentional lack of effort, reach orgasm or ejaculation by this means. Of course there are men who cannot orgasm, just as of course it is possible to ejaculate without orgasm by penile stimulation. These caveats are all standard. An analogy to these objections would be responding to the claim that men can walk tippy-toed with complaints that some people are amputees or that some people would rather crawl on all fours. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi flyer if you have the time could you take a look at this edit I made here [1] I feel I sufficiently warned the editor and was warranted when they slipped into 1st person plural. It could have been a close paraphrase, but looking at the whole article I don't think so. --Wlmg (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely conflict of interest editing. Such a statement would not have been made otherwise. Your warning was valid. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer22... I am extremely grateful for the time and effort you've put into answering the objections and nit-picking of "Mijopaalmc" et al.! (I sort of understand where he's coming from, since "Frot Granddaddy" Bill Weintraub is so fanatically opposed to sticking anything up the wazoo that his site forbids discussion of butt plugs and those "Aneros" thingamajigs, even though such toys may be much safer for rectal penetration than a man's penis. But on the other hand, Weintraub is a Lone Voice In The Wilderness wailing against a tsunami of anal-oriented gay pr0n, with bareback stuff accounting for 25% of sales, by some estimates -- so I'm inclined to forgive his fanaticism.) Anyway, I especially appreciate your efforts because you're a chick and don't have a prostate, so it must've been tempting for you to recuse yourself from the whole debate on the "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. But you didn't, and I thank you. Throbert McGee (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made me burst out laughing with the conclusion of this statement. Thanks for that. "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. LOL!!!! And you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, F22. Thanks for your compliment. I agree with your tweaks to my rework of that section, with one minor and one moderate exception you'll see if you check the article history. I'm heading over to the talk page to start a discussion about how best to deal with Weintraub. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll meet you there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never opposed it, I was the one who added it in the first place. I don't mind if you remove it, I only added it back because nobody gave a reason as to why it was removed before. Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn that Mjs2010 kept adding it back, saying it was important, and that you reverted him or her on the matter at one point. If you originally added it months ago, it wasn't you who kept readding it after it kept being removed. I think Ckatz and I gave reasons in our edits summaries for removing it. My current reasoning, which you saw, is in my most recent edit summary there now (though I reverted myself on the matter because I saw that it was you who'd added it and your reason for the add). Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back once, I think. Either way, I agree with your reasoning, I'll remove it. Jayy008 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen you contributed the screen shot of Gillian Andrassy her pouty expression makes her look like her pet puppy just died. I have created an alternate screen shot where she's smiling http://tinypic.com/r/2qmd7nn/7 I have also endeavored to expand the Esta TerBlanche article going as far to consult the Afrikaans wikipedia and she's surprisingly read ink. sigh another dead end. --Wlmg (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I don't mind. We need better quality screenshots of her as the character, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an AMC screen shot of the character, but agreed it's blurry a little more quality would be desirable. I shall soldier on.--Wlmg (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me in a nutshell what is the deal with this article? Sorry, I'm just having trouble getting my head around this. Is Illumnato pushing POV, or is he being ganged up on by POV pushers, or what? (I've had run-ins with Atom elsewhere, which doesn't prove that he's not the good guy here.)

What is the purpose of this article? What is it supposed to be? What do you think it should be? I trust your judgment and highly value your view of things like this. Herostratus (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my view: I've been careful with this article because, frankly, I am biased towards one view. I try to not inject that in the article. Speaking of the last change by Illuminato, there has been a dispute for awhile between him and several other editors (not me). I've tried to keep out of it. They seemed to have consensus, and then Illuminato came in and made many massive changes (not a few) that pushed the balance of the article radically. I see that some of the material he puts in (if not most) is cited correctly, and not necessarily bad material. But, it is very much towards one view, and he offers no balance or alternative views nor does he support building alternative views. I'm not saying he has to. However, a large and huge change in the article swinging the balance substantially, in opposition and against the consensus of the other people who had been working on the article caused me to ask him to discuss it on the talk page.

Both of you are strong headed editors whose work I respect very much. I often have agreed with both of you, and also have disagreed often as well. Disagreement does not mean a lack of respect though.

"or is he being ganged up on by POV pushers, or what" Look at the edits by the other editors. They are working to find a balance where *all* views are accurately represented without any one side being pushed. Illuminato feels very strongly about his position and is not willing to compromise. Look at his edit hostory in the article, he consistently pushes his view and disregards the view of others. In my view, his last edit was basically ignoring weeks of discussion on the talk page by many editors to sweep away what was becoming a more balanced article with what, changes to more than 90% of the article? more than 50 paragraphs? [[2]] A complete rewrite, with no recent discussions or participations on the talk page, and no explanations afterward. Even if every single change was accurate and justified, then his method could use some improvement. Atom (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atom, that is useful background. Still would like to hear Flyer's perspective. Herostratus (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I'm leaning toward indifference regarding that article and its talk page debates. All the edit warring there, along with the arguing (arguing, not just debating), has made me want to generally stay out of it as well. I have stated just about all I can on the matter. To me, the article should be about adolescent/teenage sexuality in general -- not just the sexual activities of that age group. This would also help to take away some of the negativity in that article, because, as I stated there more than once, there is not a lot of research out there saying adolescent/teenage sex is a good thing or that it is very beneficial to that age group. More sources say 10 to 16-year-olds should not be having sex than they say it is not such a bad thing if they do. Illuminato wasn't the only one making the types of edits he has made. And right now, it's three editors (including Illuminato) edit warring and not working much of anything out. The RfC and note to one of the related projects has not seemed to have helped much. Someone needs to take initiative and start editing a more neutral version of that article in their user space, and then present it on the talk page and let others weigh in. The new article can be worked on that way, in user space, until it is ready to go to main space.

And, Atom, by, "Both of you are strong headed editors whose work I respect very much," I take it you mean Herostratus and I, not Herostratus and Illuminato? Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for correcting me (again.) Atom (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a vexing problem. "Themself" is disputed in this usage because it is ungrammatical; it is a plural pronoun and therefore not applicable to a singular referent. Your present form is also ungrammatical; we don't use "hisself" or "his self". It would want to be The best opponent for one who sees him- or herself as justice is another who also does.. But the more elegant solution is probably to bring the mountain to Mohammed since the other way isn't working: The best opponents for those who see themselves as justice are others who also do. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all about the ungrammatical stuff on my user page, LOL. Apparently even trading one ungrammatical usage for another. According to this, which cites Oxford, "themself" used to be correct or rather just preferred. Anyway, I'll go ahead and tweak it to your suggestion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED is much more liberal for including English words today. If it's being used there's a good chance it will be included in the future. Also fyi according to National Geographic after a 200M year absence some living frogs have recently been discovered to have re-evolved teeth^^^^^^^^^. So lost forms can be recovered .--Wlmg (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think the penetration dab page makes the two meanings (generic and criminal charge) clearer. So I would prefer that sexual penetration redirects there. But I don't really mind your proposed change and wont object either way. Grant | Talk 08:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Grant. Thanks for replying. What I stated on your talk page is pretty much how I feel about the matter, but I won't redirect it for some time. I'll wait two months or so and see if anyone else decides to redirect it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		Thank you for improving the problematic Frot article, Simon Speed (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you, Simon. Much appreciated. I know it could still do with more work, and I wish there were scholarly references on the term "frot," distinguished from Bill Weintraub. But the truth is...male-to-male genital rubbing is more often called "frottage," just like other forms of frottage, and there are scholarly references for that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it clearer that Hebephilia is the sexual attraction for early - mid adolescent. (11 - 13 year old, early adolescent) (14 - 15 year old, mid adolescent). VickNad (talk) 5:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you'd like to make clear. It's about what sources make clear, and the sources in that article right now address 11 - 14-year-olds as early pubescents for the definition of hebephilia (also see pedohebephilic disorder, which stresses the age range for the hebephilic type) even though it seems pretty silly to say 14 and 15-year-olds look all that different from each other age-wise. In the case of girls, even 13 often looks no different from 15. And, yes, a lot of girls are in the middle of puberty by age 14, but it varies, and more so for boys (as boys typically start puberty two years later than girls). Thus...the hebephilia age range is trying to address both of these aspects.

Moving on: Although the source I just cited above does not make this clear, hebephilia also stresses the preference, not mere attraction, to that age group. If it did not, then a great number of "normal men" would be hebephiles as well, according to experts (due to the appearance of secondary sex characteristics, which is what sexually attracts adults to other adults). Being sexually attracted to people with secondary sex characteristics generally is not abnormal no matter the age, but having a preference for such a young age group may be (which is why hebephilia is being debated as a disorder/not a disorder by experts now, as its Wikipedia article states in the lead). Flyer22 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of style, I shy away from formulations like "revealing that..." or "the scene opens with..." or "the movie closes on..." because I find them slightly redundant. The facts about what we see in the picture should speak for us -- partly to avoid speculative conclusions. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but if we believe that Ross had the diamond all along, we should be able to provide the reader with the facts that require that conclusion. In that way, we provide a summary that obviously avoids OR. So, maybe I could ask you: how are you so sure she had it all along? I would like to include that information in the summary instead of our conclusion that she had it all along. That's what I was trying to do but maybe in this case it doesn't help. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing what is wrong with the wording "revealing that." It's not the same as "the scene opens with..." or "the movie closes on..." at all. Nor is it redundant in this case, because as I stated in my edit summary, "the rest of the plot summary, just like the film up until that point, doesn't make clear that she was hiding it. 'had it all [along]' says she was more than anything else." I'm also not sure what you mean by asking, "How are you so sure she had it all along?" ... The film makes clear that she had it all along, at the end, when it shows Young Rose pull it from Cal's jacket pocket and that Old Rose still has it before she throws it overboard. Are you saying we are to assume it got lost for some time in the years between that and Rose only recently found it, or something like that? If so, that is OR, as the film clearly tells us it has been in Rose's possession all this time. It is hardly any different than your "personal safekeeping" version, except that "had it all along" makes clear that she'd been intentionally keeping it from the others. By "had it all along," I of course do not mean that she had it in her clothing all along or something like that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I'm confusing. I didn't ask what your evidence was because I doubted your interpretation, but because by answering that question we are pointed to what we could include in the summary that communicates the same thing without speculating. And if I understand you, you believe that she had it all along because we see her acquire it and we see her dispose of it. Would something be lost by simply stating those two facts and leaving the inferences to others, no matter how obvious? It's a principle that I personally think is important for plot summaries. Sorry if it seems too precious, but Titanic is a big film so I'd like to make it formally excellent. And thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. How else would you have it worded, other than your and my current examples? I do stand by my version as being clearer, per what I stated above, but I am open to other alternatives. I just don't feel that we should go out of our way to add more to the matter when it is clear just by the line "revealing she had it all along." I mean, again, the film tells us it was in her possession since she was age 17. Because of that, I don't see why we should not show exactly that. It can be called "our interpretation," but what other interpretation are we supposed to have? I would see your point if this were truly debatable, like whether or not she died at the end of the film. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I simply think it's a bad habit to do anything other than cite the evidence. On the other hand, my draft was a bit vague. Let's think about it. No rush. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the original? If she produces it at that moment, isn't it obvious she had it all along? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like you stated, your version is a bit vague. I mentioned before that I feel "revealing she had it all along" is more powerful. My reasons are that it clicks for the readers, alerts them to that fact quite clearly. Your "from her personal safekeeping" to me doesn't quite let the readers know that. I mean, the plot summary only summarizes the film; thus, the reader could conclude that she'd already shown the jewel to the others and is now throwing it away. My version makes it clearer that she'd been keeping it from them during the whole film, I feel. I suppose what I mainly want to get across is that Rose never showed the others the jewel. True, Brock doesn't have the jewel if Rose throws it overboard, but it doesn't make clear that he never saw it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[3] → Please do not use edit summaries as null edits for the sole purpose of communicating with others. If you're going to make a comment to someone or a general comment, use that user's talk page or the article's talk page. Thank you, –MuZemike 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Null edit, where it says, "The dummy edit summary can be used for text messaging, and correcting a previous edit summary such as an accidental marking of a previous edit as "minor"... Sending a short message via the edit summary ("SMS") is one way of communicating with other editors if there is no need to create a new thread for the message." Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good word - may have gone a bit OTT by the end, but at least there's no "creative vandalism"! Jacobisq (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I hear ya. And thanks again. It really is lovely work. We're lucky to have you working on Wikipedia psychology topics. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer22. I'm sorry for the delay, but I have finally had a change to reply to your question on my talkpage. I hope you've been well.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, James. Thanks. Good to hear from you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late response:- I have repeatedly tried to follow the debate but just not succeeded. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, did it get too long-winded for you?

No worries, though. As you can see, everything seems fine now... Well, for now anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have enough sourced discussion to place them under "gay males" categories? The cited synthesis from AfterElton does a really good job with that case. The 'ambiguity' is only in the characters' own reticence to adopt labels; their real world reception, and the significance of Brokeback Mountain, all recognise them as important depictions of gay males. The bisexual category, as applied by some editors, is well-meaning but misconceived. 'Settling' for 'LGBT characters' seems so too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's tricky to me, Zythe, since their sexual orientations are actually debated. Some sources, as you know, feel that they are bisexual within the film and that the media was trying to erase/ignore their bisexuality by referring to them simply as "gay." And then there's the actors interpretations of the characters' sexual orientations (Gyllenhaal saying that Ennis and Jack were heterosexual men who "develop this love, this bond"). So it seems safer and more neutral to me not to place them in either the gay or bisexual categories. Or to at least place them in both and point towards the debate with a hidden note. But, by "gay" in this case, do you mean the broader definition of the word -- homosexual behavior in general? After all, when people say the "gay male community," sometimes they are referring to bisexual-identified males (or men who have sex with men in general) as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am simply pointing to the film having shown these men to be monosexual homosexuals -- deeply unsatisfied with their wives and heterosexual sex, deeply longing for each other (and possibly other men). But I realise it's contentious. It's a shame it's contentious, due to heterosexual actors' "processes" or bisexual viewers' lack of representations (I would assume if viewed as a portrayal of bisexuality, Brokeback Mountain would be a particularly negative one as far as heterosexual partners are concerned). But yes, at least all the above sources acknowledge that in the public consciousness, at large, the characters really are understood as gay, not bi.

On another note, what constitutes the separate notability of these characters? Should these articles, which replicate most if not all of their content, not be merged into Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar (a la Nikki and Paulo)?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In their articles, the sex researcher's opinion on the characters believes Jack was more so gay (and I have to agree there; I don't see how Gyllenhaal believes Jack was heterosexual)...and that Ennis was/is more so straight. My main point is that there are more sources out there on the Internet saying that these characters were/are bisexual...or at least represent bisexuality just as much as homosexuality. We have to remember that most people who identify as bisexual have a preference for one sex over the other (I'm not sure if you do), instead of a 50/50 outlook. So if a character is presented as bisexual but leans more toward one sex over the other, then, yes, I suppose bisexuality is going to be portrayed negatively in regards to least favored sex.

Maybe this should be opened up for larger discussion. But RfC and the LGBT WikiProject haven't been much help to me lately (and that goes for other WikiProjects I have asked for assistance from). My opinion is that the characters should either remain in the LGBT category only or be put into both the gay and bisexual categories on the basis of the debate. And good idea to merge the articles; I am all for that. Once the articles are merged, I'll transport this discussion to their talk page for others to weigh in, if you don't...or if you don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means start the merge discussion. My only problem with dual categories -- and I'm all for it, Real World Perspective and all -- is that it will serve to confuse amateur editors, and you'll have the problem of people weighing in and removing categories to fit an interpretation. And I know about the bisexuality/preference model you were supposing, but I was sort of just agreeing with AfterElton's analysis -- I remember, back in 2005, trying to justify these characters being bi in my own head too (almost a justification of the widening difference in my preferences... but let's not delve into that).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I wasn't suggesting I start a merge discussion. Just that I copy and paste this discussion to their merged article talk page so that people can weigh in about the category stuff. I'd rather you start the merge discussion, if you feel one is needed instead of just going ahead and creating a joint article and then redirecting the names there. As for amateur editors and IPs changing categories, they already do that, experienced editors too (usually putting them in the bisexual category). As for my opinion on the characters' sexualities, I'd say Jack was gay or at least homoflexible. Ennis is a harder read. I don't think either of them hated sex with their wives. But Jack probably would rather not engage in it. Ennis was a bit...hmm..."indifferent-seeming" a lot of the time. Like, "Sex with a woman? Okay, why not? I'd prefer Jack, though." I guess it all depends on how people define "homosexual" and "bisexual." Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my dear Flyer, please relax and do not be sad or angry. I'm male and was born in 82 also and i hope you be the best my friend. I think terms like enormous was a little puerile, what is your idea about this your copy edit version? My darling are you have any protest?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that version instead of the current one in the article, yes, as it seems you know that I do. But, Bakhshi82, you need to take part in the talk page discussions more. Not just stating that you like your version and then leaving, or reverting and then leaving. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My beauty, i want to say All About Eve has won only six oscars between 14 nominees and truly Cameron's visual masterpiece earned the highest acclaim from the Academy. I wish you be a little smarter... i'm joking! Whould you please see the All About Eve article?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who referred you to All About Eve to show you that Titanic doesn't have the most nominations. Both films have 14. And as for being the most awarded, Titanic, Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King all have 11 wins. Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... Come be involved...

Ha ha ha... That was not fun??? get it?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to propose this on the talk page if you want it included in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer why did you sue me? why sly? I was Jack and you Rose, don't you? But why article closed?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't sue you, Bakhshi82. I reported you. And I did so because you kept restoring to your version despite the concerns stated on the talk page and without engaging in discussion about those concerns. Of course, your actions have been better since then, and I thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not speak bookish Flyer! I sow Titanic 100 times, i wish i had drowned in the ocean waters for my love, and then people remember me the heart of the ocean. do you see? what a glorious!--Bakhshi82 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Siawase's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Siawase (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tie up a loose end - you (and I agreed) id'd a sock that wasn't confirmed at the time - remember? I had suspicions that he was not only socking with another pair on the talk page but actually part of a notorious sockfarm. Well, we were right - the account was blocked last night. Eventually they get found out - I wouldn't care as much if the accounts didn't disrupt, but he typically eventually does. Tvoz/talk 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I knew Ryan White Jr. was a sockpuppet. It was painfully obvious. I didn't know he had so many WP:Socks, but it isn't a surprise.

I have been known to get accused of being uncivil or "assuming bad faith" (such as in a big, recent dispute I've been engaged in at the Frot article) when I am only stating the obvious, trying to help out, and simply willing to state what others may not be willing to. I simply don't understand people who create sockpuppets in order to game the system or other such disruptive editing...thinking they will never get caught. True, they may get away with it for years, but they'll eventually get caught if they continue to sockpuppet (at least I think so). I usually recognize the same editing patterns, the same way of speaking (or rather, typing), etc., so deceiving me for too long is not likely...unless you're smart enough to. Thanks for alerting me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is quite tenacious, but having had the displeasure of being exposed to him for so long, I can usually spot him a mile away. I don't go looking for him - I have better things to do. And I'm quite sure he has dozens of other accounts all over the place, possibly even occasionally making a good contribution. But invariably he shows up - like a bad penny - in the same places as before, being disruptive, employing the same tics and patterns, and it's obvious. Such a gross waste of time. I thought you'd like to see the loop closed. As to why they do it? Beats me. Hope all's good - just saw there's been some activity at James Dean since I last looked at it in December - I have too many things on my watchlist and I just don't get to look at all of it. Feel free to let me know if you happen to see something going on in an article that you think I might have an opinion on. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any confusion caused by or deception implied by my failure to follow WP:CLEANSTART. I have not properly availed myself of the procedure, which I should have done. Mjpam (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both of your replies. The current one here and this one. The former sounds like you created a new account due to all the drama associated with your Mijopaalmc account. To me, that is an attempt to evade scrutiny associated with your old account; for example, my calling you a single purpose account (largely involved in only one article -- Frot), which calls into question what reasons you had/have for being so focused on only one article. As I stated on your talk page, following WP:CLEANSTART means if you are going to continue the same type of editing/disputes at the Frot article, you should not have changed accounts. If your having this new account means no more of the same edits and disputes with me at the Frot article, then good. If it means having "clean contributions" while resuming the same type of actions at the Frot article, then not good.

To answer the question in your previous message, you cannot continue to use the username Mijopaalmc if you are going to truly have a clean start as Mjpam. But if you do intend to continue to edit/engage in the same disputes at the Frot article, then you should link the two accounts -- remove the retired tag I placed on Mijopaalmc and instead acknowledge there on Mijopaalmc 's user page that it is a former account of Mjpam. The best course of action, however, is that if you intend to continue to edit/engaging in the same disputes at the Frot article, you should have simply sought a name change (WP:NAMECHANGE). You can still do that now. Once done, Mijopaalmc will be redirected to Mjpam. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I agree we need a major slate cleaning. Count me in. Feel free to let me know if I'm messing with your head. I promise if it happens, it's an accident. Cheers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of believe the IPs might not be Bakhshi because it didn't seem like his vocabulary. Not that it matters either way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the improved spelling/and or more expressive wording in one or two of the edit summaries too. But the way the IPs acted, and the way Bakhshi82 acted after the article was locked (including his reasoning, which matches the IPs' reasoning, even though he was originally satisfied with the lead)...it is just too much of a coincidence to not have been Bakhshi82. He seems to have his "on" days in addition to his "off" days when it comes to spelling/grammar in the article or his edit summaries. One of the IP's was him, I'm certain. Sure, I've never been wrong in suspecting someone of sockpupppetry, and that may be making me a little cocky on this...but I'm 100% positive he edited that article as an IP during the disputes. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IPer didn't come back to deny it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flyer, have you ever heard of "Jack rolling"? It's recreational gang rape In South Africa. My attempt to create an article was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax despite having the reference [4] Any thoughts on the matter?--Wlmg (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it, no. Maybe my rape research isn't as extensive as I thought. I'm not sure what to make of the deletion of your article, Wlmg. Perhaps you need more sources? Better sources? Both?

Did you let the editors who sought to have it deleted know that it is not a hoax and why? If they have valid reason for keeping it deleted, I don't know what to state. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks flyer but I doubt the admin even read the reference. I'll try a longer article one day.--Wlmg (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trespassing again: hope we're cool Jacobisq (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we're cool. It's about time someone came around and started fixing up that article. It was like no one had much to state about preadolescence or that it was too difficult to define. On the subject of the age range for preadolescence, I noticed that you added it's from 7 to 13. The "ending at 13 bit" always seemed odd to me, and apparently to IPs I kept having to revert on the 10-13 bit. I mean, adolescence is generally considered to start at ages 12 or 13; some sources even define it at 10 or 11, largely basing it on the beginning of puberty. What do you make of the age range going all the way up to 13? Isn't that a little late to define to preadolescence, considering that people are generally considered adolescent at age 13? Are sources defining preadolescence a little outdated? Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point about "possibly outdated"; but I think it's quite important to keep a wide range open and not be too precise because a) sources vary b) people vary c) cultures vary, and "mean ages" in diferent societies may move at different speeds. Is a teenager automatically adolescent? What about late puberty? all grey areas...Jacobisq (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about those gray areas and have brought them up myself, such as with precocious puberty. I suppose I feel that the lead should be clearer that "there is no exact agreement," like the Span section already states. But don't worry about it. You did a great job. "No exact agreement" did not keep IPs from changing it away from age 13 anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer. As mentioned before, I admire the work you did a while back on several One Tree Hill articles, particularly the love triangle section of the show page (if that was you). I recently created a similar section in the Blair Waldorf article (though I rarely watch the show). If you ever have any advice on how it might improve, I'd appreciate your input. Take care. -- James26 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me who created the one in the One Tree Hill article, though I still need to tweak one part of it. And I might tweak more than that. Your version in the Blair Waldorf article looks fine. I don't watch that show, and haven't watched One Tree Hill in months. Still on Season 7 and need to catch up to Season 8 (not very motivated to, though.) But, yes, your section looks fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per your notification replied here, hope we can sort out the phrasing. Disputing your correction, I think there would be a means of conveying the predominance and superior ease of it without implying it is the exclusive means for anyone, which there is no proof for. Proving negatives is harsh and such conclusivity would be well known and easy to source. DB (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is not saying it is the exclusive means for anyone; it says "most." Most women are only able to achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation, and the proof is most women stating this time after time and the research backing it up. But, yes, I replied there again, and hope we can work something out. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#NAVI_Talk (Have fun, thanks) (information for you) 62.200.86.169 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, but you didn't really need to explain your edits. I've currently been trying to think of some ways to expand on the sections, etc, so yeah, it was kind of messy. I see you've edited her articles before, and if you'd like to, feel free to help out on the sandbox I made for her upcoming single. ℥^nding·start 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. I felt I needed to explain so that we wouldn't keep reverting each other on the formatting style. It wasn't a hardcore revert war, LOL. But we did revert each other. As stated, I'm mostly okay with your heading changes now. After getting over the heading issues, it's just the information placement I was concerned with. And thanks for the offer to edit your sandbox. I may. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did we revert each other before? I'm confused. xD Yeah, it's all good. :P I hope to get her articles well rounded, they are kinda, to put it frankly, bad atm. xD ℥^nding·start 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's me reverting your changes the first time:[5][6][7][8]

Here's you going back to your setup just yesterday (though changing the title of the final section seen in the link):[9]

And here we are today, after I tweaked your setup. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chime in. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm too late. I really had no idea who this person was/is...and still don't. I'm going to need to Google her. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, I appreciate your invitation to comment on Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue; but I'm going to beg off on this one for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I have deliberately pulled back on my investment in WP because over the last five years I have learned it really doesn't pay to care too much what happens here: you work hard to build a consensus or write a well-crafted article, then tomorrow some new, clueless butthead rolls in and messes the hell out of everything you sweated over. I simply don't need that kind of frustration and upset, and I'm not dealing with it anymore. I use WP as a place to edit/write about topics that engage my interest, when I have the time for that - a hobby that is only as good as the enjoyment I get out of it. We don't get paid for our labors, so if it's not fun - why do it?

For another thing, the Heterosexualization article has some content & source problems. The over-long lede defines the concept as if it is a widely accepted, somewhat scientific point of view, with practically no verification, and the rest of the article (as well as the majority of citations) seems to discuss bullying and harrassment. But the last two things are not the same as the first; and the first seems a bit puffed up to me, lacking enough reliable sources to be established as a mainstream, not a fringe, point of view.

Now I am most certainly totally opposed to homophobia and bullying and all that, make no mistake. I am also opposed to loose talk and frail logic; the article makes it sound like heterosexualization (what a mouthful, huh?) is a devious plot by nefarious forces, when of course it's just a subcategory of human conformity - which exists in many, many guises and operates much of the time on a subsconscious level, I think. As you may have read, the latest report from the Williams Institute comes up with only 1.7 percent gay population in the U.S. That might be a percentage point or two low, IMO, but nevertheless: when 95 percent of the world does something a certain way - anything you care to name - it's rather natural to assume the other 5 percent will feel mighty pressured to go with the flow. That's human nature, and it's an old, old story.

As a gay man, I of course have suffered from this attitude, as has everyone else in the LGBT community. In a private essay I might expatiate upon those effects at length, and with feeling. But WP is an encyclopedia; the task here is to present not our personal feelings and views, but what reliable, expert sources have said, not giving undue weight to one side or the other.

So the article, as I see it, needs to be rewritten, cut way down (bullying and homophobia already have their own articles), and better sourced on the use and origin of the term itself. I skimmed over the talk page, but having been through such long, dragged-out dogfights before, a futile exercise for reasons I already stated above, I really don't want to go there. But I hope these reflections are of some value to you, and thanks again for the invite. Perhaps another time, another article. Textorus (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your taking a rain check. Wikipedia is largely not fun for me anymore either. I continue to edit here because I have become addicted. Plain and simple. I have become addicted to making sure certain articles okay...and to wanting to know they are okay. I'm not too addicted to improving articles anymore, though I still do that too, but my main concerns at Wikipedia these days are vandalism, deceptive edits (which of course fall under vandalism), messiness, and inaccuracy (which may or may not fall under vandalism). Your take on the Heterosexualization article, an article I don't remember being involved in until now, would be beneficial and relevant, I believe. This is not a long, dragged-out dogfight, and I have made it clear to the editor that I am not going to sit there and debate his Westerner-objections for hours on end. My complaint is not a matter of debate, I feel. My complaint is his habit of not playing by Wikipedia's guidelines/rules. I advised him to do that. I am not interested in getting into a debate with him, because he believes what he believes and it affects everything he does in regards to editing LGBT topics at Wikipedia. You say, "...WP is an encyclopedia; the task here is to present not our personal feelings and views, but what reliable, expert sources have said..." I'm saying this editor most often doesn't go by that.

I asked others to weigh in because otherwise...nothing is going to get resolved. As I stated on your talk page, "I posted a message about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, which you may have seen already, but I hardly get any help from there or from other WikiProjects these days. So part of my approach these days is to go to relevant editors individually and hope they weigh in." I'm not sure what is going on with people not helping out at Wikipedia anymore and ignoring requests for opinions to resolve disputes/and or how to make improvements, but it is extremely annoying and is making me want to quit Wikipedia even more. I don't understand this "Leave them to it" attitude that has been going around lately. I mean, I understand it in cases such as yours, but it seems almost everyone here is doing it now (being lazy or otherwise disinterested) when editors genuinely need help to resolve issues at an article. It often takes more than two editors to resolve disputes and sometimes content issues. What's the point of WikiProjects or WP:Dispute resolution if people generally aren't willing to help weigh in? I understand your objections to weighing in, but part of me also wonders how a quick comment from you will hurt anything. Unless you are not the type of editor who can comment and then leave it at that. I'm that type of editor most times; if someone replies in a challenging response, I usually have to reply back. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing this with you and other editors, I feel it might be best to redirect this article to Heterosexism or Heteronormativity. Those articles are better put together and are covering the same thing, though still a little distinct from each other. If this article cannot be expanded in the way the editor I reverted suggests, it should be redirected to Heterosexism or Heteronormativity. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that editors who have been around a while, like me, are likewise just plain tired of putting up with so much crap, and no adult in the room. But I wonder if you have thought of putting the article(s) up for discussion at WP:RFC? That might get the results you seek, from editors who are actively interested in wading into such discussions. Good luck. Textorus (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, RfC hasn't been working either. It's the same everywhere. That's why I mentioned WikiProjects or dispute resolution. Either way, there's nothing in particular I want to ask of editors in regards to this article. I just wanted others to weigh in on the situation -- the mass deletion, the issues the deleter has with the article, what needs to be done with the article. Stuff like that. I've been around here for some too (since 2007), and still don't understand this recent "Don't wanna help/battle it out amongst yourselves" attitude, as if leaving it to the two or otherwise few individuals usually helps matters. I am almost always up for weighing in on matters when asked by someone or when I see that other opinions are desperately needed. But, alas, I know that not all Wikipedia editors are like that. And, recently, it seems most editors are not like that. If Wikipedia is going to be like this, then it is most assuredly on the path to failure. To some people, it's already failed.

Thank you for your input, though. And take care. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only recommend adopting an attitude of WP:DGAF as I have, and focusing on what you enjoy here. The problem with Jimbo's grand scheme from the beginning is that there is no reward for dealing with ignorant and obnoxious editors. And they are legion. And the anonymous nature of WP lends itself to confrontative attitudes; when I find myself responding in kind, I have to draw back and say Why am I doing this? If we were getting paid to deal with all the crap, it would be one thing; but as volunteers, no way. As time permits, I enjoy scattering some nuggets of good writing and reliable sources here and there, hoping someone, somewhere will benefit. But there's a lot of manure to dig through, as I'm sure you know. And I don't see a solution to a system that produces mediocrity at best, and which at every moment is in danger of being overturned by the next jerk with a bright idea; so look on it as a pleasant hobby, and don't fool with what doesn't give you pleasure, is my advice. Textorus (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, Wikipedia is a popular site and so the source of info for many people (including young people). And if there is something on the site that is deliberately misleading, and the information is such that it might negatively affect a person's actual attitude or actions or life experience, that is wrong, and it's kind of hard to say Well I'll just ignore that and contribute somewhere else. On the other hand, it is very tiring to open the Wikipedia with a feeling of absolute dread, which has certainly been my attitude at times (as well as getting a sinking feeling when the "You have new messages" banner pops up -- now what). There's only so much of that a soul can take before the well runs dry. For me, certainly, I spend most of my time doing what I enjoy (translations, mostly) - I have to, or I couldn't stand it. But also do some of the other. I figure, when you volunteer at the soup kitchen, you can't just hand out food, you have to take a turn scrubbing the pots too. (This is my own personal attitude and no criticism whatsoever is implied of anyone else.) (Actually, Flyer22, I haven't been very good about any of this lately... I have my eye on Sexual intercourse, but I haven't looked at Frot (I mean to, really) and Adolescent sexuality is way on my back burner... I dunno. I talk a good game, I guess...) Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, millions of uncritical people turn to Wikipedia and take whatever they read as gospel truth; even a few courts around the world have cited WP articles in their decisions, which is appalling. But the problem with Jimbo's original concept is that if you have an encyclopedia "anybody can edit," then Anybody and Everybody will edit it - but not everybody and his kid brother should, for several glaringly obvious reasons. Real encyclopedias employ well-trained writers, skilled researchers, and an army of fact-checkers to ensure the quality of the final product. Unless WP decides to start hiring a paid crew to do those things, or devises some way of locking in place a really well done article - then it will always be deeply flawed and unreliable, minute by minute.

There's simply no point breaking your heart over an unfixable problem the magnitude of WP - which is why I advocate don't-give-a-fuckism. I add or repair what I conveniently can, when I can, to the extent that I find it pleasurable to do so, not a drag or an upset. Even so, I can't take the madness for more than a few weeks a year - why stay in a constant inner turmoil over what you can never fix? My energies are better spent in more constructive ways online and in the real world. So having spent more than 2 cents on this topic, I think I'm going to shut up now; everyone has to decide for himself what the best use of his time and talents is. I made that decision a good while back. Textorus (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think the domestic violence info should be mentioned first. The part where it mentions Brown began work on Grafitti in 2008 should be removed. I don't think its needed there and its probably mentioned on the album's article. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see WP:THREATS against you in my comments now?? OK. I'm very busy now, but i will be there as soon as possible.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the point. The point is that you made them, and you keep tampering with my comments. Removing threats does nothing for me, except hide the fact that they were made. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Some administrators don't see what we see" not true, maybe "we don't see what they see", this is a friendly message, don't be pertinacious, remove my username and do not destroy our time more than this.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still harassing me and insisting that I remove your username after I stated that I will not? Did you not read where the administrator told you to leave me alone? Follow his advice, and stay off my talk page!! You have already destroyed "our time more than this." Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't leave you, i want your heartbeat, i'm the light air around the ship, open your heart to this breeze.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]